Sitting of 26 June 1884

MINUTES.
PRIVATE Bins (by Order)— Third Reading—London, Chatham, and Dover Railway (Further Powers) *; Plymouth, Devonport, and District Tramways *.
Considered as amended—Lea Bridge, Leyton, and Walthamstow Tramways Extensions *; Uxbridge and. Rickmansworth Railway.*
Second Reading—Manchester Ship Canal.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Personal Estate (Scotland) * [262]; Naval Discipline Act (1866) Amendment * [263].
Second Readinq — Medical Act Amendment [207]; Criminal Lunatics [256]: Colonial Prisoners Removal [267]; Public Health Acts Amendment * [113]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [109], debate further adjourned.
Select Committee—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [211], Mr. George Elliot, disch.; Viscount Folkestone, added.
Committee—Report—Elections (Hours of Poll) (on re-comm.) [97–261]: Revision of Jurors and Voters Lists (Dublin County) [124]; Colonial Attorneys Relief Act Amendment * [228].
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 4) * [202]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers' Act) (No. 7) * [235]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) * [212]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) * [241]: Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) * [242]; Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 14)* [243]; Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 15) * [246]; Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order* [233]; Representation of the People [260], nem. con., Licensing Act (1872) Amendment,* [248], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL (Lords) (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I must ask the permission of the House to make a few remarks on this very important Bill at the present stage. I feel it incumbent on me to give expression to the feeling of alarm which it has excited in the great constituency I represent, and whose interests are materially connected with the Bill. I must apologize to the House for raising the question at this somewhat unusual time; but that is no fault of ours. We entertain the strongest feeling in the matter; and we have either to use the present opportunity of giving expression to that strong feeling or to forfeit entirely all opportunities in the House itself. I trust, therefore, that the House will bear with me while I go over some of the grounds why I feel extremely anxious that this Bill should not be passed. I wish the House to understand that this is not a question of competition in the matter of trade as between one town and another. We have no jealousy or feeling of rivalry with Manchester or any town in Lancashire, and I will not trouble the House on this occasion with any question of competition. The question is much deeper and more vital to Liverpool and the vast population living on the banks of the Mersey. It is the opinion of the best authorities in our town and neighbourhood, who have studied the navigation of the Mersey for a lifetime, that the works proposed to be laid down by the Canal Company, in the Upper Estuary of the Mersey, will probably lead to the silting up of the river and the destruction of its navigation. That is the sole reason why we now ask the, House to give its attention to the Bill before assenting to the second reading. Perhaps the House will allow me to explain the character of the Estuary of the Mersey, and how it may be affected by the present Bill as a navigable river. The Mersey, after passing Liverpool,

    1373
    expands into a sort of inland bay or gulf—a large sheet of water, 10 miles long by three vide, with shallows and sandbanks over the greater part of it. This bay is filled by an enormous tidal wave and emptied out again, twice daily the result being an immense scour, which keeps open the deep channel in front of Liverpool right down to the sea, notwithstanding the existence of sandbanks, extending for 10 miles or so, at the mouth of the harbour. The very existence of our port depends on this scour, which keeps open the navigable channel; and anything which seriously diminishes it must result in the gradual silting up of the Mersey and the destruction of the port, which is the only great harbour in the North-West of England, with a deep water approach from the sea. All along the North-West Coast there is a line of sandbanks, and the Mersey is the only river which has sufficient power to drive through those sandbanks so as to make a deep channel to the sea, and that power depends on the large mass of water in the upper estuary that passes in and out at every tide. We believe that the effect of putting down the training walls in the upper estuary of the Mersey, which this Company proposes to do, will sooner or later lead to the silting up of that large bay or gulf, whose waters produce the scour which keeps open the channel. This is not only the unanimous opinion of all competent observers who live on the banks of the Mersey, and whose business it has been to watch the navigation of the Mersey, but of the ablest engineers both in England and America; and perhaps the House will allow me to give the opinion of two of the ablest engineers living. Mr. Eades, a great American engineer, says—
    "I am certain, if the proposed works in the Tipper Estuary are carried out, very serious and injurious results would follow both to the entrance over the bar and the entrance to the Liverpool Docks."
    Another engineer, one of the greatest authorities in England as a river engineer, Mr. Thomas Stevenson, says—
    "I have no doubt whatever that the whole Estuary of the Mersey would be silted up and be covered by grass. Upon no account should walls be put up in the estuary. I say that it would be most costly; and decidedly I think it would lead to something like a national calamity."
    The leading engineers, on behalf of the promoters, do not dispute that view, but
    1374
    say it lies with Liverpool to keep open her passage to the Atlantic. We have great reason for suspecting that if these works, in the Upper Estuary of the Mersey, which are now projected, are carried out, what has happened at Chester will happen at Liverpool. Chester, at one time, had a navigable channel, which is now closed up; and, with that and like experiences elsewhere, we have too much reason to fear that when the ultimate consequences of these works come to be realized, we shall see the same result at Liverpool—the gradual and steady closing up of the passage. I think I have now put before the House sufficient reason for asking it to regard with great caution, and even aversion, any measure that would seriously tamper with the navigability of the Mersey. Has the House realized to itself what the closing of the Mersey means? Should the views of the best authorities, to whom I have referred, be correct, it would be a sentence of banishment to the 800,000 people who live within five miles of the Liverpool Exchange. They would have to disperse, and seek their living elsewhere; and all the immense capital expended on the banks of the Mersey would be rendered valueless. Will the House allow me to remind them that the Liverpool Docks have been constructed at an enormous cost; that the management of the Dock Trust is a national affair; and that everything which imperils the future action of the Dock Board must be most disastrous. No less than £16,000,000 have been borrowed on the security of our Docks; Liverpool Dock Bonds form one of the favourite investments of the country; and if anything is done to obstruct the channel of the Mersey, the whole of that £16,000,000 may be lost. But I say that is a small and a trifling matter compared with the ultimate consequences, for you would not only destroy Liverpool and all the surrounding towns, but you would destroy the prosperity of all the Lancashire towns whose outlet is by the Mersey. It is impossible to realize the financial and commercial consequences of any action which will put an end to the navigable channel of the Mersey. There would be a loss to this country of of little less than the amount of the National Debt. In my opinion, it is a more important matter than the Channel Tunnel, or than any other question that has ever come before the House in a

    1375
    Private Bill; and it would be wrong indeed if the utmost attention of the House and the country were not given to this Bill before it passes into law. Let me ask what are the advantages that would be gained by the proposed Ship Canal to counterbalance these great risks? They are extremely slight and problematical even to the trade of Manchester itself. Many of us do not believe that under any circumstances will the Canal be a success. Even on their own showing, the gain will be only 4s. a-ton on a fraction of the goods passing through Liverpool. Even in Manchester itself, to my own personal knowledge, there is a large body of public opinion—the most intelligent opinion I know of—opposed to this Canal, regarding it as a dangerous scheme; and, I repeat, Manchester itself, speaking through, its most representative commercial men, is very much divided in opinion on this subject. It will be said, in reply, that there are other engineers to be found in the country who think differently from those I have mentioned, and who imagine that, by means of dredging, and training walls, and one plan or another, it will be possible to keep open the Mersey. The answer I give is, is it right to stake a matter of such immense importance on the conflicting testimony of experts? Everyone knows that professional men, on almost every subject, can be got to give diametrically opposite opinions. I I say, then, is it fair that works which involve the existence of the greatest seaport in the world, and the greatest trade and commerce in the world, should depend on the mere opinions of experts? I say it is monstrous that such dangerous works should be undertaken unless there is a moral certainty that they will be successful. I will just say, in conclusion, that the Canal Company have it in their power to release us from this immense anxiety. They have it in their own power to effect their scheme by carrying the proposed Canal to deep sea water. If they choose to change the route by 10 or 15 miles along either shore of the Estuary, they would escape from the necessity of tampering with the navigation of the Mersey; and I trust the House, before sanctioning the Bill, will make it an absolute condition that this rectification should be carried out, and that on no other condition will they sanction this dangerous work.
    1376
    I will not ask the House to reject the Bill; but on behalf of the enormous interests involved—interests which may be calculated by hundreds of millions sterling—I ask that the strongest Committee possible should be appointed, a Committee containing the best engineering talent that can be found in this House; and I will further ask that the House itself should follow the evidence given before this Committee with much care, because we are determined to fight the Bill to the last, should it unhappily pass another stage in this House. We regard the matter simply as one of life or death, and fraught with the deepest interest to the national welfare, and we should not be discharging our duty, either to our constituents or to the country at large, if we did not use every opportunity of throwing out the Bill, unless such changes are made in it as will deprive it of its terrible risks to the navigation of the Mersey. I will not occupy the time of hon. Members further, and I thank the House for the attention with which it has listened to me.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHT: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) has been well advised when he determined not to divide the House on this question. It would be an extraordinary thing if any obstruction were to be placed in the way of the Bill at this stage, seeing that a Committee of the House of Commons, last year, presided over by the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Sir Thomas Bailey), passed the Bill unanimously; and seeing that a very strong Committee, and one of the most Conservative Committees it was possible to appoint, in the House of Lords, passed the Bill this year. Under these circumstances, it would be unprecedented if any obstruction took place at this stage. I shall not be tempted at this moment — indeed, it is quite unnecessary that I should — to reply to the expressions of alarm of my hon. Friend, or to what he says with regard to engineering matters. He has quoted two or three engineers. I could, if I chose, quote a dozen on the other side, and men of much greater practical experience in these questions than those he has mentioned. But, surely, if the alarm felt by my hon. Friend was not entertained by the Committee of this House last year, and was held to be groundless this year by the House of

    1377
    Lords, it is clear that neither House of Parliament apprehends the risk of any damage to the Port of Liverpool. Now, all over Lancashire—in Manchester and Salford, and elsewhere—we have precisely the same interest in the security of the Mersey as those have who are represented by my hon. Friend; and we have come to the conclusion that the Mersey is not secure so long as it is in the hands of Liverpool alone. I will mention one fact to the House. Within living memory there were 17 feet of water on the bar at Liverpool during low water; there are now only nine feet at low water. The Port of Liverpool might be made a much more available port than it is; and we believe that, with the concurrence of Manchester, that bar might be removed, and that you might have a good harbour of refuge at Liverpool, instead of having large vessels lying outside, in all weathers, unable to enter the Mersey. With regard to the docks of Liverpool, the whole system there is of the most antiquated character possible. It will scarcely be believed that we have no railway communication with those docks, and that there is only one of the many Liverpool docks that has railway communication with the town of Liverpool. Mr. Moon, Chairman of the London and North-Western Railway, has publicly stated that Liverpool is the dearest port in this country, and that she adopts none of those modern means that ought to be adopted for handling goods and facilitating the transaction of business. The feeling in Manchester, Salford, Oldham, Ashton, Stockport, and all the neighbouring towns is wide, deep, and strong in favour of this scheme. It has not been taken up suddenly. It is an opinion which it has taken two or three years to form; and only last Saturday there was a gathering of 50,000 men in the neighbourhood of Manchester, not with a view of impressing the Committee of this House, but of simply expressing their appreciation of the efforts of the Provisional Committee who have been actively promoting this Bill. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend in his desire to have a strong Committee, for the more intelligent and the more able it is the better we shall like it. We have complete confidence that the more able the Committee the more certain it will be that the Bill will be accepted.
    MR. HOULDSWORTH: After the very strong language used by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith), I was rather surprised at the very lame conclusion at which he deemed it prudent to arrive; for I agree with my hon. Colleague who sits on the other side of the House in the conviction that it is the desire of those who are promoting this canal, and who sympathize with that movement, that there should be a thorough and sifting investigation by Parliament into all the merits of the case. But we have to consider, on the second reading, whether there is such a primâ facie case for the Bill that it should be allowed to go to a Committee upstairs. I venture to think that I have only to state to the House one fact to prove that proposition, that there is a strong primâ facie case. Hon. Members will be astonished, I think, when I tell them that of the charges which are imposed in order to carry goods from Manchester to Calcutta, one-half, or not less than 60 per cent, is involved in carrying the goods from Manchester and placing them on board ship at Liverpool. I think that fact is quite sufficient to show that there is a strong primâ facie case for the inhabitants of Manchester, and those other districts in Lancashire whose business is bound up with those of Manchester. Parliament ought to encourage rather than discourage any efforts that may be made to alter such a state of things, which the House will see must affect injuriously the large commerce not only of this country, but of all the world. I recognize fully the right of Liverpool, placed as it has been on the Mersey, that they should look jealously at this proposal, and ask Parliament to look carefully into the effect the proposed works would have upon the navigation of the Mersey. That is not only their right. It is their duty. But I would venture to remind the House' that this is not the first time this Bill has come into Parliament. It has already passed through the sifting of two very important and large Committees. It seems to me that the questions raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) are questions which the House, as a whole, cannot deal with, and that they are eminently questions which should be dealt with by a Committee upstairs. The hon. Member has said

    1379
    that experts may be found to give an opinion on any side whatever. But I would ask whether, if that be so, it is for us to give a verdict upon the subjects on which these experts have been called to give evidence. I ask the House to allow this Bill to go upstairs, where it may be thoroughly sifted. It is a question in which the people of Manchester, and not only of Manchester, but all those commercial towns of which Manchester is the centre, take a very deep interest. I believe myself that in the success of this scheme—and there are difficulties connected with it with which Parliament has nothing to do—but I believe that in the success of this scheme the future of the commercial interests and welfare of this country is very much bound up.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I will only detain the House for one or two minutes; but there is a community which I have the honour to represent which is proportionately even more interested in this Bill than the City of Manchester. I beg leave to say one word as to the course which the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) has taken—for it is a most extraordinary course—upon this occasion. He had laid before the House some portion of the evidence taken before the Committee of the House, and he has, therefore, invited us to follow his example, and to bring forward evidence on the other side. That invitation I shall decline. I shall not follow the bad example of bringing forward evidence on the other side. My hon. Friend has acted in a most unfortunate manner for the interests of those he represents. He has called attention to the fact that this Bill has already received the approval not only of a Committee of this House, but of a Committee of the House of Lords, and he has confessed that he is either unable or unwilling to proceed to a Division. I may remind the hon. Member and his constituents that this House is situated upon a river equally famous with the Mersey, and from the windows of this House anyone may see that the Thames has been embanked within training walls, and the estuary of the Thames has received in consequence no damage, but rather advantage from the greater scour of the river. I think the hon. Member has no right to offer to the House expressions of undying opposition to the Bill,
    1380
    unless he is prepared to proceed to a Division. I challenge him to take a Division on this question, in order to mark his thorough opposition to the measure. I know he is a sincere man. I hope he will on this occasion give effect to his sincerity, and I challenge him now to divide the House against the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. RATHBONE: I will not detain the House long. I wish only to make a remark in regard to what has been said —that this Bill has passed a Committee of this House, and has also passed a Committee of the House of Lords. With regard to the Committee of this House, my hon. Friends have not stated that the Bill was passed with a very stringent provision as to the carrying out successfully of a very large part of the work. The Committee of the House of Lords debated the matter for two hours before they allowed it to pass. Therefore, I do not think that this reference to the Committees at all settles the question. I wish, however, to put the matter before the House on its right footing. Liverpool has never objected to a ship canal, if a ship canal could be got which would not interfere with the estuary of the Mersey, and which would, at the same time, reduce the charges of the Railway Companies. It is quite possible that a ship canal, which would have that result, would benefit Liverpool as well as Manchester. I am not surprised that this is a popular question in Manchester. But my hon. Friend knows that a very large proportion of those interested in the Port of Liverpool consider that this Bill is a dangerous one, and that among the capitalists of Manchester there are many who consider with us that this Bill is a dangerous one. I have been in business on the Mersey for 40 years; and during the whole of that time the effect of natural causes has kept free for us the entrance to the Mersey, so that ships of the largest burden can cross the bar. What we fear is, that if these natural causes are disturbed and interfered with there will be much reason to dread that the freedom of the channel may be jeopardized. If that should happen, the interests of Liverpool and Manchester will be damaged alike. Anyone who will take the trouble to read the evidence, as it has been given before the two Committees, will see that it is most contradictory, and that the preponderance and

