Sitting of 25 April 1884

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
—PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)— Second Reading —Oriental Bank Corporation.* Third Reading —Stockton Carrs Railway, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered —First Reading —Tramways Provisional Orders (Birmingham and Aston Tramways, &c.) * [180].
Second Reading —Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [3], debate adjourned.
Third Reading —Public Health (Confirmation of Bye Laws) * [173], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  STOCKTON CARRS RAILWAY BILL (by Order.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that in consequence of certain incidents which transpired on a recent occasion it would, perhaps, be as well that he should state to the House, at the opening of the remarks he was about to make with regard to this question, that it was in no shape or form tinged with the colour of Party. He might mention, as an evidence of that, that among the chief opponents of the measure who had taken a very large part in promoting Petitions and otherwise expressing an opinion against the scheme were, in the first place, the Chairman of the Stockton Liberal Association, and another chief opponent, who employed something like 1,000 hands, was, he was told, a former President of the same Association. He mentioned that fact so as to clear the ground entirely in regard to the district to which he was about to refer, lest the House might be induced to believe that the measure partook somewhat of a Party character. The merits of the scheme, to which he wished to draw the attention of the House, were very clearly set forth in the official Report of the Inspector of the Board of Trade, Colonel Yolland. Colonel Yolland said—
    "I do not gather, from the statements which the engineer laid before me, that there is any specific want on the part of the public that will he satisfied by the construction of this short piece of railway, but that it is proposed as a speculation, as the means of utilizing a small portion of unoccupied ground in Stockton Carrs; and provided the public safety is not unnecessarily endangered by the construction of this work, there would probably be no objection to its being sanctioned. But two level crossings of public roads in the town of South Stockton are proposed to be constructed on this short portion of railway."
    606
    Colonel Yolland went on to say—
    "In my opinion, other means of reaching this piece of unoccupied land at Stockton Carrs should be found. The number of persons killed at level crossings of different kinds on railways in the year 1883 was 78, and 51 were injured, and these numbers were in excess of the numbers killed and injured at similar level crossings on the average of the previous eight years."
    He would beg the attention of the Home Secretary, who was responsible for the lives of Her Majesty's subjects, and also of the President of the Board of Trade, to these statements. Colonel Yolland concluded by saying—
    "I therefore recommend that the proposed level crossings may not he allowed, as they appear to me to be entirely unnecessary.
    Now, that was the Report of Colonel Yolland; and he had read it to the House, because he thought it better that a statement of that kind should emanate from an impartial authority, and not from one who, like himself, had had his attention called to it by persons locally interested in the merits of the scheme. Now, with regard to the level crossings to which Colonel Yolland referred, he himself (Mr. J. Lowther) had taken a recent opportunity of inspecting the ground in question. He had gone down to this place, and he had been enabled to judge for himself. He had visited it at a time when a portion of the working men who must necessarily pass over the tract of ground where these level crossings were proposed to be constructed were returning to their work from their dinner. He was, therefore, in a position to assure the House that a very large number of workmen would be daily compelled to pass over these level crossings, and that very considerable inconvenience, if not, as Colonel Yolland suggested, actual danger must arise. Statistics were not usually very acceptable to the House, and he only proposed to inflict a very few upon it; but he thought it right to mention that observations had been taken on a given day, and it was found that the piece of ground proposed by the Bill to be occupied by these crossings was traversed in one day by 309 vehicles and by 12,594 foot passengers. In addition to a traffic of that kind, there were no inconsiderable number of the rising generation playing about, who were the inhabitants of the neighbouring houses, and he left the House to judge how far it might or might not

    607
    constitute an augmented danger. He might also inform the House that there had for some time past been a strong local feeling in South Stockton against level crossings as a general principle. But there had been what might be called a very formidable agitation locally set on foot against these particular level crossings. It was only fair to mention that among the most active opponents of these crossings was one of the gentlemen who had appeared before the Chairman of Ways and Means the other day in order to state his approval of the scheme. Mr. Walker held a position upon the Local Board as Chairman of the Paving Committee, and he had taken a very active part against these level crossings; but he seemed to have become enlisted in favour of those proposed by the present Bill. He hoped the House would allow him (Mr. Lowther) to place before them as briefly as he could the extraordinary, unparalleled, and he hoped he might say for-ever-after unexampled, history of this scheme. The Board of Health of South Stockton consisted of 15 members; and when the proposal was made before the Board that the Bill should be approved there were seven members who voted for the scheme and six against it. There were, he was told, 14 members present; but one gentleman, who was a promoter of the Bill as well as being a member of the Board, had the good taste to abstain from voting on that occasion. He thought the House would fully appreciate the good taste displayed by this gentleman in not voting in a matter in which he was personally interested. The question was raised before the Board on a second occasion, when a virtual attempt was made to rescind the vote previously arrived at. It appeared on that occasion that eight voted for the scheme and seven against it; but among those who voted for it he regretted to find the name of Mr. Promoter Breckon, the gentleman whose self-denying ordinance on the previous occasion he had felt it his duty to commend. Thus the approval of the Bill was carried by a majority of one, that one being a promoter, who happened to possess a seat upon the Local Board. Public opinion in Stockton had not been idle during that time. A requisition was got up at a public meeting of the inhabitants, at which the chair was taken by the Chairman of
    608
    the Local Board of Health. At that meeting a resolution was passed in the following terms: —
    "That this meeting regrets the action taken by the Local Board of South Stockton in assenting to the Bill of the proposed South Stockton Carrs' Railway, thereby approving of a level crossing being made through the public thoroughfare."
    A second resolution was also passed—
    "That this meeting respectfully recommends the Local Board to reconsider their decision, and strongly urges the importance of opposing the measure in Parliament."
    These resolutions were signed, on the part of the meeting, by Mr. John Watson, the Chairman of the Local Board of Health. The effect of the passing of these resolutions did not appear to be absolutely nil, because he found that on the next occasion that the matter came before the Board it was proposed that the Bill, as amended in a manner he would afterwards describe, should be approved by the Board. Against that proposal he found there was a majority of one, the form of amendment being that the amended Bill be referred to a certain Committee—[Mr. DODDS: No.] At any rate, the Board declined to sanction the scheme at that time; but after it became the lot of certain members of the Board of Health to vacate their seats under the Act of Parliament a new election was held to fill up the vacancies. He would not trouble the House by going in full detail into the result of those elections, as he was anxious to save the time of the House; but it brought matters to this point-that he now held in his hand a Petition, signed by a majority of the legally-elected members of the Local Board of Health, praying the House not to give its consent to this Bill.
    MR. DODDSrose to a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he was about to read to the House a Petition signed by certain members of the South Stockton Local Board of Health. Now, the point of Order he desired to raise was this—whether, having regard to the Standing Orders of the House, it was competent for any hon. Member to read a Petition with reference to a Private Bill which had not been presented to the House in the ordinary way—namely, by being deposited in the Private" Bill Office of the House?
    MR. GUY DAWNAY: This is the third reading of the Bill, and no other opportunity can be afforded for bringing a Petition before the House.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that in order to enable the Speaker to rule upon that point, he must inform him of the fact that the Petition was one which had been signed by a majority of the legally-elected members of the Stockton Board of Health, praying the House to decline to give its assent to the third reading of the Bill. It was obvious, therefore, that this was not a Petition praying to be heard by counsel and witnesses in the usual manner, but was totally distinct from the ordinary procedure in respect of Private Bills.
    MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the Petition has not been presented to the House.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I am about to present it now.
    MR. DODDS: It cannot be presented to this House except in the ordinary way—namely, through the Private Bill Office.
    MR. SPEAKER: It appears to me that this is not the time to present the Petition, and that, technically, the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to road it. But the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to state, generally, the substance of what passed.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, his only object in alluding to the Petition, or in taking any other steps in regard to the Bill, was to place the House of Commons in full possession of the facts of the case, in order to allow the House, without prejudice to one side or the other, to decide the question on its merits. Following the instructions of Mr. Speaker, he would confine himself to the statement that this was a Petition signed by eight gentlemen out of 15 constituting the Stockton Local Board of Health, immediately after a popular election which had produced a change in the composition of that Body, and the Petition requested the House to decline to give its assent to the third reading of the Bill. The Board of Health had taken other steps to make its opinion known; and he thought it right, after the interruption which had just occurred, that he should, in defence of the Local Board, state how it came about that they took the unusual form of making their wishes known to Parliament by signing a Peti-
    610
    tion for presentation to the House on the part of the majority. As soon as the new elections had terminated, a requisition was forwarded by certain members of the South Stockton Local Board, requesting that a meeting of the Board should be convened, at which formal action was to be taken in the direction of rescinding the previous Resolution to which he had referred. This requisition was addressed to the clerk of the Board, and he (Mr. J. Lowther) held in his hand the answer which was sent to the requisitionists by the clerk of the Board. He saw that it was dated, "South Stockton Local Board, Clerk's Office, Stockton-on-Tees, April 1884," and there was in the margin of the letter the following words in print:— "Clerk, Joseph Dodds, M.P." It would appear that the attempt to suppress the opinion of the legally elected representatives of the ratepayers of South Stockton which had just been made in that House, was attempted likewise on a previous occasion; for he found that the Gentleman who was described as "Joseph Dodds, M.P.," and who signed the Circular as clerk to the Board, sent the following reply to the requisitionists, who were simply seeking, in a regular manner, to obtain the decision of the Local Government Board of Health on the subject. The latter acknowledged the receipt of the communication from the Local Board. It went on to say—
    "It is not legally competent to the Board to proceed in the manner indicated in their requisition. I shall, however, send out notices for a special meeting as requested."
    He would not trouble the House with details of the special meeting that was held. He would only point out that, owing to some technicality in connection with the bye-laws of the Local Board of Health, it was found that it would not be practicable to rescind the previous Resolution without certain definite steps in the way of notice being taken, and also that, a certain proportion of the members must be present, and that the majority for rescinding the Resolution already passed must be one of two-thirds. In consequence of that difficulty, the Local Board of Health had been driven to an expression of their views in a somewhat unusual manner; but, at any rate, they did pass a Resolution in the following terms:—

    611
    "That, in the opinion of this Board, the Resolution passed in favour of the Stockton Carrs Railway Bill should be rescinded, and that legal steps should be taken to rescind such Resolution as soon as may be convenient."
    There voted for that Resolution eight, and six against it. He was told that the gentleman who abstained on the first occasion, on the ground of his connection with the promotion of the scheme, voted amongst the minority; but that was a detail into which it was not necessary to enter. The fact was that the Local Board of Health of South Stockton, as now constituted, had, by a majority of eight against six, declared against this scheme. He had already referred to the measures which had been taken locally for expressing the opinion of the ratepayers and their representatives. He had omitted, however, to state that in addition to being signed by the majority of the Local Board of Health to which he had referred, and in addition to the Resolution of the Local Board, steps Lad been taken to express the local opinion. In passing, he might remark that his hon. Friend the Member for the North Riding (Mr. Guy Dawnay) had had forwarded to him several Petitions, largely signed by working men employed at the works situated in the vicinity of these level crossings, which working men would have to pass such level crossings several times in the course of the day. There had been, as he had already stated, other means adopted to give expression to the local opinion. Some of the large manufacturers, including the Chairman and ex-Chairman of the political Body to which he had already referred, had presented a Petition to Parliament in a regular manner, asking for leave to be heard by counsel and witnesses against the second reading of the Bill. They were refused that privilege by the Standing Order, or Locus Standi Tribunal. He did not presume to express any opinion upon the action of that Tribunal. From his knowledge of the Gentlemen who composed it, he had no doubt they arrived at a thoroughly just and honest conclusion. They disallowed the Petition, and the Bill became what was technically known as an unopposed Bill. The House would be aware that unopposed Bills went before the hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means. Of course, it would be presumptuous in him to say anything as to
    612
    the competency of the Chairman of Ways and Means to conduct an inquiry in regard to any Private Bill introduced into Parliament; but he would take the liberty of saying this—that it would not be possible to find any Gentleman more thoroughly capable of conducting an inquiry into the merits of any Bill, if he had only the means afforded him of conducting an impartial inquiry. He (Mr. J. Lowther) would only say of his own knowledge, as the result of inquiry, that the hon. Baronet who now filled that Office not only exerted himself the same as his Predecessors in times past to discharge the duties imposed upon him with efficiency, but that he had, notwithstanding the considerable demands upon his own time and health, gone very much more closely into the details of unopposed Private Bills than was formerly the case. But what were the means which the Chairman of Ways and Means had at his disposal for sifting the merits of unopposed Private Bills? The hon. Gentleman had to be dependent upon such evidence as might be forthcoming at the instance of the promoters of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not have the advantage of hearing witnesses, except from one side; and he had not the advantage of hearing those witnesses cross-examined by counsel. The hon. Gentleman, in fact, had to discharge duties somewhat analogous to those which were performed by a Grand Jury. He had to hear ex parte statements, and arrive at the best conclusion he could upon the very slender information presented to him. That being the case, the hon. Baronet must have been largely dependent upon gentlemen who represented the promoters of the Bill. What did he find? The hon. Baronet, who, as he (Mr. J. Lowther) had said just now, was exceedingly desirous of forming, after the fullest inquiry which was available to him, a comprehensive judgment upon the issue submitted to him, had one engineer called before him. This engineer was a gentleman about whom he could say nothing beyond this, which was, that he was one of the actual promoters of the Bill, and that he had devoted his attention throughout his life not to railway matters at all, but to matters connected with water. He was a river engineer, who had not, he (Mr. J. Lowther)

    613
    believed, attained any great mark in his profession; but, of course, that was a matter with which the House had no concern. It was, however, right that he should point out that he was not, in any shape or form, a gentleman capable of expressing the opinion of an expert upon a railway matter. [Sir ARTHUR OTWAY: Who is he?] The gentleman to whom he referred was Mr. John Fowler. The hon. Baronet had asked for the name; and he might tell the House that although the name of this gentleman was "John Fowler," he must not be confounded with the eminent engineer of that name. He was a gentleman of local celebrity only, and the hon. Baronet, in his desire to obtain full information, had actually had palmed upon him a gentleman who was not a railway engineer at all. It was just as right that they should consult an occulist for the tooth-ache as to employ a water engineer upon questions of railway construction. [Mr. HOPWOOD: Oh!] He begged the hon. and learned Member's pardon; this was a matter which involved not only very great local, but general importance; and he should endeavour to compress his remarks as much as possible. He did not regard the interruptions of the hon. Member as anything personal, because the hon. Member almost invariably interrupted every hon. Member who addressed the House. In addition to the water engineer he had referred to, another witness, apparently, was the solicitor to the Bill, who, as had been mentioned the other day, was the son of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). He did not, however, attach much importance to that fact in connection with the matter he was referring to. One other gentleman was, he believed, examined— namely, the Chairman of the Paving Committee, who was, he understood, a potter by calling, and in no shape or form could be qualified to speak with authority upon an engineering question. But if the hon. Baronet had been enabled to avail himself of the expert evidence, which would have been forthcoming if there had been an opportunity of seeking for it, he might have had before him a civil engineer of considerable eminence, a partner of the eminent Mr. Fowler, not the obscure gentleman to whom he had already referred, but the well-known Mr. Fowler.
    614
    He referred to Mr. Baker, the civil engineer, who had told the Chairman of the Local Board of Health that he would have been only too glad to give evidence before a Committee. The Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Local Board of Health was also a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers, as also was the Chairman of the Committee of Works. The hon. Baronet, with the slender information at his command, did, as he (Mr. J. Lowther) was sure he always would do, the best he could under the circumstances. The hon. Baronet had inserted into the Bill certain provisions, among others that no train was to pass over these level crossings at a greater speed than three miles an hour; that a red flag should be exhibited in front of a coming train; and that a foot-bridge, 6 feet in width, should be erected over each crossing. The hon. Baronet further provided that there should be a close time during which no train should be run, whether preceded by a flag or travelling at any rate of speed whatever. Those hours the hon. Baronet had fixed according to such local information as had been presented to him by one side. The hon. Baronet had naturally selected those hours which he thought would be most convenient to all parties concerned; and the hours he had selected were between 11.30 A.M. and 1.30 P.M. Now, this was one of the dangers of an inquiry of this kind, conducted with limited means of information as those which were at the command of the hon. Baronet; because, as a matter of fact, while one of the large firms employing some 1,000 hands who would have to cross over this ground fixed the dinner hour at from 12 to 1, another firm also employing 1,000 hands fixed the dinner hour at from 1 to 2. Hon. Members would see that it was the intention of the hon. Baronet to insert a close time during which working men were passing to and fro for their dinner; but that intention had been defeated by the absence of information which might have been forthcoming if the Bill had been opposed in the ordinary way. It had been urged that the House would do well to allow the Bill to pass—although it had been condemned by the official Inspector of the Board of Trade, and notwithstanding the fact that it had

    615
    been denounced by the inhabitants in public meeting assembled, and protested against by the majority of the Local Board of Health, and that the employers of labour were strongly opposed to it—because there was still room in what was technically called "another place" for these unfortunate omissions to be repaired. Hon. Members, however, would perhaps be surprised to hear that under the bye-laws of the Local Board of Health of South Stockton it would be practically impossible for the Local Board to obtain a locus standi before the House of Lords; because the rescinding of the Resolution approving of the Bill, although now agreed to by a majority of the Board, required, according to the bye-laws, that a majority of two-thirds must take part in rescinding of it, and that an equal number of members must be present at the rescinding as were present at the time it was passed. He need not point out to the House that, although the majority were willing to rescind the Resolution, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the necessary quorum. This was a case, therefore. in which the House must be prepared to undertake its own duty, without casting on the shoulders of the House of Lords the responsibility of remedying any omission of its own. Although most unwilling to refer in any way to personal matters, he felt that he should not be discharging his duty to the House if he were to omit to point out that this Bill had been promoted by most unusual means. He was not going to refer to the painful incidents which took place on the last occasion that this Bill was before the House. The House dealt according to its judgment with what then transpired, and he had no desire to reopen that unfortunate issue; but he thought it right to draw the attention of the House to a certain Standing Order which he feared had been in spirit, at all events, somewhat infringed upon during the passage of the Bill. The Standing Order to which he referred was No. 436. First of all, by a Resolution of February, 1830, it was laid down that it was contrary to the law and usage of Parliament that any Member of the House should be permitted to engage, by himself or any partner, in the management of a Private Bill, before that or the
    616
    other House of Parliament, for pecuniary reward. As he had said just now, it was the spirit of the Standing Order and not the letter which he wished to draw the attention of the House to. The other day it was mentioned that a Circular had been sent out referring to the fact that a near relative of an hon. Member of that House was employed as the solicitor to this Bill. The House treated that matter as being a parental excess of zeal, and as not being a wilful evasion of the Standing Order, and it accepted the apology of the hon. Member for the issue of that unfortunate Circular. But what were the real facts in connection with the Circular? He trusted the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) was in a position to say how far he (Mr. J. Lowther) was rightly informed; but he understood that the solicitor for this Bill was a partner engaged with the hon. Member, generally speaking, in professional business; that they occupied the same office, and that they employed a common staff of clerks. Well, the genealogical and domestic personal matters of interest which occupied the attention of the House a short time ago—namely, the fact that these two gentlemen who lived under the same domestic roof stood in the relation of father and son, was, in his mind, a secondary matter; but what, in his judgment, the House ought to consider was, whether it was in accordance with the spirit of the Standing Order that one member of a professional firm should, in his individual capacity, become a solicitor for a Private Bill; while another member of the same firm should also, in his individual capacity, constitute himself a Parliamentary guardian of the Bill of which his partner was solicitor? That was the real issue. The House, the other day, took a lenient view of the indiscretion of the hon. Gentleman; and he could assure the House that had the hon. Member profited by the somewhat sharp lesson which was read to him on. that occasion— although the benevolent intervention of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) somewhat modified the censure of the House—if he thought the hon. Gentleman had taken that lesson to heart, and was prepared to abstain from the practice of which complaint had been made, he (Mr. J. Lowther) would not have referred again to the un-

    617
    pleasant incident. But what were the facts of the case? He was indebted to an hon. Gentleman opposite for having placed him in possession of a document which showed that, notwithstanding that expression of opinion on the part of the House, another Circular had been distributed by the hon. Gentleman himself, and that the hon. Gentleman was found, as late as yesterday afternoon, in the Lobby of the House performing functions which were usually assigned to sandwich-board men. The hon. Member was engaged, with profuse liberality, in distributing Circulars which, although they omitted to mention the matter of domestic and genealogical interest to which he had referred, at any rate urged the passage of this Bill. He might go further, and he spoke within the recollection and knowledge of many hon. Gentlemen when he said that during the proceedings of the House yesterday the hon. Gentleman actually came within the Bar and distributed to hon. Members on his own side of the House a Circular of the kind to which he (Mr. J. Lowther) had referred. He must seriously ask the House to consider where this sort of thing was to stop. If the hon. Member denied the accuracy of what he said, of course he would not proceed to dwell further upon it; but as it occurred for the most part within his own personal observation, and he had the authority of others in corroboration of what he said, he thought it his duty to point out to the House that if one partner in a practising firm was to be allowed to place his own individual name, in his individual capacity as distinguished from his partner, on the back of a Private Bill as solicitor, and another member of the same firm, in his individual capacity as a Member of that House, was to be allowed to stand in the Lobby and distribute Circulars, and invite the support of the hon. Members to whom the Circulars were given—and he thought hon. Members would corroborate him as to the accuracy of what he said—there was no knowing where such a system would end. He had thought it right to mention the matter, because the hon. Member for Stockton occupied in respect to Private Bills a somewhat unique position, which ought to place him in a different category from that occupied by other Members of that House. The hon. Member—and, no
    618
    doubt, it was a most praiseworthy act on his part—had for some time afforded assistance to the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster) in taking charge of Private Bills in a quasi-semi-official capacity: and it was for the House to consider seriously how far it was right that proceedings of this kind ought to be supposed, in any shape or form, to command the approval of the House. He had only now to move that the Bill be read a third time upon that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. DODDSsaid, he had hoped that the circumstances which had occurred in that House a fortnight ago would have disposed of the personal question, raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, and that he (Mr. Dodds) would have been permitted on this occasion to address himself to the Question before the House, whether or not the Bill should be allowed to pass. But, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, it was incumbent upon him to repeat, which he did without the slightest hesitation, reservation, or equivocation of any sort or kind, that he had not the slightest interest in this matter in any shape or form. He was neither a share holder in the undertaking, nor was he interested in the land to be taken by the Bill or in the land to be benefited by the Bill, nor in any of the works to be constructed upon it; whilst, in regard to professional matters, long before he had a son old enough to join him in his Profession, when he became a Member of that House, under the advice of distinguished counsel—a Member of the House, of two members of his own Profession, both then and one still a Member of this House, and of Parliamentary agents—he made an arrangement with regard to his business which absolutely precluded him from receiving, in any shape or form, any share whatever of pecuniary reward in regard to any business connected with Parliamentary practice of any sort or kind. So strictly had he acted upon, that arrange-

    619
    ment, that during the 16 years he had been in Parliament he had not received one single farthing in connection with Parliamentary business. When, in course of time, his son became a partner with him in general matters, the necessary arrangements and deeds were entered into which expressly excluded him from all share in any business connected with Parliament; and during the whole of the time which had since elapsed, so strictly had he adhered to 'the rule which he had laid down before entering Parliament, and in regard to which he had some hesitation originally in accepting the invitation sent to him to become a candidate, that, as he had said, he had not received on any occasion during the 16 years he had been a Member of Parliament one single farthing, even for travelling expenses or personal expenses of any description. But during the whole of that time he had taken an active part in every local measure which affected his own immediate district; and whether his son happened to be the solicitor for or in opposition to a Bill had not, in the slightest degree, affected the course he had pursued. He had felt it his duty, since the constituency of Stockton conferred upon him the honour of reposing its confidence in him, to forward every measure that was likely to promote the interest of that district; and he appealed to the town of Stockton, and especially to South Stockton, to endorse the action he had taken in regard to this and other matters from time to time. As a matter of fact, he knew very well that South Stockton had endorsed what he had done and what he was now doing in this particular matter. The right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) had referred to the distribution of reasons in favour of this Bill; but he had not referred, nor did he refer on a former occasion, to the fact that he, or someone behind him who was pulling the wires, had also issued a Circular. He hesitated not to say that there had been what was technically called a "whip" quite as vigorous on the other side as the action which had been taken by those who were in favour of the Bill, except that the right hon. Gentlemen had not the good fortune he (Mr. Dodds) possessed of having a son who was capable of taking charge of a Bill in Parliament. If he had, possibly the right hon. Gentleman might even have gone as far as he
    620
    (Mr. Dodds) had done; because, in all other respects, the right hon. Gentleman had certainly gone the whole length with him. The right hon. Gentleman had referred, as the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) had done on a former occasion, most unnecessarily, and he thought most ungenerously, to his having taken a part, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster), in conducting the Private Business of the House. Why had he done that? Before he came into the House he had had considerable Parliamentary experience and practice with regard to Private Bills. He knew a considerable number of Parliamentary agents; and he would undertake to say that there was not a single Parliamentary agent who was engaged in transacting the Private Business of the House who would not himself as soon place that Private Business in his (Mr. Dodds's) hands as in those of any other Member of the House. He had not intended to refer in any way whatever to the personal part of the question; but the right hon. Member having referred to it had given him this opportunity of making a disavowal, which he ventured to think most hon. Gentlemen would accept as being perfectly and strictly accurate in every particular. He was sure that those who knew him would do so, and the right hon. Gentleman himself ought to do so. He had, on more than one occasion, received a tribute of thanks recording the sense of the town and district for the services he had rendered, not only in connection with public affairs, but in connection with Private Bills. In regard to the Stockton Carrs Railway Bill, the right hon. Gentleman, in the Circular he bad caused to be issued on that as on a former occasion, had quoted the expression of Colonel Yolland that the railway was not required except for speculative purposes. The right hon. Gentleman might have added another circumstance which was an undoubted fact — namely, that Colonel Yolland at the time he made the Report referred to had not seen the place at all. He had seen nothing beyond the deposited plans and certain statements which were put before him, which included a statement made on behalf of the Petitions against the Bill, and was