    1381
    balance of evidence is that you will be incurring a tremendous danger by passing this Bill of creating fresh sandbanks; and certainly the simple assertion of my hon. Friends that there will be no danger does not prove their case. The great difficulty is the creation of these fresh sandbanks; and it ought to be proved unmistakably that there is no risk of the Mersey being silted up by the passing of this measure, before so dangerous a measure receives the sanction either of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords. We do hope, as my hon. Friend has said, that the House will not only give us a very strong Committee, but will watch the evidence given before that Committee.
    MR. SLAGG: My hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) has reminded the House that when this Bill was before the Committee of the House of Commons last year some very stringent restrictions were imposed with regard to the estuary. I may remind my hon. Friend and the House that in the Bill before the House last year the question of the estuary was not included. It was, in fact, a very imperfect Bill. It was on account of the imperfections of the Bill, and that it entirely failed to deal with the estuary of the Mersey, that the restrictions referred to by my hon. Friend were imposed. I may notice that the present Bill is a totally different Bill in that respect. It is very much more complete, and deals fully with the estuary question. My hon. Friend has declared that this is not a matter which has evoked much popular enthusiasm. I beg to say that he is entirely mistaken. The enthusiasm of the popular sentiment with regard to this Canal Bill in Lancashire is more intense than it has been as respects any measure I ever remember. I cordially concur with the hon. Gentleman in his desire that we should have a very strong Committee to investigate the whole matter, and I have no fear whatever as to the result.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAY: I do not rise for the purpose of prolonging this discussion, but rather to ask the House whether it is necessary that it should be prolonged? The hon. Member who opened the debate, and who entered very largely into details upon the question, has not asked the House to refuse a second reading to the Bill. In my opinion, it
    1382
    would be quite impossible, with any regard and propriety, to decline to read the Bill a second time. The question has been so thoroughly investigated and passed by those who are so well adapted to inquire into these matters—and it has also been examined by a very strong Committee in "another place"—that we cannot stop the progress of the Bill. The Bill occupied the Committee of the other House in examining evidence 41 days, and that Committee gave their decision that the measure was a right and proper one to pass that House. It then came down here. Under these circumstances, and because the hon. Member has announced his intention not to divide the House, I think it is a pity that we should further waste the time of the House by discussing most important questions which can only be settled by a Committee upstairs. I admit that it is desirable to appoint a very strong Committee in order to hold the balance even between the apprehensions of Liverpool and the aspirations of Manchester. What I hope is, that when this Bill emerges from the Committee some of the fears which are now entertained by some hon. Members may have been dispelled. What I think both Liverpool and Manchester have a right to expect is that the Committee to be appointed to investigate this matter should be one in which the House can place entire confidence. Upon that subject I am not sure that the Committee of Selection should not go beyond the ordinary Panel in selecting the Committee. No doubt, whether the Members for Manchester or the Members for Liverpool are right—whether the American engineers are right, or the English engineers are right, in their view—the Bill involves questions of the greatest magnitude, for Liverpool and Manchester have a right to an assurance that the Bill, before it passes into law, should have the sanction of the most powerful Committee which can be obtained, and one which will have the entire confidence of the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Though it is perfectly true that the hon. Gentleman who initiated this discussion does not propose to divide upon this Bill, it is obvious that he does intend to influence public opinion by the debate he has raised in this House. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that a reply should

    1383
    be made to the remarks which he and the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) have made on this subject. The hon. Member for Carnarvonshire said it was a matter of notoriety that this Bill was only passed by the House of Lords Committee after considerable wavering on the part of two Members. I think, perhaps, the hon. Member was not in Order in making this statement; but since it has been made, I may be at liberty to make the further statement that it is equally a matter of notoriety that those two Members of the Committee did not hesitate upon a question of engineering, but only on the question whether the capital could be raised. The only question raised by the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire is, therefore, perfectly irrelevant to the issue now before us. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) is afraid that the Mersey will be, or may be, silted up, if this Bill is carried. Does he imagine that the whole of the rest of Lancashire are so suicidal in their tendencies that they actually desire such a result, or wish to destroy a port which is as necessary to their trade and to their prosperity as it is to the prosperity of Liverpool itself? The hon. Member for Liverpool may be wise in his generation; but it is too much to ask the House to believe that the rest of Lancashire are so ignorant of their own interests, or so grossly blind to them, that they actually desire to destroy the whole trade and Port of Liverpool under an illusory idea that the interests of Manchester may be served by so doing.
    SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY: I do not intend to say a word as to the controversy between Manchester and Liverpool; but after the appeal which has been made to me by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, and others, I beg to assure the House that, in consideration of the importance of this Bill both to Liverpool and Manchester, from the day that it passed through the Committee of the House of Lords, the Committee of Selection has been devoting its attention to the great object of forming the strongest possible tribunal to try this great question. I may say that the selection of Members will not be confined to any particular Panel or any particular side of the House. I communicated with the Chairman of the Committee on Railway
    1384
    and Canal Bills, with the idea of seeing whether they would object to giving us one of their strongest Members to take the chair. I hoped that a right hon. Gentleman who had been a Cabinet Minister would kindly undertake to act as Chairman. He has, unfortunately, been unable to do so; but I believe I have got another right hon. Gentleman who has filled a very high Office in a previous Government, and who commands the confidence of the House, to accept the post. The other Members will be Gentlemen of experience. The House will remember that we are now approaching the first week in July, and that it is not possible to press any Member whom we might think qualified to serve, too hard. At the same time, we shall do our best to find the strongest Committee, both in regard to Chairman and Members, that can be found.
    MR. WHITLET: I have been absent from the House for the last few days, and I was not aware of the course my hon. Colleague proposed to take in regard to this Bill. As far as I gather from my hon. Colleague, he does not wish to divide the House, because he does not wish the question to be prejudged. What he is anxious to secure is what my right hon. Friend behind me says will be secured—namely, a strong Committee. I am very sorry, and the whole of Liverpool will be very sorry, that this question should be discussed, as it seems likely it will be discussed, as a question between Liverpool and Manchester. There is no jealousy in Liverpool as regards Manchester; but our difficulty is simply that, which has been pointed out by my hon. Colleague, in regard to the estuary of the Mersey. We do entertain a very strong apprehension that the engineering works proposed may ultimately be injurious to the interests both of Liverpool and of the country generally. It must be borne in, mind that the conservators of the river—the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board— have no pecuniary interest in this matter, except as it affects the welfare of Liverpool and the whole county of Lancashire. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board are a National Board for conserving the National property, and all we desire is to have this question thoroughly sifted by a strong Committee. I must correct the statement of my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. A. J. Balfour) upon

    1385
    one point. I believe that the engineering difficulties did enter into the consideration of the noble Lords who dissented from the general finding of the Lords Committee, and it was the main difficulty. Be that as it may, we feel that our case is a good one, and that it ought to be considered by a strong Committee. I think the object of my hon. Colleague has been secured in having obtained from my hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, and my right hon. Friend behind me (Sir John R. Mowbray), an assurance that there shall be a strong Committee.
    MR. MAC IVER, who was received with cries of "Divide!" said: I shall not be deterred from what I have to say, and what I think it is right to say, about this Bill by cries of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House. One half of the Port of Liverpool is within my constituency, and therefore I claim a right to speak. I cannot help saying that I somewhat regret the course which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) has taken upon this occasion. We all know how important it is that there should be a strong Committee to consider this Bill. We all know that a question of this kind, with such vast and important interests involved, must receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Sir John R. Mowbray); but I cannot help feeling that the case of those who intend to oppose the Bill, as I do, has been somewhat prejudiced by the way in which it has been introduced by the hon. Member. The hon. Member has done something, however unintentionally, to prejudice the case of Liverpool by rousing afresh local jealousies between Liverpool and Manchester, and the district surrounding Manchester. Speaking for myself, and I believe for my constituents also, we should welcome a good water communication between Liverpool and Manchester. I as fully believe, as those who are in favour of the Bill, that if a ship canal to Manchester could be successfully made, it would be a benefit to the whole district, not excepting my own constituents at Birkenhead; and I believe that those who suppose such a canal would bring a disadvantage to Liverpool, are making a great mistake. But I want to say some-
    1386
    thing of my own knowledge. I know something—perhaps there are not many Members of the House, and certainly none on the other side of the House, who have had any opportunities of learning something—about the estuary of the Mersey. The way in which I have become acquainted with the channels there is this—all my life I have been connected with the shipping of the Port of Liverpool, and for many years I have been associated with the racing which takes place upon the river. I therefore know the channels of the Mersey well, and I am able to appreciate much of the scientific evidence which has been placed before the Committee. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) is labouring under an entire mistake when he says that there are only nine feet of water on the bar of the Mersey at low water. It would be impossible to hold our regattas, such as that which was held last week, if that were so. At the same time, I know that the channel of the Mersey requires the most careful attention, and must not be trifled with. In my yacht-racing days there were 14 feet of water on the bar of the Mersey at low water. It is about that now. I have known it more, and I have known it less. When I was a boy I have known parts of the Mersey, now dry, which were then navigable. I have seen the sea close to where I live changing year by year; and I do not believe that it is safe to try experiments with the great Port of Liverpool. On physical grounds I strongly oppose the Bill. Any possible advantage is most doubtful and so remote that it does not deserve consideration for one moment in comparison with the great question of the real dangers to the Port of Liverpool involved in the proposals of the Bill. Now, what does this Bill propose? It proposes, among other things, to put several million tons of stone into the Mersey. [Cries of "Agreed!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. MAC IVER: I am perfectly in Order, Sir; and I shall say what I have a right to say, in spite of the interruptions from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and whether they like it or not. Hon. Members opposite, and their friends who are promoting this Bill, propose to put several million tons of stone into the Mersey; and no person in the world, whe-

    1387
    ther he be an engineer or anybody else, knows what the effect will be. The common sense of hon. Members of this House—I am not referring to Gentlemen below the Gangway—but the common sense of hon. Members of this House will, I think, teach them this— that if it should so happen that the putting of all this stone into the Mersey should turn out to be a mistake, we could do nothing to remedy it. We could not take them out again. It is for reasons of this nature that I am as keen an opponent of the Bill as it is possible for any man to be. At the same time, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) has made a mistake in bringing the question before the House; because the remarks he has made may have a tendency to arouse feelings of jealousy between Manchester and Liverpool which, perhaps, do exist in some quarters, but which ought not to exist; because I believe that Manchester, and Lancashire generally, as well as Liverpool and Birkenhead, have the same interest in maintaining the channel of the Mersey in a navigable condition.
    MR. HICKS: I do not wish, on this occasion, to raise a question on the view put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, as to the power of this House to refuse the second reading of this Bill. But, having sat on a Committee last year, for the purpose of inquiring into the canal system of the country, and the way in which that system has been interfered with by recent legislation, I wish to express a hope that if the Committee to be appointed to consider the Bill should pass the Preamble of it, they will consider not merely the benefit which may be likely to accrue to the City of Manchester and the neighbourhood, but also the advantage which may be conferred on the country at large. I hope, further, that clauses will be introduced into the Bill for the purpose of securing a full and free interchange of traffic, upon fair terms, between this new canal and that system of railway which reaches from Manchester, by means of the parent of canals and other canals, into the Midland and the North-East districts of England. I certainly think that without some such provisions the canal, however beneficial it may be to Manchester,
    1388
    will not be a work of any great National importance.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND)—WATER SUPPLY—SWINEFORD UNION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a sworn inquiry was held into the state of the existing supply of water at Urlaur, in the Swineford Union, county Mayo, before replying to a question upon this subject about six weeks ago; whether the written statement of the sanitary officer, that ''water is inconvenient" was credited; and, whether the Local Government Board are now prepared to recommend the matter to the serious consideration of the present Sanitary Board; or, what steps they intend to make in order to secure a proper supply of water at Urlaur?
  MR. TREVELYAN: A sworn inquiry was not held in regard to the application for the erection of a pump at Urlaur, and there were not sufficient grounds for deeming such an inquiry necessary. There is no reason to question the accuracy of the Report of the Medical Officer of Health that the supply of water was inconvenient for some of the inhabitants; but he also reported that the water was pure. There is nothing before the Local Government Board to show that the health of the inhabitants is endangered by the want of pure water; and the Board do not consider it necessary to interfere with the discretion of the Sanitary Authority in the matter.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—COMBER DISPENSARY, NEWTOWNARDS UNION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the position of Medical Officer to the Comber Dispensary, Newtownards Union, has a salary of £100 a-year attached to it; whether, on its becoming vacant by the death of Doctor Prance, the Dispensary Committee proposed to reduce this salary to £60 per annum; whether the action of the Committee was supported by the Newtownards Board of Guardians; whether there were three

  1389
  candidates for the situation, each of them willing to accept it at £60; whether one of these candidates acted as Medical Officer during the period between the death of Doctor France and the appointment of his successor; whether the right of appointment in cases of this kind rests with the Local Government Board or the Board of Guardians; and, whether he will inform the House on what authority the Local Government Board decided not to permit the reduction?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed as to the ultimate decision of the Local Government Board in this matter. The Local Government Board, after due inquiry, and some hesitation, decided not to oppose the wishes of the Board of Guardians, but gave their consent to the salary being fixed at £60 a-year.

  LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)— DEFALCATIONS OF MR. JAMES GARDINER, SOLICITOR, EDINBURGH.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Lord Advocate, If he has seen the report of a meeting of creditors of Mr. James Gardiner, S.S.C., Edinburgh, in The Scotsman of the 4th instant; and, whether he has made, or intends to make, any inquiries regarding the way in which Mr. Gardiner is alleged to have dealt with the trust funds of clients which they had committed to his charge?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I did observe the report of this meeting in The Scotsman of the 4th instant. Although no criminal charge has been made, the Procurator Fiscal, as soon as the report appeared, properly proceeded to investigate the case. I understand that Mr. Gardiner had left the country before the meeting, and that it is not known where he is.

  ISLANDS OF THE WESTERN PACIFIC—SAMOA.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the case of the Samoan woman, Manaema, whose lands in Samoa were seized of Messrs. W. M'Arthur and Co. of Auckland and London, has yet been fully considered and decided upon by the Imperial Government, to whom it was submitted by Sir G. D. De Veaux, High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, in January 1884; whether it is a fact that Messrs. W. M'Arthur
  1390
  and Co. in realising a claim against their agent, Mr. Frank Cornwall, entered on and took possession of Samoan lands and plantations which are still legally vested in the Samoan people, and sequestered or destroyed the produce of several plantations; whether they put these lands, 250,000 acres in all, and including several plantations in full working order, up to sale and bought them in themselves at a price of £1,500, although some of the lands were legally settled in February 1879 by deed and by consent of the Samoan people on the Native woman Manaema; whether, on attempting to take possession, they were resisted by the Native Governor, who declared the lands belonged to the Samoan people and were free from British control; whether the Native owners offered to satisfy Messrs. W. M'Arthur and Co.'s claims, but their offer was refused, as the firm preferred the land; whether the agents of Messrs. W. M'Arthur and Co., in taking forcible possession of the said lands, maltreated the Native woman Manaema and others, drove them from their houses, and seized their furniture and clothing; whether the British authorities in Samoa supported the action of Messrs. W. M'Arthur and Co. and threatened to burn the villages if the Natives did not yield up their lands peaceably; whether the Government intend to redress the grievance of Manaema and the people of Samoa; and, whether the Messrs. W. M'Arthur and Co. of Auckland and London in question are the same firm whose agent in Samoa, according to a Despatch of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 18th October 1878, had practised cruelties in conducting the labour trade of the firm, and had been responsible for outrages upon Polynesian labourers upon their Samoan estates?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The hon. Member's Questions seem to have been taken from a certain Petition drawn up by Mr. Cornwall, to which Her Majesty's Government has replied that there is no case for their interference. I may say, however, that most of the allegations of the Petition have proved on inquiry to be inaccurate as far as Cornwall is concerned, and the matter, put shortly, resolved itself into this. Cornwall, being a debtor to the firm of M'Arthur and Co. to a large amount, and being pressed for some payment, mortgaged his land

  1391
  to them, and when a foreclosure took place turned round and said that the lands did not belong to him at all but to his Native concubine, named Manaema and that they were Native Lands. He stirred up the Natives to take this view, and to dispossess by violence the representative of his creditor. The High Commissioner, on his visit to Samoa in 1882, imposed a fine for these acts of violence, but without in any way deciding on the title to the lands in question. Messrs. M'Arthur are the firm referred to in the despatch of 1878, and their so-called agent, owner of the estate on which the labourers were employed, was this same Mr. Frank Cornwall.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman further, whether the decision of the Government was given upon the question, and whether it was communicated by them to the people interested? With his permission, I will say that the reason I ask it is, that a letter was despatched on the 11th January, 1884, stating that the matter was still under the decision of the Imperial Government.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I can make no reply, except that our decision has been forwarded about a couple of months ago. I may say that the hon. Member was inaccurate about the date.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman if this letter has been brought under his attention—
  "Government House, Melbourne, 11th Jan., 1884.
  "Sir,—I am directed by his Excellency the Acting High Commissioner to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th December, and beg to inform you in reply that the question of the action taken in the case referred to was one involving a decision of great importance to the whole Colonies. For this reason his Excellency has referred the matter to Her Majesty's Government for their decision, and is unable to take action until their decision has been received.
  (Signed) W. HARTINGTON."
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The date is 1883.
  MR. A. M'ARTHUR: I very much regret having to trouble the House about a personal matter in which hon. Members can feel little or no interest. But as the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Redmond) has in his Question indirectly made serious charges against my brother, who is unavoidably absent to-day, myself, and the members of a
  1392
  firm in Auckland with which we are connected, but in the management of which we have not personally taken any part, I hope the House will permit me to make a personal explanation, and I will engage not to occupy more than a few minutes of its time. Allow me to say, in the first place, that if the hon. Member had had the courtesy to speak to me on the subject I could have given him information which would have saved him the trouble of putting such a Question on the Paper, and saved me from the unpleasant necessity of making this explanation. For I hold in my hands documents proving unmistakably the incorrectness, not to use a stronger word, which I believe I would be perfectly justified in using—of the accusations contained in the Question against W. M'Arthur and Co., of Auckland. These papers are too voluminous to trouble the House with; but they can be seen by the hon. Member if he wishes to see them, or by any other hon. Member of the House. With regard to the purely commercial portion of the Question, it is sufficient to say that the case has been three times decided by competent tribunals—first in the Consular Court, afterwards in the Supreme Court of Fiji, and finally by the Governor and High Commissioner, and in each case decided in favour of W. M'Arthur and Co. The hon. Member's Question is intended to produce an impression that land was bought very much below its value, that resistance was offered by the Natives, who offered to satisfy the claims of M'Arthur and Co., but that this offer was refused by the firm, who preferred the laud. We are informed, and the documents in my hands prove, that the reverse is the fact, that the King of Samoa sent one of his chiefs with instructions to the native governor to render all necessary assistance to the agent of W. M'Arthur and Co. in obtaining the deeds of the land, and that, so far from the firm preferring to seize the land, they offered long after they had taken possession of it in self-defence to return it to Cornwall for £3,500, which was only equal to a composition of about 10 s. in the pound on the amount due by him. This liberal offer he refused, leaving no option but to retain the land. Every business man in this House will perfectly understand that the locking up of capital in land,

  1393
  however cheap, is a drawback from a business point of view, and the firm would have been much more inclined to take even a composition in cash than have the land on their hands. The most serious imputation, however, contained in the hon. Member's Question is that referring to the mal-treatment of the native woman Manaema, and to cruelties in conducting the labour trade. With regard to the native woman Manaema, I hold in my hand copies of depositions sworn before the Acting British Consul showing that the statements made respecting the harsh and improper treatment of Manaema are utterly false; that she was kindly treated and made no complaint till some months after, when she did so presumably at Cornwall's instigation; and that she herself a fortnight after the alleged mal-treatment thanked W. M'Arthur and Co.'s agent for his kindness to her in this matter. And lest the hon. Member should feel it necessary to take the trouble to put a Question on the Paper insinuating that these copies are forgeries, I may inform him that their authenticity is guaranteed by a notary public in Auckland, and that the Acting-Consul certifies that the men who made the depositions are well known to him as persons of good repute and worthy of credit. There is, also, not the slightest foundation for the charge of ill-treatment of Polynesian natives. One of M'Arthur and Co.'s vessels certainly made one, and only one, voyage with natives from the Line Islands down to the plantation. But this voyage was undertaken long before any dispute with Cornwall, and while he was the sole owner of the land; and the correspondence of the firm shows conclusively that M'Arthur and Co. had no control whatever over the Natives after landing them on Cornwall's property. Some months afterwards complaint was made that the Natives were not well treated; and M'Arthur and Co. at once wrote to Cornwall remonstrating in the strongest terms. Finally, Cornwall left the Islands for Europe, without making any provision whatever for these Natives, and M'Arthur and Co. advanced nearly £500 to feed and send them back to their homes. In the matter of bringing these people down, they acted entirely at Cornwall's request and as his agents, and after landing them had no further con-
  1394
  trol over them or him whatever. The hon. Member has treated me with scant courtesy; but I will not do him the injustice to insinuate that he has given publicity to these calumnies knowing them to be untrue. On the contrary, I believe he has been grossly deceived by vindictive and unscrupulous men, respecting whom I will only say that, had their character and conduct been as well know by him as by the majority of the people of Auckland, he would not, I believe, have troubled the House with such a Question. I think, however, I have a right to complain that the hon. Member, instead of endeavouring to ascertain the truth, followed a practice which has recently become too common— under the guise of a Question, to bring charges injurious to the reputation of Members of this House, and frequently of innocent persons who have not an opportunity of defending themselves against imputations either totally untrue, or so highly exaggerated as to be nearly so—a practice which I do not think I use too strong language in describing as a breach of the Privileges of this House.
  MR. SPEAKER, interposing, said, it was sufficient for the hon. Member to make a disclaimer upon the Question. Perhaps he would content himself with having done so in the most public manner possible.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I will ask the indulgence of the House to make a personal explanation. It will not be a tenth part as long as that of the hon. Member. I wish to say that I did not bring these charges without sufficient justification. The hon. Member says he has documents to prove his case. Well, I am also in possession of documents to prove my side of the case. I suppose it would be out of Order to go into them now in the House. As, however, I am not justified in bringing these charges, and then not reading them, I am quite willing to move an Adjournment in order to go into them. Otherwise, I shall take the earliest opportunity of showing my justification by going into the whole of this matter. I shall then show the hon. Member that I was not guilty of bringing forward recklessly charges which had no justification. I have an affidavit from, the Native people themselves. I have statements from the official despatches of the Colonial Office; I

  1395
  have affidavits from, gentlemen interested in the matter; and I have the legal opinion of some of the best-known legal firms in the whole of New Zealand. Fortified, therefore, by the whole of these proofs, I am not in a position to withdraw one of the accusations which I have made.

  PORTUGAL—THE CONGO TREATY.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can now give the House any information as to the present state of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and that of the King of Portugal relative to the Congo River Territory?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have already stated in the House that on March 15 and June 1, 1883, Lord Granville informed the Portuguese Government that the Anglo-Portuguese agreement, if not accepted by the other Powers principally interested, would be futile, and that in consequence negotiations had commenced in order to ascertain the views of those Powers. Her Majesty's Government has now arrived at the conclusion that the objections taken by some of the Powers to certain portions of the Treaty are of too serious a character to leave any hope of the Treaty being accepted as a whole, and they have, therefore, informed the Portuguese Government that a ratification of the Treaty would be useless. It is, however, the hope of Her Majesty's Government to maintain that portion of the Treaty which relates to the River Commission, and, as originally proposed by them, to give it an International character. The powers it would have possessed under the Treaty were practically identical with those of the Danube Commission, from which it only differed in the composition of the controlling authority.
  MR. O'DONNELL: The noble Lord says that the only difference between the proposed Commission and the Danubian Commission is in regard to the controlling authorities. But the difference of the originally proposed Commission on the Congo was that it was an Anglo-Portuguese Commission, while the Danubian Commission was an International one. Now, I understand that the Government propose to give up entirely the Anglo-Portuguese Commission, and that
  1396
  they are ready to accept an International Control of the mouth of the Congo.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; that is perfectly accurate. The original proposal, which Her Majesty's Government supported till the end of the negotiations, was that the Commission should be of an International character. Therefore, in adopting that suggestion, we are reverting to the original proposal.
  SIR. HERBERT MAXWELL: Is it intended that the powers of the River Commission should extend so far as to enable them to levy Customs duties?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No; the River Commission, and all River Commissions made after the Treaty of Vienna, 1815, have nothing to do with Customs duties; they only deal with the navigation.
  MR. BOURKE: Is the Government prepared to say that so much of the Treaty as remains—which is certainly a very important part—will not be ratified till the House has had an opportunity of coming to a conclusion upon it?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No; I do not say that any part of the original question remains. What I said was that the idea contained in that clause of the Treaty would be maintained. There will have to be a fresh agreement of an International character.
  MR. BOURKE: But will that be submitted to the decision of the House?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The pledge which the Prime Minister gave on the subject last year referred to the Treaty between this country and Portugal; but this is a fresh matter, and I cannot answer the Question without Notice.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he would put a Question on the subject on the Paper.

  NAVY— CHATHAM DOCKYARD.
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that six ships only of the Royal Navy have been commissioned at Chatham since 1880, while in the same period twenty-six have been commissioned at Devon-port, fourteen at Portsmouth, and twenty-nine at Sheerness; how many ships have been paid off at Chatham during the same period; and, whether there is any reason for diminishing the number of Her Majesty's ships commissioned and paid off at Chatham?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The number of ships commissioned between the 1st of January, 1881, and the 1st of June, 1884, at the ports named in the hon. and learned Member's Question, was as follows: —At Chatham, 7; at Sheerness, 29; at Portsmouth, 29; at Devonport, 30. There were four ships paid off at Chatham within the same period. The matter is decided by consideration of the public interest; and Chatham, being used more especially as a building yard rather than as a repairing yard, is naturally a less fit place for paying off and commissioning ships.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS — DOCKYARD POLICE.
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in fulfilment of a promise made by him in the House of Commons on May 7th 1883, a telegram was sent by his authority on May 8th from Scotland Yard to the authorities of the Metropolitan Police at Chatham, in these terms—
  "Pressing. Please forward to this Office, by morning of 10th. inst. for the information of Sir Edmund Henderson, a report stating the wishes of the men of all ranks employed under C. D. Acts as to remaining in a Dockyard or being transferred to a Town Division; those among them who are of the old Dockyard Force can be pensioned on abolition of office if approved by the Treasury, if they do not wish to enter on duty in the Metropolitan Police;"
  whether several members of the Force on the faith of the above promise of the Commissioner, elected to resign and take their pensions on the scale referred to in the above telegram; whether these persons have not, in every instance, been refused generally, and not on any individual ground, any increase to their ordinary pensions as for abolition of office; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in order to fulfil the promise made by Sir Edmund Henderson on their behalf, and on the faith of which those members of the Old Dockyard Force who elected not to enter on duty in the Metropolitan Police have acted?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he was doing all in his power to settle the question of the pensions of the policemen formerly employed under the Acts referred to in the Question of the hon. and learned Member.

  RAILWAY REGULATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is intended to proceed with the Railway Regulation Acts Amendment Bill; and, if so, whether he will be prepared to make such modifications therein as will meet the objections of traders to its provisions relating to terminals and appeals?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that the prospects of a Bill seriously opposed at the end of the Session were not very hopeful. At the same time, he did not altogether despair of being able to make progress with the measure referred to. He did not know what alteration of the Bill would give satisfaction to all traders, because they entertained different views on the subject. Some of them desired that the Bill should go forward in its present form, while there were others who proposed modifications. All he could say was that he thought it was a fair subject for discussion, and he should be prepared to give full consideration to any Amendment that might be proposed on either side. In the meantime, it was only fair to say that the proposals of the Bill, in his opinion, went as far as they could fairly do in justice to the Railway Companies and their shareholders.

  INDIA—THE CANDAHAR STATE RAILWAY.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the line, hitherto officially known as the Candahar State Railway, is henceforward to be designated the Sibi-Pishin Railway; and, if so, in deference to what views or circumstances this has been done?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: No information of any such intention on the part of the Government of India has reached the India Office; but the sensible suggestion of the hon. Baronet shall be placed before the Viceroy, who will doubtless give it the consideration which it deserves.

  NAVY—STOPPAGE OF PAY.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What is the number of men in the Royal Navy who have been punished during the last year by

  1399
  stoppage of pay; what is the amount of the money so received; and, what becomes of it?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am unable to give my hon. Friend the information he asks for in his first Question, because it would take much time and involve a great amount of labour to ascertain the number of men affected by stoppage of pay. If my hon. Friend will turn to the Navy Estimates for this year Vote 1, sub-head H, on Paper 11, he will find that a sum of £9,000 is taken to the credit of the Vote for "stoppages of pay from men when in cells, mulcts, &c." This is an estimated amount based on the experience of recent years, and the sum so estimated is thus deducted from the Wages Vote.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE STAFFORDSHIRE YEOMANRY—RIOT AT LICHFIELD.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Birmingham Daily Post, attributed to the Mayor of Lichfield, in connection with the Yeomanry disturbances at Lichfield, to the effect that what had occurred "was only what had taken place in former years;" and, whether he will direct that the inquiry which he has ordered shall extend to the general conduct of the Corps while in training for some years past?
  COLONEL LEVETTalso asked, whether it was not the fact that during the last five years the confidential Reports of the officers respecting the Staffordshire Yeomanry had been, both as to discipline and general conduct, highly satisfactory and creditable to the regiment?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In reply to the Questions of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Colonel Levett), I have to state that the regiment did not train in 1879. The Reports for the last four years have been very satisfactory. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), I have to state that my attention has been called by the hon. Member to the statement in question; but I do not see that any advantage would arise from the extension of the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member.
  DR. CAMERONasked whether it was true that the inquiry would be conducted in private?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was not aware of the circumstances under which the inquiry would be conducted; but he had seen a statement in the newspapers to the effect that it would be private.
  DR. CAMERONgave Notice that he should call attention to the subject on an early date.

  LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)— INCENDIARY FIRES.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Lord Advovocate, Whether there is any truth in the statement made in The Dunow Herald of the 14th instant that, during the previous week, there had been three plantation fires in Morayshire alone, the last one taking place within four miles of Gordon Castle, the Duke of Richmond's seat, much valuable timber being destroyed; and, whether there is any truth in the statement made in several other papers that within the last four weeks there have been an unusual number of agrarian fires in Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I do not know of any newspaper called The Dunow Herald; but I have inquired in regard to the matter to which the Question relates, and I am informed that the only plantation fire known to the authorities to have taken place in Morayshire about the time referred to occurred on the 1st of June at the Hill of Orbliston, between four and five miles from Gordon Castle. The fire was a serious one, a considerable extent of timber having been destroyed, and the Procurator Fiscal made a full investigation in regard to it at the time. There is no reason to suppose that the plantation was set on fire wilfully. It appears to have begun at a place where there were signs that a small fire had been lighted, probably by one or more tramps, for the purpose of cooking food; and it seems to have been blown by the wind to a whin bush near, from which it extended to the plantation. It appeared that an attempt had been, made to extinguish the fire in the bush by throwing slime and water upon it from, a neighbouring ditch. I have no reason to believe that there have been any agrarian fires in Scotland recently. All fires of any moment occurring in Scotland are investigated by the Fiscals and regularly reported to the Crown Office. There has been no appreciable increase

  1401
  in the number of the fires reported during the last year, and none of them can be recognized as agrarian.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—THE MILITARY GRAVEYARDS AT PRETORIA.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If there is any information at the Colonial Office as to the state of the graveyards of British soldiers and others who died at Pretoria in the Transvaal; if it is the case that they are now in a very neglected state; and, whether he will direct the British Resident there to take them under his charge and see that they are kept up with proper care and attention?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I think this Question should more properly be put to my right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works, as it is within his Department that the care of these graveyards rests. But I may say that we were informed in 1882 that the walls round the Pretoria Cemetery had been placed in a state of substantial repair. We have no information since of its being in a neglected state. On the contrary, we have received within the last month a despatch from the British Resident which shows that he is looking after it. He writes that heavy rains had damaged the enclosing wall of the military cemetery; but that he had repaired the damaged part and strengthened the neighbouring portion.

  ARMY—THE LATE CAMPAIGN IN THE TRANSVAAL—RECOGNITION OF MILITARY SERVICES.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will take into consideration the granting of a clasp to be worn on the South African medal by those officers and men who were engaged in the Transvaal operations, with either the word "Transvaal," or the name of the fort defended, inscribed thereon?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 19th of April, 1883, and that of my Predecessor in the previous year; and repeat that there is no intention of granting a medal or other decoration for this Campaign.

  CONVICT PRISONS (GREAT BRITAIN)—ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS—POWER OF MAKING REPORTS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the Roman Catholic Chaplains of Convict Prisons do not give an annual Report same as the Protestant Chaplains do; and, if he will cause them to do so for the time to come?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, who was imperfectly heard, was understood to say that the Roman Catholic clergymen who officiated in prisons had not the formal title "chaplains," and accordingly did not send in formal Reports. They had the power of reporting anything which they thought worthy of attention. If any bad results were found to follow from their not making formal Reports, he would have no objection to inquire into the matter.

  CUSTOMS—SEARCHING OF PASSENGERS' LUGGAGE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the case that the luggage of two Irish Members of Parliament has been searched at Holyhead, within the past few weeks, by custom house and detective police officers, notwithstanding that upon one occasion they were informed beforehand of the name of the Member whom they molested; whether it is customary to search the luggage of passengers to and from Ireland at Holyhead; if not, upon what grounds these searches were made; and, whether steps will be taken to prevent its recurrence? The hon. Member, in explanation of the form of the Question, added that he did not claim any special exemption for Irish Members of Parliament if a usual or well-understood practice of searching passengers' luggage prevailed at Holy-head, as at Portsmouth and Dover. He merely desired that Irish Members should not be singled out for these attentions.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I heartily concur in the view taken by the hon. Member, and I can answer his Question with the sympathy of a fellow-sufferer. On Whitsun Monday I returned from that part of Her Majesty's Dominions known as the Channel Islands, and I left my luggage in the boat with a servant to be cleared in the usual

  1403
  way. I, however, carried in my hand a large box, labelled "Home Office, Criminal Department." That was immediately secured by the Custom House officer, and then I was taken into a shed. Being a meek man myself I did not object, nor did I claim the privilege of a Member of Parliament, nor even of a Secretary of State; but I produced my Cabinet key and opened the box. My box was searched, and a chalk mark was made on it, and I was allowed to leave the Southampton Dock without a stain upon my character. If any hon. Member thinks it is a misfortune to be particularly suspected, the same thing has occurred to me; but I can assure the hon. Member that it is neither the intention of the Department nor the rule to suspect any person unnecessarily. Zeal sometimes docs outrun discretion, and under such circumstances I am disposed personally to applaud it. It is not the intention that the rule as to searching should be carried out with any unnecessary inconvenience to, or suspicion of, either Irish Members or Secretaries of State.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—PROTESTANT PROSELYTISING.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in The Dublin Freeman's Journal, from the Rev. Daniel Heffernan, C.C., complaining of an attempt to kidnap Catholic children by a Protestant proselytising institution in Dublin; and, whether the Government will institute an inquiry into the matter?
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to different newspaper reports and letters published in the Dublin journals, detailing cases where children taken away from their parents by proselytising agents are locked up in proselytising homes in Dublin, Kingstown, and other parts of Ireland, and denied or refused to their parents when applied for; whether it is a fact that the wives and daughters of persons occupying official positions in Ireland are engaged in this traffic; whether it is his intention to propose any amendment of the Laws, with a view to punishing persons who so retain children against the consent of their parents; and, whether he will cause in-
  1404
  quiry to be made, with a view of ascertaining to what extent the Law is being violated in this respect?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have seen two letters in a Dublin newspaper of the character mentioned, which are, probably, the communication to which the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. J. H. M'Carthy) refers. I am informed that they have reference to cases which are the subject of certain ex parte applications recently made to the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland for habeas corpus orders, and that affidavits have been filed in that Court denying the statements made in the affidavits upon which the applications were made; and that the cases are now at issue in the Court. With regard to the latter part of the Question of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington), the Government have no information that any such traffic, as is suggested, is carried on. I am advised that the law provides any aggrieved person an ample remedy for the offence of unlawfully taking or detaining children from their parents or guardians, and that no amendment is necessary. There does not appear to be any ground upon which the Government could institute the inquiries suggested. The inquiry will probably be ample in the Courts of Law; but we can judge after it has concluded.
  MR. HARRINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered whether the wives and daughters of Judges and others occupying official positions in Ireland are concerned in this traffic; and I would also ask him if the Government are not in possession of information on this subject; and, whether he does not think it will be well for them to make inquiries?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I think the hon. Gentleman will see that whether these proceedings should be characterized as "traffic" is precisely the question now being tried in the Courts of Law.
  MR. HARRINGTON: I am not at all referring to cases in the Courts of Law. I am aware certain cases have been brought into the Courts of Law; but what I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this—While the law does contain provisions to punish persons— ["Order!"]—I shall put myself in Order by asking a Question—while the law does make provision to punish a person for taking away a child, will the