    621
    of a most exaggerated, and, in most respects, of a most erroneous character. Colonel Tolland, in his Report, simply quoted the allegations put forward in the statement. In mentioning what had occurred before the Chairman of Ways and Means, the right hon. Gentleman might have mentioned what had since occurred before Colonel Yolland, which was far more in favour of the Bill than anything the right hon. Gentleman had shown in a contrary direction. It was said that this railway was a very short one, and that it was merely intended to utilize a few acres of land. The first part of that statement was true. It was a very short railway, indeed; but it was not quite as short as it seemed, because, as a matter of fact, it was an elongation of an existing branch railway connected with the main line of the Stockton and Darlington Railway, which now formed part of the North-Eastern system. As a matter of fact, it formed the missing link between the main line of railway and the Stockton Carrs district; and perhaps he might be allowed to explain of what the district consisted. It was not merely, as had been stated, a few acres of land that were in question; but if hon. Members would carefully study the plans that had been circulated and which had been deposited, they would see that the district to which this line was to give access included three very important works. The first was a bone mill for the preparation of bones for agricultural purposes and for the manufacture of artificial manures. The next was an oil and seed cake mill; and both of these works had been established some time ago by some of the leading agriculturists in the North of England for the purpose of supplying themselves with artificial manures and oil-cakes for their own consumption. From these mills there went out every year some 4,000 or 5,000 tons of artificial manures and oil-cakes. In the next place, there existed one of the largest flour mills in the North of England, and perhaps he might say one of the largest in the United Kingdom. In. that flour mill there were manufactured every year from 150,000 to 200,000 sacks of flour; and there were employed in the conveyance of this manufactured article to the other side of the river some 20 rolleys, which travelled from 20,000 to 25,000 times across the river in the course of
    622
    the year. The whole of this traffic was now taken through the streets of South Stockton at a cost of something like £1,300 a-year. If this railway were made available for the purposes of these works, a saving might be effected of nearly the whole of the amount of the present cost. The rates originally inserted in the Bill had been found somewhat excessive; and by an arrangement with the Board of Trade, the Chairman of Ways and Means had struck them, out in favour of more reasonable rates, which had received the sanction of the Board of Trade or of the Railway Commissioners. The result would be that the charges would be virtually merged in the rates charged by the North-Eastern, Railway Company. The North-Eastern Railway Company conveyed nearly the whole of the traffic to distant places, and the consequence would be a saving of nearly the whole of the rates now charged. The district in question had a frontage of something like three-fourths of a mile upon the River Tees, embracing some of the best water adapted for vessels of the largest class, the whole of which was at present practically useless. Then, in addition, there was land belonging to the promoters of the Bill, out of which six acres had been, sold and appropriated for an iron ship-building yard, which would be commenced the moment it was ascertained that the Bill would go on. There were other proprietors of land in the neighbourhood who were prepared to utilize their property; so that instead of the benefits conferred by the Bill being confined to a small tract of land, they were practically extended to a very large district. He had no hesitation in saying that if the Bill passed, and the desired railway were constructed, it would afford employment in a very short time to 1,500 or 2,000 men; and, surely, that was a most desirable object for such a town as Stockton. Of course, it was not so desirable to the gentlemen in whose interest the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) opposed the Bill, who already possessed their own level crossings and desired to prevent other persons from having the same advantages. At the present moment the rateable value of South Stockton was about £40,000 a-year. He believed the land of which they had heard so much was rated at £50 a-year; but,

    623
    upon the most moderate computation, if this Bill were passed it would contribute to the rates of Stockton hereafter upon a rateable value of something like £5,000. If that were really so—and he believed it was— the result would be the reduction of the rates to the extent of 12½ per cent, or one-eighth of the present amount. There would also be taken out of the streets of Stockton an enormous amount of traffic which now passed through it day by day, and there would be much less danger to life from these level crossings than there was at present from the existing traffic. Another reason in favour of the Bill was the enormous amount of work it would afford in the district, whore work was very badly wanted just now. The right hon. Gentleman had taken especial care not to refer to the fact that he had been put in motion by the principals of the firm of Head, Wrightson, & Co., who were the chief opponents of the Bill, and who had induced three other firms to join with them who were in much the same position as themselves. The right hon. Gentleman had not informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was brought forward by the Chairman of the Constitutional Association at Stockton, who, if reports were correct, was to be his (Mr. Dodds's) antagonist at the next General Election for Stockton. That gentleman was a neighbour and friend of his, and Lad been a client for many years, and he thought he was a client even at the present time. He was of opinion, however, that that gentleman had never taken a more unwise step towards gaining a seat on the Benches opposite than he had done in getting up this opposition. ["Question!"] Surely this was the Question after what the right hon. Gentleman had stated; and he would repeat that this gentleman had never taken a less wise step for gaining a seat in that House than he had now done. ["Oh!"] Well, that was his opinion, at all events, and he was entitled to express it. That gentleman had a level crossing of his own over an adjoining street, called Hanover Street, which was just as much used as any level crossing ever established in Stockton. That level crossing, to his certain knowledge, was used long before Mr. Wrightson became connected with the works there, and all Mr. Wrightson's traffic passed over it,
    624
    yet there had never been the smallest objection to it, although there had been, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, a great objection generally to level crossings, the result of which was that on the main line they had been done away with. He asserted shortly, plainly, and distinctly, that the opposition to this Bill emanated from gentlemen who had a personal interest in the matter. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] He (Mr. Dodds) said "Yes;" and it was got up for no other purpose. If hon. Members would look at a map of the district they would see that the gentlemen who were opposing the Bill had their own level crossings to give them access to the main line of railway, and they would not be one whit the worse in regard to crossing the line in future than they were at the present time. In the case of two of the opponents of the Bill, their works were situate beyond level crossings, and the working men employed by them had to cross the line every day. But had there been a single loss of life? He was afraid that the district had not been altogether free from loss of life, and everyone deplored it; but that loss of life had never occurred on a siding of this kind, which was practically only a works siding, and not a level crossing at all. He had done all he could to get rid of level crossings in Stockton, and he had succeeded to a large extent, and he hoped to succeed still further. But he had never attempted to get rid of the level crossing of his friend Mr. Wright-son, because he knew that it was absolutely required for the enormous works in the district, and that without similar crossings it would be impossible to carry on the works connected with the land affected by the present Bill. He had already referred to the Report of the Board of Trade, and he had said that Colonel Yolland, before he made his Report, had never seen the place at all. Colonel Yolland made his Report without having visited the locality; but even taking Colonel Yolland's own Report, and dealing with the words which the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) had read, what were the facts of the case? Colonel Yolland said it might be a matter of speculation; but as long as the public were effectually protected that was not a matter of much consequence. The question was, what provisions were laid

    625
    down for the protection of the public? The right hon. Gentleman, with that candour for which he was so eminently distinguished, had called attention to what the Chairman of Ways and Means had done for the protection of the public in order to give effect to the requirements of the Board of Trade; but the right hon. Gentleman had not dealt fairly with the House, because he had quoted a little bit, and a little bit only, and the right hon. Gentleman must have known that he was only quoting partially what the Chairman of Ways and Means had done in the matter. Now, what was it that his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means had done? The hon. Gentleman had provided, in the first place, at the expense of the promoters, and in redemption of a pledge made by them to the Board of Trade and to the Local Board, that the rate of speed should not exceed three miles an hour. [Mr. J. LOWTHER: I said so.] If the right hon. Gentleman would restrain his impatience, he was about to say what it was that the right hon. Gentleman had said, and what he had not said. In addition to limiting the rate of speed in approaching the level crossing to three miles an hour at the most, in addition to such a moderate rate of speed, which one would almost think was impossible to cause an accident, every engine was to be preceded by a man carrying a red flag. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, made that statement; but he did not state that, under the general Act, provision was made for gates and gate-keepers. Then came the climax of the right hon. Gentleman's candour, fairness, and honesty towards the House. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted a clause which he (Mr. Dodds) held in his hand in order to show how impossible it was for the Chairman of Ways and Means to deal with the question from want of local knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman illustrated his point of view by showing that the Chairman of Ways and Means had inserted a clause in the Bill to provide that the level crossings should be closed between the hours of 11.130 A.M. and 1.30 P.M., because it was assumed that during those periods working men would be passing to and fro to dinner. Now, was it fair on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to omit to State the whole of the provision? He
    626
    would not read the words of the clause, but he would give the substance, and the whole of the provision was that between half-past 5 and half-past 6 in the morning there should be no traffic whatever over the crossing; that between half-past 7 and 9 there should be no traffic; that between half-past 11 and half-past 1, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, there should be no traffic; and that between half-past 4 and 6, also, no traffic should be allowed to pass over it.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I beg the hon. Member's pardon, I only referred to the dinner hour.
    MR. DODDSsaid, he was quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman had only quoted the provision which applied to the dinner hour; but the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that there was something more than that; and if he would restrain his impatience for a short time he (Mr. Dodds) would tell him what it was. There was also a provision that the crossing should be closed to traffic between such other hours as the Local Board might, from time to time, determine, not being more than two hours at any one time, nor seven hours in any one day. So that the clause itself, which the Chairman of Ways and Means had taken care to insert, made provision that the Local Board might alter the hours from time to time, so as to suit the dinner hours of the workmen. This showed that the Chairman of Ways and Means knew perfectly well what was necessary to be done, and that he had done it. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the history of this matter, and, as usual, he had only quoted so much of the history of it as suited his own purposes. He (Mr. Dodds) hoped the House would permit him, as shortly as he could, to tell him the remainder. The right hon. Gentleman had not told the House that among the persons who opposed the Bill when it was originally framed were three gentleman—his friend Mr. Wrightson, Mr. Wrightson's manager, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Watson, Chairman of the Board—all of whom were the members of opposing firms; so that one-half of the opposition had a direct interest in the matter. What happened next? There was a public meeting convened to denounce the Bill. It was called, at a very short notice, by Mr. Watson, one of the petitioning firms; and care was taken to pack it. Indeed,

    627
    if ever there was a packed meeting this was one. As soon as the doors were opened the room was filled by the employés of the petitioning firms. Up got Mr. Wrightson, and proposed a Resolution, and undoubtedly the working men of that firm voted very unanimously in favour of it. What happened? The matter went back to the Local Board. He (Mr. Dodds) happened to be present at the time the Local Board sat; but the Resolution passed at the meeting was so absurd that the Board took no notice of it, but stuck to their own Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman said that since then there had been a new election. Well, what happened then? The opponents selected their own men; two of them were cordial disciples of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and were acceptable men in every way. With those two gentlemen was put forward another of the leading employers in South Stockton. Thus, three of the best men who could be selected were put forward as candidates. Well, what happened? Two of the candidates were elected, but the third was totally defeated. He was told that an analysis of the votes showed that 3,000 more were given in favour of those candidates who supported the Bill than were given in favour of those who opposed it, notwithstanding that a system of open voting papers prevailed, which could easily be manipulated—as he was told they had been on this occasion—by persons going about among the working men. The right hon. Gentleman had brought a charge against him (Mr. Dodds) because his son was the solicitor for the Bill. Now, he (Mr. Dodds) had referred to Mr. Wrightson, and he thought he (Mr. Dodds) would have been justified in directing the same language against the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire as he had brought against him (Mr. Dodds), and with more propriety, the right hon. Gentleman being, he believed, a partner with Mr. Wrightson in the newspaper which he (Mr. Dodds) held in his hand—a great Constitutional organ. Mr. Wrightson was Chairman of the Constitutional Association; and he (Mr. Dodds) was surprised to read in a report contained in this newspaper, in reference to an occasion when the bye-laws had been used in order to perpetrate a little job, that the ratepayers were quietly in-
    628
    vited to pass the whole thing over. He wished the House to remember that this was a mere siding across a road over which there was no traffic at all, except to the works situated on this piece of land. He had presented, in a legitimate way, two Petitions in favour of the Bill, and one was from persons who were the owners of land in the Carrs district, and nearly all the owners and occupiers of the houses in the street across which the level crossing would pass had also petitioned in favour of the Bill, on the ground that it would be of the greatest advantage to the entire district. The right hon. Gentleman said that a Petition was about to be presented from a number of workmen employed in the existing works. If he (Mr. Dodds) were permitted to read a statement which had been sent to him from the men employed in those works, it would be found that most of them had been coerced into signing that Petition. He held one of those statements in his hand; but he would not go into it at that moment. ["Read!"] He promised the hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Guy Dawnay) that when he had presented his Petition in the proper manner, and it had become the property of the House, he would hear something more of it, possibly in connection with a Breach of Privilege. He (Mr. Dodds) had presented Petitions from owners and occupiers in South Stockton, and those Petitions had been presented in the ordinary way of Private Bill Petitions to the House. They were signed by 1,896 out of 2,300 ratepayers, so that, practically, four-fifths of the owners and occupiers of property in South Stockton had petitioned the House in favour of the Bill. He was quite certain that at this moment nine out of ten were in. favour of it; and if the Bill went forward and went to "another place," which, thank God! they had, the promoters of the measure would be able to satisfy the House of Lords that they had the full support of the people of South Stockton. He would throw out this challenge to the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) and the hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Guy Dawnay)—that if they would take the sense of the people of South Stockton, by ballot upon this Bill, they would find that at least three-fourths would declare "aye" in favour of it, and desire, as he

    629
    now desired, that the House should pass the third reading of it.
    MR. PEMBERTONtrusted the House would believe that he had no political feeling in the matter, and would allow him to explain the reasons why the Bill had been treated by the Court of Referees as an unopposed Bill, and had decided against the claim of the Petitioners to be heard. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) had said that there were some Petitions against the Bill. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was incorrect in that assertion, because he (Mr. Pemberton) was sure, from his own recollection of the facts, that there was only one Petition presented. According to the practice of the House, it was important to consider whether a Petition was, in reality, a Petition from one individual, or from one individual representing a particular interest or class; because it was the rule of the House that no one individual was entitled to be heard against a Private Bill unless he had some special interest in the matter different from that which was common to all the inhabitants of the district affected by the Bill. If he had no interest other than that of the rest of the inhabitants, then his interest was covered by that of the rest of the inhabitants; and on occasions like the present his interests were supposed to be represented by the Local Board. The Local Board represented the whole of the ratepayers of the district, and one private individual having no interest distinct from theirs was not, according to the practice of the House, entitled to be heard. He observed that the Petition was signed by more than one person; but his recollection of the case was that one Petitioner only appeared. The Petitioner argued the case himself, and, it was upon that point—namely, the practice of the House itself, and upon the consideration that the Petitioner was represented by the Local Board, that the Court of Locus Standi disallowed the Petition; and the consequence was that the Bill was treated as an unopposed Bill, and went before the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Chairman of Ways and Means. In taking that course the Court of Locus Standi did nothing beyond following the usual practice of the House; but in taking it they were certainly influenced by the statement that the Local Board of the district were in
    630
    favour of the Bill, and had petitioned in favour of it. They were not told, as they were now, that the decision of the Local Board was obtained by a majority of one, and that one, as they were now given to understand, one of the promoters of the Bill.
    MR. DODDSsaid, that was not so. The gentleman in question did not vote in the first instance, although he did so afterwards.
    MR. PEMBERTONsaid, he understood that the Resolution in favour of the Bill was carried by a majority of one, and that this gentleman, who was one of the promoters of the Bill, voted.
    MR. DODDSsaid, the hon. Member was mistaken. As a matter of fact, the gentleman in question did not vote until afterwards.
    MR. PEMBERTONsaid, he did not think that the time when the gentleman voted was of much importance. The Court of Locus Standi were, undoubtedly, led to believe that the Local Board representing the district were in favour of the Bill. He thought if they had been informed of the circumstances of the case, although he would not say that their decision would have been altered, they certainly would have considered the matter more minutely, and further inquiry would have been made. He would not say that the result would have been otherwise; but he certainly did think that the Court had not been fairly treated when they were told that the Local Board were in favour of the Bill. As to the immediate question before the House, he could not help feeling that it was really one which ought, in the ordinary way, to have been discussed by a Select Committee of the House. He had the greatest possible respect for the abilities of the hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means, and for the care and attention which he paid to these unopposed Bills; but he thought it must be obvious to hon. Members, without making themselves partizans of either one side or the other, that this was a case on which a great deal might be said on both sides, and that it was one in regard to which it was unfortunate that the House had been left without the guidance of a Select Committee in the ordinary way. No doubt, his hon. Friend had witnesses before him; but they were witnesses on one side only, and he had not the advantage of hearing counsel, or of

    631
    having the witnesses cross-examined. It was, consequently, clear that the inquiry before his hon. Friend, however ably conducted, could not possibly have exhausted the question in the same way that it would have been exhausted, if it had been considered by an ordinary Select Committee of the House. Under those circumstances, and in the absence of a full and proper inquiry, he could not help thinking that it would be unsafe for the House to pass the Bill in its present state.
    MR. GUY DAWNAYexpressed a hope that hon. Members would dismiss from their minds the curious and unpleasant circumstances with which a former reference to the Bill was connected, and that the question would be decided on its own merits alone. Hon. Members naturally felt impatient at having so much of their time, and the time of the House, taken up by the consideration of a Private Bill; but they had just heard the reasons why the Bill had ever come to them for the third reading at all, which it was certain it would not have done if it had been opposed in the usual way before a Railway Bill Committee. He was quite certain that no Committee would have dreamed of sanctioning the perpetration of such an outrage, if he might say so, as the construction of a level crossing in one of the principal streets of a large and important town, and that, too, a street which was daily traversed by more than 3,000 foot-passengers and 300 horses and carts. And if these works were carried out, as the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) hoped they would be by this Bill, there would be an addition of some 6,000 more foot-passengers over this road every day. The hon. Member for Stockton said that the people of South Stockton fully endorsed his action in the matter, and the hon. Member had attempted to make light of the statements of the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) as to the real feeling of the inhabitants. He (Mr. Guy Dawnay) would say, in the first place, that on February 13 a fact occcured which he did not think the hon. Member had alluded to at all——namely, that the Local Board, by a majority of one, passed a vote to rescind the approval they had previously given. The hon. Member had made some allusion to the Petition which he (Mr. Guy Dawnay) had now the honour of pre-
    632
    senting to the House. He was not quite aware whether that was the proper or formal way of doing so; and, therefore, he would present it in the usual way afterwards. The hon. Member for Stockton had made some remarks as to the manner in which the signatures to this Petition had been obtained. Let him tell the hon. Member that his opinion of Yorkshiremen was far better and far higher than to induce him to suppose that they would allow themselves to be coerced by their employers into signing anything. There might, however, be a few cases in which women in Yorkshire had been coerced; and he held in his hand a letter from Mr. David Thomas, in which the writer informed him that a person named Wells had called at his house with a Petition in favour of the Stockton Carrs Railway Bill, and had induced his wife to sign it without having obtained his (Mr. Thomas's) consent to it. Mr. Thomas subsequently saw Mr. Wells, and asked him if he had his (Thomas's) name to the Petition? The reply was, "Yes, I have." Mr. Thomas complained of the signature having been obtained in the way it had been. Mr. Thomas went on to say—
    "He told me he would scratch it out if I wished. I said that I did; but whether he did scratch it out or not I do not know."
    Now, he (Mr. Guy Dawnay) had visited Stockton in order that he might form, au opinion himself as to the proposed works; and he thought that if any hon. Member had made a similar inspection he would have returned as keen an opponent of the Bill, and quite as ready to condemn it, as himself. The facts were these. It was proposed to construct a line on a piece of waste land adjoining the river Tees, which had been offered for sale at a low price on account of the difficulties of obtaining cheap access to it. It had been bought by some acute speculators, who saw the possibility of being able to rush this scheme through the Local Board and through Parliament, and who were ready to sacrifice the daily comfort of the artizans of Stockton, and to endanger the lives of the inhabitants, for the sole purpose of saving some little extra expense. A level crossing was altogether unnecessary, and any competent engineer in the world would have said at once that there were various other means of gaining access to the land in question besides that which

    633
    had been adopted. Even in a less busy centre of manufacturing industry than South Stockton, and a street less crowded by artizans hurrying to and from their work than. Trafalgar Street, the construction of a level crossing ought to be regarded as inadmissible. The hon. Member for Stockton had referred to a regulation inserted in the Bill to prevent the running of trains from 11.30 in the morning until 1.30 in the afternoon; but the hon. Member knew very well that in one of the large works in the neighbourhood the dinner hour was from 12 to 1, while in another it was from 1 to 2. Whatever order any future Board might make, they certainly could not undertake to stop the trains during all those times in the evening, in the case of overtime work, when workmen would be crossing the line. Allusions had been made to the level crossing which now existed at the works of Head, Wrightson, & Co.; but the hon. Member for Stockton knew well that few foot-passengers ever went over that crossing at all. It was made 41 years ago, when the country was comparatively open, and it was the only level crossing, as the hon. Gentleman well knew, which the Local Board of South Stockton had not thought it necessary to make considerable sacrifices in order to abolish. He believed that the North-Eastern Railway Company had spent a very considerable amount of money—£100,000 at least—in getting rid of level crossings on their railway system; and the hon. Member for Stockton would hardly deny that he had himself lately advised the Corporation of Stockton to expend £2,000 in order to do away with the level crossing at Oxbridge Lane. The son of the hon. Member had gone as a deputation to the North-Eastern Company in order to arrange for its abolition. The hon. Member also knew of another level crossing in Stockton, at a place called Mill Street Lane, where numerous accidents had occurred. Only at the end of January last a girl was run over and killed, and at the Hartburne Crossing there were two other fatal accidents in the month of December. He would only, therefore, say that if the House did sanction the third reading of the Bill the responsibility of all the fatal accidents which were certain to ensue would rest on those hon. Members who voted for it. He had not
    634
    the slightest interest in the passing of the Bill or in its not passing; and the hon. Member for Stockton would acquit him of any feeling of personal antagonism towards himself. He would only say that the Bill was opposed just as strongly by members of the Radical Party in South Stockton, who were political opponents of his own, as it was by Conservatives. As a matter of fact, he was shown over the ground the other day by a keen political opponent. He opposed the Bill only upon one ground, and it was upon that ground that he asked the House to oppose it also. The reason was that to give the sanction of the House to it would be to perpetrate a great wrong upon the population of an important and increasing manufacturing town, that it would seriously impede the trade and traffic of the district, while it would also endanger human life, and would license one of the most unnecessary, one of the most selfish, and one of the most iniquitous schemes that, in the way of Private Bill Legislation, had ever been presented to the House.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he thought that it was much to be regretted that an ordinary Motion for the third reading of a Private Bill should have been accompanied by a discussion of so excited a character as to be calculated to obscure the real merits of the question, before the House. Into none of the incidents which had been mentioned did he mean to enter. They were perfectly new to him, and he had never heard of any of these circumstances until he had heard them mentioned in that House. But the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) and of his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) enabled the House to understand without difficulty how the matter stood. It appeared that a heated controversy was going on in this district. The right hon. Gentleman represented one party there; whereas the hon. Member for Stockton sympathized with the other. There was, consequently, an unmistakable difference between them. The right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire represented certain gentlemen who were already in possession of considerable advantages in the way of railway communication, and it was not altogether surprising that they should be somewhat averse to other gentlemen residing there, who had the