  1405
  right hon. Gentleman endeavour to so amend the law that when a child has been taken away the person from whom it was taken shall be able to recover it?
  MR. TREVELYAN: If the law is defective, Sir, I shall certainly think it necessary to take measures for making it effective; but I will be a better judge of that after we see the result of the cases in the Law Courts.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CASE OF MRS. P. N. FITZGERALD.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On whose authority, and for what purposes, Detective Sergeant Bulmer visited the house of Mrs. P. N. Fitzgerald, at Cork, and attempted to draw her into statements incriminating her husband, now awaiting trial in Sligo Gaol on a charge of treason felony; and, whether orders will be given to prevent a repetition of such conduct?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sergeant Bulmer, by the desire of his officer, called at Mrs. Fitzgerald's house to make some inquiry with regard to a person who he believed was known to her. He denies that he made any reference whatever to the case against her husband, or that he attempted to draw her into statements incriminating him.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES)—TAUNTON GAOL.
  MR. E. STANLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has determined to close the prison at Taunton; and, if so, on what grounds; and, whether it is not the case that, since it has been taken over by Government, the military and civil cells have been constantly full, and how the assizes can be held in Taunton if the prison which was built by the county to communicate with the courts is closed?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is not desirable now to enter into the details of this question, which is being investigated. But I shall be most happy to hear anything that can be alleged on this subject. I expect that the matter will be thoroughly discussed before a final conclusion is arrived at.

  BANK HOLIDAYS—GOVERNMENT CLERKS.
  MR. KENNYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If there is any special
  1406
  reason for depriving the clerks in the Paymaster General's Department and in the Treasury of the Bank Holidays granted to clerks in the other departments of the Civil Service; and, if not, whether in future they will be granted such holidays?
  MR. COURTNEY: Public business does not permit the Treasury and several other Offices to be altogether closed on. Bank Holidays. In the case of any clerks whose attendance may be required on these days, this fact is taken into consideration in fixing the amount of leave to be allowed to them.

  IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT—LOAN TO—KEDY AND —DRISCOLL.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that two men named Kedy and Driscoll, residing at Portmagee, county Kerry, entered, in June 1883, into security for a loan under the Reproductive Loan Fund Act; that a boat-builder named Lynch contracted with the Inspector of Fisheries for the construction of a boat for those men; that this boat was afterwards approved of, in the usual manner, by the coastguard officers, and a certificate to that effect forwarded to the Inspector of Fisheries; whether it is a fact that repeated applications have been made to the Inspector of Fisheries and Board of Works for payment of the amount during the past twelve months; and, whether, though the first instalment for repayment has actually been called in and paid, the amount of loan itself has not been yet paid to the contractor.
  MR. TREVELYAN: The facts are as stated, except in one important particular—the amount of the loan having been actually paid a fortnight ago. It was accidentally delayed through a clerical oversight in the office of the Inspector of Fisheries, which is to be regretted. But the Board of Works paid it at once on receipt of the necessary certificate from the Fisheries Department.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state how many magistrates of each religious denomination

  1407
  have been appointed for each county in Ireland since the present Government came into office?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The information asked for could not be given for so long a period without an amount of inquiry into the circumstances which would take a very considerable time. Moreover, the result would be misleading, as it is only since the appointment of the present Lord Chancellor that the subject of the religious denomination of magistrates has been given its present prominence. Since the present Lord Chancellor came into Office he has appointed 187 county magistrates. Of these, it is understood that 84 are Roman Catholics, 65 Episcopalian Protestants, 30 Presbyterians, 2 Wesleyans, 1 Jew, and of 5 the religious profession is unknown.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE HIGH SHERIFF OF DROGHEDA.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Mangan, High Sheriff of Drogheda, is still the proprietor of a house where wine, spirits, and cyder are sold contrary to Act of Parliament; whether, if such be the case, it is the intention of the Excise to prosecute Mr. Mangan for a deliberate and daily breach of the Law; and, whether the Government intend to allow a person who knowingly and publicly violates the Law to retain the honourable office of High Sheriff?
  MR. HEALY: I also beg to ask the Chief Secretary, whether it is the fact that the Government, on receiving a communication from the High Sheriff of Drogheda informing them that he was willing to resign his position, informed him that they had been advised that, on taking the office, his licence had lapsed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Mangan is still the proprietor of a house where wine and spirits are sold. A Question as to the intention of the Excise authorities would more properly have been addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury; but I understand the Commissioners of Inland Revenue consider it more than doubtful whether they could take proceedings for the recovery of the penalty in this case, and they do not intend to do so. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the circumstances are quite novel; and there appears to be some variance of opinion as to the exact
  1408
  legal bearing of the case. Neither the Irish Government nor the Commissioners of Inland Revenue wish to act harshly towards Mr. Mangan, who, no doubt, acted bonâ fide, and was taken by surprise. In regard to his continuance in the office of High Sheriff, the Lord Lieutenant has decided to accept his resignation, and to supersede him; but His Excellency has decided that, owing to the near approach of the Assizes, it would be embarrassing and inconvenient to do so at once. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), the facts are as stated; but I think his Question with regard to the bearing of legal opinion has been already answered.
  MR. HEALY: No, Sir; the right hon. Gentleman has directly contradicted the letter of Mr. Robert Hamilton. [Cries of1 Order!"] I shall put it to the right hon. Gentleman in the form of a Question. Is it not the fact that Sir Robert Hamilton has directed a letter to Mr. Mangan informing him that, owing to his having accepted the office of High Sheriff, his licence lapsed? Upon that ground now, does the Lord Lieutenant propose to supersede him in the office of High Sheriff?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Mangan has resigned.
  MR. HEALY: No; he tendered his resignation; but it was not accepted.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I should like to answer that Question on Notice. But I should think it not improbable, as a matter of conjecture, that if Mr. Mangan continues in the office of High Sheriff, it may be possible that the Government might then consider itself morally obliged to proceed against him for selling drink without a licence. I think that is possible.
  MR. HEALY: How can that be so; for the right hon. Gentleman has stated Mr. Maugan's licence has lapsed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Mangan is now selling, I presume, beer and spirits without a licence. The Government consider he has been brought into that position not by his own fault, and they will not prosecute him. If they continued him in the office of High Sheriff, it might fairly be argued they would be bound to prosecute him.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if a common informer chose to lay infor-

  1409
  mation against Mr. Mangan, would the Excise not be obliged to prosecute him? Has he not lost his licence and the office of High Sheriff by the mistake of the Department?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I should prefer to ask legal advice before I answer that Question. I am bound to say that, except on absolute pressure, the Government in Ireland will never prosecute an innocent man.
  MR. HEALY: Might I ask the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) whether he would have any objection to become the common informer?

  SCOTLAND—THE QUEEN'S PARK, EDINBURGH — PERMISSION TO PLAY FOOTBALL DURING THE AUTUMN AND WINTER MONTHS.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will take into his early and favourable consideration the unanimous desire of all classes in Edinburgh that permission should be given to the youth of the city to play football in the Queen's Park during the autumn and winter months?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, he should be very glad to give permission for the purpose indicated in the Question, provided the games would not interfere with the use of the Park for other purposes.

  EGYPT (INTERNAL AFFAIRS).
  MR. VILLIERS STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, as a result of the Conference, Her Majesty's Government will be hampered in any degree in carrying out their reforms in Egypt, including equalization of the land tax; abolition of such petty taxes as are opposed to the principles of political economy, and the protection of the fellaheen from the arbitrary and capricious cruelties to which they have hitherto been subject; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will render it clear at the Conference that they regard the establishment of a humane, just, and stable system of administration as an essential condition, without which they cannot withdraw from Egypt either with safety or with honour?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government do not anti-
  1410
  cipate that they will be hampered by the result of the Conference in regard to the material and moral progress of Egypt. The conditions of the withdrawal of the British troops from Egypt are stated in the Papers recently laid before Parliament.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Would the noble Lord state when Her Majesty's Government began to carry out any reforms in Egypt?
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What measures Her Majesty's Government intend adopting for promoting and completing those reforms in Egypt suggested by Lord Dufferin in his Despatches of the 18th November, 1882; what practical steps are being taken in order to bring about an equitable adjustment of the Land Tax; and, if it is intended to recommend the Egyptian authorities to modify or abolish the octroi, bridge, and river tolls, as recently recommended by Colonel Moncrieff?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am not able to make any general statement, such as I am invited to make by the hon. Member, until some decision has been, taken in regard to Egyptian finance, upon which the internal administration of Egypt depends.
  MR. HENEAGEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can inform the House what is the acreage of land in Egypt rented directly from the State by the wealthy Foreign landholders and by the Egyptian people respectively; also the amount of land sub-let by the large landholders to the fellaheen; whether it is true that, whilst the landholders only pay from eleven to fourteen shillings per acre, they sub-let a large portion of their holdings to the fellaheen at from three to five pounds on acre, with the further right to claim their labour free of cost; further, what progress is being made with the Cadastral Survey; and, whether it is a fact that it has already been ascertained in the districts surveyed that the registered acreage is considerably below the real amount of cultivated land?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The ochuri lands, estates held by the rich landowners, amount to about 1,308,000 feddans, a feddan being about an acre. The lands held by the fellahs, or Kharadji lands, comprise 3,406,480

  1411
  feddans. I have not been able to ascertain how much of the ochuri lands are sub-let. The tax on these lands is, on an average, 52 piastres (10 s. 8d.) a feddan, and on the ordinary lands 128 piastres (26 s. 3d) I may point out that there is much valuable information on all these subjects in the Papers laid before Parliament last year—''Egypt," Nos. 6 and 7. Progress has been made with the Cadastral Survey; but, owing to the want of funds, it has not been so rapid as might be desired. There is reason to supposed that the old register of acreage is not correct.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES) — THE ROYAL SOUTH DOWN RIFLES.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is a fact that Major Stewart, the Adjutant of the Royal South Down Rifles, at present undergoing their annual drill at Downpatrick, reported Captain Wallace for insubordination; whether the Colonel of the Regiment (Waring) stated to the Adjutant that, if he would press for a court martial, all the officers of the Regiment would resign, and in consequence no trial of Captain Wallace took place; and, whether it is a, fact that both officers and men have disputed with Major Stewart as Adjutant of the Regiment?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: A telegram has been received from the officer commanding the regimental district in which all the allegations in question are distinctly denied.

  INDIA (BENGAL)—MORTALITY IN GAOLS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Undersecretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the continuance of high rates of mortality in a number of Bengal gaols during the last year; whether the average mortality in the Bengal gaols has exceeded 60 per 1,000, being much higher than the average among the general population; whether the death rate in Singhboom Gaol was 102 per 1,000, in Moorshedabad Gaol 107, in Beerbhoom Gaol 111, in Purneah Gaol 114, in Dinagepoor Gaol 117, in Lohardugga Gaol 119, in Bogra Gaol 122, in Burdwan Gaol 142, in Champaran Gaol 145, and in Mymensingh Gaol 226 per 1,000; whether he is aware that no local unhealthiness accounts for this excessive mortality,
  1412
  and that, for instance, while the death rate in Beerbhoom Gaol was 111 per 1,000, it was 24 per 1,000 in the Beerbhoom district, and while the death rate in Burdwan Gaol was 142 per 1,000, in the Burdwan district it was 35 per 1,000; and, that facilities will be given by Government for a thorough examination of the causes of the excessive mortality in Indian gaols?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Bengal Gaol Report for last year has not yet been received; but the figures given in the Question show that it is based on the Report for 1882, in which year there was a great deal of sickness. As regards every one of the gaols mentioned in the Question, except that at Lohardugga, the Report states expressly that the surrounding district was suffering severely from malarial fever; and as to Beerbhoom, which is expressly referred to as having a mortality higher than that of the district, it is stated in the Report that the mortality of the general population, though far below that of the gaol population, was higher than any on record. Government are not in possession of any trustworthy statistics as to the death rates of the general population; and, therefore, all these comparisons are more or less misleading. Of the deaths which did, in fact, occur in gaol many were caused by ailments not specially induced by residence in goal. For example, the actual number who died in the Burdwan Gaol in the year was 14; of these five were in bad health when admitted to the prison, and never did any work; and as regards Moorshedabad, the Report shows that of the 17 prisoners who died during the year 13 were in bad health when admitted. The rate of mortality, however, has certainly been very high, and is not clearly accounted for, although the subject has been receiving constant attention. The Secretary of State directed last year that the whole subject should be thoroughly investigated.
  In answer to Mr. BUCHANAN,
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, that if the hon. Member desired to move for any extracts from the Report he should be happy to furnish them.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwished to know whether the investigation into the matter had taken place, or would it take place as soon as possible?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Yes, Sir. Perhaps he might be allowed to say that there was considerable misapprehension as to the state of affairs. If they took the whole of the persons who passed through the gaols and the number who died, it did not seem so very excessive as it appeared from the general statistics. Of 94,348 people who passed through the gaol, the deaths were 1,085.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he understood the Under Secretary admitted that the mortality exceeded 60 in 1,000, and in some cases went up to 100, or even 200, in the 1,000. Was it not the case that the wholesale mortality to which he had called attention had been brought for a long succession of years to the notice of the Government, and that, nevertheless, this wholesale assassination of prisoners continued year after year? He wished to know whether the Under Secretary would answer his last Question—what facilities would be given for a full examination of that excessive mortality?
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, he had already stated that the Secretary of State last year directed that a thorough investigation should be made; but the Report had not yet been received, and he would rather wait for it before answering that Question.

  INDIA (MADRAS) — GOLD MINES IN MYSORE—CONCESSIONS TO BRITISH OFFICIALS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If the further report upon the connection of military and uncovenanted, as well as covenanted, officials in mining speculations, which was promised last year, has been received from the Madras Government?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Correspondence regarding the alleged participation of British officials in Mysore gold mining transactions has already been laid on the Table, and distributed. No further Report has been promised or received.

  INDIA (STATISTICAL ABSTRACT)— EXPORTS OF FOOD GRAIN'S.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he can state or undertake to give a brief Return of the average prices, and the annual exports, of the principal food grains of India, during the past twenty years?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The annual exports of the principal food grains of
  1414
  India for the last 20 years are given in the Statistical Abstracts relating to British India, and in greater detail in the Indian Trade Returns, both of which are annually presented to Parliament. A table of prices of food grains for past years is now being prepared, which will, I hope, be included in future Statistical Abstracts.

  INDIA (PUBLIC HEALTH)—SANITARY PRECAUTIONS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will inquire whether it is true that at Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, the three principal ports of communication with this country, there is a complete absence of the most elementary sanitary precautions; whether it is the case that at Madras the people have been dying of small pox during several months of the present year at the rate of many hundreds a week, and that every kind of abomination is still allowed to accumulate even within a short distance of Government House; whether it is the case that at Bombay there is no kind of epidemic hospital, but that cholera and small pox patients are treated promiscuously in the general hospitals, not-withstanding the constant presence of cholera, and although during three months of last year upwards of a thousand persons died of small pox in Bombay; whether it is the case that in Bombay, even in times of serious epidemics, the only means of disposing of infected sewage is by pumping it into the harbour, crowded with shipping under destination for all parts of Europe; whether it is the case that the Army Sanitary Commission has recently reported that "the increase of cholera in Calcutta is a perfectly legitimate consequence of filth unremoved and accumulating among the dwellings of the people;" and, whether a recent Government resolution has recorded the fact that multitudes of the people of Calcutta are allowed "to live in the midst of filth, to sleep on filth, to bathe in filth, to drink filth, to cook in filth, and wash their clothes in filth?"
  MR. J. K. CROSS: It is not true that at Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, there is a complete absence of the most elementary sanitary precautions. In each of the three Presidency towns there is an organized Municipal Health Department, and last year the expenditure of the three Municipalities on sanitation

  1415
  and sanitary objects was over £225,000, out of a total expenditure of less than £800,000. There has been a bad epidemic of small pox in Madras during the present year; but at the date of the latest Returns received it has greatly diminished. The sanitary state of Madras is not good; but much is being done to improve it. There is no permanent epidemic hospital in Bombay. On the occasion of epidemics isolated temporary hospitals are erected, and burnt when no longer needed. A portion of the sewage of Bombay is discharged into the harbour. Both the Municipality and Government have long been anxious to get rid of this system, and several Commissions have inquired into possible alternatives; but there are great physical difficulties. The Government of Bombay have lately given the Municipality formal notice to discontinue the system. The words cited relate not to the sanitation of the City of Calcutta, but to that of the ''Bustees," or Native villages within the municipal limits, which is very unsatisfactory, and regarding which the Government of Bengal considers that the Municipality has not done all that might be done.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, what steps he proposed to take to preserve the people of this Country from the dangers of constant communication with pestilential localities, especially at a time when there was so much contagion abroad?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: We rely for defence against cholera, in the first place, upon the efficiency of our customary sanitary operations; especially upon purity of water supplies, and upon the removal of excremental matters and their products. As cholera in England is, for the most part, spread by means of foul water and of infected excrements, these are the most important securities. In the second place, we rely on provision made at our ports for the detection of imported cases of sickness, and for the seclusion of such cases until danger of infection is at an end. And as regards small pox, which is a disease not peculiar to foreign countries, we have confidence in the power of vaccination and re-vaccination to limit its spread. These various measures, properly carried out, afford the best practical protection to this country against the danger of constant com-
  1416
  munication, with pestilential localities abroad.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the Secretary to the Local Government Board could state if any special precautions had been taken as to the importation of disease from the Indian ports during the last 12 months?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, he had no special information on the subject.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE —CANADIAN CATTLE.
  MR. PELLasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, having regard to the great reduction effected in the number of animals affected with foot and-mouth disease, the Privy Council do not consider that the time has now come to put in force the provisions of the twenty-ninth section of "The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878," which empower them to direct the slaughter of animals by particular local authorities, with compensation in all or any of such cases?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, that the local authorities of the four counties in which, so far as was known to the Privy Council, foot-and-mouth disease existed—namely, Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Kent—had been asked to forward to the Privy Council without delay the exact number of animals diseased, and of the animals that had been in contact with them up to the present time. When that information was received the Privy Council would be in a better position to judge what course they should take in regard to the slaughter of animals.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether it is true that a cargo of Canadian cattle has arrived at Liverpool suffering from foot-and-mouth disease; and, if so, what steps the Government have taken?
  MR. DODSON: I am glad to say that the report referred to is not true.

  THE PUBLIC OFFICES—THE ANNUAL LEAVE—THE WAR OFFICE.
  MR. ION HAMILTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the case that the Lower Division Clerks in the War Office are allowed much less

  1417
  annual leave than similar clerks in almost all the other public offices; and, whether it is therefore the intention of the Lords of the Treasury to recommend that a uniform scale of leave, and sick leave, should be fixed for Lower Division Clerks throughout the Service?
  MR. COURTNEY: The leave of the staff of an Office is primarily a matter of internal discipline, to be settled by the head of the Department. This Question, therefore, should, perhaps, have been addressed to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War; but I may say that I understand the War Office lower division clerks have the normal amount of leave. With reference to the latter part of the Question, I have to say that a Treasury Circular will shortly be issued, suggesting that heads of Departments should take united action, with a view of reducing the irregularities that at present exist in this respect.

  BOARD OF ADMIRALTY— RETIREMENT OF MR. A. HOUGHTON.
  MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If that Department have enforced the retirement of Mr. Arthur Houghton from the Public Service upon the completion by him of his sixtieth year, and of his fortieth year of service in that office; whether the head of his Department has recommended that Mr. Houghton's active service should be allowed to continue; and, whether, under Paragraph 2 of the Admiralty Memorandum of May 1882, it would not be possible for the Department to continue Mr. Houghton's employment and save burdening the Treasury with an unnecessary pension?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Mr. Houghton will be retired on the 30th of June, having exceeded the age of 60 years. The Regulation under which he retires was originally issued by the late Government, and was confirmed in 1882 by the present Board. The paragraph in the Memorandum to which the hon. Member refers states that—
  "The only exception will be in the case of officers holding important positions, whose services it may be desirable to prolong, solely with reference to the interests of the Public Service."
  The case of Mr. Houghton was most carefully considered, and it was decided
  1418
  that it did not come within this exception.

  POST OFFICE — TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION—PRESS NEWS.
  MR. HOULDSWORTHasked the Postmaster General, If he is aware that press news is supplied to the Ellesmere, Russell, Central, and thirteen other clubs in Manchester; whether the Department have power, under the Acts of Parliament, to restrain the members of the said clubs from using telephonic communication for their own private business and affairs between these clubs; and, if he is prepared to withdraw the interdict issued by the Department, so far as applies to telephonic communication between clubs simultaneously supplied with the press news?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that I am aware that Press news is supplied to the clubs he mentions, as well as others in Manchester. The question of the legality of telephonic communication between separate clubs is quite distinct from, that of the conditions regulating the supply of Press news. I have already indicated what the latter conditions are, in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of the 17th instant; and I feel that it would be inconvenient to enter upon a discussion of the legal position of the Post Office with regard to telephonic communication in reply to a Question.

  PUBLIC HEALTH — THE PEEL GROVE BURIAL GROUND.
  MR. JOHN HOLLONDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the recent decision of the magistrates in the case of the Peel Grove Burial Ground, Bethnal Green, by which it appears that the bye-laws made by the Metropolitan Board of Works under "The Metropolis Management Act, 1878," are inoperative to prevent the erection of houses on a burial ground, in which it is stated about 20,000 bodies were buried between 1844 and 1855; and, whether, if the Home Office has no power to prevent the scandal of building upon such ground without the removal of the bodies, the Government will give facilities for the passing of the Disused Burial Grounds Bill, which now stands for Committee?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he understood that the Metropolitan Board had the intention of appealing against the decision in question; and he hoped, therefore, that it would not be conclusive. But if it should be so, he agreed with his hon. Friend that it would be extremely desirable that that great scandal and evil should not continue. He heartily wished success to the Disused Burial Grounds Bill, and was very sorry that it should be blocked from the usual quarter; but if there was a chance of getting on with the Bill it would be of great advantage, especially to the people of London.

  LICENSING LAWS (SCOTLAND) — INFRINGEMENT AT DUMFRIES — THE "SHIP" INN.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Law of Scotland peremptorily prohibits the common sale of exciseable liquors by unlicensed persons; if so, whether he is aware that the Ship Inn, Dumfries, is being openly conducted as a public house, although no certificate or licence has been granted to any person in respect of it; and, whether he has instructed or intends to instruct the procurator fiscal to prosecute those concerned, or to intimate to them that if the Ship Inn, while unlicensed, continues to be conducted as a public house, persons buying or selling exciseable liquors therein will be prosecuted?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): It is, of course, unlawful to sell exciseable liquors without a licence. I believe that no person has obtained a licence applicable to the "Ship" Inn at Dumfries; but the Revenue authorities have undertaken not to prosecute in respect of a petition by the Licensing Magistrates, and their promise to grant a licence on the first opportunity and upon a deposit of the duty. The Inland Revenue authorities, who are familiar with the whole circumstances, are the best judges of the propriety of a prosecution; and, having regard to the course which they have taken, I do not intend to give any instructions to the Procurator Fiscal on the subject.

  SCOTLAND — ARTIZANS' DWELLINGS IN LEITH.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is true that a district
  1420
  in Leith, purchased with the aid of £100,000 borrowed four years since from the Imperial Exchequer under the Artizans' Dwellings (Scotland) Act, has been let by the Leith Corporation to proprietors of shows, rifle ranges, merry-go-rounds, and gambling establishments; whether numerous complaints have been made through the Leith newspapers that the place is a public nuisance; whether the School Board has protested against the application of the area to such purposes, on the ground of the demoralization caused to schoolchildren, whom its attractions induce, to play truant and misappropriate their school fees; whether the Town Council have memorialized the Home Secretary to relieve them of the obligation to erect houses for the working classes, and whether they base their application on the allegation that there are a large number of unlet workmen's houses in the burgh; and, whether, considering the purpose for which the £100,000 was advanced, the Leith Corporation cannot be compelled either to feu the ground for the purpose for which it was acquired, or to dispose of it and repay the loan?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I am informed that the cleared portion of the ground has been till lately let for shows as a temporary source of revenue; but that it has not been let for gambling establishments. Complaints have appeared in the Leith newspapers in regard to the condition of the place, and the School Board have called attention to the shows, and urged their removal. The Town Council have memorialized the Home Secretary to relieve them either wholly or partially of the obligation to erect houses for the working classes, basing their application on the allegation, inter alia, that there are many unlet workmen's houses in the burgh. With respect to the last part of the Question, the municipal authorities of Leith say that they cannot at present obtain offers for the ground.

  NAVY—DOCKYARDS — POSITION AND PAY OF SHIPWRIGHTS.
  MR. HENRY ALLENasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he can now announce any decision of the Board as to the position and pay of the leading men of shipwrights in Her Majesty's dockyards; and, as to the

  1421
  Petition of the shipwrights, as a body, for an increase of pay?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Treasury approval has recently been received for the scheme recommended by the Committee on the Constructive Staff of the Navy. The leading men of shipwrights will be designated Inspectors. Their salaries will range from £100 to £150 a-year. In a few days the necessary orders will be issued to the yards. I am not authorized to hold out any hopes of a general increase of pay for the shipwrights.

  CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is an Instruction to the Civil Service Commission, in order to obviate suspicion of unfairness, that candidates for public appointments should be known to examiners by numbers only; whether it is the fact that persons appointed to examine candidates viva voce have asked candidates as to the place at which they have obtained their teaching, and as to the persons who have imparted that teaching to them, and have given the impression to the candidates that they were favourably disposed or the reverse, as the candidate has appeared from some school, or college, or private tutor, and whether this practice of examiners has had the approval of the Commissioners; whether the father of one candidate, in consequence of the treatment which his son received from one of the examiners in the particulars before cited, has complained to the Commissioners, and received an evasive or irrelevant reply; and, whether, in order to obviate a possible impression that the examinations on behalf of the Government are conducted unfairly, he will agree to an inquiry by Royal or Parliamentary Commission into the system of appointing examiners and setting papers at the office in Cannon Row?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question. I have referred it to the Civil Service Commissioners, with whom the matter rests; and they inform me, with reference to the first Question of my hon. Friend, that they do not think it would be expedient or practically possible to use numbers in all their examinations; but that they do so in. most of the impor-
  1422
  tant competitions, including such competitions, as that to which the next Question refers. As to the second Question, the Commissioners state that it has come to their knowledge that at a recent vivâ voce examination an examiner questioned some of the candidates as to the places at which and the persons by whom they had been taught; but the Commissioners have satisfied themselves by inquiry that whatever impression the candidates may have formed, the examiner was, in fact, in no way favourably disposed to them or the reverse in consequence to their replies on these points. The Commissioners do not approve of interrogating candidates in the manner described, and they have taken steps to prevent any repetition of the occurrence. As to the third Question, the Commissioners state that the father of one of these candidates complained to them on the subject, and requested that his son might be re-examined by another examiner. As the Commissioners, on inquiry into the matter, were satisfied that no injustice had been done to him, they did not consider that there was any ground for holding such re-examination, and the father was informed accordingly. Under these circumstances, I see no occasion for any further inquiry.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—AFFAIRS IN ZULULAND.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will give a day for discussion upon the state of affairs in Zululand? He would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the great gravity and importance of the question, which was, indeed, only second to that of Egypt. He hoped, therefore, that the Prime Minister would be able to give him a favourable answer.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not at all question that this subject deserves the attention of the House; but I am sorry to say, and I think the hon. Baronet need not be surprised, that in the present state of Public Business it is not in my power to place at his disposal any day.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: Then I must take the earliest opportunity of bringing the question forward.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN).
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in

  1423
  making the Agreement with France that the Military Occupation of Egypt by England should be continued till the 1st of January 1888, any decision had been come to by Her Majesty's Government as to the retention or abandonment, total or partial, of the Soudan?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The question of the Soudan has never been touched upon or treated in the preliminary communications with France. They refer only to the territory of Egypt Proper, and the Soudan is not included in that territory.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOT: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the Question, whether any decision has been come to by Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With respect to the decision of Her Majesty's Government, I thought it was clear and a matter of notoriety that the advice pressed upon the Government of Egypt was all in favour of the evacuation of the Soudan.

  EGYPT—THE CONFERENCE.
  MR. SOLATER-BOOTHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any of the financial proposals about to be submitted to the Conference are such as could not be carried into effect without the concurrence of the House of Commons; and, if so, whether he will not at least make the House acquainted with such portion of the proposals before its freedom of action is hampered by the meeting of the Conference?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid that I cannot vary from the decision at which the Government have arrived under the circumstances of the course; but we wish to take every care, as far as depends upon us, that there shall be no invasion of the freedom of action of this House. We cannot, however, guarantee the freedom of action of the House against the proceedings of other parties.
  MR. GIBSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Have any communications been made by Her Majesty's Government to the French Government as to the nature, character, or extent of the financial proposals to be submitted to the Conference; at what dates and between whom did such communications take place; is the result of any such communications embodied in any writing official or non-official in the possession of Her Majesty's Government; and, has
  1424
  the fact of such communications been conveyed to any of the other Powers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The full proposals of the Government in regard to finance were communicated confidentially to the Powers, and also to the Porte, on Tuesday last. Previous to that time there were certain informal communications of a partial character; but no engagement of any kind has been taken by this country or given.
  MR. GIBSON: Were the financial proposals made to France before they were made to the other Powers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I can add nothing to what I have said. They were partial communications; but they were not confined to any single Power, nor do they involve any engagement on one side or the other.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the First Lord of the Treasury. If he will undertake that the results of the consultation with the Powers on the communications which have passed between England and France will be communicated to the House, so soon as they are received by Her Majesty's Government, whether before or during the sittings of the Conference, if it should assemble? He wished further to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to this Question, whether it was in his recollection that he stated on the 27th of May—
  "we undertake and engage that in the event of any common understanding with France in consultation with the Powers, and of any result following those communications, all the results and the whole conclusion shall be presented to Parliament before the Conference meets;"
  and further, on being pressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) later on on the same subject, he said—
  "We have spoken, not of the arrangement with France, hut of laying the arrangement with the Powers before the House at a date anterior to the Conference."
  MR. GLADSTONE: Undoubtedly we have deemed it our duty to lay before the House all arrangements that we have been able to make, and all the results at which we have arrived. The entire result is laid before the House, so far as we have been able to arrive at it. With respect to the consultation with the Powers, we have no authority to define a limited time within which the replies shall be made, and replies have not been made by the Powers

  1425
  which could form the subject of communication to this House. I think this also applies to the Question of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). The question seems to be whether we intend to postpone the invitation for the meeting of the Conference until the Powers have given replies with regard to the preliminary communications with France. We have no such intention, and one of the most conclusive reasons against such intention is that the financial condition of Egypt does not admit of it.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us whether he has received answers from any of the Powers; and, if so, from which?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I could not give any formal answer to that Question without Notice; but I think I am correct in saying that such answers as we have received are to the effect that no objection has been taken to the arrangement; but the final judgment is reserved to a later stage of the proceedings. I have no right to say so; but I think it very possible that the Powers may not give such final judgment until they have some knowledge of the proposals to be laid before the Conference.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give his own view of what he meant when he said—
  "We shall lay before the House the whole conclusion at which we have arrived after consultation with the Powers."
  MR. GLADSTONE: "After consulting with the Powers" is exactly what we have done. We have consulted the Powers. We are not in possession of answers from them of a definitive character, and such as we could communicate to the House.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Have all the Powers as yet agreed to attend the Conference?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, on May the 27th, he gave a pledge to the House to the effect that Her Majesty's Government would, under the contingency which has since arisen of a common understanding with France, present the whole conclusions at which they arrived to Parliament before the meeting of the Conference; whether an important portion of such conclusions
  1426
  is the imposing of certain pecuniary liabilities upon Great Britain with regard to Egypt; and, whether he is now prepared to redeem the pledge he then gave.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The important part of this Question is in the second paragraph. In reference to that I can only say it has not entered into the arrangements that have been made.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Am I right in supposing that no conclusion has been arrived at with regard to pecuniary liabilities?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I thought I had made it clear before by previous answers that the whole subject had been reserved for the decision of the Conference.
  Subsequently,
  MR. GLADSTONEexplained that when he had stated that the Powers had accepted the invitation to the Conference he had not included the Porte, which was not generally included in the term "the Powers;" but, in order to prevent any misunderstanding, he ought to say that the Porte would attend the Conference, though it was doubtful whether it would have a Representative present on the first day.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in 1855, he did not join with Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Laing, and other members of the Tory Party and of the Radical Party, in strong opposition to the proposals of Lord Palmerston, with reference to a guarantee of a Turkish Loan of £5,000,000; whether Lord Palmerston only succeeded in defeating the opposition of the First Lord of the Treasury by a majority of three; whether the First Lord of the Treasury is correctly reported by Hansard as having used the following words, in his speech against the Second Reading of the Bill:—
  "It is the prerogative of the Crown, under the advice of the Ministers, to determine the terms of these Conventions, but I am not to he told that the functions of this House, with regard to entailing charges on the people, are to be set at nought by this doctrine of prerogative;"
  and, if the First Lord of the Treasury, in any proposals he may make with regard to Egyptian Finance, will adhere to the doctrines and principles with regard to guarantees of loans laid down