    635
    sympathies of the hon. Member for Stockton, procuring the same facilities. He (Sir Arthur Otway) proposed to confine himself simply to one point in the matter in which he felt himself most concerned; and he did not intend to allow himself to be at all angry even in regard to the some what un usual language which had been used by the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat. The hon. Gentleman had accused him of perpetrating a job which was a gross outrage.
    MR. GUY DAWNAY: No, no.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, it must be so, seeing that he was responsible for the Bill.
    MR. GUY DAWNAYwished to explain what it was that he had said. What he said was that the construction of a level crossing in one of the principal streets of a large town was an outrage.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, the Bill had also been stigmatized as one of the greatest impositions which had ever been attempted to be palmed off upon the House; but probably the right hon. Gentleman who made that statement did not mean to impute that he (Sir Arthur Otway) was the perpetrator of that imposition. Now, what was the case as regarded this crossing? The House would scarcely suppose, after all the heated expressions they had heard, that it had only come before him in the very innocent garb of an unopposed Bill. When he found that to be the case, he was bound to entertain the opinion that there were no persons who were at all opposed to it. He was there simply to adjust certain matters of detail upon a question which he naturally believed to be in accordance with the views of the people of the locality. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire had made some comments upon the conduct of business before the Chairman of Ways and Means, which he (Sir Arthur Otway) would like to refer to on another occasion; but he would not do so now, as the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were of a general character. No doubt, a great responsibility was thrown upon any Member of the House who filled the position which he filled; and in consequence of that responsibility he felt himself obliged to go very thoroughly into every measure submitted to him, and to dispose of it in the best way lie possibly, could. When this scheme
    636
    was first brought before him as an unopposed Bill, he made an inquiry into it, and said there were two things he would not consent to—one was the making of this level crossing, unless it could be rendered perfectly safe; and the other was that the promoters of the Bill must show that there would be great public advantage to the people of the neighbourhood in making it. He accordingly adjourned the Committee and the consideration of the Bill for, he thought, a week or 10 days; and, in the meantime, he instituted an inquiry into the plans. Probably hon. Members had not had as much experience of level crossings as he had. There was no matter in which he had concerned himself more than in that of providing for the safety of the travelling public, and especially the safety of persons who had to pass level crossings. People were constantly killed on these level crossings. The House must not, however, suppose that fatal accidents often occurred on level crossings such as these; but they occurred on the level crossings upon the main lines of railway which hon. Members travelled over when they went to visit their constituents; and they were generally caused by trains running at a very high rate of speed, and were inflicted upon persons who had neglected to use ordinary precautions. In regard to level crossings of this character, he had no hesitation in saying that a well guarded level crossing was the safest way by which a person could pass over such a railway as this. He would undertake to say, after the precautions established by this Bill in regard to this small line of railway, that it would be almost impossible for any accident to occur, and people might pass and repass this level crossing with perfect safety. As he had said, he adjourned the Committee for a week or 10 days, and in the interval he was furnished with further plans and evidence which satisfied him upon these points. When the Committee reassembled, evidence was given to him of the desire of the persons living in the neighbourhood that this railway should be constructed, and of its public utility, very much in the form which had been described by his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton. With regard to the level crossings, he was not so satisfied, and he required some further evidence to be given. The right hon. Gentleman

    637
    the Member for North Lincolnshire had devoted a portion of his time in disparaging the evidence of Mr. Robert Fowler.
    MR. J. LOWTHERbegged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. All he had said was that engineering evidence was given only on behalf of the promoters, and that the only engineer examined was not a railway engineer at all.
    SIR. ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he did not know what the experience of Mr. Fowler was; but that gentleman appeared to him to understand fully the questions upon which he spoke, and, at any rate, there was no other evidence produced. [Mr. J. LOWTHER: Hear, hear!] It was established to his (Sir Arthur Otway's) satisfaction that the railway could not be made except by means of a level crossing, and that there was no possibility of making a bridge. That being so, he determined that the level crossing should be made, but only under conditions which would make it absolutely safe. Now, what were those conditions? He wanted to know how it was possible for an accident to occur upon a railway when an engine was only allowed to pass at a speed of less than that at which a man walked; when it was to be preceded by a man carrying a red flag; and when it was only to work at times when there were very few people about? And that was not all. A bridge would have to be constructed, by which foot-passengers would be able to cross the line. Therefore, the only question was that of the vehicular traffic, and that was provided for by the speed at which the engine was alone allowed to proceed, and by the locking of the gates by the watchmen who would have to look after them. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that, as far as any arrangements could be made, perfect safety had been secured. He knew of no other mode by which a level crossing could be made safe; and he did not think that any danger could arise to any man passing a level crossing under these circumstances. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire if he was acquainted with the town of Middles-borough? In Middlesborough there were more than a dozen of these level crossings upon eight or nine intercepted lines of railway, crossed by thousands of people every day, and he
    638
    was informed that there had never been a single accident, not with standing the fact that the crossings to which he referred were unprotected, or, at any rate, not protected as these would be. There was only one other matter to which he thought it was necessary he should refer. He had endeavoured to obtain information as to the hours during which the workmen were generally about, in order that restrictions might be imposed upon the passing of trains during those hours. He certainly thought sufficient precautions were taken, because power was given to the Local Board at any time to vary the hours specified in the Bill.
    MR. GUY DAWNAY: Subject to the condition of the crossing only being closed for two hours at a time.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, that if the persons who objected to the Bill thought the workmen would not be sufficiently protected by the hours now fixed, they could have those hours extended. Under these circumstances, he must say he thought it would be most unwise if the House were to defeat a measure which was calculated to confer great public benefit upon the district for which it was designed. After the explanations which had been given, he trusted the House would not reject the Bill on the third reading. If there were strong objections to the measure, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire could show that those objections were as generally entertained as he asserted they were, the Bill had to go to "another place," and the right hon. Gentleman would have no difficulty in bringing his views before the Committee of the House of Lords. For his own part, he (Sir Arthur Otway) had no hesitation in saying, separating himself altogether from questions with which he had no concern of any kind, that as far as the protection of the public against danger from level crossings was concerned, it was in this case as complete as any protection could possibly be. If that were so, the objection raised against the Bill was not, he thought, a sufficient one to induce the House to reject the Bill now on the third reading.
    MR. GILESsaid, he merely rose for the purpose of saying a few words in behalf of a gentleman who had been rather hardly dealt with by the right

    639
    hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther). He referred to Mr. Fowler, the engineer. It was quite true that Mr. Fowler, who was connected with this Bill, was not Mr. John Fowler, the eminent railway engineer; nevertheless, the Mr. John Fowler referred to was a man of the highest ability, who had been the means of conferring great advantages upon the district in connection with the River Tees. Mr. Fowler, by the works he had carried out, had increased the depth of water up to Middles borough from 3 feet to 18 feet. He (Mr. Giles) would, therefore. say, without knowing anything in regard to this railway, that if a man was eminent enough to be able to do that which Mr. Fowler had done in regard to the River Tees up to Middlesborough, he would be quite willing to take his opinion on the merits of this little railway scheme. Being an engineer himself, he (Mr. Giles) would like to add that there were many cases in which, if they prohibited level crossings, they would find it necessary to prohibit railways altogether, and they would be unable to carry on the traffic of the country. There were main lines of railway upon which trains ran over level crossings at an express speed of 60 miles an hour. Of course, it was not desirable to have level crossings if they could possibly be avoided; but on a line of light traffic like this, he doubted whether the works could be carried out without the level crossings. He thought he need scarcely add that he was not in any way interested in the promotion of this Bill.
    MR. A. PEASEsaid, he had inspected the place, and he was in favour of the scheme now under the consideration of the House. He had been almost inclined to believe that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Guy Dawnay) could hardly have visited it himself when he said that it crossed the main street of the town. Those who knew anything of Stockton knew that the main street of South Stockton was a street which led from the bridge to the Cleveland district.
    MR. GUY DAWNAYremarked, that what he had said was "a main street."
    MR. A. PEASEthought the hon. Gentleman was mistaken, because the street in which it was proposed to construct these level crossings had no through traffic upon it at all. It was
    640
    only a street which led down to the river, and it was passed over by working men and carts going in and out of the works. In regard to the Bill, he believed the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) had spoken in the interests of his constituents. If there had been a railway communicating with Stockton Carrs, there would long ago have been thousands of men employed in the. locality; and it was only because there was no railway communication that manufacturing works had not been developed there. He had no doubt that the construction of this railway would be of the greatest public advantage; and he had reason to believe that as soon as this Bill was passed there would be another extensive shipyard built. He had very little doubt that the construction of this railway communication would result in a very few years in a large increase in the rateable value of South Stockton, and that it would also be of great convenience and importance to Stockton itself. With regard to the level crossing at Head, Wrightson, & Co.'s Works, which had been alluded to, it was a crossing which was entirely unprotected, and the whole of the working men had to pass it in going to their homes. He could not, therefore, imagine how it was that the gentlemen representing these works were opponents of this scheme, seeing that they had sidings of their own which placed the public in much greater danger than anything this scheme would do. The ground of their opposition to the Bill certainly appeared to be somewhat remarkable. He hoped the House would consent to read the Bill a third time.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he had been particularly struck by what had fallen from the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Pemberton), who was a Member of the Locus Standi Committee. It certainly appeared to him (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), after what they had heard, that it was not desirable for the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) to continue to give what, no doubt, had been valuable services in aid of the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster). He regretted that the hon. Baronet was not present; but considering the position which the hon. Member for Stockton held with regard to railways, and also the active part he took with regard to Private Bill Legisla-

    641
    tion, it was quite possible that a Bill might be brought forward in which his action in aid of the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall might be regarded with some suspicion, He did not suggest for a moment that anything improper had happened; but he thought it was desirable that the action of every Member who assisted in Private Bill Legislation should be entirely free from suspicion. The success of the Private Bill Legislation of the House must depend very materially upon the manner and character of those Members who, like the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall and the right hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means, undertook the conduct of it. Therefore, he would venture to say—and he had no doubt it was what many hon. Members felt who did not say it—that it was not desirable that such a state of things as that which now prevailed should continue. He hoped the hon. Member for Stockton would see that, under all the circumstances, it was not desirable that his services in aid of the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall should be continued.
    MR. BIGGARwished to make one remark upon the statement of the Chairman of Ways and Means—namely, that the representations made to the hon. Baronet in regard to this Bill were entirely of an ex parte character, and the value of ex parte evidence in a contested question appeared to him to be exceedingly slight. He had no doubt that the promoters of the Bill had supplied to the hon. Baronet a list of all the Petitions presented in favour of it, and had also given full information in regard to the gentlemen who voted for it in the Local Board of Health, and that they naturally made out the best case they could; but, at the same time, they would naturally avoid saying anything which would at all appear favourable as to the views entertained by the other side. He entirely failed to see the value of the services which were rendered by the Chairman of Ways and Means under such circumstances. He had heard the defence of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds); but the hon. Member had entirely avoided all reference to what seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) to be the most important part of the case—namely, the distribution of Circulars on the part of the hon. Gentleman in support of the
    642
    Bill, not only in the Lobby of the House, where it was customary for the clerks of Parliamentary agents and messengers to distribute Circulars, but actually—for the statement of the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) had not been contradicted—within the Bar of the House. If such a course were to be countenanced, and hon. Members were to continue the distribution of bills in favour of particular schemes, he thought there ought to be a Resolution on the part of the House allowing professional men to take a professional part in opposing Private Bills. At present, the House enforced a Rule to prevent that; but it was preposterous to carry such a Regulation, and then to allow Members to come down to the House and distribute Circulars with regard to schemes which were disputed as to their merits. He thought the practice was a very objectionable one; and he trusted the House would set its face against it. In the next place, he hoped the House would only consent to sanction the construction of level crossings under very peculiarcircumstances—such, for instance, as their construction across a road where there was a very trifling amount of traffic, and where there was no risk of endangering the public safety. In this case the hon. Member for Stockton had himself pointed out that there was a large population in the neighbourhood of the proposed line, and that the employment of workmen was likely to increase very considerably after the line was made. If this Bill were passed in. its present shape there would be no means of remedying the grievance, no matter how largely the population might be augmented in the future. In the eyes of some hon. Members it did not appear to be a matter of much consequence whether lives were sacrificed upon a level crossing or not. He entertained a strong view that it was highly inconvenient to conduct traffic across a high road; and he held that no railway, except under very peculiar circumstances, should be allowed to make a level crossing in any town in England.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREbegged to remind the House that it was in the power of the Board of Trade to direct that a level crossing should be put a stop to.
    MR. MAC IVERexpressed a hope that some Member of Her Majesty's

    643
    Government would be good enough to inform the House who the Board of Trade were.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, that it had been stated, in the course of the debate, that within a Very recent period several fatal accidents had occurred in Stockton upon the level crossings now in existence. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade what his opinion was as to these crossings, and what convenience they afforded to the public?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he must protest against the interference of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. The interference of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be somewhat wanton, because, if he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) were not mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman was not one of those who had been present during the whole of this very interesting and somewhat protracted debate. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman had intervened with a single sentence, evidently for the purpose of having the last word with the jury. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken, however, and was not going to be allowed to have the last word. The observation which the right hon. Gentleman had so skilfully interpolated was an observation which dealt with the kernel of the question—namely, whether or not level crossings were a danger to human life. The case with regard to this particular railway was already practically settled, because there had been three lives lost already in the town of Stockton upon level crossings since the month of December last. It was now proposed to add two other level crossings. The right hon. Gentleman said the Board of Trade had the power of stepping in at any time to put a stop to the use of a level crossing; but the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that a level crossing could not be changed without incurring considerable expense. One of the things which the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) had put forward in that eulogy with which he had indulged with regard to himself and his own public services as one of his many claims to canonization was that he had himself spent £2,000 in getting a level crossing abolished in this very town of Stockton. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was informed by an hon. Gentleman who was acquainted with the
    644
    circumstances that no less a sum than £10,000 had been spent by the ratepayers of Blackburn recently in order to get rid of a level crossing, which certainly ought never to have been sanctioned, in the midst of a large population. He had nothing to say against the character of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means; but he thought no more damaging statement could have been made against the case for this Bill than the statement of the hon. Gentleman. To paraphrase an old Latin phrase, they had an accused person confessing his own guilt—of course, he used the term in a purely Pickwickian sense. The hon. Gentleman said the measure came before him as an unopposed Bill. That was the grievance which was now protested against; and it appeared that the hon. Gentleman himself was not satisfied with the statements made by the promoters in regard to it, because he made an order for other evidence to be brought forward, and adjourned the Committee until it could be produced. But by whom was the new evidence brought forward. It was not by the opponents, because the Bill was unopposed; and, therefore, the evidence which succeeded in bringing conviction to the wavering mind of the hon. Gentleman was the evidence of the promoters of the Bill. He wanted to know whether or not it was a fact, as stated by the hon. Member for the North Riding of York-shire(Mr. Guy Dawnay), that no less than 12,000 working people passed the place every day where this level crossing was to be constructed; and, if that were so, was the House prepared lightly, and upon most insufficient evidence, to expose to great danger the lives of no less than 12,000 of the constituency of Stockton? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) had an easy way of meeting all objections. It was said that there had been a public meeting against the Bill. "Oh;" said the hon. Gentleman, "that public meeting was packed," then it was said that there was a Petition from the working men against the Bill; but in that case the hon. Member said that the signatures were forged, or had been obtained under duresse, because certain persons, unlike the hon. Member for Stockton, had a personal interest in the matter. In fact, the whole case of the hon. Mem-

    645
    ber for Stockton was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) ought to hide his face in such blushes as he had at his command, because the right hon. Gentleman did not come into court on this occasion with the dove-like innocence of the hon. Member for Stockton. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not at all agree with those who said that personal questions ought not to be introduced into the discussion of this measure. He thought that the personal matters were the very essence of the question now before the House; and he told hon. Members on the other side of the House that public opinion outside would look to the personal side of the matter as the question upon which hon. Members ought to vote. And the personal part of the question was this. No one seriously asserted that the hon. Member for Stockton had a personal interest, or a corrupt motive, in the matter. That was not the charge against him; but the personal charge was that he was seeking for the personal support of the House to this Bill, not upon public grounds, but upon personal and corrupt grounds—not on grounds of public utility, but because his own son happened to be the solicitor to the Bill. That was the real question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire said that the son of the hon. Member for Stockton was his partner; but the hon. Member had denied that. ["No!"] The hon. Member denied that he had any personal or pecuniary interest in the firm in regard to this section of its business. He did not think, however, that he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) need dwell upon that point; because if the hon. Gentleman had requested support for this Bill as a stranger, he would, if the facts he had himself adduced were correct, in making the demand have acted upon corrupt and illegitimate grounds. That was the question the House had to consider; and he said that if this Bill were a good one, he thought that what had taken place, and considering the auspices under which it was brought forward, together with the circumstances which surrounded it, the House was bound, by due regard for its own dignity, to throw it out. The Bill was a bad Bill; and he thought the public would to-morrow narrowly scan the Division List, in order
    646
    to see whether the House had more regard for the personal susceptibilities of a political Colleague than for the honour, dignity, and respect of that great Assembly.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 126; Noes 117: Majority 9.—(Div. List, No. 70.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

NOTICE OF QUESTION.

  LAW AND JUSTICE —THE OXFORD COUNTY COURT—THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT.
  MR. ONSLOW: I beg to give Notice that on Monday I will ask Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to a paragraph which appears to-day in all the newspapers, to the effect that the Home Secretary has, in default of an appearance in a County Court, been, ordered to pay, within 14 days, the sum of £4 15 s. for button-holes, nosegays, and cut-flowers for ladies, ordered by him at the election at Oxford in 1880; whether the purchase of these delicacies as presents to ladies interested in the election was not at the time an illegal practice; and if these bouquets were not sent to the relatives of voters, whether he would cause inquiry to be made as to what necessity there was for the Home Secretary to display such a profusion of floral decorations during the progress of the election?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I should like to answer the Question myself now. I am very glad the hon. Member has made the inquiry, because it is one which since this morning I have made myself. The first time I ever heard of this action or proceeding was when I saw it in the newspapers. Whether there is any foundation for the statement that any such proceedings in the County Court have taken place, or any such judgment has been given, I really do not know. I have sent to ask whether it is a fact, because to me it is a new practice that a man can be sued in the County Court, and have judgment given against him, without having ever been informed of any such proceedings being taken.

QUESTIONS.

  SWITZERLAND—RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have made any representations, through the British Legation at Berne, to the Swiss Federal authorities, with reference to the religious persecution of British subjects and others, which for some time past have taken place in certain Cantonal States of the Swiss Republic?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Representations upon this subject have been made to the Federal Government through Her Majesty's Legation at Berne. Papers will be laid on the Table.

  METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— HYDE PARK CORNER—THE WELLINGTON STATUE.
  SIR, ROBERT PEELasked the First Commissioner of Works, Who are the members of the General Committee, and by whom appointed, referred to in the Report which has been presented to Parliament, of the executive Committee on the decoration of the new place at Hyde Park Corner; and. to what extent the Chief Commissioner has delegated his authority to the said General Committee? The right hon. Baronet said, he saw by the Report which had been laid upon the Table that the Executive Committee appointed by the General Committee were in a position to make their Report to the General Committee; that they had carefully weighed all the suggestions made by the General Committee; and that the Executive Committee were prepared to give their decision to the General Committee, and strongly recommended that the latter should give their adhesion to the conclusions to which the Executive Committee had been guided.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state if there is any precedent for presenting as a Parliamentary Paper the Report of a private Body not being a Department of the State?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The General Committee consisted of a considerable number of distinguished persons, whom the Prince of Wales invited to confer
  648
  with him on the subject. I think they numbered about 85 in all. I shall be quite prepared to supply the right hon. Baronet with the names, but I do not think it is necessary to give them to the public generally. I have delegated none of my powers either to the General Committee or to the Executive Committee, and I am responsible alone for anything that may be done hereafter in the matter. In reply to the Question of the noble Lord, I am not aware that there is any precedent one way or the other; but I was asked by some hon. Member to issue this document, and I agreed to do it.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Was it printed by Order of the House?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Yes, it was.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Who moved for it?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I did. No; it was moved by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands).
  MR. GORSTasked whether the Notice for the production of the Report was given by the hon. Member for Burnley in the usual way, and whether it appeared on the Papers of the House?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked whether the matter came before the Printing Committee over which the Speaker presided?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that a Motion for the production of the Report must have been made; but he could not recall the actual date when it was made.
  SIR ROBERT PEELobserved that the Return was made according to an Order of the House of Commons, dated April 8.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsubsequently asked whether a Minister could obtain from the House, without Notice, an Order for the printing of a document which was neither Departmental nor Ministerial, nor a command paper, but simply a private document? If a Minister could do so, he might have his speech to his constituents printed, or his election address, or any other frivolity of that kind.
  MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is, undoubtedly, referring to a Paper presented by the Chief Commissioner of Works, a Paper relating to his Department, which was presented by him in his quality of Minister without Notice.

  649
  The right hon. Gentleman, in the course which he took, was only following a precedent which is constantly acted upon.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Question arose out of an answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). I quoted in my answer a Paper, and the hon. Member asked me to lay it before the House. I believe that a Minister who has quoted a document in the House is bound to lay it before the House.

  STATE OF IRELAND—MEETINGS OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE—INTRUSION OF THE POLICE AT QUEENSTOWN.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the case that detective policemen attended the last meeting of the Queenstown Branch of the Irish National League, and refused to withdraw when, requested to do so; if so, upon whose instructions were they acting, and with what object; if they were acting on their own initiative, whether they will be informed that they exceeded their duty; and, whether, in view of the frequent altercations that have occurred between the police and people, owing to the confusion, in the minds of the police as to their duty in this respect, an explicit general instruction will be issued for the guidance of the police, in relation to their attendance at private meetings of the Branches of the National League?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The meeting referred to in this Question was held in the Town Hall at Queenstown, and summoned by printed placards extensively posted throughout the town. A sergeant and a constable attended by direction of the District Inspector. There was no objection made to their entering the Hall, which appeared open to all. Two persons, however, objected to their remaining at the meeting, and proposed and seconded a. resolution to that effect. But the Chairman declined to put the resolution to the meeting. He said he saw no reason why the police should not remain, as the meeting was not a secret one; and he invited them to take seats, which they accordingly did. On the general question, the police have instructions. I do not think it necessary to issue fresh instructions; but I am
  650
  engaged in ascertaining whether the present instructions are thoroughly understood by all concerned, as they are intended to be understood by the Government.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, will he not consider the advisability of issuing warrants, as in the cases of searches for arms and documents, empowering the police to attend in certain special cases, so that persons could not be prosecuted for ejecting the police? There would then be no further difficulty.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I think the cases should be special cases. I will inquire into the matter.

  RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION—LEGISLATION.
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, in view to the pledges of the Government, he has in contemplation to introduce, this Session, a Bill to make provision for the better prevention of Floods and for the Conservancy of Rivers?
  MR. DODSON: I do not quite know what are the pledges referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. I only know that on February 11 I gave a by no means encouraging answer when asked whether there would be legislation on this very difficult and complicated question in the present Session. Since then, looking at the progress of Business, the prospect of being able to deal with the matter this year has not improved, and I am afraid that I should only be misleading the right hon. Gentleman and those who are interested in this subject if I were to raise any expectations of legislation in the present Session.

  POST OFFICE—TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. GRAY)asked the Postmaster General, If he can say before what day the Estimates for the Postal Telegraph Service will not be brought forward; and, whether he will have them submitted at such an hour as to afford opportunity for discussing the policy of his Department towards the development of Telephone communication?
  MR. COURTNEY: I think I may say, in answer to the Question put by the hon. Member on behalf of the hon.