  1427
  by him generally in opposition to Lord Palmerston in 1855, and particularly in the passage quoted above.
  MR. GLADSTONE: This Question is made up of certain matters of public notoriety and public record. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go over all these matters to ascertain who did and who did not support a certain Motion, or by what numbers it was carried; but as to whether I am correctly reported, I cannot say whether these are the exact words I used, but certainly they contain extremely sound doctrine, and I could not express it better if I attempted to do so. I am glad to find from the Question of the noble Lord that he concurs in that doctrine. I have seen this Question for the first time this morning, and I have not really had the time to refer to my speech, as I have been engaged in attendance upon Her Majesty at Windsor.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to find a few moments?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord is asking me to perform a most disagreeable task. But out of respect to the noble Lord, and to acknowledge the compliment he has paid me in rescuing from the dust of oblivion my old speeches, I will endeavour to make the reference as soon as I can.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, on the 10th August 1882, the Earl of Dufferin, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, and Plenipotentiary at the Conference then being held, wrote to Lord Granville in the following terms: —
  "I think it advisable to put on record that, when complying with your Lordship's instructions to acquiesce in the Italian proposal relative to the temporary organisation of a maritime police in the Suez Canal, I was careful to make it perfectly clear to the Conference that the arrangements under discussion did not in any sense or degree imply the neutralisation of the Canal, which was a principle to which the British Government would never subscribe. All the Representatives fully recognised the distinction, and the Russian Representative repudiated the idea of even hinting at such a proposition;"
  whether Lord Granville, on the 29th August 1882, wrote to the Earl of Dufferin as follows:—
  "I have received your Excellency's Despatch of the 15th instant, and, in reply, I have to
  1428
  state that Her Majesty's Government approve of your having explained to the Conference that their acquiescence in the Italian proposal for the temporary organisation of a maritime police in the Suez Canal did not in any sense imply an agreement on their part to the neutralisation of the Canal;"
  and, what circumstances have occurred to alter the policy of Her Majesty's Government to such an extent, that a solemn declaration made by the Representative of Great Britain to the Powers of Europe assembled in Conference in 1882 is repudiated in a private agreement made between Her Majesty's Government and Prance in 1884?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord has, perhaps, been misled by some ambiguity as to the sense in which the term was employed. Her Majesty's Government did come to the conclusion that what is commonly called the neutralization of the Suez Canal was not expedient. The other day I stated — I am not sure that I applied the word neutralization to the Suez Canal — that there would be a plan of neutralization in Egypt, and that the Suez Canal would be embraced within that plan; but to prevent any possibility of mistake I said that the plan of neutralization of Egypt would be founded generally, so far as the case would admit, on the principles applied to the case of Belgium, and that the plan as regarded the Suez Canal would be founded on the principles which were, I think, very clearly and distinctly set out in a despatch of Lord Granville, dated January 3, 1883. There is no change in the view of Her Majesty's Government since that time.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the statement made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the Porte, when inviting Turkey to the Conference, that financial questions would only be considered thereat, the proposal made by Her Majesty's Government to that of France, that the Military Occupation of Egypt by England should be continued till January 1888, was communicated to Turkey either before or at the time of making it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; the statement of arrangement with France was communicated to Turkey even before the time of making it. The arrangement was communicated to Turkey as well as to the other Powers.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, Ms Question had been anticipated by an impromptu Question put to the Prime Minister by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith); but he wished a reply to the last paragraph — Whether the engagement referred to the laying of an arrangement with the Powers, and not to the laying of an arrangement with France, before the House, at a date anterior to the Conference; whether the replies from the Powers who had been consulted had been received; and, if they were not received before the date fixed for the meeting of the Conference on Saturday next, how he proposed to fulfil his engagement to Parliament unless the meeting of the Conference was postponed?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; I consider we are bound, as soon as any arrangement with the Powers is made, to make that arrangement known to Parliament. We have not made it known now because it has not been concluded. We have no right to say that definitive answers will be received until the Powers are aware of the whole of the propositions we intend to make. Then, the hon. Member asks whether we are to propose that the Conference should be postponed. I do not consider that we have ever made an engagement to postpone the meeting of the Conference for the purpose of receiving these replies. I have the gravest doubts whether we could obtain those replies before the meeting of the Conference.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman undertook on the part of the Government, after several consultations had been held with the Powers, to place the result of those consultations before the House of Commons at a date anterior to the holding of the Conference?
  MR. GLADSTONE: As far as regards our consulting with the Powers, that is certainly true. We have made known our consultations to the House; but, as far as regards the answers from the Powers, we never made any engagement.
  MR. CHAPLIN: How can you fulfil your engagement to place them before the House before the meeting of the Conference?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have made no engagement at all to give those answers
  1430
  before the meeting of the Conference, nor was it in my power to make any such engagement. The Conference was invited for the purpose of considering urgent financial questions connected with Egypt; and it would not have been tolerated that we should postpone such a meeting until we had the answers of the Powers with regard to our communications with France.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, if he is correctly reported to have used these words—
  "We have spoken not of laying the arrangement with France, but of laying the arrangement with the Powers before the House at a date anterior to the Conference;"
  and I wish to know how the Prime Minister reconciles his language on that occasion with the course he has taken?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot say, on a challenge across the floor of the House, whether the words quoted by the hon. Member are precisely reported or not. I should require to have an opportunity of comparing the different reports. We have consulted the Powers on this subject; and, undoubtedly, I am under the belief that I conveyed to the House that that which we contemplated would ultimately come to be an arrangement with the Powers, and not with France alone.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to give Notice that I shall ask a further Question on the subject; and I shall give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of verifying the reports of his speech.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, whether the engagements made with the Powers will be made dependent upon the decision of the House; and whether the Powers will be told that the engagement will not be final or conclusive until it has been submitted to the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have said, I think many times, that the whole of the preliminary engagements and the plans, which may be accepted and adopted by the Conference, will ultimately depend upon the vote of Parliament.
  MR. PULESTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by Parliament both Houses of Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think I need not go further than to say that it will be dependent upon the vote of Parliament. I wish to qualify what I said in reference to a reply which I gave a short time ago to a Question of the hon. Mem-

  1431
  ber for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) as to the Forte's accepting the Conference. What I said was about the acceptance of the Porte. It is what we have reason to believe; but it has not been notified to us in any formal or official manner.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, whether the first meeting of the Conference will be on Saturday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; it will.

  EGYPT (THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH FRANCE) — VOTE OF CENSURE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What facilities he will afford to the Member for Portsmouth for bringing forward the Motion of which he has given Notice?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I assume that we shall dispose at once of the third reading of the Franchise Bill; and upon that assumption we shall be prepared to place Monday at the disposal of the hon. Gentleman. We have anticipated that, under the circumstances of the case, the House would certainly not be satisfied with conducting a debate of that kind except from day to day.

  EGYPT—THE CONFERENCE—SPEECH OF M. FERRY.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government accept the interpretation as to the new powers of the Caisse Internationale which the French Prime Minister attributes to it, and especially that
  "It is expressly stipulated that the Budget shall be submitted to the Public Debt Commission in time to allow it to make observations, which will be considered; and it will thus exercise a powerful influence over Egyptian finances. Comparing this institution with the old one, which had to be abandoned, we may say that the Public Debt Commission will have nearly all the powers of the old Control except the right of attending Cabinet Councils?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member apparently quotes from an authentic and official report of M. Jules Ferry's speech, giving a very clear, able, and comprehensive account of the whole arrangements relating to the Dual Control and to the international authority which is to be attached to the Commission of the Caisse. The hon. Gentleman has
  1432
  selected a single passage of that speech of M. Jules Ferry, and has asked me to pronounce an opinion upon it. I decline to do so. It would be very hard indeed if the Parliament of England were supposed to be bound by every explanatory expression used by the Minister of France, as it would be very hard if the Chamber of Deputies in France were to put to M. Jules Ferry questions founded on partial extracts of statements of mine. Having said that, I should say that, in point of fact, this passage of M. Jules Ferry's speech is strictly correct; and the whole discussion by him of the subject of the international arrangements is full, clear, able, and true, and I have no fault to find with it at all.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  MR. RITCHIE: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government seriously contemplate proceeding with the London Government Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In the circumstances in which we are now, with a debate such as that anticipated on Monday, I cannot give any answer as to the date of proceeding with this Bill or with other matters, however important they may be. The hon. Gentleman will be entitled to put a Question to me on another day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 260.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate.)
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 260.]

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, to move the third reading of this Bill, and, in so doing, I shall make a very short explanatory statement. The House is aware that many ominous declarations have been made or indications given as to the future fate of this Bill both in the House and outside of the House, sometimes by persons of great importance. I have refrained advisedly, and so have my Colleagues, I believe without exception, from referring to those declarations and indications. Our opinion is that with regard to quarrels and collisions, if they are to arise, the proper rules applicable to the case are contained

    1433
    in those few and well-known words of Shakespeare—
    "Beware
    Of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in,
    Bear't, that th' opposed may beware of thee."
    I should have wished, Sir, to preserve this silence to the end; but some declarations made in this House have been so explicit that I do not feel authorized so to preserve it. One of those declarations was from an hon. Member, who said that he would not affect to deny that great dangers overhung this Bill; and he evidently spoke on the basis of something more than a mere private opinion, as, indeed, he was entitled so to speak. Another right hon. Gentleman said in the last few days that no practical man believed that this Bill had the ghost of a chance. These are declarations which it is not possible for me wholly to pass by. I shall not regard these statements as declarations founded upon a sound estimate of the facts. I think that they impute to the wisdom of another branch of the Legislature probable conduct such as it is not, in my opinion, honourable to that House to impute. ["Oh, oh!"] That is my opinion. I have no doubt that the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) thinks, on the other hand, that that which the Opposition has not been able to attain in this House ought to be attained by the sheer force of a majority elsewhere, nor do I for a moment complain of his entertaining that opinion; but I am only saying I do not attach weight to these declarations, while I admit them to be made and to call for some notice on my part. As I understand, the plea on which it is urged that we may expect this Bill to be dealt with in such a manner as to put an end to its existence is that it is an incomplete Bill. Upon the subject of the severance of redistribution from the franchise I wish only to say these few and very brief words. A complete Bill has never been presented to Parliament upon any occasion; it has always been incomplete, either with respect to the severance of enfranchisement from redistribution— and many Franchise Bills have been presented without redistribution—or in the sense of dealing only with one of the three countries. Now, Sir, if we had proceeded on this occasion by excluding from our Bill the cases of Scotland and Ireland, I ask what sort of aspect would
    1434
    such a measure have been deemed to wear, and truly would have worn, in the face of the people of the Sister Isle? It would have been deemed, I am afraid, to bear the character not only of an intention to exclude Ireland from the benefits of such a measure, but of a fraudulent concealment of the solemn reasons for that exclusion. It appeared to us absolutely essential that the three countries should be dealt with as one. With regard to the Franchise Bill itself, and with regard to the charge of Gentlemen opposite that we ought to have united redistribution with it, how do we stand? It will. I think, be admitted alike by foes and friends that we have sacrificed everything we could for the purpose of putting this Bill forward; we have allowed nothing, so far as our choice and discretion went, to interfere with it, and yet here we are with a simple Franchise Bill approaching the final period of the measure upon the 26th of June. I ask, what would have been our condition if, together with a Franchise Bill, admitted to be comparatively simple, so far as we can understand from the case of 1832—I say, if we can only bring a Franchise Bill of the simplest character to its final issue in this House on the 26th of June, what would have happened to this measure if it had included the whole of the difficult and complex matters connected with the subject of redistribution. I am bound to say that in urging this plea I do not stand alone upon my own authority. Only a few days ago a conversation took place in this House with respect to what is to happen next year when we bring in a Redistribution Bill, to which we are pledged, as far as Parliamentary pledges can be given. ["Oh, oh!"] Someone sneers at that. What I mean is this—that it is absolutely impossible, amidst the contingencies of human affairs, to say what sudden, urgent questions of emergency may arise. But these contingencies are extremely rare, and the House has a right to know our intentions with regard to redistribution. That assurance from us was accepted by the House, and the result of it was embodied in the clause of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), which fixed the date for the commencement of the operation of the Bill, in accordance with assurances we have given that we pro-

    1435
    pose to deal with redistribution during the next Session. And I think, when an assurance of that kind is given, it amounts to a covenant between the Government and the House. But, Sir, when, notwithstanding that contingency was taken into view, and when the topics under discussion happened to lead to the question of the time a Redistribution Bill would take, one Gentleman, extremely well acquainted with Parliamentary procedure, treated with ridicule the idea that the Redistribution Bill should receive the Royal Assent by the 31st of July; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) spoke in less detail, but substantially and exactly in the same sense. Now, I want to know, is it possible for the Government to have a more complete and conclusive vindication of the course they have taken in separating the franchise from redistribution than this—that with the simplest Franchise Bill ever submitted to Parliament we have reached the 26th of June before corning to the third reading; and when redistribution only is spoken of on the opposite side of the House, the proposition is treated with ridicule that the Redistribution Bill should receive the Royal Assent by the end of July. I repeat, as the occasion seems to require it, that for us to have united redistribution and the franchise in the same measure would have been a fraud upon the House and the country; because we not only thought—we knew from our Parliamentary experience that in the present state of Business in the House, and with the habits of discussion and of treatment of Business which now prevail—it would be an impossibility, and we might as well spare ourselves the trouble of having such a Bill introduced. So much for redistribution. With respect to the threats held out, I wish principally to point out that we have acted suitably to those words of Shakespeare —"Beware of entrance to a quarrel." If there was anything suggested to us not incompatible with the objects we had in view, we did not refuse it, for the sake of avoiding such a quarrel, which I should regard as a calamity grievous to the country, bringing into question the Parliamentary institutions under which we have lived so long—a conflict, the results of which, if there are in the country men of revolutionary opinions,
    1436
    might have been acceptable to such men, but which it was our solemn duty to use every reasonable means to avoid. For that reason, as I contend—I am afraid I shall shock the right hon, Gentleman whose head, I think, I already see expressing dissent—every question that came up, in what we thought the spirit most likely to mitigate resistance, and to obviate a conflict between the Houses of the Legislature. It is true, as I have said, that no word of acknowledgment of this has been uttered; but, on the other hand, we have been told that this is a Bill to insure the permanent existence of a Liberal Government. Is that an equitable or a liberal mode of looking at public questions? Is it a rational mode? Whom are we asking Parliament to enfranchise? Why, Sir, taking England and Scotland—I will not speak of Ireland, because the case is separate—the largest enfranchisement about to be made, as we think, and as you must admit, is the enfranchisement of the agricultural labourers. Is that a proceeding taken by the Government which has in view nothing but the perpetuation of its own Ministerial power? Is there any class in the country which is so liable to influence from above—I do not mean illegitimate influences, but call them, if you like, legitimate and genial influences—is there any class so liable to this influence as the agricultural labourers of this country? Why, Sir, nothing but the greatest misconduct of those over them ever could separate the agricultural labourers from the farmers, the landlords, and the clergy; and yet the Bill which we are bringing in, and which seeks to enfranchise this great mass of men immediately associated with the farmers, landlords, and clergymen, who are the bases of the Conservative power of this country, does not for one moment shield us from the charge of the Opposition that we are seeking to enfranchise those who are, more than any other, our political opponents, for the purpose of perpetuating our own power. Sir, I humbly and respectfully say that that is not a rational argument. Then, what are we to say as to the service franchise? Does that look very like the action of a Government seeking to perpetuate its own power? Are the gamekeepers, the gardeners, the coachmen, who are chiefly, certainly very much under influence, not illegitimate, but,

    1437
    perhaps, legitimate—are those generally persons who are in the service of Liberals, or are they not, in the enormous majority of cases, in the service of our opponents? This was not forced upon us. We introduced it into the Bill of our own accord, and yet, when we have seized every opportunity of disarming irrational as well as illiberal opposition, we have entirely failed in our object. But, Sir, it has been taken note of in the country. The facts cannot be altered that where-ever we had a question to consider in which, upon the one hand, it would have been open to us with the certain support of the great mass of Liberal opinion to have taken a more advanced course, or where we had reasonable hope of avoiding serious collisions by taking a course of great moderation, we have determined upon taking the moderate course, and we have run the risk of offending for the moment, or at all events of raising questions in the minds of many of our most generous supporters; but we have done it all through, as, for instance, in the introduction of the service franchise and in the preservation, without any limitation except the provision against the illegitimate creation of property votes, of the mass of property votes which already exist. And so, when it was suggested to us, partly on practical grounds, by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and partly on political grounds, that the introduction of a date for the commencement of the Bill would mitigate its character, and might tend to draw towards us the more moderate of its opponents, we threw no difficulty in the way. We were willing there, again, at the risk of being misunderstood by some of our most ardent and sincere supporters, for the sake of attaining that object which I have described— namely, that we would beware of entrance to a quarrel. I think we have given sufficient evidence of our desire to avoid a quarrel. I am bound to say that I hold the question of this evidence to be matter of the greatest importance, because even the remote probability of a conflict between the two Houses upon such a question as this I take to be the most serious prospect that has been opened during my recollection since the crisis of the Corn Laws was opened to the view of Parliament. I will not undertake to put a limit to the mischiefs and the difficulties which might result.
    1438
    Most grave I am confident—too painfully confident—they will be. But what the ultimate issue of it will be I have not a doubt. That the duty of preventing it by every reasonable means was the most sacred duty incumbent upon us on this occasion, next to the great business of enfranchising a vast mass of the population, I do not doubt; and the second duty, as well as the first of our obligations, which we have carefully and strenuously endeavoured to fulfil. I beg to move the third reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE and Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL rose together, but there being cries for the former the latter gave way.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I was anxious to follow the right hon. Gentleman after the speech—the extraordinary speech—he has just made. That speech was not a speech upon the merits or the demerits of the Franchise Bill, which we are now asked to read a third time—it was a speech upon the question whether the House of Lords is any longer to form a part of the Legislature of this country. It was a speech upon the question whether the House of Lords is to be at liberty to examine, and to vote upon, and to take any part in the legislation which affects the Constitution of the country, or whether the House of Lords is bound, at the will of a majority of the House of Commons, or something even worse than that, at the will of an imperious Minister, to listen to threats, and, affected by those threats, to refuse to do the duty which lies upon them. I submit that it is not for us to discuss here what course the House of Lords may think it right to take upon any measure which comes up from the House of Commons, and has to be examined by that Assembly; but when the right hon. Gentleman comes forward, and in a most theatrical manner makes a declaration, the meaning of which it is impossible to misunderstand, he is raising an issue which the country must take care to notice, perhaps in a manner different from that which he expects. We have had great reason to question the wisdom and the propriety of the course which the Government have adopted in the matter of

    1439
    this Franchise Bill. We have had still greater reason to distrust a measure which has been brought forward, as this has been, as an obviously and confessedly incomplete part of a most important measure. I have from time to time had occasion to ask why we should be expected to pass a Bill for the extension of the franchise without dealing with the question of redistribution; and the answers which I have received, the arguments which have been raised, and the indications which have been given, have convinced me that a much larger question is at issue than the mere question whether it is convenient to take these measures together or separately. It has convinced me that we have never been informed, not only of the minute details of the plan of the Government, but of the real meaning and object of the great Constitutional change we have been invited to undertake. We have never been told what is the point at which the Government are driving. If it is the mere extending of the franchise to a large number of persons, oven to so many as 2,000,000 of persons, that is a very large question in itself; but that is by no means the whole question before us. We have to consider what is the intention of the Government; is it intended to displace and altogether dislocate the division of power in this country; and, if so, how, and upon what principle, and with what object is that dislocation intended? Upon this point we have never had any information whatever—I mean any authoritative information—given in this House, either in connection with or in support of this Bill. We have had information out-of-doors, Sir, and of a kind sufficiently alarming. I need not dwell now upon the declarations which we were in the habit of referring to some weeks ago, which plainly told us that this measure was merely the prelude to more important and serious changes in the reorganization and the reconstitution of our electoral system, pointing, as we were told, to manhood suffrage, equal electoral districts, and the payment of Members of this House. All these things were kept dangling before the eyes of the multitude, and before audiences who were pleased to listen to them, and from time time to time they have cropped up in this House; but they were not brought prominently before us.
    1440
    What we have always said was that it was our duty to our country to inquire what the plan and what the scheme of the Government was, that we might judge of it as a whole before we could pronounce an opinion upon it. What we said when this measure was first brought forward, and when my noble Friend (Lord John Manners) moved an Amendment upon the second reading, was—"We do not ask you to put into one measure the whole of your redistribution scheme— that may or may not be a convenient method of proceeding; but we ask you to disclose your scheme, and to disclose it in such a form that we may have your whole scheme before us." Well, I say we have never had that put before us, and we have never known what is to be done. What we have every reason to fear is that an enormous addition is to be made to the constituencies, that no rearrangement is to be relied upon to be made as to the allocation of the power so introduced into the Constitution, but that those 2,000,000 of capable voters, whoever they may be—and we cannot distinguish the case of Ireland, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to wish to do, from the case of Scotland—are to be turned loose upon your electoral system, and are to have a large voice in the management and the manipulation of that most difficult and troublesome question—the rearrangement of the electoral system. I know that we are told that the Government hope to bring a measure forward during the existence of the present Parliament; but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take it as a personal reflection upon himself or his Colleagues if we say that we attach only a moderate value to that promise. We do not doubt that they intend to do it; but the right hon. Gentleman knows —and he has indicated it in his speech just now—as well as we do, that that is a matter over which he and his Colleagues can have no such absolute certainty as to insure us from the consequences of a failure of that intention. What position are we to be in if we pledge ourselves and the country to this measure of the extension of the franchise? Now, Sir, I say that the House of Lords is peculiarly bound to look into questions of this sort, and to demand that a case should be made out in favour of the proposed change. I do not presume to anticipate what the opinions of the House

    1441
    of Lords in reference to this Bill may be; but I do not think that they should be regarded as setting themselves against either the feelings of the people or against the feelings of this House if they demanded that fuller explanations should be given, that more time should be taken for consideration, and that a more perfect scheme should be presented to them to form their judgment upon. I say that those who deny that right to the House of Lords are striking a blow at the Constitution of the country of which I do not believe the people of the country will approve. There is a sort of cool assumption on the part of hon. Members opposite, or of some of their supporters out-of-doors, that in this matter the majority of the House of Commons are speaking in the name and on behalf of the whole of the people of England. I utterly deny that they have any right to assume that position. Where is the evidence on which it is based? When we ask where is the evidence that the people of this country desire such a measure, we always meet with the taunt—"Oh, you will not be satisfied with anything until you see the people coming in a crowd to pull down the Park railings." That is not at all the view which we take. We say, where is the evidence that they desire it? Where are the Petitions in its favour? Has anybody taken the trouble to look at the Petitions? He will see that they are but few. They are not nearly so many as the Petitions presented in favour of female suffrage. If anyone looks into the statistics relating to the female suffrage question, he will find that when you talk about a mandate from the people, there is quite as much a mandate in that case as in this. How is it you are to find out what public opinion is with regard to this Bill if it is not by your elections? This measure, we are told, is a measure dealing with the county franchise. It so happens that since it was introduced we have had five county elections. The first election was for South Lincolnshire, which has a population of 122,000 and 11,000 voters. There was no contest. That does not seem to imply any great interest or keenness for this enfranchisement. In West Somerset the population is 116,000 and the number of voters 9,000, and the majority was 762. In Cambridgeshire the majority was 903. In South Hants,
    1442
    where the election took place when our discussions were far advanced, the majority was 1,437, and in Mid Surrey the majority was 2,796. There is, therefore, a total population of 817,000, with 66,000 voters, in five constituencies, in each of which the Conservative candidate was carried by a large majority. This is a question of evidence; and I venture to say that whatever class of evidence you give you will find very much the same result—that is to say, that the people are perfectly prepared to examine and discuss the question, and desire to see an extension of the suffrage, but have not bound themselves to follow your plans, though they are perfectly content, and naturally desire that those plans should be fairly discussed, fairly examined, and thoroughly understood before they are brought into operation. I must say that on one occasion the right hon. Gentleman gave some very excellent opinions of his own as to the principles on which redistribution should proceed. But he has given us no assurance whatever that the redistribution will be conducted upon what I may call Constitutional principles. There were very ominous words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman, even in his opening speech—namely, where he spoke as to the great strength which was imparted to the Constitution by the mere admission of large numbers. So far as we can see, the principle of numbers is the only principle upon which this Bill is founded. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman went so far, in speaking of the great strength of numbers, as to import a curious illustration from America, in which he said that the Government of America and the American people would never have got through their great struggle had it not been for the enormous basis upon which their Constitution rested—that is to say, he pointed to universal suffrage, or something like it, as the goal to which his aspirations were directed. Whatever may be the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman, we have no kind of security as to the conduct which his Colleagues will pursue when we come to the redistribution question next year. What will then be the value of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman at the time he introduced the Bill? He gave us then an interesting account as to the principles on which redistribution should be carried out. He told us a great many

    1443
    things extremely interesting, with which, in the abstract we were prepared to agree. What will be the value of that next year? How far will his Colleagues have advanced by that time? What will be the state of mind of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War? Will he advance as rapidly as he has done in recent years? A few years ago, when the noble Lord was in Opposition, he told us on the Bill brought forward by the present Chief Secretary that it was a fatal fault in it that it separated redistribution from extension of the franchise. He has entirely got over that now, and over a good many other stages too, which I only refer to as showing that the mind of the noble Lord is a very open mind. Then, we are promised a redistribution scheme. That is, I confess, cold comfort, until we get some idea of what that redistribution scheme is to be. My confidence in a good redistribution scheme is very much shaken by all I have seen and observed. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has made a reference to the clause inserted upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and spoken of that clause as if it were a great concession. If that is the right hon. Gentleman's idea of concession, I am afraid that we have very little to expect. The right hon. Gentleman has assented to a clause which, I believe, gives us nothing whatever, but which may do a great deal of harm by deluding people into the belief that it does some good. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton has simply put in a clause that which, even without the clause, would be almost absolutely certain—namely, that the Bill shall not come into operation until the 1st of January, 1885. I do not attach the smallest value to that. Those who take any comfort to themselves from that have deluded themselves with vain hopes. I do not, Sir, desire to occupy the time of the House, or that time should be occupied on this last stage of the Bill, when it is about to pass from us, by lengthened speeches; nor do I mean to challenge any Division on the subject. There is no question whatever that we are powerless in the hands of Ministers in regard to any influence that we can bring to bear upon them. I repeat that if the threats of the right hon. Gentleman against the House of Lords are to be held as representing the opinions of
    1444
    his Colleagues, or the opinions of the independent Party in this House, it is the most serious declaration I ever heard —the most serious declaration that a Minister of the Crown ever made, or that, I venture to say, this House ever heard. I can only hope that the right hon. Gentleman will in course of time learn a little more wisdom, a little more discretion, and a little more respect for the principles of the Constitution.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, I hope I shall be allowed a very few sentences upon the final stage of this Bill in this House before it passes to that stormy tide which seems to await it in "another place." I have felt it my duty to oppose this Bill at every preceding stage. I have opposed it, not on the ground of its being inopportune at this particular moment, not solely on the ground of its being an incomplete measure; but I have opposed it frankly because I was against what appeared to me to be the vital principle of the Bill —the extension of the franchise to 2,000,000 of voters. But I must frankly acknowledge that I have not seen any political forces, inside or outside the House, which associated themselves with that opposition. We are now at the third reading of the Bill. The Leader of the Opposition has spoken upon it, and not by a single word has he opposed, in the name of his Party, the vital principle which underlies the Bill. The Conservatives in this House, as a Party—I think they will acknowledge it themselves—have not opposed the principle of the extension of household suffrage to the counties. Here and there, there may have been an isolated voice which has made an individual protest; but the Conservative Party in this House have not opposed the principle of this measure. Most of the Conservative Leaders who have spoken outside the House have taken a similar course, and they have attempted to make it plain that any opposition they might offer was to this particular measure, and that it must not be understood that it was due to any reluctance to the extension of household suffrage to the counties. The Leader of the Opposition has spoken to-day of certain elections which have taken place, and he called that evidence of the reluctance of the counties —or of a certain indifference, I ought rather to say—on the part of the coun-

    1445
    ties, about the extension of the borough franchise to them. I have been associated, more or less, with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in opposing this Bill; and I may claim, therefore, to be an impartial witness when I say that I cannot find any evidence of indifference to the Bill on the part of the unenfranchised classes in the fact that the enfranchised class in the counties do not support a measure which may make them divide that franchise with the unenfranchised. But there is a more serious point. Is it not the fact that the Conservative Members who have fought these counties have expressed themselves in the most guarded language as to any opposition they might be thought to entertain to the principle of this measure? I have spoken of Conservatives inside and outside the House; and I, think I may honestly say that my views on this question have not been shared by either the one or the other. This leads me to the conclusion that the country now looks upon the principle of the extension of household suffrage as being accepted, passed, and ratified beyond recall; and I am of opinion that whatever fate may befall this particular measure, or whatever fate may befall the present Government, the country would insist on any Government that came into Office submitting proposals embodying that which is the vital principle of this Bill. We must therefore acknowledge that, subject to questions of time and circumstance, such hopes have been held out that the unenfranchised in the counties almost look upon it as though they have now a clear right to have the suffrage extended to them. In these circumstances, I must confess that, in my opinion, the time for further opposition to the extension of the suffrage has passed, and I have made my last speech against the principle involved in this Bill. Henceforth my duty as a humble Member of this House will be to look to the question of redistribution, and to attempt to co-operate with all the efforts that may be made to render it sure that there shall be a fair and equitable distribution of political power between all the component parts of the country and between the electors, old and new.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just gat down, interesting
    1446
    and important as it was, sank into insignificance in comparison with the speech which had been delivered by the Prime Minister. He did not believe that no such minatory speech as that made by the Prime Minister that evening had ever been delivered to the House of Commons by a responsible Minister of the Crown. He thought that the Prime Minister must have come to the conclusion that that was the last opportunity he would have of addressing the House on that measure. If it were not so, he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have deferred till a future occasion those vain threats to the House of Lords. What were the grounds on which the Prime Minister warned, in tragedy accents, the House of Lords not to meddle with this measure? He said that if by any chance the House of Lords threw it out, the result would be a political crisis which might end in the modification of the Constitution of this country. If the House of Lords were henceforth to be considered a Body incapable of modifying or rejecting a measure of that kind, he would assert that the time for that modification of the Constitution had already arrived; and he, for one, would not lift a finger to protect an Assembly that did not dare, when it thought right, to challenge an appeal to the country. The Prime Minister had described that as a conflict, as far as there was to be a conflict, between the two Houses of Parliament. If a conflict was to take-place at all, it would be one between the two Houses, and not one between the House of Lords and the country. If hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that in that matter they had the opinion of the country behind them, the remedy was in their own hands; all that they had to do was to advise the Crown to dissolve Parliament. [An hon. MEMBER: At the bidding of the House of Lords!]—and it would then be seen who was in the right—the Leader of the Opposition, when he appealed to the evidence of the recent elections, or the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who said he was quite certain that he had the country on his side. The Prime Minister said that the Government could not bring in a Bill dealing with redistribution at the same time as they dealt with the franchise, because such a Bill would be of such magnitude that they would have had to exclude Scotland and Ireland

    1447
    from its purview. ["No!"] That was the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's observation; and if they excluded Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman said they would have been supposed to have been engaged in a fraudulent concealment to the people of that country. That meant that the Government would not have been believed if they had said they intended to pass a Bill for Ireland next year. But if they would not have been believed in that case, why were they to be believed now, when they said they would bring in a Redistribution Bill next year? He took their own estimate of their own veracity, and asked what value was to be given to their assurance? That Bill originated at the Conference at Leeds. The Leeds Conference gave its orders to the Cabinet, the Cabinet gave its orders to the House of Commons, and now the House of Commons wanted to give its orders to the House of Lords. The first two stages of that process had been successful. He earnestly hoped that the third and last stage would not be successful. Personally, he was strongly in favour of that question being dealt with; but if it was to be dealt with successfully they must approach it in a very different spirit from that which had been hitherto exhibited; they must approach it with an anxious desire to preserve the balance of the Constitution; they must not attempt, as they had done, to work that great measure, not in the spirit of statesmen, but in the spirit of electioneering agents.
    MR. NEWDEGATEobserved that the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had used one expression which, coupled with what had fallen from the Prime Minister, was very significant. The right hon. Gentleman said that the householders of this country must now consider that they had acquired a right. That involved a great change—a revolution, as the Prime Minister had declared, greater than any that had occurred since 1688. Heretofore, in this country, the franchise had never been considered as a right, but always as a trust—a power in the hands of the voter to be exercised for the benefit of others besides himself. He (Mr. Newdegate) looked upon this measure as one which the House of Lords would be perfectly justified in referring to the country, if it were only for this reason—that he felt that one certain consequence of the pass-
    1448
    ing of that Bill with its complement for redistribution must be, that the House of Lords itself must be so reformed as to be virtually replaced by a Body with power enough and determination enough to insure to the country that no such revolutionary change as that now proposed should be adopted by Parliament without having been referred to the constituencies themselves. If the House of Lords passed that measure, such as it promised to be he said, as a humble but sincere Constitutional Member of the House, that to his mind they would create a necessity for some Body like the Senate of the United States, which should be able to stand between the country and the dictation of a single Chamber, or the arbitrary will of a too-powerful Minister. Freedom was not secured by mere deference to popular impulse, or by merely giving immediate legislative effect to popular impulse, but by securing the reference of every proposal for great Constitutional change, affecting the distribution of power among the different classes in the country, for the mature deliberation of the people themselves. He should never consider this Bill, if passed, valid until it had received the sanction of the people.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTthought that if ever there was a speech less calculated than another to obtain the end which it seemed to have in view, it was the speech which the Prime Minister had delivered that evening. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to forget that Englishmen throughout this country liked fair play, and disliked, above all things, to be dictated to by anyone. The Prime Minister had endeavoured to dictate to the House of Lords; but he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was persuaded that dictation would have no effect upon their Lordships. The Prime Minister had vitally changed his mind on this very question since 1866, when he said, on the subject of redistribution in reference to Lord John Russell's Reform Bill, that there was nothing more base or contemptible than the conduct of a Government which silently excluded from the scope of their measure the redistribution of seats, which was only second in importance to the franchise itself. He hoped the House of Lords would take note of that expression of opinion. He ventured to say that the Upper House would deal with this question in a states-