  651
  Member for Carlow, that the Vote for the Postal Telegraph Service cannot be taken for a considerable time yet, and it would be quite premature to say at what hour. We shall, however, endeavour to suit the convenience of hon. Members when the Votes come on; but we shall go through the ordinary Civil Service Votes first.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS), LONGFORD—CASES IN GRANARD.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the complaints made in the district of Granard, county Longford, of inconvenience caused by the fact that claims for reduction of rent made in Granard are heard by the Sub-Commissioners in the town of Longford, many miles distant; and, whether he will recommend that Granard cases should be tried in Granard?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The instructions of the Land Commissioners to the Assistant Commissioners are to hear cases from each Poor Law Union at the place most convenient to the suitors. The Land Commissioners are unable to say why the Longford Sub-Commission has appointed the hearing of Granard cases at Longford; but they have communicated with them by the telegraph for the purpose of ascertaining, but up to the present date they have received no reply.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND—THE CHURCH IN WALES—DISESTABLISHMENT.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the interest felt in the question by the people of Wales, he will give facilities to the Honourable Member for Swansea to bring forward his Motion on the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales during the present Session?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) may be favoured by fortune to secure a day which will ensure a proper discussion of the question which he has raised. With respect, however, to our giving facilities, I do not think we could consistently, in the present state of Public Business, give any for a Motion which we are not prepared to support. We are not quite ready to take charge
  652
  of a measure for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, and thus add to the burdens with which we are laden at the present moment.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— "THE TIMES" CORRESPONDENT AT KHARTOUM.
  MR. HENEAGEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could state the dates of the telegrams relating to Mr. Power leaving Khartoum which he referred to yesterday?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The telegrams to Mr. Power authorizing him to leave Khartoum and his reply are, as I stated yesterday, to be found in "Egypt," No. 5, 1884. They are dated January 2 and 4. The telegram from Lord Granville to Sir Evelyn Baring, authorizing him to thank Mr. Power for his courage and public spirit—those are the words of the telegram—is also in "Egypt," No. 5, under the date of January 24. I alluded to this subject, as I stated yesterday, in the debate on the Vote of Censure; but I made a fuller statement on March 15.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— RELIEF OF KHARTOUM.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, Whether it is convenient for him to state whether it is a fact that the Egyptian Government have abandoned the expedition on which they had decided for the relief of Khartoum owing to directions from Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I have not been informed of the fact.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman now, or if not convenient I will give Notice for Monday, whether the responsibility which the Government acknowledge with respect to the safety of General Gordon extends to the garrison who have so faithfully adhered to him?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of the Question.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information with respect to the present state of affairs in Berber and Khartoum?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is no new intelligence in the possession of the Government.

  THE IRISH VETERINARY DEPARTMENT.
  MR. O'BRIEN (for Mr. HEALY)asked the Chief Secreatry to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could state how many veterinary surgeons are at present on the staff and enrolled at Dublin Castle; how many are of the Protestant and how many of the Catholic religion; and, what qualifications are necessary for an appointment?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There are 28 veterinary surgeons employed under the Irish Privy Council Veterinary Department. The qualification held to be necessary for the appointment is that of a legally qualified veterinary surgeon. I have already informed the hon. Member in whose name the Question stands that the question of religious profession is in no way considered in reference to these appointments, and that the Government has no information whatever on the subject.

  ARMY—AMBULANCE DRILL.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will consider whether the officers and men in each regiment of the Army might be systematically instructed in ambulance drill, and how to treat sick and wounded in the absence of medical assistance; and, if he is aware that ambulance classes are attached to many of our volunteer corps, police force, and also many manufacturing establishments?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: In consequence of the continued indisposition of the Secretary of State for War, perhaps I may be allowed to reply for him that a General Order is about to be issued, which will, to a great extent, carry out the suggestions contained in he hon. Member's Question.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Is the Prime Minister in a position to say when the Navy Estimates will be taken? An engagement was made as regards the Navy and the Army Estimates that a night should be given for discussion in each case before Whitsuntide.
  MR. GLADSTONE: We hope to be able to redeem the pledge then given.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the course of Business for Monday?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that on. Monday the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Franchise Bill would be made, and on Tuesday the Cattle Diseases Bill would be proceeded with.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Can the right hon. Gentleman, tell us anything as to the Business on Thursday?
  MR. GLADSTONEwas understood to say that this was not settled.

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.
  MR. DODSON: The Government have, in accordance with the undertaking which I gave after the Division in Committee on the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill on Tuesday last, carefully considered the course which they will take in regard to the Bill; and they have used their best endeavours to find some means to enable them to proceed with the Bill. As the result of our consideration, I shall propose another Amendment to Clause 1, which I will put on the Notice Paper to-day, and which will appear to-morrow. It will follow upon the decision at which the House arrived the other day, and which, of course, we cannot attempt to reverse. I will read to the House the words of the Amendment which I propose to move—
  "In Clause 1, line 14, after the words 'foreign country,' to leave out the word 'therein' in line 17 inclusive, and to insert 'or any specified part thereof that, having regard to the sanitary condition of the animals therein or imported there from, to the laws made by such country for the regulation of the importation and exportation of animals, and for the prevention of the introduction and spread of disease, and to the administration of such laws, the circumstances are such as to afford reasonable security against the importation therefrom of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease.'"
  I may add, that if the House consents, we propose to proceed with the Committee on the Bill at 2 o'clock on Tuesday.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked whether the House was to understand that as a matter of course they were to sit at 2 o'clock on Tuesday?
  MR. DODSON: The House itself must appoint the Sitting.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.
  (Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.

    [BILL. 3.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Beading read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he did not think it was necessary he should make any detailed statement. When the Bill relating to Corrupt Practices at Parliamentary Elections was before the House last Session he received remonstrances from both sides of the House, complaining that no provision was made in that Bill for dealing with corrupt practices at municipal elections. It was pointed out to him that evils prevailed at those elections, and he recognized the justice of those remonstrances. He found, however, even with the generous support of the House, that to pass the Bill dealing with Parliamentary Elections was a most difficult task, and, therefore, he felt it more advisable to postpone the measure dealing with municipal elections until this Session, so that he might learn from the experience of the Parliamentary Bill how far the feeling of the House would be willing to go with him in support of a Bill like the one now before the House. He now submitted the Bill confident that it would receive the same support given to the Parliamentary Bill. It would be remembered that the Bill of last year dealt with corrupt practices by punitive clauses, and substantially those clauses would be found in the present Bill. He saw no reason why there should be a difference in such a matter where the offence was really the same. Then the Bill of last year prohibited certain classes of expenditure, and provisions of a similar character would be found in this Bill. The Bill of last year also contained a maximum schedule of expenditure; but he thought the House would see that it was impossible to apply a maximum scale to municipal elections, the expenditure at which, except in one or two cases, was not large. They ought, of course,
    656
    to make them as inexpensive as possible, so that men of every class could enter the municipal bodies. There was a class lower than that which now were returned willing to enter into municipal bodies and take part in local government. He thought the House was bound to do all it could to make it easy for these classes to enter, and they ought not to throw obstacles in the way of persons who had a great stake in relation to local affairs taking also a fair share in those affairs. He found, however, that it was not so much the expenditure as the process of election that was the difficulty. Therefore he made no attempt to deal with the maximum scale. That was the exception, and substantially the Bill was the same as the Act relating to Parliamentary elections. He would suggest the only provisions different from the Parliamentary Act. The first was as to where public meetings should be held. In the discussion on the Parliamentary Bill, such a strong representation was made to him as to the difficulty of obtaining rooms for holding public meetings, other than those in connection with public-houses, in regard to county elections, that he felt compelled to withdraw the proposal; but he had received so many respresentations on the subject as to municipal elections, that he had felt it necessary to introduce the prohibition into the Bill, because it had been felt that, in a large number of cases, meetings were held in support of candidates which were really for the benefit of the publican. But while he placed this clause in the Bill, if it could be shown in the course of the discussion that it produced greater inconvenience than benefit, he should, so far as he was personally concerned, be prepared to listen to the arguments of hon. Members. Respresentations had also been made to him that persons who were perfectly innocent had to bear the costs of the actions of their agents. When it was recollected that it was made obligatory on persons, if elected, to enter the municipal body, they ought not to add burdens which might prevent them from becoming candidates. The proposition in the Bill was that where a person had not himself taken part in any corrupt practice some relief should be given to him with respect to the payment of those heavy costs. If corrupt practices extensively prevailed, then, the commu-

    657
    nity should pay the costs. If other persons bribed for the candidate, then those persons should pay. He had endeavoured to extend the provisions of this Bill not only to municipal elections, but cognate elections, such as Boards of Guardians and Local Boards. The rest of the Bill, which had only some 36 clauses, followed so closely the Parliamentary Bill, as it left that House, with the concurrence of the majority, that he did not think it necessary to go over it clause by clause. He thought it almost a duty to present the Bill to the House, for if some such measure as that suggested should not become law, all the labours of last Session would be of little avail, inconsequence of their having what he might call one hole unstopped; and the only change would be that corrupt practices would be shifted from Parliamentary to municipal elections. He thought experience justified him in saying that the Bill was not framed to aid any political Party, and that the Act of last year was wisely framed. In this, as in the other measure, he had endeavoured to be guided by gentlemen of experience, and he would gladly receive suggestions for its improvement from whatever quarter of the House they came.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was sure the hon. and learned Member had been impelled by a sense of duty to introduce the measure, for everyone knew that bribery at municipal elections might be carried on for the express purpose of political corruption. He was glad also to hear that the Attorney General was willing to receive suggestions from any part of the House for its improvement. As to the former Bill, it had not yet been subjected to the test of a General Election, though so far as they had been able to learn it had worked well at bye-elections. At the time when the Corrupt Practices Bill was introduced great stress was laid on the principle of a maximum expenditure. Why had that principle entirely disappeared? It was just as important in municipal as in Parliamentary elections to say that a certain amount should be spent and no more. He had had no experience in municipal elections; he
    658
    was happy to say he knew nothing about them; but this point certainly would demand the consideration of the House. He regretted the proposal that the Bill should be referred to a Standing Committee, and could see no reason why it could not be dealt with in the House, where they had Representatives of all the great boroughs. This was a matter specially requiring to be treated by the whole House, and he should oppose any attempt to transfer it to the Standing Committee.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought the House should bear in mind the fact that the Act of last year imposed very severe penalties, which should not be carried further than the nature of the case required. They might reasonably be applied to municipal elections, which were generally of a political character, and frequently connected with those for Parliamentary purposes; but the elections for School Boards, Boards of Health, or Guardians, were totally different matters, and it was unwise and unjust to expose persons who came forward to fulfil those duties to the heavy penalties of the Act which might be incurred by very slight inadvertence. He trusted, therefore, that, under any circumstances, elections of this nature would be omitted from the Bill.
    MR. FIRTHasked why in this, in common with all previous Municipality Bills, London was to be excluded? He could see no reason why it should be, except, perhaps, the great natural virtue of its citizens. They were promised, indeed, a London Government Bill; but if they were so unfortunate as not to obtain it, they ought not to be excluded from the benefits of this one. At elections in the City of London votes had been bought and sold as completely as sheep in the open market. [Mr. WARTON: Oh, oh!] The hon. and learned Member objected to his statement. It was done in the ward of Portsoken at the last election but one, and if the hon. and learned Member would refer to The City Press, the organ of the Corporation, he would find what he had said was a fact.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he desired to congratulate the Attorney General on the introduction of this Bill. Any measure dealing with corrupt practices at Parliamentary elections must necessarily be supplemented by a measure like this,

    659
    and he was glad the Government had seen their way to introducing it early in the Session, and seemed disposed to carry it through. The Attorney General had mentioned two points of difference in the new Bill, and in both cases they were an improvement on the former. In the first place, meetings in public-houses, where, in fact, the whole of the corrupt practices took place, were prohibited, and the cost of the proceedings were in certain cases thrown upon the constituency or the corrupt agents, instead of the unseated candidate, when personally innocent. He would, however, suggest that it was hardly satisfactory that the person incriminated should be precluded from having an appeal; but otherwise he thought it right and useful to be able to hold in terror over these gentlemen the extreme probability that they would have to pay for their malpractices. He would join very strongly in the representation of his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) as to the policy of sending this measure to a Standing Committee. The Attorney General himself had not said why he thought it desirable to do so. The measure had very little to do with law, except in so far as that every measure which came before the House had something to do with a change in the law. He would suggest that it might just as well be sent to the Standing Committee on Trade, which had nothing to do at the present moment, and which would have the advantage of again being led by the President of the Board of Trade, who was well acquainted with every sort of electioneering, and whose experience might prove useful in the matter. He confessed that he would be extremely sorry to see this measure run the risk of getting into the troubled waters of a Standing Committee, and he would, therefore, venture when the question came up to challenge the proposal. He hoped, however, that the Attorney General, after what he had heard, and what he would hear in that debate, would be led to alter the conclusion to which he had come. The House ought to take a Bill of this sort in hand with great vigour and decision, and he thought that on Constitutional grounds the measure should remain under the consideration of the House. The result would be better if it were discussed hi Committee of the Whole House, rather
    660
    than committed to a delegated body such as a Grand Committee.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he held that if the Bill was to be passed at all it must go to a Grand Committee. He understood it was proposed to make the Bill applicable to Scotland. He should like to know if that were the case, and how it was intended to proceed with the introduction of clauses giving effect to the intention?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that it was intended to extend the Bill to Scotland. There would be no difficulty in introducing the necessary clauses.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he also cordially concurred in the admiration expressed with reference to the principle of the Bill. He, however, maintained that the success of the Act of last year was entirely due to the limitation of expenses. He doubted whether the present Bill would be successful unless the expenses were similarly limited. Bribery had been undoubtedly committed in municipal elections with a view to subsequent Parliamentary elections, and the present Bill would not put a stop to the practice. A clause should be inserted to limit the expenditure. With that addition, he thought that the Bill would work as well as that of last year.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he was afraid that the Attorney General would be disappointed in his hope that the Bill would bring forward a better class of men for municipal elections. There was a great deal of corruption going on that was done, not by individuals, but by collective bodies, who had the control of charity and other funds, and he doubted whether the Bill would reach those cases. He did not see any reason why London should have been exempted from the action of the Bill; but still, in his opinion, the Bill was distinctly a step in the right direction.
    MR. STOREYsaid, he thought there was a good deal in what had just fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) with reference to the limitation of expenditure at these elections. He, too, wished to take this opportunity of pressing upon the Government that in such a Bill it was absolutely necessary that a clause limiting the expenditure should be inserted. The misfortune in this matter was that the

    661
    Law Officers of the Crown had had, comparatively speaking, no experience, except in reference to elections in small boroughs, and, as all knew, the circumstances therein were certainly dissimilar to the circumstances of large towns. He understood the hon. and learned Attorney General also to say just now that such a thing as large expenditure over municipal elections was not common. Well, if he correctly apprehended what he said, he could only say that he spoke in total ignorance of the subject. Why, he knew of an election in a Midland town only a few months ago where in a single ward of the borough, which had at least 12 wards, there was in that single ward an expenditure by two candidates of £700 in order to settle which of them should represent it. Nor was that an exceptional case. He had known in his own experience in various towns very large expenditure at such elections — sums spent varying from £100, £200, and £250 — in a single ward. Now, if these sums were multiplied by the number of wards in the towns—and very often at the November ward contests there were elections in all the wards of a borough—they got absolutely a much larger sum spent in the month of November in municipal elections than could be spent in Parliamentary Elections. He therefore impressed very strongly on the Attorney General—having had, he was sorry to say, very large experience in such matters in more than one town—the absolute necessity there was of providing for the limitation of the expenditure at these elections.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that the expenditure in ward elections did not always fall on the candidates. The amount necessary was to some extent obtained by large subscriptions, and that money undoubtedly was employed to influence voters. In small boroughs, if a legal limit were put on expenditure at municipal elections, and that limit was exceeded, it would be difficult to find anybody to prosecute, especially as he might be floored on some technical point and have to pay very heavy costs. No doubt, there was excitement at municipal elections; but it was nothing as compared with the excitement at Parliamentary elections. However strict were the rules laid down in that matter, they would be evaded in small places, although in large towns, like Manchester
    662
    or Liverpool, where political feeling ran high, they might get men who would prosecute. In a small town, if a tradesman prosecuted another for bribery his business would go at once, and he would not deem it prudent in his own interest to do so. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James) was here understood to refer the hon. Member to the clause relating to the Public Prosecutor.] That was all very well; but who would move the Public Prosecutor to prosecute? No doubt, the Corrupt Practices Bill of last year had done a great deal of good. He witnessed the late contested election at Brighton, and had been at many similar results at Brighton before that, and he had never known any election there, at which there was less display of colours, less posting, or less expense incurred, than at the last Parliamentary contest. In conclusion, he would not oppose the second reading of that Bill, but at the same time he would urge that it should be considered in Committee of the Whole House, and not relegated to a Grand Committee. Why it should be sent to a Grand Committee he could not conceive, unless it were that the Attorney General desired to give the Committee work.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he agreed in the opinion that generally speaking the Bill was an improvement on the Bill of last Session. If he understood its principle correctly, it brought punishment more directly home to the actual offender and protected the innocent. There were, however, two alterations in the Bill to which the Attorney General had not alluded. Upon the Corrupt Practices Bill of last Session there was a long discussion as to the policy of allowing election meetings to be held at political clubs, and the result was that an exception was made in favour of those clubs in regard to meetings. In the present Bill, however, there was no suggestion in favour of political clubs. That he thought was a mistake. He agreed that the holding of such meetings at public-houses was most objectionable; but if buildings were erected where meetings might be held without the corrupting influences of public-houses, he could not see why they should not be utilized for municipal, in the same way as for Parliamentary elections. That Bill affected every man in the House, and he thought that the

    663
    whole House ought to have an opportunity of considering it in Committee. He generally approved of the measure, and would give the Attorney General every aid in his power in passing it.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he regarded that Bill as one that was eminently fitted to be referred to the tribunal of a Grand Committee, and he believed that the Government had exercised a very wise discretion in proposing that it should be sent to such a Committee. He, at the same time, took the opportunity of saying that he thought the Bill went unnecessarily far; and while he cordially agreed in the expediency of extending the Corrupt Practices Act to municipal elections, he could not see that it was requisite to apply all its provisions to the election of Poor Law Guardians and members of School Boards. They had to be careful in legislation of that kind not to lay traps for innocent persons, who might, for some trivial act connected with these minor elections, be exposed to very heavy penalties.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, he had not intended to speak in that debate; but since he came down to the House he understood that a serious charge had been made against the constituency which he had the honour to represent. He was told that the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) had said that at municipal elections in the City of London votes were bought and sold as sheep were bought and sold in the market. He would ask, then, how it was that year by year in the various municipal wards of the City of London men were elected without any contest? There were, he thought, only two or three contests on last St. Thomas's Day in the City, and for one of those contests the hon. Member for Chelsea was responsible, because that hon. Member brought a friend into the ward to contest the seat of a much honoured member of the Common Council, a strong Liberal in politics. In all the wards the same men were generally elected from year to year. In corrupt Parliamentary boroughs there was always a contest—they did not like "dry elections." If the constituency of the City of London were corrupt, why was it that they had not contests? He repudiated the statement of the hon. Member because it had been made in the House. Of what the hon. Member
    664
    said out of the House he did not take any notice. The hon. Member for Chelsea was a man of high honour, but he had a craze about the City of London; and if the hon. Gentleman were told that either his hon. Friend and Brother Alderman opposite the Member for Fins-bury (Sir Andrew Lusk) or he (the Lord Mayor) had poisoned their grandmother, he would believe it like a shot.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he was afraid the Bill would not work without a whitewashing clause with respect to past corrupt transactions similar to the one in the Act of last Session. There was always an aversion on either side to have past elections looked into, so that, without one, unless the party workers on both sides were free from the risk of having old events opened up, they would never be able to start on a better footing. He wished to join in the protest against sending this Bill to a Grand Committee. When the Committees were formed they were divided into two classes—a Committee on Law and a Committee on Trade. He defied anyone to bring this Bill within the definition of matters proper for the Committee on Law. It would be as easy to bring it within the scope of the Committee on Trade. It seemed to him that, with respect to these Committees, if the work of the Committees was not limited to Bills having relation to the subjects with which they were intended to be exclusively occupied, it would soon come to be the prerogative of certain Ministers of the Crown to send all Bills introduced by them to Grand Committees. This course of proceeding might be used in derogation of the Privileges of the House.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would consider the question regarding the maximum limit of expenditure. Coming, as he did, from a large city, and familiar as he was with the fact that there was a large expenditure in times of municipal elections, he should be very much disappointed if the Bill of this year was different from the measure of last year.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was struck with the tone assumed by hon. Gentlemen opposite in reference to the sending of Bills to Grand Committees. He had been especially struck with the opinion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke),

    665
    who spoke of the Bill as being admirably suited for reference to a Grand Committee. The reasons which had been given clashed somewhat harshly with a great deal of somewhat exaggerated language to which the House had been compelled to listen not long ago as to the great improvement which might be confidently expected in their method of conducting Business by making use of those Grand Committees. The hon. Baronet had said that this Bill dealt with a subject which had been completely thrashed out, and was, therefore, capable of being dealt with in a Grand Committee. Hon. Members who had to listen to the discussions respecting the great principle of devolution must have had their original anticipations shaken when a staunch supporter of the Ministry defended the reference of a Bill to a Grand Committee on the ground that it dealt with a subject already thrashed out, and, therefore, would not introduce any political controversy. He thought the House would do well to consider how it initiated again this Session the system which had failed—the system of so-called devolution. What had been the result of the system last year? Hon. Members knew perfectly well that the so-called Grand Committees were universally admitted to be merely overgrown Select Committees, incapable of applying their energies to matters of detail with the force and the weight which a Select Committee was known to possess. When a Bill was referred to a so-called Grand Committee it had, for all practical purposes, been withdrawn from the cognizance of the House until the measure had reached such a stage as to have secured for all practical purposes its passage into law. As to the system of Grand Committees, however, it was not his intention to refer to the principle of it in any detail. He thought that when the House was asked by the Government, by Notice publicly given, to withdraw a measure from the immediate cognizance of the House, and to refer it to a Tribunal which, not only the Members of the House, but every person who was capable of forming an intelligent view of the conduct of Public Business, had admitted to have signally failed in carrying out the original high anticipations of its authors, the House ought to be very careful. The Attorney General had
    666
    had appeals made to him to reconsider what he ventured to say was a most unwise resolve on his part, to refer this Bill to a Grand Committee. This was a matter which closely concerned a large number of their constituents, and it was a subject which was likely to form a topic of correspondence already sufficiently large with hon. Members. Those Members, therefore, who were not upon these so-called Grand Committees, would feel it their duty at the various stages open to them to exercise their position as independent Members of the House to open up any question which they might consider worthy to be dealt with by the House itself, whether or not attempts might have been previously made to dispose of those questions before another Tribunal. If the Attorney General had any corner in his mind open for the reconsideration of his determination, he hoped he would, while there was yet time, avoid being led into another of those fiascoes which he (Mr. J. Lowther) regretted to think had succeeded in monopolizing so large a share of the invaluable time and energies of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought the Bill was eminently fitted to go before a Grand Committee, and that the gloomy anticipations of hon. Members opposite who objected to this course amounted, he would not say to Obstruction, but, at all events, to a denial to that House of the power of carrying through any kind of secondary legislation. If the system of Grand Committees had not fulfilled the expectations entertained of it, the reason was that the system had not been carried far enough; and he believed that until they consented to refer the greater number of the Bills that came before the House to Grand Committees, the House would never again get into working order. They wanted a radical reform of the procedure of the House in that direction.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he entirely disagreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down. Having served on a Grand Committee, he knew what waste of time it was for any person whose time was worth anything to serve on those Committees, and how much they withdrew the subjects submitted to them from the proper consideration of the House. He joined with the

    667
    right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) in appealing to the Attorney General to withdraw this Bill from the consideration of the Grand Committee. The Corrupt Practices Act, which had been, to a great extent, a success, was so because it had the cordial support of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. Both sides of the House were equally wishful to so amend the Corrupt Practices Act that it might be effective to prevent corruption. It was the desire of both sides that it should be a workable Act. It was far better, he thought, that the House should return to its old principle, and have measures discussed in the House rather than send them to the Grand Committees.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought that, on the whole, the discussions which took place upon the Bankruptcy Bill last year in Grand Committee were of an eminently practical character. He was sorry he could not agree with hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House in thinking that this Bill should not be referred to a Grand Committee. They were all of opinion that the principle of the Bill was of a sound nature, and that some such measure should be passed into law; but there was very little chance of the Bill becoming law this Session, unless it was referred to a Grand Committee. The measure was of a non-contentious character, and all Members of the House were interested in seeing that the wheels of the House of Commons were greased, in order to enable them to pass a measure which the country expected them to pass. If, therefore, a Division should be taken now, he, for one, should vote for the reference of the Bill to a Grand Committee.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would appeal to the House to allow the matter to be decided now. The House had met at 2 o'clock to dispose of a Bill upon which there was really no practical difference of opinion, and almost every Member who had spoken on both sides had concurred in the principle of the Bill, and that it ought to be passed. They had then been four hours and a-half in the House, and had not yet come to a decision on the second reading. He hoped, at all events, the Bill might be allowed to be read a second time, and then before the Sitting closed they might determine the other
    668
    question of referring it to a Grand Committee. It would not be to the credit of the House if, when such a Bill was before it, the Sitting should close without judgment having been pronounced upon it.
    MR. HICKSsaid, that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House were quite as anxious as hon. Members on the Ministerial side to support any measure which would put down corruption. The support the Government had received last year in the passage of the Bill dealing with the election of Members to that House ought to have taught them that they might safely trust the present Bill to a full Committee of the House. If the Attorney General would assent to the suggestion made to him, and withdraw his intention to send this Bill to a Grand Committee, he was quite sure that the discussion might at once stop, and that the Bill, having been read a second time, might go to a Committee of the Whole House and very soon be worked into a measure satisfactory to all parties. If the Bill was referred to a Grand Committee, it would have to be again discussed when it returned, and it would be far better to have it conducted in the old Constitutional way in that House.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he doubted very much if such a thing as corrupt practice at municipal elections existed in Ireland. The idea of spending money in that way would never occur to people in that country. He believed if the Government had stated, when the proposal to institute Grand Committees was before the House, that such measures as this would be referred to those Committees, they would not have obtained half the support they had received. This Bill was not at all required in Ireland, and they thought they had already a sufficient number of Bills with pains and penalties in that country. He might, therefore, inform the Home Secretary of the intention of the Irish Members to move that the Bill should not apply to Ireland.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he objected to the reference of this Bill to a Grand Committee on the ground that the Government were preventing the House from having its rights. The House had a right to full and ample discussions on the stage of the second reading, and on the Motion to go into Committee; but

    669
    that right seemed to have been temporarily lost. The penalities in this Bill were excessive; and he wished also to point out that the Attorney General was inconsistent with his proposals last year. Why, for instance, should the House of Commons be asked to treat the Licensed Victuallers' trade with contempt? "Why did the Attorney General think it right one year, and wrong another, that meetings should be held in public-houses? Why was it that he now said he would not have meetings in public-houses, "because municipal elections were rather rough affairs?"
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

MOTION.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Birmingham and Aston Tramways, Blackpool Tramways, Bootle-cum-Linacre Corporation Tramway, Cardiff Tramways (Extensions), Dudley, Sedgley, and Wolverhampton Tramways, Liverpool Corporation Tramways (Extensions), and Nottingham Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN and Mr. JOHN HOLMS. Bill presented, and. read the first time. [Bill 180.]
  The House suspended its Sitting at five minutes to Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

LOCAL AND IMPERIAL TAXATION.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARD, in rising to call the attention of the House to the composition of the Public Revenue; and to move—
  "That, accepting the principle which would adjust every man's taxation to his ability, this House desires that local and Imperial Taxation shall (whenever they are coincident) be levied
  670
  upon a common basis and by a common measure of value; that Imperial Taxes shall, as regards the products of property, be (like local rates) charged upon their net or rateable annual value; and that industrial incomes shall be allowed, prior to assessment for Income Tax, an abatement, in compensation of their perishable nature,"
  said, the question was one which affected several very important interests in the country, and had an important bearing, not only upon the levying of Imperial and local taxation, but also upon their administration and expenditure. Taxation and Revenue were too often regarded as convertible terms; and the amounts of the entries under the head of Expenditure in the official Statements of "Public Income and Expenditure" were assumed to be derived from the taxation of the country. This was very far from being the case. Of the £89,000,000 standing under the head of Income, £12,000,000 were repayments and cross entries, reducing the actual "Income" in 1883–4 to £77,000,000, from which again must be deducted the revenue from "Crown Services," "Crown Rights," and "Crown Lands." The sum actually raised by taxation was £73,000,000, of which the Income Tax contributed £12,000,000. It was especially to the Income Tax that he invited the attention of the House through the Resolution which proposed to adjust its assessment to the principle upon which local rates to the amount of £28,000,000 were already levied. How should the National Income be raised? To his mind, nothing was more obvious than that it should be the result of an aggregation of certain portions taken rateably from all individual incomes. The State, in the levying of that income, ought to be guided by the principle laid down by Adam Smith, "that every subject should be taxed in proportion to his ability "— that was, "in proportion to the revenue he enjoyed under the protection of the State." And it would be observed that the ability to expend, or, practically, expenditure, was the interpretation of Adam Smith's axiom. The Income Tax was, unhappily, not levied upon this sound principle, for it taxed at their nominal amounts of £1,200, incomes so widely different as these—A capitalist had a mortgage yielding him net £1,200; a landowner, out of a nominal rental of £1,200, had £1,100 net; a houseowner, out of£1,200, had but £1,000 net; and

  671
  a millowner, out of a rental-of £1,200, had £800 net. This inequality was the more marked in the case of incomes derived from landed property, which might be so heavily mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered, that the nominal owner, when he had paid interest on the mortgages and tax on the supposed income, would have hardly any residue. Take the case of a houseowner with his nominal rental of £1,200 reduced by outgoings to £900. He might owe £900 as interest on a mortgage, and he had to pay out of his net residue of £100, Income Tax on £300, or in a ratio thrice as large as that of the capitalist mortgagee. A landowner with a burthened property would be in the same position, or worse, for with the present reduction of rents he might be compelled to pay Income Tax on the outgoings of his land without having any residue on which to live. The remedy was obvious—simply to levy the taxation, not on the nominal value, but on the rateable net value. Passing from the owners of property of this nature, he would refer to the case of owners of industrial incomes, those living by the exercise of their skill and intelligence, such as barristers or officials of that House, who were taxed upon the whole of their receipts. He would ask, on behalf of all classes earning industrial incomes, such an amount of remission of taxation as would place them in a position of safety as regarded the future—that was, in the same position relatively as the owners of real property, who, in the case of local rates, enjoyed reductions of from 10 to 33 per cent. His proposal was that all purely industrial gains be allowed an abatement of one-third to place them on an equality with the net results of the rents of real property. This concession would be nothing more than carrying out the principles enunciated by Adam Smith, and it was merely extending to industrial earnings the same principle of assessment which the House had already adopted on the subject of local taxation. He wanted to know why was it that the principle which had been declared by the House to be right, sound, and just, to be scientifically true, and to be equal as between individuals in respect of their property, was to be denied in the taxation of the same properties for the Queen's taxes? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary
  672
  of State for the Home Department would know that, in his Department, in the case of determining licences or qualifications which depended upon a certain amount of value, the decisions were determined on the rateable value; and he would, therefore, call upon the right hon. Gentleman to support him in extending the same enlightened policy to the levy of taxes. He would now refer to the important decision of the House of Lords in the case of "Dobbs v. The Grand Junction Waterworks Company" —a decision which gave to his cause a force which no indifference or sophistry could resist. In delivering that decision, Lord Bramwell said—
  "What is the meaning of 'Annual Value?' We may safely adopt the definition (in 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 96, 1836), viz., the rent at which it would let free of all usual tenants' rates and taxes, and deducting therefrom the probable average annual cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain them in a state to command such rent. This is their value, this is the value, the net, the only value. …. 'Value' means 'net value,' 'net value' means 'value.' "
  It was upon that decision that he placed his hope and confidence; and he thought the House, and he trusted the Government, would not continue to shut their ears and eyes to the evidence of such a decision with reference to the administration of that important branch of the Revenue which constituted the Queen's taxes. It was right to deduct from industrial earnings previous to their assessment the proportion which would be equivalent to their renovation or permanence. The millowner was allowed a deduction of 33 per cent on his machinery; but the professional man, who might be called a "human mill," as perishable as the other, was charged upon the gross income he received. The man himself could not be replaced, but his income might be; he could secure to his family the same amount which he could now spare out of his earnings. As regarded the question of what the amount should be, very able actuaries and students of scientific taxation, had determined that one-half of an industrial income would not be an excessive amount to allow as a reduction for taxation. His (Mr. Hubbard's) calculation was that a practising barrister, earning £1,200 a-year, should lay by one-third of it, say, in a policy of insurance, as a provision for

  673
  his family. That would be simply carrying out a principle which had been adopted—namely, to allow a deduction from income not exceeding one-sixth for Income Tax. The only defect in that clause was that one-sixth was not enough; it should be not less than one-third; and it was also absurd to bind people down to insurance as the only means of providing for their families. Government, and the Prime Minister himself, had already accepted the principle in the case of a premium for insurance. One advantage of the acceptance of the proposal which he placed before the House would be that it would bring into harmony the two great branches of public Revenue—the local rates, amounting to £28,000,000, and the Income Tax to £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 more; and it would bring them under the same valuation list and a common collection, which would be a source of great economy, and save the taxpayer a large amount of molestation, as he would have one instead of two visits from the collector. The necessity for introducing some method which should relieve the taxpayer under the Income Tax was unavoidable, for the amount of demoralization it had caused was hardly to be described. In by no means a distant Report on the Income Tax Revenue, it was stated that of the amounts which should be returned under Schedule D only 44 per cent came under charge. That was a frightful picture, for as Schedule D was the result of self-assessment, it really pointed to fraud. Moreover, this violation of honesty and truth in the Return was provoked by the injustice of the tax itself. So completely had some become reconciled to these disgraceful consequences of the tax that Mr. Lowe, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that people had the remedy in their own hands; and why should the Government care about it? He protested against the continuance of a system which demoralized both the administrators and the victims of the tax. Instances had been known of high officials counselling their subordinates not to inform the public of their rights, but to allow the taxpayer to pay far beyond his legal liability. But was the Income Tax a tax which could be done away with? The Prime Minister, some years ago, gave the people to under-
  674
  stand that the Income Tax would be repealed; and he mentioned the other day, in a letter printed in The Times, that at the time he expressed that opinion the finances of the country were in such a state as to make the repeal of the Income Tax a very probable event. He (Mr. Hubbard) had no doubt the Prime Minister said that with perfect sincerity; but what he (Mr. Hubbard) had to say was, that he was not the best doctor who killed the patient. The best doctor was he who cured. If the Income Tax were repealed, he wanted to know by what means they would bring the enormous wealth of traders under contribution to the service of the State. The Income Tax was the only tax which reached the owners of vast incomes who might spend them in dissipation in Paris or elsewhere abroad; and it was the only way of reaching the large Corporations. What was required was a re-adjustment of the tax; and he was in favour of the tax being maintained, because it was the only means by which all classes of the community could, according to their ability, be brought under a charge for the general service of the State. It was objected that the effect of his proposal would be to increase the burdens of the large capitalists, while lightening those of other classes. That was undoubtedly so; but no one could justly complain if those who were undertaxed had their burdens equalized with those who were overtaxed. No doubt, one class would feel the operation of the change, and that was the rich capitalist class; they would be more heavily charged, while, on the other hand, it would relieve those who lived by their brains and industry. It would weigh heavily on the idle permanent income, and relieve the industrial but perishable income. They could not readjust an unequally distributed burden without its pressing upon some more severely than it did before. If A, E, I, O, and U were engaged to carry between them a given load, upon equal terms, and it was presently discovered that A, E, and I had been carrying more than their share, it was obvious that O and U would, under an equal distribution of the load, carry more than they did before. In this matter he had been moved solely by a desire to do his duty for the benefit of the country; and he trusted the Prime Minister would see his way to the intro-

  675
  duction of a measure which would harmonize and combine the system of public taxes and local rates so as to make them more just and satisfactory. He trusted the right lion. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer also would be able to approve of a scheme which their own experienced officials were quite competent to carry out, which would remove all the inequalities and grievances under which the taxpayers now labour, and would substitute, for a system unjust, unequal, and demoralizing, one which would raise a portion of the Revenue easily and effectively as regarded the Crown, and acceptably and satisfactorily as regarded the taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. TOMLINSONseconded the Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "accepting the principle which would adjust every man's taxation to his ability, this House desires that Local and Imperil Taxation shall (whenever they are coincident) be levied upon a common basis and by a common measure of value; that Imperial Taxes shall, as regards the products of property, be (like local rates) charged upon their net or rateable annual value, and that industrial incomes shall be allowed, prior to assessment for Income Tax, an abatement, in compensation of their perishable nature,"— (Mr. J. G. Hubbard,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, my remarks on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman will be partly critical and partly apologetic; but before I proceed to them I wish to make an observation as to the circumstances under which this Motion has been made. Yesterday, with a perfectly good conscience and a firm conviction, the right hon. Gentleman made a Motion, and stated to the House that he had to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, and full 40 Gentlemen from the division of the House opposite to that in which I have the honour to sit rose to their feet to support the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that the discussion he proposed to bring on to-night was a definite matter of urgent public importance. The right hon. Gentleman has brought on his Motion, has delivered his speech,
  676
  and the numbers present in that division of the House which yielded yesterday, with such case, 40 Members to make that assertion of the urgency of the subject have varied from between three to six. [Mr. WARTON: No.] I am stating matters of fact, which cannot be shaken by negation that appears to proceed from utter forgetfulness of fact. The numbers have varied between three and six —I should say seven; but out of the seven some have been here in anticipation of an interesting and, I think, rather urgent subject, the discussion of which was likely to follow. That is a curious illustration of the state of feeling [Interruption.] An hon. Baronet opposite interrupts me.
  MR. WARTON: No; it was I who did so.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg pardon; it was the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, who, in the exercise of his traditional privilege of disorder, interrupted me.
  MR. WARTON: I rise to explain my interruption. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is in possession of the House.
  MR. WARTON: Am I not to say anything? I wish to make an explanation. [Cries of''Order!"]
  MR. GLADSTONE: There was great sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard), on the ground that if he brought forward his Motion last night he would not have fair play, because he would have been liable to have the discussion mingled with other subjects. There is, however, one advantage which the right hon. Gentleman would at least have had, and that is that he would have had the House pretty full to hear his statement, instead of the lank and lean attendance which has distinguished the portion of the House which was last night so deeply interested in the matter. But it is somewhat remarkable that the most fervent appeal made last night from the Front Bench opposite came from the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith), who testifies so deep and philanthropic an interest in the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman that he has not thought fit to honour him with his presence during a single sentence of his speech. These appear to me to be very extraordinary circum-

  677
  stances; The hon. and learned Member for Bridport, or any other Member, may comment on them as they think fit; but they seem to me extraordinary circumstances in connection with the arrangement of Business in this House. I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not had greater justice done to him, on a subject, too, upon which I am sure he has bestowed the greatest pains; for there is no one in this House who is more able to explain his views on any question connected with political economy with clearness and force than is the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has devoted himself to this matter with a chivalrous loyalty. He began upon it shortly after his entrance into Parliament, now more than 20 years ago; and I believe that he will pursue it to the death. It reminds me of the Crusades. They began somewhere about the year 1100, and they continued at intervals for about two and a-half centuries; and if the condition of human life, now so much less happy than in the patriarchal, age, permitted the right hon. Gentleman to extend his Parliamentary career to a period as lengthened as that embraced by the Crusades, I am sure that at the end of two centuries and a-half the right hon. Gentleman would still be found arguing with undeniable force and all his clearness of demonstration in favour of his plan for the reconstruction of the Income Tax. But the right hon. Gentleman must be content to look to the interest of this question. He has had some experience of it; and what has his experience been? In 1861 I had the honour to be Chancellor of the Exchequer; and then the right hon. Gentleman made a speech of much the same character as that which he has delivered to-night, and, if I remember aright, in greater detail. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, having had a responsible experience of this matter which the right hon. Gentleman has never had, I opposed his Motion; but he beat me by a majority of four, and obtained what was then the great object of his desire—a Select Committee to examine into his plans. Before that Committee the right hon. Gentleman developed his views with a fulness not here permitted. He called the most distinguished advocates of those views to support them in evidence; he made no complaint as to the impartiality
  678
  or the ability of that Committee; and when I point out that, not to mention others, there sat on the Committee such men as my noble Friend Lord Sherbrooke and as the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), it is plain that the House of Commons had done its best to make it an efficient and able Committee. That Committee produced a considerable Blue Book. The right hon. Gentleman himself was Chairman of that Committee, and had every advantage of bringing forward and pressing upon the minds of the Committee all the arguments that he has adumbrated—and necessarily only adumbrated—to-night. And what was the result? When the evidence had been taken, the right hon. Gentleman prepared a most elaborate and most able Report, setting forth these same views. The Committee were quite unable to accept the Report of their Chairman. They stated with sufficient frankness in the brief Report which they presented to the House that they had arrived at the conclusion that the plan proposed by their Chairman did not afford a basis for the practicable and equitable readjustment of the Income Tax. That was the effect produced on a Committee composed of the most able men by a full and accurate and open examination of the subject. And after having carried his Motion for a Committee, and failed to convince his Committee, which rejected his Report and adopted instead of it a Report drawn up by the right hon. Member for North Devon, the right hon. Gentleman now comes here and thinks that on the strength of a speech, however ingenious and clever, the House is to embark itself in the desperate undertaking that he invites it to enter upon.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARD: I wish to explain that it is not the same scheme, and it is a new Parliament, without prejudices.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is a new Parliament, and a new generation, if you like; but I have not done with my history of the case; and, at any rate, there is this to be said—that the Leader of the Opposition and of the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs is the same Gentleman who drew the Report from which I have just made a quotation. Whether it is a new or an old Parliament, it, of course, has a per-

  679
  feet right to change its mind if it sees fit. What I have pointed out is simply this—not that we are bound by the acts of a former Parliament, but that a 'former Parliament did make a thorough and systematic examination before the right hon. Gentleman's Committee, that being a Committee of which he cannot complain, and after that examination rejected the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, and adopted a Report on a completely different basis. I am reminded that the right hon. Gentleman was a witness before that Committee as well as its Chairman, so that he had every opportunity of setting forth his views with the utmost advantage, and he failed in no part of his duty. It is right that I should mention that when it came to the question of supporting the views of the right hon. Gentleman by the Gentlemen, who had gone through the investigation, the numbers were, for my right hon. Friend, two, and against him seven. That was the division of opinion in the Committee which heard the case. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has shown, or endeavoured to show, various inequalities in the Income Tax. I do not contest one of them. I make a whole armful of concessions to him. I think I have had reason to know more of the Income Tax in the course of the 12 years that I was Chancellor of the Exchequer than even the right hon. Gentleman does. I will not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of exaggerating those inequalities; it is hardly possible to exaggerate them. The right hon. Gentleman has only touched on a few of them. Well, what is to follow? He says at the end of his speech that he offers us a scheme which our own official men are ready to carry into effect. I want to know what authority he has for that statement. I can only say that I have had large experience of the Board of Inland Revenue under three or four different Chairmen, and all those who were connected with them; and I never knew one who was ready to embark in the hopeless enterprise proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARD: I have offered no scheme to-day; there is none before the House. What I said was, that the able officials of the Inland Revenue Department could, with great case, prepare a scheme for carrying out the principles of my Resolution.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am glad to have elicited that explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. He gave his opinion of what the officials of the Inland Revenue Board would be ready to do. I thought he had said that they were ready to carry out his scheme. There is all the difference between the two things. What the right hon. Gentleman's opinion is of the capacity of the officers of the Inland Revenue Department is no doubt important; but it is not so important that we can prevail on them to prepare such a scheme. Every Chairman of the Board whom I have known, from Mr. J. Wood to Mr. Charles Pressley, regarded this scheme as a wholly visionary project, though, no doubt, philanthropic and benevolent in intention, and as absolutely impossible of practical application. But the right hon. Gentleman says he proposes to relieve certain Schedules and to increase the burden on certain, other Schedules. I remember another Gentleman who was not less benevolent than the right hon. Gentleman. He was a very able man and one much accustomed to speak upon finance in this House, I mean the late Sir Fitzroy Kelly, who went to a constituency and attacked the inequalities of the Income Tax. He began with Schedule A, and he said that it suffered most grossly, as the right hon. Gentleman also said, and that was to receive a handsome reduction. Then he went on to Schedule B, touching the farmers' profits, and he said that that was a cruel shame, and they were to have a handsome reduction. He came to Schedule D, and he said that case was monstrous, and it was plain they must have a handsome reduction. Then he passed on to Schedule E, dealing with officials' salaries, and he said these were men whose remunerations were measured in the nicest way, and it was monstrous to lay on them the full tax, and they were to have a handsome reduction. He then came to Schedule C—the fundholders— who, relying on the public faith, had accepted the lowest interest, and he ended by saying that they also should have a handsome reduction. But what he failed to do was to exhibit the numerical and financial result of allowing handsome reductions to these gentlemen all round. He made a most popular speech without exhibiting a practical result. That is not the right

  681
  hon. Gentleman's course; but I observe the right hon. Gentleman was what the Scotch call "canny." In his references to the Schedule I heard him speak of E I U, I did not hear him mention O; but it seemed all through to be A E I O U. Why was it necessary to go to the five vowels? We have got the first five letters of the alphabet, and is that not just as good? A B C D E he would not touch. He thought it was better to generalize a little, and detach the operation of his plan from dry, hard, matter-of-fact, because the right hon. Gentleman yesterday had the great advantage of enjoying the support of the landed interest. They rose on his behalf in order to insure this discussion. [Cries of "No, no!"] Who rose then? I constantly hear it boasted from that quarter of the House that they are the landed interest. I believe there are some other people in the House who have got land; but, at the same time, they are always calling themselves the "landed interest" by way of excellence. They are entitled to do that, and I believed in calling the Party opposite the landed interest I was paying a compliment. Well, now, what is the right hon. Gentleman who got those 40 Gentlemen to rise and help forward this Motion going to do with Schedule A? If he had taken A B O D and E, instead of the vowels, it would have been necessary to particularize, and to have said we will lighten A B and 0, and tax further I and U. No; he is not going to tax I and U, except upon the five vowels; but among the actual Schedules taxed be is going to tax further Schedule A as the main basis of his operations. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell me that if he has got £12,000,000 to raise by the Income Tax, and has begun by allowing a reduction of 33 per cent on D and E, he will get his £12,000,000 without further taxing Schedule A?
  MR. J. G. HUBBARD: It is my firm conviction that in the recommendation which I have made Schedule A would, as nearly as possible, be in the same position as it is now, with this advantageous result from an adjustment, that those who are most heavily burdened would have their burdens lightened.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I must investigate this a little further. I think it
  682
  would have been better had he not taken those five vowels. It would have been much better if he had told us that the question really was whether Schedule A was to be burdened or not. That is the main question. Now, the right hon. Gentleman said at present you do not get upon Schedule D one-half of what you ought to get. Why do you not? Why, because of the great indignation against the injustice of the law; and, in consequence of that indignation at the Revenue, persons only pay upon 44 per cent of their income. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has a faculty of imagination which came out in the last sentence of his speech, where he said that he was—I cannot remember the exact words—bringing forward a plan which would be easy of administration, lucrative in result, and satisfactory to the entire community. He offered to us a kind of paradise of taxation. I do not believe that the reason why you only get 44 per cent of this tax is this indignant sense of being oppressed. It is nothing of the kind. It is the unfortunate fact that a considerable portion of the community will escape paying dues to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if they can. At any rate, that is a question between the right hon. Gentleman and him; but what I want to know is this—the right hon. Gentleman from D and E deducts at least 33 per cent. Does he propose to deduct 33 per cent from A? No; nothing of the kind; and I will leave it to the landed interest and other gentlemen to say whether the fact of deducting 33 per cent from D and E, if the same sum of money has to be raised, will or will not be a burden, on Schedule A? [Mr. J. G. HUBBARD: I have not made the calculation.] I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he ventured to take 33 per cent from Schedule A; and he says no. I say that my right hon. Friend's plan manifestly goes to the burdening of Schedule A. That is a question which I have treated at great length in this House, and I will not refer to the arguments, because they are too long and intricate. I think it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had used the five vowels in the actual Schedule, and not have gone to the five vowels in order to obscure the operation of the plan. What is the real case? I have stated broadly to the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not question

  683
  it, that there are a number of inequalities in the Income Tax, some of which he has shown, and many of which he has not shown at all, and many of which he does not seem to have any idea of. Are these inequalities incurable, or are they not? Sir, the right hon. Gentleman refers to a time when I, on the part of the Liberal Government, engaged that we should abolish the Income Tax. Why, according to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman, it would be a great mistake to do away with the Income Tax. That seems to be his idea. Now, can this operation of curing be performed? The right hon. Gentleman says it can; but he had the opportunity of stating his case ten times more fully before the Committee he induced the House of Commons to appoint, and that Committee, by seven to two, declared that he had entirely failed. That is an awkward fact for the right hon. Gentleman; but it is true. He was not dismayed by the adverse vote of his Committee, and he proposed it again the next year, on which occasion his majority was only four. Let me go a little further and tell him this—that with one single exception—a clever man, Mr. James Wilson—there never has been to my knowledge one single Minister or economist who had paid the slightest responsible attention to this subject for the 90 years since this tax has been established who would have concurred in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel are the two greatest financiers who have been at the head of a Government. Do you not think they took the greatest possible interest in finding, if they could, those means of removing an anomaly and an injustice, and to make the tax delightful and popular to everybody. Certainly they did; and I remember very well going to Sir Robert Peel when I was a Parliamentary youngster, a character that was then, I must say, very different indeed from what it is now—after hearing something like the speech I have heard to-night. I was extremely captivated by the speech, and I spoke to Sir Robert Peel about it. He put an extinguisher upon me and my speculations in half a minute, and declared that he would not entertain for an instant a proposition such as this. I have mentioned Mr. Pitt, Sir Robert Peel, Sir George Lewis. Mr. Herries,
  684
  and the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote). Beside these I say there is not one who would support the right hon. Member for the City, and I challenge him to produce one. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not make his plan? He said that we had no plan before us—[Mr. J. G. HUBBARD: A good plan.]—that does not really touch the difficulties of the case. I do not wish to quote myself as an authority; but I would like to refer to the time when I first became Chancellor of the Exchequer, 32 years ago. At that time Mr. Disraeli, who had been the Chancellor of the Exchequer before me—as I know simply in the expression of private opinion and without any communication with the Revenue Departments—had expressed an opinion in favour of taxing Schedule D at 3d. and Schedule A at 7d. That secured, to a great extent, the votes of the Conservative Party for a plan of that kind. In the Liberal Party of that time there was an extremely free prepossession in favour of a plan of the kind; and when I became Chancellor of the Exchequer I will venture to say that if the question had to be decided there and then an immense majority would have voted for the plan of differentiating the Income Tax. In these circumstances I think it is pretty obvious that if it had been possible for me with my faculties to find a way to do it I should have done it. I spent more labour on a subject of this kind than I have ever done on almost any other subject in my life. I came down to the House and argued the case at great length, and I showed the great anomalies and difficulties involved then, and they were as nothing compared with the anomalies and difficulties which would have been involved if you had fixed differentiated duties on different Schedules. The House of Commons, by a large majority, having been induced to look closely into the case, repelled entirely these plans, and voted for the Income Tax as it had been voted before. There are two rival plans. One is that of the right hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt whatever about inequalities in the tax. The right hon. Gentleman says— "Cure the inequalities, make the tax perfect, keep it perpetual." And the other plan is—
  "The tax is incurable of its inequalities, and in support of that doctrine is arrayed every man

  685
  who has ever been in the position of a Minister responsible for dealing with the tax."
  What said the Report of the right hon. Gentleman's own Committee? It said—
  "This tax has now been made the subject of investigation before two Committees; and, no proposal for its amendment having been found satisfactory, your Committee are brought to the conclusion that the objections which are urged against it are objections to its nature and essence rather than to any particular shape which has been given to it."
  Well, it was upon that principle that we acted in 1874, when we saw that the finances of the country allowed the tax to be abolished, and when we engaged to abolish it if we were permitted. But that matter was referred to the country at a General Election; and the country chose to return a Parliament which they perfectly well knew was pledged to the Income Tax with all its inequalities. Nothing was said about removing its inequalities. They declined the offer of abolishing the tax that was given them, and the right hon. Gentleman need not trouble himself now to make many arguments against the abolition of the tax, for I can promise him that a sufficient number of years will pass over the heads of Englishmen before they will have another opportunity of abolishing it. I had been most anxious, ever since my connection with financial affairs began, to give them the choice. I gave them the choice, they took it, and the consequence cannot be disturbed for some very considerable time. One objection which I omitted to mention to the plan of the right hon. Gentleman is the sort of support which he received last night. I am not one of those who think that the land is overtaxed in this country. In the course now so freely pursued of continually transferring to the Consolidated Fund local charges, I have no doubt it will be necessary to settle accounts with those who have pushed forward that plan, and to make a just arrangement; but I do not think the land ought to be further taxed under the Income Tax as compared with the other Schedules. I have, however, a much stronger objection to the plan of the right hon. Gentleman. If I understand him rightly, he proposes to make certain allowances to Schedule A. I imagine he will undoubtedly make allowances to Schedule B, which is substantially, in his view, in the same category
  686
  as Schedule D. In Schedule D he will deduct at least a third.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARD: Certainly not. If you look at the Bill in your hand you will see that the deduction of one-third is entirely on industrial incomes, and not on the interest of capital.
  MR. GLADSTONE: That does not touch my argument. My right hon. Friend is going to make a large reduction on Schedules D and E. What is he going to do with Schedule C?
  MR. J. G. HUBBARD: I propose to make no deduction at all.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Has my right hon. Friend considered the conditions under which this country contracted its loans? When it contracted its loans it gave the most solemn pledge to those who lent the money that their money should not be made the subject of taxation.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARD: Quite so. Why have you taxed it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: How has Mr. Pitt and how has Sir Robert Peel dealt with that? By this doctrine—that they laid the tax equally on every subject, without reference to the sources from which the income was derived. It has been in that way, and in that way alone, that those great men believed that they maintained the public faith; but my right hon. Friend proposes to cut away from under our feet that which they urged as their only defence against the charge that they were breaking faith with the public fundholders. It is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to expect that he will find a responsible Government of this country to carry through such a plan as he proposes. He is the last man in the House who would knowingly do an act of questionable faith. This question of the fundholders is a very serious one, and it will be a very awkward thing for my right hon. Friend to come into conflict with Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel when he proposes to do that which they saw would be a breach of faith with the public fundholders. I have quoted enough of historical authorities. It is all very well for ingenious Gentlemen to make speeches on this subject. I agree with very much that my right hon. Friend says, and I agree with a vast deal more that might be said; but, as to the point of practicability, I must say that those who have been in the position to be

  687
  responsible in this matter in long succession, continued throughout many generations, without a motive to draw them aside from the right path, but with every motive to make them pursue it, are safer guides in a matter of this importance than what I regard as the academical speculations of my right hon. Friend.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLassured the Prime Minister that he and those who sat around him on the Opposition side were induced to take the action they did yesterday by their desire to maintain the rights of private Members, which, in their opinion, seemed to be threatened. He himself had been ignorant of the very terms of the Motion, though the name of his right hon. Friend was as closely connected with the subject of the Income Tax as that of Richard Cœur de Lion was with the crusades.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he thought the Prime Minister was unnecessarily severe on the Gentlemen of the Opposition. The other night they panted for information as to General Gordon up to 7 o'clock, when the Sitting was suspended. The British Constitutional Party had then to go to dinner—for the British Constitution must be maintained—and at 9 none of them returned. He did not intend to go into the intricacies of this question, but wished to remark that he called attention to one particular branch of it last year, when an important error arose in the discussion. To the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill he moved an Amendment for the purpose of preventing the Chancellor of the Exchequer from putting his paw on incomes that never came into the United Kingdom. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told him that a case had been tried in 1808 in which it had been decided that the whole income, whether made in England or not, was to be assessed. Still, 100 Members voted for the Motion objecting to that which was stated to be the law. His own solicitor being unable to find the case in the published reports, he applied for a reference to it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Private Secretary, who furnished him with the full particulars of the case, from which it appeared that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been advised was a legal decision was only the opinion of the Inland Re-
  688
  venue Board, which was not upheld by the Income Tax Commissioners, the case being that of a gentleman who carried on trade in Ireland, which was not then subject to Income Tax, and who, having for some time paid tax on the whole income, succeeded in obtaining exemption, except for the portion of his income which was expended in England. In these circumstances, he should raise the point again this year on the Inland Revenue Bill; and it was probable that some hon. Members who did not vote previously against what they were told was the law would support his Motion, which was in conformity with the law.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he understood that the object of the discussion on the Motion for the Morning Sitting was to prevent interference with the rights of private Members'; and he was under the impression that the first subject to be discussed was the Motion on Portpatrick Harbour, which it was said would not take long, but would lead to a Division. On reaching the House at five minutes to 10 he was surprised to find that the House was not discussing the first Motion on the Paper; and he believed many of his Friends were absent in the belief that that Motion would occupy more than an hour, and that the Motion on the Income Tax would be reached at a later period. He must emphasize one thing which had fallen from the Prime Minister. It had been shown clearly what the anomalies in the Income Tax were, and the Prime Minister had admitted that the anomalies were cruel; but he said they could not be remedied, and therefore they must be perpetuated as long as the Income Tax itself. He said there were the greatest possible difficulties in remedying them.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Not difficulties, but impossibilities.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman's correction proved his case further than he had ventured to state it. It followed that if the Income Tax were continued the anomalies could not be removed. In 1874 the right hon. Gentleman offered the constituencies the greatest bribe ever held out to them—namely, the abolition of the Income Tax; but the constituencies resolutely and boldly re-

  689
  fused to accept it, and now it seemed, because of this refusal, no attempt was to be made to remedy the inequalities, although it was admitted that the operation of them amounted to cruelty. He entirely agreed in the views of his right hon. Friend, and he had hoped that some expectation would have been held out to the public that the existing inequalities which the Prime Minister admitted would have received some attention from him with, a view to their removal. The Prime Minister, however, adopted a different course. He seemed to have taken offence because the country did not accept the bribe of the promised abolition of the Income Tax; but surely that was no reason why some attempt should not be made to remedy its inequalities. The taxation of the country had been greatly increased since 1874, and it was equally clear that the number of articles which were taxed had gradually diminished. If the Income Tax had been abolished it was difficult to say on what articles money could be raised to meet the expenditure of the country.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to explain. I must have conveyed a totally erroneous impression to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. He says that I stated because the country refused to have the Income Tax repealed in 1874, therefore I am determined that no attempt shall be made to remedy the inequalities in its assessment. I am not aware that any word of my speech could in the slightest degree warrant that statement. In 1853, and on other occasions in this House, I stated plainly that it was impossible to reconstruct the Income Tax on the principle of different rates and allowances in the different Schedules; and the opinion I entertain on that subject is the opinion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon, as recorded in the Report of the Committee of 1861, and read by me to-night.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had no remedy to propose for the inequalities. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] As far as I can gather, that is the present position of the question.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, the question was a very important one, and he had hoped that it would have been met by the Prime Minister in a different spirit
  690
  to that in which he had addressed the House. Hon. Members seemed to think it only affected the owners of large property; but he could assure the House that those who suffered most were the owners of property in large towns. There they suffered from over-taxation, and he thought that by what the Prime Minister had said the House had been led away from the Resolution of his right hon. Friend (Mr. J. G. Hubbard). It was a very simple Resolution which dealt with an admitted grievance, that local taxation was upon the net value, whereas Imperial taxation was upon the gross value. This was a matter which he assured the right hon. Gentleman was oppressive, not upon the large owners of property, but upon the small owners. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I did not say so.] The right hon. Gentleman had stated that it would be a tax for many years to come. If it was to go forth to the people that the tax was likely to be continued, the country would be very much indebted to his right hon. Friend for having called attention to the subject. The other question was the difference between the taxation of settled incomes and the taxation of precarious incomes. He could well understand the difficulties to which the right hon. Gentleman had drawn attention; but, at the same time, the question was one worthy of serious consideration, and one which the country would expect the Government, if possible, to rectify; and he thought, therefore, that the Prime Minister had, if he would allow him to say so, led the House away from the issue before it. The Prime Minister seemed to lose sight of the real question of the right hon. Gentleman. It was a question which he was sure was deep in the minds of thousands of our fellow-countrymen—the owners of small property— and the great bulk of the constituencies must again and again have it brought before them. He was very much indebted to his right hon. Friend for having brought the question forward; but, considering the present condition of the House, he did not think it would be wise to press the matter any further.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he did not hesitate to say that no owner of landed property ever received, say, 80 per cent net of any property which he held. He paid Income Tax on the gross rental. There was no allowance

  691
  for repairs, insurance, bad debts, &c. Let the House compare the difference with regard to trades. In trade they made their own returns, and received a liberal allowance for all those outgoings which, in the case of land, were never taken into consideration. The comparison between the treatment of traders and the treatment of owners of landed property was certainly a very grievous one. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!"] He would give an illustration. Only a short time ago he owned a poor property in the middle of a moor of about 100 acres. The buildings were very dilapidated. It was a question with him whether he should let it go down to common, or reconstruct the farm buildings. He was unwilling that it should go down to common, and he built upon it. The cheapest buildings he could put up cost him £700. He let it for £50 a-year, and now he had paid 14 years' Income Tax, but had not received a single farthing for the property. At no period had the landed interest suffered so much as during the last few years. Reference had been made to the question of subventions. He contended that the whole of the subventions had been absorbed entirely by the extra taxation for education, &c., which had been imposed upon the landowners since 1870. He would remind the Prime Minister that many years ago he promised that this question should be considered when the subject of local taxation came before them, and that relief should be given some other way. That promise had been kept dangling before them without any definite remedy. He sympathized very much with the Motion, because, as regarded the landed interest, they had still a very great grievance.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes 73; Noes 35: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 71.)
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

JAMAICA—THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL —CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  CAPTAIN PRICE, in rising to call attention to the form of Government in Jamaica, said, that the Forms of the House would not allow him to make the Motion which he had intended; but, if
  692
  he had been able to do so, it would have been in these terms—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the people of Jamaica should be restored to a material share in the management of their own local and financial affairs."
  There were many hon. Members of the House better fitted to deal with this question than himself. There was one in particular who was especially qualified to do so, the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), whom he was glad to see present, who possessed an intimate knowledge of Jamaica, and who for years had shown himself ready to stand forward as a champion of the rights of the people of that country. But the accidents of the ballot had put this opportunity into his hands, and at another time he should be willing to second the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was afraid the subject which he had to bring forward that night was not one which would interest many hon. Members of the House. The day had gone by, fortunately, when the affairs of Jamaica could not be discussed without raising Party strife. Forty-five years had elapsed since Mr. Burge and Serjeant Mereweather had pleaded at the Bar of the House, in long and eloquent speeches, and pleaded successfully the right of the people of Jamaica to the control of their own affairs. The question in that day resulted in fierce and angry debates, and in the downfall of a powerful Ministry. In these days, he feared, it was more likely to result in a "Count out" of the House; or, at all events, in something very like apathy and inattention. Nevertheless, he felt it his duty to bring the matter forward, and he craved the indulgence of the House for some little time. The Blue Books and Papers recently laid on the Table would have shown hon. Members the state into which the finances of Jamaica had fallen during the 17 years of Crown Government, and the dissatisfaction of the people in consequence. They would have also shown that the matter had been under the consideration of the Government, and that the Secretary of State for the Colonies had taken what he was pleased to call a "new departure," and had promised the people of Jamaica that they should have some control over their own local and financial affairs. He proposed to examine what that really amounted to. There were

  693
  hon. Members in that House, and he feared their name was "legion," who thought that Jamaica should have no Constitutional form, of Government whatever, and they based their contention upon three grounds. First, they said that a Constitutional form of Government had been tried, and had proved a failure, and that the Assembly was effete and corrupt; secondly, that the people of Jamaica abolished their own Constitution, and, therefore, were out of Court in asking for its restoration; and, thirdly, they said that Crown Government had been tried in Jamaica for 17 or 18 years, and had proved a success. Upon all these points he joined issue with them in the most unhesitating manner, and he would ask leave to examine those allegations; because, by so doing, he should clear the ground of many and rave misconceptions with regard to Jamaica, and also because it would furnish him with arguments directly applicable to the case he had taken in hand. It was not true that the Assembly of Jamaica, which had existed for 200 years, was effete and corrupt, though vague and reckless charges to that effect had been made in Parliament. It had been stated over and over again that the House of Representatives in Jamaica tampered with the finances. He would give an instance of the wild and reckless charges which had been made against the old House of Assembly, and which were generally believed in this country. In the other House of Parliament, when the Act for the abolition of the House of Assembly was being passed, in 1866, Lord Taunton said—
  "In the first place, there was vested in the Jamaica House of Representatives a power of originating money votes "without the sanction of the Crown …. What had been the result? They had ruined the finances of the country utterly."—(3 Hansard, [182] 124–5.)
  That was said by a Nobleman who had been at the Colonial Office, and who ought to have known better. The House of Representatives had no such power. He (Captain Price) had here the Act of the Constitution of Jamaica of 1854, which would set the matter at rest. That Act—17 Vict., c. 29, s. 23—provided—
  "That the Executive Government should continue to be discharged by the Governor in the same manner as before, and that the exclusive power of proposing any vote of money
  694
  should vest in and be exercised by him on his sole responsibility."
  It was, therefore, absurd to say, as Lord Taunton did, that the House of Assembly had the power of originating Money Votes. It was also a mistake to say, as Lord Grey did, that the House of Assembly had secured the right of expending the grants made for the Public Service. Not only did the Legislature of Jamaica not possess the power which was ascribed to it, but it had never sought to obtain it. An attempt was once made to endow the popular Assembly with the right of originating money grants; but the origin of the attempt was not to be found in the Assembly itself, but in the Representative of the Crown, Sir Charles Darling. That this was the case was proved by a despatch of the Duke of Newcastle, dated January 29th, 1861, from which he would read an extract—
  "I find in these Papers'' (relating to the controversy which had been raised) ''voluminous arguments, conducted on both sides with much ability, respecting the theory and principles of the system of government established in Jamaica by the Act of 1854, but scarcely any information as to the origin of the disagreement which has broken up the harmony with which, for more than six years, the Legislature and successive Governors of the Colony, much to the credit of all, had co-operated for the public good …. I regret that the controversy respecting these principles was provoked by your requiring from your Executive Committee a concurrence in what I conceive to be a very erroneous view on your part of the Governor's position in respect of his responsibility for acts done in Executive Committee."
  He had quoted this to show that down to 1862, at all events, the Secretary of State for the Colonies had not considered the House of Assembly to be corrupt or effete; that he was satisfied with the working of the Constitution Act, and that harmony prevailed. But he would show what was the opinion of the Governor of the Island from that date down to within a few months of the abolition of the House of Assembly. In his speech on opening the House of Assembly in November, 1862, Mr. Eyre said—
  "The general revenue of the Island has improved, and an increase exceeding the estimates has been yielded …. With a flourishing revenue, I rely with confidence upon your making adequate provision," &c., &c.
  In opening the Session in the following year, he said—

  695
  "I am happy to acquaint you that the re-, venue of the country has on the whole exceeded that of last year."
  And again, in 1864, after a lengthened tour throughout the Island, he spoke in the same way of the satisfactory state of the finances, and described the people as being
  "One and all animated by the same spirit of warm loyalty, considerate kindness, and generous hospitality."
  The same people whom a few months after it suited him to describe as little less than devils, and the country as being on the brink of a volcano. With this testimony, then, what grounds were there for charging the late House of Assembly with being corrupt, and with having played "ducks and drakes" with the Public Revenues? There had, in modern times, been three crises in the history of Jamaica. There was the crisis of 1854, when the new Constitution was granted to the Island, which was brought about by the laudable wish on the part of the Representatives of the people to keep down expenditure, the Crown having insisted on the maintenance of extravagant establishments which at that time were quite unsuitable. A similar crisis occurred in 1865, when the House of Assembly was abolished. The questions which had occupied the attention of the Legislature during the two or three years before that event were chiefly questions connected with the misappropriation of the Revenues of the Colony by the Representatives of the Crown. The third crisis was that which was taking place at the present time, and this also had been brought about by the extraordinary expenditure for which the Representatives of the Crown were responsible. In connection with the extraordinary misconception existing in England concerning the Legislature of Jamaica, he would mention the remark made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Wodehouse), on a former occasion, to the effect that the old House of Assembly, abolished in 1865, was "little better than a bear garden of shouting and screaming Negroes and Jews." To show how completely erroneous such an idea was, he (Captain Price) would quote what had been written on the subject by a gentleman who had a thorough acquaintance with the Island. In that account it was stated that out of the 47 Members of whom the House consisted
  696
  at the time, no less than 37 were Whites, 34 had been educated in England, and a very large majority were men who had been appointed Justices of the Peace. Ten were Coloured men, and only three were Black. People in this country who had not lived in the East or West Indies were often very sensitive as to what they called a "touch of the tarbrush." And the late Mr. G. W. Gordon, of whom this House had heard so much, was generally set down as a sort of Cetewayo, when, in reality, he was only slightly coloured. It was absolutely untrue, therefore, to describe the Assembly as having been composed of Negroes; and as to the Jews, he would leave the hon. Member (Mr. Wodehouse) to discuss that matter with Gentlemen of that persuasion in this House. He (Captain Price) could not help remarking, however, that it was somewhat strange to hear from the Liberal Benches that we were to be guided in this manner by considerations of race and of creed. That might be one of the doctrines of esoteric Radicalism; but he ventured to think it was not to be found amongst the generally accepted principles of the Liberal Party. Then it had been said that the Island had voluntarily given up its Constitution. When, in a former debate on the Florence affairs, it had been said that the inhabitants had their Representative Constitution taken from them for reasons of State, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had said— "No; it was surrendered." He (Captain Price) maintained that it had been taken from them by a coup d'état. It might be said that he ought to bring documentary evidence of such a charge; but it must be remembered that a coup d'état was only arranged and brought about by confidential despatches, not accessible to private Members; but he thought he could give the House conclusive evidence upon this point. He would refer to the words of Mr. Cardwell himself, in 1866, on the question of whether the Jamaica Government Bill should be a temporary or a permanent measure. Mr. Cardwell said that—
  "The view which he himself had always entertained was that a permanent measure was necessary for the welfare of Jamaica, and before the disturbances he was engaged in prosecuting inquiries, which he hoped would load to the appointment of a Committee and consequent legislation."—(3 Hansard, [181] 1177.)

  697
  What did that show? If it proved anything, it proved that long before the House of Assembly ever dreamed of making even a temporary surrender of its privileges, the Secretary of State had been in communication with the Governor of the Island, with a view to overthrowing the Constitution of the Colony, and of getting its affairs entirely into the hands of the Colonial Office. But there were despatches in the Parliamentary Blue Books which would throw additional light upon this. There was the despatch of Mr. Eyre to Mr. Cardwell, of April 19th, 1865, in which he strongly condemned Representative Institutions for Jamaica. His despatch of May 6th, in which he recommended Her Majesty's Government to abrogate the existing Constitution, and also a despatch from Mr. Cardwell to Mr. Eyre, dated July 7th, 1865, in which he said—
  "If the majority of the House of Assembly could be induced to pass enactments in amendment of its own Constitution, Her Majesty's Government would be ready to give these enactments its most favourable consideration."
  These despatches were written long before the matter was suggested to the House of Assembly, and conclusively point to the coup d'état he (Captain Price) had described, and to the fact that the Colonial Office were seeking to defraud the Island of Jamaica of its Constitutional privileges, so as to get the management of the Island into their own clutches. It was quite true, in some sense, that the Constitution of Jamaica was surrendered by the majority of the House of Assembly; but it was surrendered as a fortress might be surrendered, when starved out and incapable of further resistance. Let them look at the history of the question as known to Parliament. When the Bill was introduced, in 1866, it was represented as a temporary measure; and it passed its first and second readings and its Committee stage as a temporary measure. Mr. Cardwell, on every occasion, explained that it was necessary that the Bill should only be a temporary measure, as inquiries were to be made as to the strange circumstances of the self-abolition of the House of Assembly. On the Report of the Committee, Lord Norton—then Mr. Adderley—moved, in a very thin House, that the Bill be made permanent. Mr. Cardwell hesitated for some time, and coquetted,
  698
  and, "vowing he would ne'er consent, consented," and the Constitution of Jamaica thus became permanently abolished without the slightest reference to the people of Jamaica, whose wishes had never been consulted, and without one syllable of that inquiry which Mr. Cardwell had declared to be necessary. What were the events which led up to this extraordinary act of political suicide? What had been occupying the attention of the Legislature immediately previous to this act? There were two important subjects that occupied the attention of the House of Assembly shortly before it was abolished. There was the great Tramway swindle, in which officers appointed by the Crown improperly used the public monies with the approval of the Government. For this the House of Assembly passed a Vote of Censure on the Governor, and proved themselves effective guardians of the public purse. Then arising out of this was the Espent case, which would be found amongst the Parliamentary Papers. This was a case in which a Member of the Assembly, who held an office under the Crown, opposed the action of the Governor on the Tramway matter, and was called upon by the Governor to give up either his office or his seat. He declined, and the Assembly backed him up, treating the matter as a question of "Privilege." The House of Assembly insisted that the matter should be referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and Sir Roundell Palmer and Sir Robert Collier gave the matter entirely in favour of the House of Assembly. These were the two matters, and the only two, which seriously engaged the attention of the Legislature during the three years immediately preceding the fall of the Constitution, and in both cases the popular Chamber had been proved to be absolutely in the right. Then the disturbances occurred, and, in a moment of panic and despair, the House of Assembly agreed, under strong pressure, to make a temporary surrender of their Privileges. He did not say that they were justified in doing that. On the contrary, he thought they were wrong. But there was some excuse. They had seen that, in all their struggles, the Representative of the Crown was backed up by the Colonial Office at home. All their representations were ignored. They saw one of their Members, who had been

  699
  prominent in opposing the Governor, arrested, tried by a mock court martial, and hanged. No wonder that, in utter despair, they were induced to throw up the sponge and fall an easy prey to the machinations of the Colonial Office. Thus fell a Constitution which had existed for 200 years, and against which no definite charge had ever been made. He doubted whether, in modern history, there was any parallel to this extraordinary occurrence. Certainly Ireland, though it had sometimes been quoted as a case in point, offered no resemblance, for she was not deprived of representation. Perhaps the case of Denmark furnished the nearest parallel, when, in the 17th century, her House of Representatives, worn out by its struggles with the Nobles, voluntarily surrendered its privileges into the hands of the Crown. Surely, with such an example as that before them, the people of Jamaica should have foreseen that, in making even a temporary surrender of their privileges, they were abandoning liberty, and that, in striving to escape from the Scylla of bad government, they were only precipitating themselves into the Charybdis of a Government absolutely despotic and wholly unsympathetic. But what was the form of Government which had replaced the old Constitution? That would bring him to the third argument which he had to answer, and to a consideration of the Papers now on the Table of the House. The House was asked to believe that the Government which had existed in Jamaica for the last 17 years was the most appropriate one for the country, and had been completely successful. One of the charges against the old Constitution of Jamaica was, that the House of Assembly had increased the Debt of the Colony. Lord Russell, in 1866, gave as one reason for abolishing the House of Assembly that "it had very much increased the Debt of the Island." But what were the facts? In 1866, after 200 years of Constitutional Government, the Debt of the Island was about £600,000; whereas now, after 17 years of beneficent Crown management, the Debt of the Island had been nearly trebled. The Debt in 1866 was not a large one for a Colony of the importance of Jamaica. It was one well within the powers of the Colony to deal with, and the interest upon it had always been
  700
  paid to the day, and to the uttermost farthing. Let him examine the items of the present Debt. About £500,000 had been incurred in taking over the existing railway. He had nothing to say against that as an act of policy; but he objected strongly to the raising of such a loan without the consent of the taxpayers; and as to the way in which the loan was being dealt with, he would only point to the Report of the Royal Commissioners, who said—
  "We consider that financial operations of this kind tend to impair the credit of a country."
  Then something like £130,000 had been raised to pay for the Rio Cobre irrigation scheme, which everyone knew was an utter failure; and a sum little short of £300,000 for the Ewarton extension of the railway. As to this last item, if they took the dictum of the Commissioners, that the necessary charges to be defrayed before any profit could be looked for would amount to about 13 per cent on the capital monies raised, they would have to look for earnings of at least £39,000 a-year; but he had it on the best authority that the receipts could not be more than £5,000 yearly. Were the taxpayers of Jamaica to have such a burden imposed upon them without their consent? On this point he had asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies the other day if he would produce the estimate of receipts on which this work was undertaken; and the reply he got was that it was—
  "Undesirable to produce Papers respecting the details of public works in a Colony, unless there has been sonic serious controversy on the subject calling for the interference of Parliament."
  He (Captain Price) must be permitted to say that Questions of that kind were put, not as the outcome of serious controversy in the House of Commons, but to prevent serious controversies out-of-doors. He ventured to remind the hon. Member (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) that it was precisely the refusal to produce Estimates for examination in a similar case in Jamaica some years ago which led to that "serious controversy" between the Jamaica Legislature and the Crown on the Tramway Case—a controversy which shook the Constitution of Jamaica to its foundations, and brought about those State intrigues to which he had referred in the earlier part of his speech. But

  701
  turning from questions of expenditure, which he hoped would be dealt with more fully by those who followed him, he would make one quotation from the Report of the Commissioners as to the education question. After stating that the expenditure in 1881 was six times as great as in 1861, though the number of children attending school, and the number of those able to read and write was only twice as great, they say— "This is a most unsatisfactory and discreditable state of affairs." But far more important than any of these matters was the discontented state of the people of the Island, in regard to which very ample evidence was forthcoming in the shape of reports of meetings which had been held in the Island, and Memorials which had been sent by the inhabitants to the Home Government from several parts of it. He believed there was not a town in Jamaica where public meetings had not been held upon the subject, and all were unanimous as to what they required. The House must remember that it was not a revival of the old Assembly that was being asked for, but an extension of the unofficial element in the Council. In November last he had the honour of presenting a deputation to Lord Derby, and his Lordship had promised that he would make some change in the form of Government, and he suggested that the unofficial Members should henceforth be elective instead of nominated. This was a step in the right direction, but a very short one, for the elected Representatives would still be in a hopeless minority, the official Members being of equal number, the Governor, as President, having two votes in addition. Lord Derby had also provided that, "as a general rule," the official Members should not be required to vote against the unofficial, providing that six of the latter were present and agreed. But the official Members were always at hand, whereas the elected Members had to come up from distant parts of the country, so that the latter would often be at a great disadvantage. Moveover, this majority of two to one, which Lord Derby required amongst the elected Members, in order to entitle their views to due consideration, would have to be increased to three to one in the case of the absence of a Member, and to as much as six to one in the event of the
  702
  absence of two elected Members. The fact was, all power of legislating rested absolutely in the hands of the Crown. It was Poyning's Law over again. Lord Carlisle had been sent out to Jamaica in the 17th century to administer that law, by which the Assembly was required to pass, without alteration, laws which had been prepared by the Crown. They were to have the semblance of being Acts of the Legislature of Jamaica, when, in truth, they had been previously framed by the Ministry in this country. This was rejected by the Assembly, and the Imperial Parliament was forced to abandon it. And now, so long as the Acts passed by the Council should meet with the approval of the Governor for the time being, the pleasing fiction of their being passed by the Representatives of the people would be kept up; but, immediately that the Governor should choose to consider the measure unadvisable, he might suspend the "general rule," and, wheeling his official battalion into line, could outvote the Representatives, informing the Colonial Office of what he had done with the full certainty of being upheld by that Body. And now let him show the House how absurdly inadequate and unnatural the proposed system of representation must be as regards numbers. It was proposed to elect 9 Members, three for each "county;" but the division of the Island into "counties" was little known, and might be regarded as obsolete. The natural division of the Island was into "parishes," as they were there called, though they answered more nearly to the counties at home, some of these so-called "parishes" being as large as Bedfordshire or Huntingdon. Ask a Negro of average intelligence what county he belonged to, and he would not be able to tell you; but ask him what parish, and he would tell you at once. For many reasons it would be far better to apportion the Representatives according to parishes, or "districts" as they ought to be called; and he hoped the Government would see their way to granting the wishes of the people— namely, to have one Member for each district, with an additional one for the important City of Kingston, making 15 in all. Even then, the proportion of representation would be smaller than was allowed to many Colonies of less importance, and which had not been ac-

  703
  customed to Representative Institutions. Take, for instance, West Australia, with a population of only 30,000. The number of elected Members there was 14, as against 6 official and 4 nominated Members. In Natal, with a much smaller population than Jamaica, there were 23 elected Members, as against 7 official, and the same proportion existed in many other Colonies. He might be told that the movement in Jamaica was not bonâ fide, but was only got up among a certain class in the Island. That he denied most emphatically. He would ask the House to consider that the 9 Gentlemen who had been appointed unofficial Members of the Assembly, and who were appointed by the Governor, must be considered Gentlemen of considerable intelligence, integrity, and patriotism. They had unanimously resigned their office, because they contended they had no power whatever of representing the people of Jamaica, and because they would not be parties to such a sham. The movement was going on in every corner of Jamaica, and if there had been any unreasonable or intemperate representations made, as had been alleged, he asked Her Majesty's Government to treat them as the froth which invariably accompanied every ebullition of popular feeling, and, sweeping this lightly on one side, to look down into the clearer depths of this agitation, in order to discern there what were the real causes of those grievances of which Jamaica now complained. If they would do that he felt assured that they would see the necessity of restoring to the people such a control over their own affairs as would prevent a recurrence of those baneful results which had been brought about by Crown Government. What those results were he would sum up in half-a-dozen words, and then his task that evening was done. The results were these — the present form of Government in Jamaica had nearly trebled the Debt of the Colony; had enormously increased the public expenditure; had made a hash of the question of public education; had shaken the credit of the Colony, and had spread broadcast throughout the Island the gravest dissatisfaction. That was the case he had to lay before the Government, and which he asked them to meet; and the burden of proof lay upon the Government to prove that
  704
  the people of Jamaica were not fit to have Representative Institutions. It now only remained for him to apologize to the House for having occupied so much of its time, and to thank the House sincerely for its patient attention. He could not hope to have interested many in this question. The subject was a dry one, and there were but few who, in these days, were interested in the affairs of Jamaica. It was but a little Island in a distant sea; but it was an Island whose history recalled to them memories of great events connected with the discovery, the growth, and the development of the Western World. It was a Colony which had taken no small part in developing the wealth and the greatness of this Empire. Its people for 200 years had enjoyed the same Constitutional privileges as ourselves. Of these they had been wrongfully deprived. They now cried aloud to us for justice. He asked the House of Commons not to turn a deaf ear to the passionate prayer of these people—not to crush out aspirations which were ennobling, and which were the very birthright of every British citizen; but to restore to them that control over their own local and financial affairs which could alone be adequately exercised by the chosen Representatives of a free and enlightened people.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON: Sir, at this late hour of the night, and after the exhaustive speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Devon-port (Captain Price), I shall not detain the House at any great length. I shall not touch the historical—I had almost said, the pro-historical—part of the question. I will simply remind the House that for two centuries, down to 1865, Jamaica had possessed and enjoyed the unspeakable benefit of Representative Government. Down to that time she had been accustomed to manage her own local affairs, to make her own laws, to raise and appropriate her Revenue in accordance with the views and the wishes of her people, expressed through their elected Representatives in the House of Assembly. In the panic which arose out of the Insurrection of 1865, she was induced to part with her ancient Constitution. Seizing the occasion of the panic, the Governor (Mr. Eyre) appealed to the House of Assembly. He called upon them, in order to avert "a

  705
  mighty danger which threatened the land," to "immolate themselves on the altar of patriotism." Under the influence—I may say the pressure—brought to bear upon them by the Governor, the House of Assembly surrendered their ancient Constitution. This was done without any appeal to the electors, and, as I have always considered, without any legal Constitutional right. The House of Assembly, which was elected for the purpose of making laws for the government of the country, had no right, in my judgment, without a special appeal to the people, to put an end to its existence. In doing so, however, the House was by no means unanimous. It was only after much discussion that the act of self-annihilation was carried by a majority. I have gone into this matter, because it has been objected that the Assembly, having surrendered the old Constitution, are, to use the words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Price), "out of Court; "that Jamaica has no right now to ask for the restoration of what has been surrendered by her own Representatives. I have shown how this was done, and what led to it. But it is only due to the late Assembly to state that, in surrendering the old Constitution, they had no idea of parting with the right of self-government. When they passed the Bill putting an end to the old Constitution, they proposed another Representative Institution in its place. The old system of government had become too elaborate and too complicated for the then condition of the country; and many of the most intelligent of its inhabitants, for many years prior to 1865, had been of opinion that a simpler machinery, still representative, would be preferable. Accordingly—and I may say it was with this object in view—that the House of Assembly passed the Bill which has been mentioned, at the same time, as I have said, proposing a new and a small Representative Council. Her Majesty's Government refused to sanction the new proposal, and, instead, established the system of Crown Government, "pure and simple," which has prevailed to the present time. From the moment of its establishment the people have protested against it, and from time to time since they have memorialized the Government, praying for the restoration of Representative Institutions. These appeals have
  706
  not succeeded, until necessity has brought about the modification lately proposed. Let us now see what the system of Crown Government has been, and what are its results. It was said that the affairs of Jamaica had been so grossly mismanaged by the old House of Assembly that a strong Government had become necessary, in order to save the country, especially its finances, from ruin. With the permission of the House, I will test for a moment or two this statement. Under Crown Government, a Governor was sent out with a salary of £7,000 a-year, and other officials receiving salaries, considered by the Royal Commissioners lately sent to investigate the matter of expenditure, in many instances too high. There was to be a Legislative Council composed of these officials and nine unofficial Members nominated by the Governor. The official Members had, and could possibly have, no knowledge whatever of the country, or its requirements. They had no stake or interest in it, no concern in its welfare. Their connection with it and its inhabitants was purely official. Yet these gentlemen, drawing large salaries from the hard earnings of an impoverished community, were so placed as to over-ride the nine unofficial Members, who were gentlemen belonging to the country, having a knowledge of its people and of their wants, and whose presence in the Council was intended as a means of informing and guiding the official Members in matters of legislation, and of finance especially. With such discordant elements, differences of opinion were sure to arise between the Governor and his official staff on the one hand, and the unofficial Members on the other. Conflicts of this kind from time to time did arise. The Governor presided at the Council, and, as I have been told, sat in great state on a daï s wearing his Windsor uniform and a cocked hat on his head; and at the conclusion of a debate he would reply all round, knocking down the arguments of the unofficial Members like "nine pins." Of course, the House will see how impossible it was that such a system could long work, especially in a community accustomed to self-government. No man of spirit would consent to retain a seat in a Council so constituted, and, so to speak, so manipulated. The House will remember the

  707
  case of the Florence, which was discussed last Session. The case of the Florence brought matters to an issue. The unofficial Members refused to sanction the Vote which the Governor asked for, in order to pay, out of the taxation of the people, for the errors and blunders of the Government, over whose Members they had no kind of control. The consequence was a complete deadlock. Persons holding situations under the Government were appointed to the Council upon the distinct undertaking that they were to support the Vote on account of the Florence. The Vote was carried accordingly, and the unofficial Members, in a body, resigned. In such a state of things the Government could not be carried on. It was impossible to persist in a system so repugnant to the feelings, the habits, and traditions of the country, and a modification of the Constitution is about to take place. But, before I go into the subject, I wish to say a word upon the question of finance. It has been said that under the old Constitution the finances had been greatly mismanaged. Let us see what has been done in this respect by Crown Government. I had the honour, the Session before last, to move for a Return of the Revenue of Jamaica, including Ways and Means, and the Expenditure for the 15 years prior to 1865, and for the 15 years since under Crown Government. This is the result. The Expenditure for the 15 years under Crown Government exceeds by £2,500,000 and upwards the Expenditure of the previous 15 years under the old system; and for the last two years there have been, deficits, and another is expected in the current year. In 1865 the Public Debt was £607,739. It is now £1,132,710. And what is there to show for this vast increase of Expenditure and of Debt? It will be said that there have been railways and other public works. I do not deny the usefulness of some of these; but even here the Expenditure has not been justified by the results. Works have been undertaken which were beyond the means of the Colony, and which, in its present condition, and for a long time, I fear, will not be self-paying Take the case of the railways. From 1879 to 1882 no less a sum than £540,000 has been expended on railways. The House would naturally conclude that there has been a considerable amount of
  708
  rail way communication established. As a matter of fact, the whole railways of the country consist of about 29 miles, and it is proposed to lay down some 20 miles more. Yet £540,000 is the expenditure for railways. How such a sum could have been incurred I am at a loss to understand. Again, the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Price) has mentioned the Rio Cobre Waterworks, a good undertaking if it had paid, but it has not. The Commissioners report it as a failure. Yet these works have cost £210,800 from 1869 to 1879; and since that year £7,000 more for repairs. I could go through other items in the Public Accounts with similar results; but I will not weary the House any further with figures. The House sees the enormous increase of expenditure in a very short time under Crown Government, and if hon. Members will take the trouble to examine the Report of the Commissioners, they will see how unjustifiable much of this expenditure has been. The increase of population cannot account for it. In the last 20 years that increase has reached about 150,000, or a little over. Such an increase, I say, can in no way account for such an excess of expenditure. As in matters of finance, so in general legislation. The District Courts were among the new establishments under Crown Government. The Commissioners condemn them as a failure and as an extravagance as well. In point of fact, the whole system pursued since 1865 shows the utter absence of knowledge of the country and of sympathy with its people on the part of those who have been sent to govern it. The gentlemen who have been sent out have been persons whose lives have been spent in official routine elsewhere. They have brought with them a mere official eye to bear upon public affairs, and a determination to carry out a particular policy, utterly regardless of the feelings of the country. A Governor goes out, and, before he has been a fortnight in the place, he reports that the country is not ripe for Representative Institutions. What on earth could he know or have learnt of the place, in one short fortnight, to justify him in making such a Report? He had, no doubt, heard it from, some official who had been there a little longer. In this way the Colonial Office is misled, and kept in ignorance of the true state of the Colony. This system

  709
  of government by experts is new to Jamaica; and, depend upon it, it will not succeed. But it will be said that the state of things will be changed by the new scheme. I have no doubt whatever—and I am glad of this opportunity to say it publicly—that I believe that it is Lord Derby's wish and intention to act justly, even generously, towards the people of Jamaica; and I can well understand how it is that he should move cautiously in the changes he proposes, seeing that the representative system has been in abeyance for 17 years. Time, no doubt, will be required to test the working of a Representative Council under these circumstances, and with a franchise entirely new and much extended beyond the old franchise. At the same time, I must observe that self-government is not new to Jamaica. The people have been accustomed to it. The great bulk of the present population have lived under it, and its traditions remain to all. Self-government, therefore, would not be a mere experiment; and if it is to be restored at all, I think it may safely be done now and completely, not by halves. Either the people are to be trusted or they are not. If they are worthy of trust, then, I say, trust them completely. Let the representation you propose to give them be a reality. What will the new scheme do? Will it give a real representation? It simply converts the unofficial element of the Council, who were formerly nominated by the Governor, into Members elected by the people. They are still to be in a minority. The official element is still to prevail. It is true that some concession is to be given to the representative Members in matters of finance, and that in general legislation the Governor is instructed to treat them with consideration. Yet, after all, the power of the Crown remains in the Governor and the official element. So long as there is no vital question, and the representative Members behave themselves in a becoming manner—for this is really what it amounts to—they are to be considered; but woe be unto them if they should take a strong view upon a vital question of Imperial policy. Englishmen though they be, Representatives of the people, of their wishes and their interests, which they have been sent to enforce and to watch over, they are to
  710
  be over-ridden, as before, under Crown Government. This for a time might not happen. Under a Governor like Sir Henry Norman—who, I believe, from all I have heard, will exercise a wise discretion and a conciliatory spirit—difficulties might not arise; but who can speak for his Successor, or for the Successor of the noble Earl now at the head of the Colonial Office? Of this there is no manner of doubt—the people of Jamaica have received the new scheme with intense disappointment. They have had experience of Crown Government, and they know how a Council, composed as the new one is to be, is likely to work. From one end of the country to the other, and among all classes of the community—Whites, Coloured, Blacks, planters, merchants, traders, peasant proprietors, and others —the Island has been ringing with one loud protest of disappointment since the announcement of the new scheme. At one meeting, among the speakers were four Black men—peasant proprietors— and everywhere, as I have said, men of every class and complexion are protesting against the new scheme. Among other things, they protest against the Governor's presence in the Council. Under the late system, it was bad enough that he should be in conflict with his own nominees. Under the new scheme, if differences arise, he will be in conflict with the people themselves, through their Representatives. Surely it is not wise to place the Queen's Representative in such a position. I would suggest that the Council should appoint their own President, and that the Governor should be kept free from political discussions, and that the right of veto should be reserved to him. If the new scheme is to have a fair trial, I believe this to be a vital point. The Governor should not be brought into the Council to overawe them by his presence, or be made to assume the character of a public debater. The people of Jamaica have never been accustomed to this sort of thing. It lowers the Governor in public respect, and does not, and cannot, advance the interests of good government. Sir, I shall no longer detain the House. I have endeavoured to lay before it, to some extent, the grievances of a country which is one of the most ancient and most loyal, as it was formerly one of the most valuable, Possessions of the

  711
  British Crown. Its prosperity has, for a long time, passed away. For many years its people have suffered under vicissitudes for which they were in no way answerable. Imperial legislation brought about suddenly a social transition which entailed widespread misfortune. Still, they have borne up, striving to do their best under the new conditions. I believe that prosperity is yet in store for them; but it will largely depend upon the wisdom displayed at head-quarters here whether, and for how long, better times shall be delayed. I undertake to say that there are no people under the sun who might be more easily governed than the people of Jamaica. They are a warmhearted, generous people; but they love freedom, and they value the exercise of it. They are devotedly attached to the Mother Country, and are proud of being born and of living under the British Flag. When a Jamaica man proposes to visit England, he talks not of going to England, but of going "home." They send their children to this country for education, and they return with a cultured intelligence, which fits them for the various avocations of life. I have known men in Jamaica—coloured men, too—whose abilities and attainments would have done honour to any station in this country. There are such men there now. England must not turn a deaf ear to their appeals. She has not always dealt wisely or fairly by her Colonies. At one time she has spoilt and caressed them; at another she has treated them somewhat like a stepmother. She has found out her mistake. Let her not repeat it now. I have spoken of the people of Jamaica as I know them, from long personal knowledge. It is the land of my birth; and although I have not now any pecuniary interests there, I feel, and shall always feel, a deep interest in her welfare, and in the well-being of her inhabitants. I trust that this discussion will lead Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the position they have taken; and if they do not see their way at the present time to give that complete representation which the people of Jamaica ask for, and to which I think they are entitled, I hope they will hold out some hope of it hereafter; and, in the meantime, announce such modifications of their new scheme as will render it less objectionable and more likely to
  712
  conciliate the disappointment which it has occasioned.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he was not prepared for the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Price) entering into a justification of the late House of Assembly; and he thought that, perhaps, it was fortunate he was not prepared, because, otherwise, he should have thought it his duty to detain the House by statements of a detailed character. The hon. and gallant Member opposite, and other hon. Members, had pointed out that the House of Assembly and Representative Government had lasted over 200 years, and that during that time there had only been three crises. He (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) would point out that, no doubt, until slavery was abolished in Jamaica, their Representative Government was a very simple affair. It was purely a White oligarchy, and, therefore, there was no reason why difficulties or conflicts should arise. The difficulties began when the slaves were emancipated in 1839. Then came the first real embarrassments in the Island. They were brought about very much by the anger of the planters at that emancipation, and their refusal, in effect, to accept offers of money to promote emigration into the Island. Then there was the crisis in 1854, and what did that arise from? That arose from anger on the part of the Assembly because England, the Mother Country, had got rid of the differential duties, and the crisis then was very severe; and, although he did not want to argue this point, he would remind the House that the action of the House of Assembly on that occasion struck most directly at the credit of the Island. If they referred to the Papers on the subject there would be found an indictment made by the Governor, in which he said the people were proposing almost to repudiate their obligations under statute, for the payment of their debt, and that it was only by the action of the Council, who refused to pass the Bill sent up to them, that the discredit of that was avoided. It was because of the action of the House of Assembly, in 1854, that the power of initiating Money Votes was taken away from them. Then the last crisis was in 1866. He would not argue with his hon. and gallant Friend as to whether the surrender was unanimous or not on the part of the

  713
  House of Assembly; but his impression was that the surrender was unanimous. At any rate, when hon. Members talked about the success of the late Assembly, they ought to lay the whole state of the case before the House; but hon. Members who had spoken that night had taken good care not to inform the House that the House of Assembly, which they seemed to consider a model that should be imitated in the new arrangements, was the result of the election by an electoral roll, which, in 1866, had a total of only 1,700 souls out of a population of over 450,000; while some Members of that House represented only four, or five, or 10 voters. That was not a model, he thought, that anyone could wish to follow. Without taking up time and arguing the matter, he must say that anybody who had studied the history of Jamaica from the emancipation in 1839 until the collapse of the House of Assembly in 1866 must see that the old system had broken down completely, and that the final collapse was the direct result of years of erroneous legislation, reckless jobbery and bribery, and the impossibility of obtaining the services of a sufficient number of competent and independent men as Members of the Assembly. That last difficulty had been one of the great difficulties of the old Assembly, and had been the cause of waste of time, of squabbling and bickerings; and that was really the indictment to be brought against the old House of Assembly; and the inhabitants of Jamaica had felt absolutely convinced of its justice, or they would not have surrendered as they did. The Black population had absolutely no interest whatever in the old House of Assembly; and, as the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had said, during its last three years there was not a single Black man in the Assembly, although at one time there had been three. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Price) had said these men were not Black, but Coloured men; but he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) ventured to assert that the Coloured men in Jamaica were as distinct and separate in interest and sympathy from the Black population as the White people were. In fact, he would go further, and say that the Coloured population were further removed than the White in feeling and in sympathy
  714
  from the Black population. He would draw attention to the figures on this point, because nobody could judge of the question unless he was in possession of those figures. The population of Jamaica at the present day was 580,000 in round numbers. Of these, 14,400 only were White, and 110,000 were Coloured; while the Black population numbered nearly 450,000. In 1861, when the last Census before the surrender of the Constitution was taken, the White population was 13,800, the Coloured population was 81,000, and the Black population 346,000. Those figures showed that while the increase of population during the last 20 years had been only 4 per cent among the White population, it had been nearly 30 per cent among the Black population. Whenever hon. Members came forward and asked for the restoration of the old system, there had always been associated with that demand the old high property qualification for elected Members. [Mr. Serjeant SIMON: Not necessarily.] On that point he should like his hon. and learned Friend, before denying it, to communicate with his friends in Jamaica. Such a high property qualification would exclude anything like Black representation in the Assembly. As to the general question, it must be remembered that the result of establishing a high franchise in Jamaica would be that political power would be at once handed over to a particular class; while, on the other hand, if the franchise were made low, that would let in the agitator, and would lead to the disturbance of all social and industrial interests, bribery and jobbery, and, in the end, to riot and bloodshed. As to the want of education, he would point out that some of the items which had led to increased expenditure since 1866 were items which he might boast of. One of these items was education, which had risen from only £3,000 in 1864 to £26,000 in 1880. [Captain PRICE: With what result?] With a great result; for the Negro population had risen greatly in the social scale. No doubt, faults in the system had been discovered; but Inspectors were not sent to praise a system. They did not, however, say that good work had not been done; and he must confess that he considered the Report of the Commission on the Island very satisfactory. The Commission were sent out as critics, to put their

  715
  hands on weak points. Another item of increased expenditure was that for immigration; and public works and railways were other elements. He did not deny that there had been increased expenditure, but there had been a large increase of population; and, at the same time, the income had greatly risen. The hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury had referred to there having been deficits during the period of Crown Government; but he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) had only been able to find two or three years of deficit. Up to the time of the assumption by the Crown of the Government of the Island, he thought it would be found that a deficit was always the order of the day, and that the Expenditure always exceeded the Revenue. As to the Debt, no doubt there was an increase in that; but that was owing to the works of which he had spoken, and the Debt in Jamaica was by no means larger in proportion than the Debts of many of the surrounding countries. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite talked of the credit of the Island having gone down under Crown Administration, he did not know what the test of credit was. He was not a mercantile man, nor a man who had influence in the City; but he had always been told that the rate at which money could be borrowed was the real test of credit; and, if that were so, he must inform his hon. Friends that the credit of the Island—that credit which existed in the money market—was better under Crown Administration than it was before, and the last Government Railway Debentures were issued at 4 per cent. He would now leave the subject of the defence of the Crown Government, or the attack upon the old state of things, because, as his hon. and learned Friend behind him had acknowledged, the Colonial Office had come to the decision that a change must be made. Now, it must be obvious to everybody who considered the history and antecedents of Jamaica, with its population of different races, different sympathies, and different interests, that what Jamaica wanted could be summed up by saying that it ought to have a form of Government in which the Crown would in ultimate resort remain supreme. There was too much risk of collision between classes—too much risk of excitement and agitation—to allow it to be arranged that the Crown should not be
  716
  supreme in the last resort. But there ought to be a strong Government for all classes and interests, and that Government should have the confidence of the entire community. Now, he denied that the old Government of Jamaica —the Government which ceased in 1866 —had the confidence of the entire community. He denied that totally, and he declared, emphatically, that that Government had not the confidence of the great masses of the people of the Island. Under these circumstances, the Secretary of State had proposed, and was about to put into the form of an Order in Council, a new form of Government for Jamaica. He (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) would ask, was that new form of Government a sham, or was it not? He would, in a very few words, state to the House what were the provisions for this new form of Government; and he thought hon. Gentlemen would come to the conclusion that what was proposed was not a sham, but a real bonâ fide extension, in the words of the Motion on the Paper—
  "To the people of Jamaica, of a material share in the management of their own local and financial affairs."
  First of all, he would take the nominated portion of the Council, which would partly consist of ex officio Members, who, by virtue of their office, would be Members of the Council. One of these would be the senior military officer in command, and he was not an official who would necessarily be at the bidding and order of the Governor. Indeed, the senior military officer was a thoroughly independent man, and just as likely to take a view contrary to that of the Government as favourable to it. There would be 4 ex officio Members, and then there would also be certain other nominated Members. These nominated Members were not to exceed 9 in number, at the option of the Governor; and he might say that Sir Henry Norman, than whom a better man could hardly be found, was naturally anxious to give the largest possible interpretation to the instructions which the Government gave him, and he was determined not to appoint more than 6 official Members at first, and it was hoped that it would never be necessary to appoint more. Sir Henry Norman was authorized to appoint 9; but he was not going to appoint more than 6. There would be, it was true, 7 at first; but that was because there was a person already

  717
  there who would be retained; but when a vacancy took place it would not be filled up; and, therefore, there would in future be not more than 6, so as to insure that there should not be a majority of official Members. The nominated Members would form the official side, and then there would be the elected side. There would be 9 elected Members, and the franchise would be a much lower one than under the old form. The franchise had been recommended to the Government by the Royal Commissioners —all of them residents in Jamaica—and the franchise which had been adopted on their recommendation was one that would give about 15,000 electors.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY, continuing his remarks, said, the 9 elected Members would be chosen by an electorate of 15,000. They would not be elected by counties. His hon. and learned Friend behind him had amused himself by laughing at the geographical knowledge of the Colonial Office for adopting counties; but it was not they, but the Royal and Resident Commissioners, who had adopted election by counties. However, the Government had overruled that, and agreed that it would not be satisfactory to take counties, the population of which was so unequally distributed that it would not be at all a good arrangement. Nine districts would be taken without breaking up any parishes—in some cases they would be single parishes—and each of these nine districts would send one Member. He now came to the important matter of the powers of these elected Members. It would be embodied in the Order in Council, and not merely confined to the instructions given to the Governor, that whenever 6 of the elected Members should be united in opposing the passing of any law or Resolution affecting taxation or finance, they should have their way, and the official majority should not be employed to overpower them, except in any case where the Governor might consider and declare that the matter was of paramount importance to public or Imperial interests, and might so report to the Home Government. The same rule would apply to Ordinances apart from, finance—the Governor would be directed by instruc-
  718
  tions, not embodied in the Order in. Council, but contained in a document sent side by side with it, and kept on record that wherever the elected Members were united on a question of legislation, the official Members should not be employed to form an adverse majority unless he felt himself in a position to come forward and publicly state that it was a matter of absolute Imperial and paramount public importance. Now, that was not a sham concession; it was a real and vital concession, because nobody could pretend for one moment that the Secretary of State would send out to Jamaica, or that a man of the character of the Governor would desire to carry out an arbitrary act by defining a matter of genuine local concern only as a matter of paramount public importance. If such a thing were ever to be attempted, this House would take care that such an attempt was not successful. The fact of having to go through such a form—of having to make a declaration of this sort—was absolutely a check upon the Governor. It was clear that the Governor would not use the power of putting in operation the official vote in a matter where he had to make so solemn a declaration, unless he felt himself absolutely compelled by circumstances to do so. He (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) believed he was right in asserting that this scheme formed a distinct move in the direction of restoring control over their own affairs to the people of Jamaica. It would be a very great mistake to take too large and sudden a step all at once; and he believed it would also be a very great mistake at present to enlarge the numbers, as had been suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. If the people of the Island had a majority in the elected Members, there was no good to be got by increasing the number to 14; whereas the experience of former periods had shown the difficulty of finding efficient and proper men to fill the places. He cordially agreed with the eloquent peroration of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon), that the people of Jamaica had proved their loyalty on many occasions, and he only hoped that they would now prove their common sense, which had also been proved already in many cases, and would see that this was a scheme which, if honestly worked, as it would be, would give them, for the present, a very con-

  719
  siderable and a very important advance in the control and management of their own local affairs.
  MR. WODEHOUSEsaid, that as the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had made a pointed reference to him, he hoped he might be allowed to contribute a few words to the discussion. So far was he from agreeing with those who condemned the Government for the insufficiency of their concessions to the demands of the Jamaica Memorialists, that he was more inclined to wish that the Government had been somewhat less yielding to those demands. The substitution of elected Members of the Legislative Council for nominees of the Crown had been spoken of as an insignificant and unsubstantial concession; but it was the grant to Jamaica of a privilege not possessed by Colonies of such importance as Ceylon, Hong Kong, the Mauritius, the Straits Settlements, and Trinidad. Trinidad, which had always been a pure Crown Colony, was second to none among the West Indian Colonies for good government, progress, and general contentment. If, then, Trinidad, Ceylon, and the other Colonies which he had named could flourish and be content as Crown Colonies, why should not Jamaica? To listen to some of the speeches which had been delivered that night about the ancient Representative Institutions of Jamaica, one might suppose that there was some innate superiority in the people of that Colony; but those Representative Institutions were a mere accident of history. He would explain what he meant. During the 17th and 18th centuries, down to the time of the War of American Independence, England freely granted Representative Institutions to all her Colonies, even to the smallest of them. So long as she retained a strict monopoly of their trade, she granted them the fullest measure of self-government, and was indifferent to the cruelties they practised on aboriginal races. But after the War of American Independence, and when the conscience of England had been awakened about the treatment of barbarous races, she was no longer willing to leave such large powers in the hands of Colonists. Jamaica, being a Colony of ancient foundation, acquired her complete Representative Institutions as a matter of course, in common with, much smaller Colonies. The existence, therefore, of ancient Re-
  720
  presentative Institutions was no proof of superiority. The old Colonies were in no degree better than our more recent acquisitions, such as Ceylon and Trinidad. A great deal had been said in condemnation of Crown Government, and it had been unfavourably contrasted with the former Government of Jamaica; but with regard to that ancient Constitution, which disappeared in 1866, he would only ask hon. Members to read the debates which took place in both Houses of Parliament on the Jamaica Government Bill of 1866. Not a voice was lifted in any quarter of either House of Parliament to utter a single friendly word for that Constitution—from Whig and Tory alike there was an unanimous chorus of unmitigated condemnation. Secretaries of State and ex-Secretaries and private Members, who knew the West Indies well, united to declare that the Constitution had lived too long, because it had only lived to be the curse and bane of the Colony, and that the only act of real wisdom which illuminated its long career was the act by which it put an end to its own mischievous existence. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had referred to some remarks of his (Mr. Wodehouse) as to the composition of the Jamaica House of Assembly previous to its extinction. If he had unwittingly exaggerated the extent to which that House was composed of Black or Coloured men, he regretted his error; but, whatever might have been the predominant hue and complexion of its Members, that Assembly bore an evil name throughout the West Indies for disorder and gross mismanagement of Public Business. However, it might be said that there was no question now of restoring the old Constitution, and that all that was asked for was such an increase of the elective element in the Council as would give them a majority over the official element. He trusted that no such concession would be made. Let them suffer the elected Members to have a majority in the Council, and then, while they would leave them free from all real responsibility as to the consequences of the votes they might give, they would arm them with the power of obstructing and paralyzing the whole administration of the Island. Of all Colonial Constitutions, the worst and most prolific of trouble were those intermediate Constitutions, which had neither

  721
  the strength of pure Crown Institutions, nor of what was called Responsible Government—that was, Constitutions in which controlling power was dissociated from, true responsibility. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) had said, a little while ago, that if the new scheme of Government was found on trial to give an inadequate measure of control to the popular element in the Legislature, there would be no reluctance in the Colonial Office to reconsider it; and he added that it was of the utmost importance that, in the meantime, all parties should combine to give the scheme a fair trial. But when the hon. Gentleman himself thus held out the expectation of readiness on his part to re-open the question, he might rest assured that the scheme would not have a fair trial. Similar language had been addressed to the Transvaal Boers, in regard to the Pretoria Convention, when it first came into operation, and the House knew what sort of a trial that Convention had had, and what its fate had been. He (Mr. Wodehouse) anticipated a continuance of what was called "Constitutional agitation" in Jamaica; and, for his own part, he believed that there was no Colony in which the Government should make concessions to agitation with more care and circumspection than in the Colony of Jamaica. Agitation was an old story there; and he hoped the Government would be slow to surrender an effective control over the affairs of the Island. Lord Derby had told a deputation introduced to him by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Price) that the proximity of Jamaica to the United States was a reason why stringent Imperial control over the Island should be only provisional and transitory; but he (Mr. Wodehouse) should have thought that the proximity of the United States rather pointed to an opposite conclusion. Jamaica was so situated that it might easily become the scene, or the occasion, of international complications; and when the Canal through the Isthmus of Panama was constructed, the importance of the geographical position of the Island would be greater than it was at the present time. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had spoken of the patriotism of the unofficial Members of the Council who had resigned their
  722
  offices in connection with the Florence case. He (Mr. Wodehouse) believed that one of those gentlemen, Mr. Michael Solomon, was in this country the year before last; and on his way home through the United States he was reported to have expressed to New York journalists the opinion that the real solution of the troubles of Jamaica was to be found in the annexation of the Island to the United States. He (Mr. Wodehouse) could not pretend to vouch for the accuracy and authenticity of that statement, which he had read in The Pall Mall Gazette; but if it were correct, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite might form his own estimate of the depth and fervour of the Imperial patriotism of the gentleman in question. As he had said, he did not vouch for the authenticity of the report; but, be that as it might, he maintained that, whether they looked at the past, the present, or the future of Jamaica, there was every reason why Her Majesty's Government should not be too ready to yield to the clamour of agitation there, and why the House should not hastily approve such views as those which had been advanced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he asked the indulgence of the House while he said a word in defence of an absent man. [Cries of "No, no!" and "Hear, hear!"] He had no right to address the House again, and could only do it by the indulgence of hon. Members. A most serious charge had been made against a gentleman whom he had the honour to know—Mr. Michael Solomon. When that gentleman was in England two years ago, which was the time referred to, he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had a conversation with him respecting Representative Government in Jamaica; and, speaking of the franchise, he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) remarked— "You will be obliged to have a large and a widely extended franchise; what do you say to that?" In reply, Mr. Solomon made this observation. He said—"Every shilling I have in the world is in Jamaica. I would risk all, and have universal suffrage, rather than live under such a system as the present." Mr. Solomon, then, he thought, was not the kind of man who would be likely to express such a sentiment as that which had just been attributed to him.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, he did not wish to prolong the discussion at that hour of the night; and he merely rose for the purpose of saying that he was extremely sorry that the Forms and Regulations of the House would not allow a Division to be taken on a Motion advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price); because, if a Division could have been taken, it would have afforded him (Mr. Redmond), and many hon. Members who sat near him in that quarter of the House, much pleasure to have gone into the Division Lobby and supported the Resolution of which Notice had been given. They would have done so, because this question was one that involved the principle of self-government, the principle he (Mr. Redmond) and hon. Gentlemen with whom he sat were charged to support, not only in the case of their own country, but in the case of people all over the world who were asking that right. What was the state of the case as to Jamaica? Why, some 17 years ago the Representative Government of that Colony was abolished. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) had made a very strong point of the fact that the Representative Assembly of Jamaica was abolished by the almost unanimous vote of that Assembly itself. But the hon. Gentleman had completely nullified that statement by going on to say distinctly that that Assembly was one which did not possess the confidence of the people of Jamaica; and he had also gone on to show that the old Body, which abolished itself by its own vote, did not, as a matter of fact, represent the people of Jamaica, but merely some 1,700 voters. The House therefore saw that, in abolishing itself, the Assembly was not speaking on behalf of Jamaica, but simply on behalf of some 1,700 people who had the right of voting for the Assembly. That brought them to the conclusion that the majority of the people of Jamaica had never surrendered the right which had been theirs to some extent in the past, and which ought to be theirs again—namely, the right of self-government and the guiding of the destinies of their own country. The hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Wodehouse) seemed to have a decided objection to any Black or Coloured persons occupying a position in any Legislative Assem-
  724
  bly. Well, in many respects, Black people were defective; but, at any rate, they were not defective in the love of liberty—a quality which appeared to be not yet born in the breast of the hon. Gentleman.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after One o' clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading —Marriages Legalisation (Wood Green Congregational Church) * (66); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* (68); Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order (Dundalk Waterworks)* (69); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders* (70).
EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— RELIEF OF BERBER AND KHARTOUM.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of putting a Question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether Her Majesty's Government have arrived at any resolution as to the steps that should be taken for the relief of Berber, and for securing the safety of General Gordon at Khartoum? The Question is almost identically the same as that which I put yesterday, and I wish to disclaim either any design of discourtesy to the noble Earl (Earl Granville) or desire to disregard the Rules of the House by putting it then without Notice. It struck me at the time that this was a matter of very general interest; and I thought, possibly, some information
  600
  could be given which would have been satisfactory to this House. I am not sure that I was not to some extent justified in this course, because on referring this morning to the usual channels of information that action has been foreshadowed "elsewhere," which, if confirmed, will lend increased value to any communication that may be made by the noble Earl. I take it that we have it now as a matter of fact that Her Majesty's Government recognize that there is extreme danger at Berber; and if in the interest of the public service it is not considered desirable to enter into details, I will not, under the circumstances, unduly press the noble Earl; but what I and others feel is this—that, if it were possible, we should like to know what the actual danger is at Berber at this moment; whether it is a danger of so grave a nature that it requires to be dealt with immediately, or whether it is one which will allow the Government time to consider what course they will take; and I should like, in the latter event, to know how soon the noble Earl thinks he will be able to make some announcement with regard to the intentions of the Government on the subject? Then with regard to Khartoum. Here I come to what I consider to be the very important admission which the Government have made to the country. There are two statements in the papers this morning; one is that, in the opinion of the Government, General Gordon is in perfect safety at Khartoum, and the other is that Mr. Power is in very considerable peril in the same place and at the same time. These two statements cannot be reconciled. We are also told that Her Majesty's Government thoroughly recognize the obligations they are under for General Gordon's safety, and that, recognizing it, it is their duty to put themselves in a position to discharge it should the occasion arise. To anybody with a certain amount of common sense who reads these words, they must appear to foreshadow some action; and I am. at a loss to know whether, when Her Majesty's Government have undertaken the responsibility which I assume they have undertaken from these words, how that responsibility will be increased by giving the public information as to what they intend to do; and I also believe a statement of what they intend

  601
  to do will have a very great effect in. bettering the position of General Gordon, and also the position of the garrison at Khartoum. I would also like to ask the noble Earl another Question. I see in The Morning Post to-day a telegram which states that at an extraordinary Cabinet Council held yesterday at Cairo, a resolution was adopted declaring that the immediate despatch of an expedition to Upper Egypt was imperatively necessary, and that Nubar Pasha had been instructed to communicate that resolution to Her Majesty's Government. I wish to know whether anything of the sort has been done; and whether the noble Earl is able to inform us what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take with regard to that expedition?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for having given me Notice this morning of his intention to put this Question. I am quite sure that, being a good Conservative, he will be satisfied in conducting the Business of the House in a regular way. I can quite understand the great anxiety and curiosity that the noble Earl feels on this subject, and which is not peculiar to himself, but is common to all your Lordships. The noble Earl speaks of the responsibility which we have undertaken; but we are also under responsibility in regard to the answers which we give to Questions put to us. I do not think I have much to add to the answer which I gave the other day to almost the same Question put by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) who sits on the front Benches opposite. With regard to Berber, our information is that it is in immediate danger; but I cannot go beyond what the Prime Minister said not many hours ago, that we have received communications from Berber, and have replied to them. As far as Khartoum is concerned, I am really not aware that "elsewhere" anything more was said than I said on Tuesday, when I stated, in the strongest manner possible, the obligations under which Her Majesty's Government felt themselves to be, in common with the country, in regard to the safety of General Gordon. That acknowledgment of obligations involves the responsibility of carrying out the duties imposed by those obligations; but I am not prepared to give the noble Earl any further infor-
  602
  mation on the point which has been raised by the noble Earl, though he has said something new. The noble Earl has said that he learnt something new yesterday—namely, that though I said I did not consider Khartoum or General Gordon in military danger, Members of the Government in the other House were of a very different opinion in consequence of the intimation we had given to Mr. Power. But this intimation was given very nearly a month before General Gordon had left this country. His position is not different now from what it was then. Is it to be held, because we said we believed there is no military danger to General Gordon at this moment, that we are insensible as to his position, and feel no interest or sympathy with him? It has been a consolation to me this afternoon to have had a conversation with that very distinguished man, Sir Henry Gordon, who repeated to me what he had said before—that he believes his brother is in no military danger at Khartoum, whatever cause of danger might exist elsewhere. He read to me a letter from his brother, dated the 12th or 15th of March, in which General Gordon said he should be more powerful two months hence, when the waters of the Nile began to rise, than he was two months ago. I am sorry I cannot give the noble Earl more information; but the noble Earl will probably appreciate the feeling that there are responsibilities under which Her Majesty's Government believe that they ought not to say at any moment exactly what they will or what they will not do.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it is not my intention to press the noble Earl, after his last declaration, on any matter connected with the intentions of Her Majesty's Government; but I wish to make one observation with respect to the mode in which he received the Question of my noble Friend last night. The noble Earl stated that it was the uniform practice of this House that Notice, public or private, should be given of Questions which it was intended to put in this House. I will not attempt to traverse his opinion in that respect, his experience in this House having been so much larger than my own; but I desire to call attention to the difference between the conduct of the Government in the other House and that in this

  603
  House. In the other House Questions are constantly put to Ministers on the spur of the moment, and they are not disposed of in the cavalier manner which has been adopted by the noble Earl in this House. Some answer is almost always given. It may, of course, be in. the public interest that answers should not be given to Questions such as that of the noble Earl, especially without Notice; but I think I am right in calling attention to the curt and—if I may use the word in this House—the snubbing rejoinder that no information can be given unless Notice is given beforehand, is not the manner in which the Government receive Questions in the other House put at a time of crisis like this, with respect to which the interest of all Her Majesty's subjects is urgent and extreme. I think the noble Earl presses the tradition and practice of your Lordships' House too far, and that he might have given information in this House which is not refused in the other. I can only explain the noble Earl's conduct in one way—he has been embarrassed by the somewhat effusive language of the Prime Minister in the other House, and thinks it necessary to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said before giving an answer himself. That is a position which I can easily understand; but I think he exposes his apprehensions in too nude a manner.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, although it is irregular, I must ask to be allowed to say a few words in reply to what has been said by the noble Marquess. I have been a great many years a Member of this House, and have long held official and semi-official positions; but this is the first time I have been accused of want of respect to your Lordships' House. Without regard to the differing practices in the two Houses, one thing is quite clear, and that is, that yesterday, in regard to the chief Questions put in the other House of Parliament, Notice, either public or private, had been given; and I cannot conceive that anyone should have thought it necessary to make an innovation here. I put it to the noble Marquess himself, who has had so much experience, whether there is any possible advantage, either to this House, to the Government, or to the public, that noble Lords, having Questions to put to Ministers in regard to which they must have made
  604
  up their minds in the course of the day, should jump up at the very last moment, and I am sure without the slightest intention of doing so, taking by surprise the Minister to whom the Question is addressed. I believe the tradition of this House is an excellent one, and one which should be acted upon; and, as far as I am concerned, I shall try to adhere to it, whether in Government or in Opposition. If the noble Marquess likes to break this rule, of course, he can do so; but I do not mean to be deterred by any taunts of his from reserving to myself the right to have some Notice given of very important International Questions before they are put to me.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL
  ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H. L.] (NO. 68.) A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under the Elementary Education Act, 1870, to enable the School Board for London to put in force the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending the same: And
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (DUNDALK WATERWORKS) BILL [H. L.] (NO. 69.) A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Waterworks in the town of Dundalk:
  Were presented by The LORD MONSON; read 1a

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Aldborough, Baltimore and Skibbereen, Carlingford Lough, Chatham, Cromer, Cullen, Dawlish, Eyemouth, Fraserburgh, Hove, and Newlyn—Was presented by The Lord SUDELEY; read 1a. (No. 70.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.