    1449
    manlike way. The Prime Minister had chosen to override the House of Lords in the matter of purchase in the Army, and now he came down and said that if the House of Lords did not pass this Bill, there would be a quarrel between the two Houses such as had never taken place before. He believed that, looking at the present condition of affairs, the House of Lords would be able to take their decision freely, and they would do that which they believed to be best in the interest of the country. In his opinion, it would be to the interest of the country that they should go to the country to see whether the people were so anxious for Reform as they were represented to be. He doubted very much whether the country would wish in the present state of Irish and Egyptian affairs to retain at the head of affairs the present Prime Minister.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had asked why the Prime Minister had thought right to use words of warning to the House of Lords. The circumstances under which they were placed were very peculiar. Never had a Government been placed in such a position as that in which those who had charge of this Bill had been put by those who opposed it. The words of the right hon. Gentleman were fair words of advice, and the circumstances were that a responsible Member of the Opposition had thought it right to inform them that the Bill was to be put to death. Where was it to be put to death? Not in that House. There was no disguise on the subject. It was the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) who stated that every Member of that House knew that the Bill had no chance of passing into law. From what source was this danger to come if not from the House of Lords? What was to be inferred but that some arrangement had been come to that the Bill should not pass the other House? The noble Lord who led the Opposition in the other House had not waited for the Bill to say that the House of Lords had a right to examine this Bill. The noble Lord had thought it right, in a campaign which he had undertaken on behalf of his Party, to address persons outside the House of Lords, and to give reasons why the House of Lords should throw out a Bill,
    1450
    the merits of which he could not know. If, then, the House of Lords had felt it to be their duty thus to announce their intention beforehand, was not someone in a responsible position in his right to warn them, and to ask them to pause before they took that step; to warn them of the consequences that might follow? He protested against it being said that the words of the Prime Minister constituted a threat. There had been no threat. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, that would be a matter of opinion. Others must judge besides hon. Members who exclaimed so loudly. Words of advice had been fairly given to those who expressed their own opinions freely enough. The recent elections had been referred to; but it must be remembered that all the candidates had expressed themselves in favour of the Bill. They had stated that they were supporters of the principles of the Bill, and were willing to give it their support. They knew that there were responsible Conservatives at Birmingham, under influential patronage, who had decided that opposition to this measure should never be mentioned. The feeling of the country was known. And what was the state of the Benches opposite? Very meagre. If the feeling of the country was opposed to the Bill, ought not that feeling to be expressed by the Conservative Members of the House who were in a position of responsibility, and ought they to shrink from division? They preferred at that hour (8 o'clock) to be engaged in a more pleasant occupation than in defending the country and the Constitution in the hour of danger.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he would defy the Attorney General to produce any words of a responsible Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords in which he said that he would pledge the House of Lords to pursue a certain course with respect to this Bill. The noble Lord had said that it was impossible to judge the exact course which the House of Lords would pursue until they had seen the Bill; the attempt, however, to separate the two questions of franchise and redistribution would justify the House of Lords in throwing out the Bill. He ventured to assert that the House of Lords would be justified in throwing out the Bill on account of its action with regard to Ireland under the present state of affairs. He asked

    1451
    the House to look at the present condition of Ireland, and to say whether, when that country was subject to the Coercion Act as a necessary instrument to preserve anything like good order, and life, and property, this was the time when they should play the game of those who were the opponents of law and order. The right hon. Gentleman had claimed for this Bill that it was an incomplete measure, and he had challenged them to point out a Reform Bill that was complete when first introduced. No doubt, other Reform Bills had been incomplete in regard to registration, boundaries, and other matters; but he maintained there never had been such an incomplete measure as this. It was not only incomplete in itself; but it was incomplete in regard to the explanations by which it was accompanied. A great deal had been said with reference to the extraordinary generosity of the Government in meeting the views of those who sat on his own side of the House, as well as the House generally, by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). It seemed to him, however, that it was idle to suggest, with the Bill before the House at this late date of the Session, that the normal and natural result of passing the Bill at this period of the Session would have been the same without that Amendment as with it. The Attorney General had referred to recent elections as an indication that the constituencies were in favour of the Bill. He had been present at a meeting of the constituents of the hon. Member just returned for South Hants; and although that hon. Member had said that he was in favour in the abstract of the extension of the franchise, he would oppose any plan which totally omitted redistribution as a part of the Bill. Was he justified in calling that supporting this particular Bill? After all, it was impossible for any one, however strongly he might support the Bill, not to come to the conclusion that the course now taken was legislating with one eye open and the other shut, and that to support the extension of the franchise in existing circumstances without the smallest idea as to how the constituencies were to be arranged or settled was simply dealing with the question in such a way as to hoodwink the House of Commons.
    MR. HEALYreferred to the action of the House of Lords in hampering legislation, and said it was absolutely impossible to get any of the most moderate reforms passed in the House of Lords with regard to Ireland. He thought, however, that when once the English public saw how a measure which concerned themselves was dealt with their consciences would be aroused, and they might then see how obnoxious a body an unreformed House of Lords might become.
    MR. WARTONsaid, they had heard a great deal about the other House of Parliament, and they had heard the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General try to tone down the declarations and threats of the Prime Minister. He had actually denied that any threat had been made; but he must say that, although he disliked the Prime Minister's politics, to do him justice he thought courage was one of his attributes, and he therefore thought that the right hon. Gentleman would not shrink from saying that he had threatened the House of Lords, and that he meant it. He looked upon the Prime Minister as the modern Gracchus, with all the instincts and aspirations of such a democrat; and he thought it was the wish of those who sat below the Gangway on the other side, together with the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and his Friends from Ireland—the Democratic and the Nationalist Party—to be led on by the Prime Minister in a crusade against the House of Lords. The House of Lords was as much entitled as the House of Commons to express its opinions, and neither House ought to attempt to bully the other. There never was a majority of the House of Commons which was entitled to as little respect as that which now followed the lead of the Prime Minister. It was a majority which was inconsistent both in its principles and in its practices, and the House of Lords could not be expected to pay it much respect. He thought the power of the Prime Minister ought to be curtailed, because he believed nothing more unconstitutional existed than the extreme power possessed by the Prime Minister. He complained that the suggestions of the Prime Minister were too favourable to Ireland, and did not recognize the just claims of Scotland.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. and learned Member was travelling beyond the Question before the House.
    MR. WARTONdeclared that the Government had not made up their minds as to the character of the Bill before they introduced it; and the consequence was that the House had had a perpetual series of surprises throughout its discussion.
    SIR FREDERICK MILNERsaid, he believed there were few Members of the House who would not regret very much the tone adopted by the Prime Minister and the Attorney General with regard to the House of Lords. At all events, it would have been more decent to have allowed their Lordships to have discussed the question before using any threats towards them. The discussion which had taken place on the Bill had been remarkable in more ways than one. It had been remarkable for the obstinacy with which the Government had stuck to the very letter of the Bill as it was brought in. It had also been remarkable for the ineffectual struggles on the part of one or two Members sitting on the Ministerial side of the House to assert their own opinions. These Members reminded him of barnacles clinging to the bottom of the Governmental ship, making a few ineffectual attempts to set themselves free. The hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey) had a Motion on the Paper which practically carried out the arguments of the Opposition; but, acting under pressure from the Government, he withdrew altogether from the contest. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall) also made a bold show in favour of women's suffrage; but he thought he was justified in saying that the hon. Member knew perfectly well that his Motion had no chance of passing; and he, therefore, had the satisfaction of not offending his great Chief, and, at the same time, escape all risk at a General Election by the terms of his speech. The discussions would also have shown to the country that the Conservative Party were not opposed to anything in the shape of Reform, or of extension of the suffrage to the counties. The Opposition had, however, asserted over and over again that they did not believe in setting so dangerous a precedent as dividing the extension of the suffrage from redistribution. They had some justification in arguing that
    1454
    from the speeches of the Prime Minister of late years. The Prime Minister, among other things, had said speaking of approaching the subject of redistribution with a view to what was commonly known as "cooking the constituencies," "seeking to destroy the effects of a redistribution of the franchise through a redistribution of seats is making redistribution a most dangerous engine as regards public liberty." That was the danger the Conservative Party had seen in being obliged to trust redistribution entirely to the hands of a Government whom they did not think over-scrupulous. As for himself, he had always been in favour of the extension of the franchise in counties; and he never could see any reason or justice why that extension should not be carried out. Inasmuch, however, as the Attorney General had expressed a hope that the Government would be able to devote the greater part of next Session to the consideration of a Redistribution Bill, he did not think constituencies would have suffered much if they had had to wait another year. The Government could then have devoted the whole of the Session to the consideration of a complete scheme; and he believed that if they had done so, they would have met with a good deal of support from the majority of the Conservative Party. The Prime Minister, in the course of his speech, had said the Liberal Party had shown confidence in the people. He did not deny that the assertion of the Prime Minister was perfectly correct; but, unfortunately, there were very few Liberals on the Ministerial side of the House. A considerable portion of hon. Gentlemen opposite belonged to the extreme Radical Party; and if they were to judge by outside utterances, they had every right to be suspicious of the Radical Party, and the confidence they professed to repose in the people. He was very much struck with a sentence which was let drop by the junior Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) at one of those large Caucus gatherings which were supposed to demonstrate the immense desire and imperative necessity which the people of the country considered there was for the extension of the franchise in counties. On that occasion the hon. Member for Newcastle said—
    "That the future of Radicalism did not depend on the spontaneous action of the masses

    1455
    but on the way in which the opinions of the masses were manipulated by certain small handful of resolute and convinced men."
    They had, therefore, a right to be suspicious of the Radical Party; and it was because they were suspicious that the Opposition had endeavoured to urge on the Government the necessity of combining the two measures of redistribution and extension of the franchise. The Government, by the course they were taking, were setting a dangerous precedent, which he ventured to predict Members on both sides of the House would in the future have cause deeply to regret.
    MR. SPEAKERthen put the Question. The Question is that the Bill be now read the third time. Those who are of that opinion say "Aye." Those who are of the contrary opinion say "No." I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I desire to observe that the Bill is read the third time nemine contradicente.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Bill is read the third time nemine contradicente.
    Bill passed.

  MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [BILL 207.]
  (Mr. Mundella.)
  MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [BILL 207.]

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [24th June], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    DR. FARQUHARSONremarked that it was a subject for congratulation that a measure like this, which promised to terminate the long controversy relating to medical reform, had been introduced into that House. He supported the Bill without much enthusiasm. He was not wholly satisfied with it. If it was carried in its present form it would injure all and probably ruin some of the Medical Corporations in this country. He said in its present form, because if the Amendment so ably brought forward by the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair were agreed to it would remove many of the objections felt to the Bill. Such a Bill as that now before the House ought to be backed up by very good reasons indeed. The
    1456
    public opinion on the question had been worked up by the Medical Press, which was entirely a London Press, and not always a safe guide as indicating the feelings of the country on great national questions. His countrymen almost all opposed this Bill. It was feared in Scotland that the Bill would, as regards competition, have a downward effect, and lower the standard. In Scotland the Corporations had always examined in the three subjects of medicine, surgery, and midwifery. It was said that many incompetent men who had failed to pass in London had gone to Edinburgh, where they had obtained their degrees; but exactly the same thing could be said in the converse way, for men who had failed in Edinburgh had come up to London and passed the examinations. But even granting that those things were true, that referred more to the past than to the present. The Corporations had now set their houses in order, and some of the Scottish bodies had formed a conjoint Board for examination. But he was willing to accept the Bill, because it was desirable to put an end to the constant agitation and turmoil which beset the Medical Profession year after year. He was surprised to hear his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) object to the direct representation of the Profession on the Medical Council. It was surely desirable to have all possible interests represented. The objections to the Bill were mainly to details, which might be modified in Committee; and he was glad to support its second reading.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, that the Bill was earnestly desired by the Medical Profession, and that medical men, generally, have expressed themselves as most eager for it. His words conveyed the impression that there was almost unanimity among medical men about it—indeed, he said 19–20ths of them were in favour of the Bill. But that he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) ventured to say was not the case. The House had heard from the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Gray) that there is very general concurrence of opinion against the Bill among Irish medical men; and he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) could confidently say that it was the same with the Medical Profession in Scotland. His right hon. Friend the

    1457
    Member for the University of Edinburgh, said that two of the Scottish Universities and the three Corporations in Scotland were opposed not to the Bill as a whole, but to some provisions in it. But he thought his right hon. Friend was in error; for, at that very moment, there was a large deputation in London from three of the Universities and the three Corporations who had come up with the intention of opposing the Bill altogether. With regard to Edinburgh University its position was originally one of hostility to the Bill; and it was a moot point with them, to the last moment, whether they should not oppose it, and he understood they had ultimately resolved to support it, only on condition that a clause was added on the lines indicated by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh University providing that assessors should be sent by the Medical Boards to take part in the final examinations by the Universities, and in the joint final examinations of the Corporations. The hon. Member for Carlow had stated that the Bill was opposed in Ireland on account of its centralizing tendency, and because the Corporations were satisfied that its effect would be to extinguish them. In these objections and fears the Medical Profession in Scotland shared. The Universities dreaded the centralizing effect of the Bill, and the Corporations not only dreaded that, but feared that the effect of the constitution of the Medical Boards would be, before a very long time passed, the extinction of the Corporations and of the extra-mural Medical School. No one in Scotland opposed what the Vice President of the Council said was the principal purpose of the Bill—namely, to secure the threefold qualification in all persons added to the Register. All highly approved of this, and the Corporations in Scotland had adopted it in their final examinations. But they agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets that it would have been well if the Bill had gone no farther than requiring that. What was feared, as he had said, was centralization, in consequence of the powers and constitution proposed to be given to the Medical Council. The duty of the Council was to be the exercise of supervision and control over the Medical Boards. The Council was to have the power of regulating everything connected with the Profession of Medicine. It was to have, as the right hon. Gentle-
    1458
    man the Vice President said, "not only the power of recommending, but of enforcing its recommendations." That it had not had that power hitherto had secured moderation in its actings. On this Council thus increased in power Scotland was to have representation much less than it had on the present Medical Council. Scotland now sends a fourth part of the members to the Council; but on the new Council she would practically have only one-sixth of the members as her representatives. The six nominees of the Crown would, as a rule, be taken; from England, and almost certainly; they will be men resident in London. But the proposition of one-sixth of the members of the Council would be most unfair to Scotland. He found from the Minutes of the Medical Council from 1879 to 1883 that of those who went up for final examination in that time 8,457 were in England, 6,673 in Scotland, and 3,368 in Ireland, so that about one-third of all the candidates were examined in Scotland; and it was, therefore, entirely out of the question to propose to give to Scotland such a small representation as the Bill provided. It was feared that if Ireland and Scotland had a decided minority of representatives on the Council, the Council would be apt to regulate matters more with regard to the interests of the Profession in England than to those of Ireland and Scotland. The Corporations in Scotland had special ground to apprehend evil results from the constitution of the Council, as they would likely have no direct representation on it at all. Two of the Scotch members of the Council are to be sent by the Medical Board; and as on that Board there will be a large preponderance of University members, the Corporations believe that the representatives sent to the Council by the Board will be selected from the University members. The Corporations object to the proposed constitution of the Medical Board for Scotland. The proposal of the Bill was that eight members should be chosen by the Universities, and only five by the Corporations. But the Universities examined only 2,333 of the 6,673 candidates examined in Scotland in the years he had mentioned, while the Corporations examined 4,340. Now, what are the powers of this Board? They are to govern all matters appertaining to medical teaching, examinations, and licensing. The Corporations

    1459
    fear that by intrusting these matters to a Board on which the Universities have an overwhelming preponderance, serious injury would result to the Corporations and to the extra-mural schools. He did not suppose that the Professors in the Universities would use means to induce the students to go to their own classes instead of to those of the extra-mural teachers; but the students would, undoubtedly, be influenced by the supposition that by attending the classes of those who were to examine them, they would stand a better chance of passing the examination, and would accordingly forsake the extra-mural classes for those of the Universities. Such a result would be much to be deplored. It would be disastrous to medical teaching in Scotland, and to the Universities themselves. The extra-mural schools had been of the greatest value. They had kept, by the competition they offered, the teaching of the Universities at a high level. Where a Professor had outlived his usefulness it had been of immense advantage to students to have the extra-mural classes to go to, and those schools had greatly benefited the Universities by being a training ground for Professors. Almost every distinguished Professor, for many years past, had received his training, and acquired his reputation first of all, as a teacher in these schools. Why, then, should anything be done by legislation to injure the Corporations and the extra-mural schools. Further, he should state that the Corporations had already adopted schemes for a full examination in medicine, surgery, and midwifery, and had thus already made provision to secure the end which the Vice President of the Council had said was the most important one sought by the Bill. The Corporations knew it would be hopeless to oppose the passing of the Bill. They gave the highest credit to the Vice President of the Council for the zeal he had shown for medical reform; and they acquiesced in the second reading in the hope that the Vice President would make reasonable concessions in Committee, and accept Amendments which would make the Bill less injurious and unjust in its operation than they feared it might be.
    DR. LYONSsaid, he must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) on the introduction of the Bill. At the same time, considering the
    1460
    great advance that had taken place in medical science within the last 25 years, it might be a question whether it was not rather risky for the Legislature to step in and interfere with a number of Medical Bodies, under whose work it was recognized that material improvement had taken place. The Bill, which dealt with a most complicated subject, touched several of the interests of the Profession, and affected the position which it occupied in relation to the public. There were many difficulties in the way of dealing with this subject which, perhaps, had not been fully realized even yet by the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill. There was, perhaps, no human calling- in regard to which the public was so much at the mercy of the practitioners as in the case of the Medical Profession; and therefore it was desirable, in the interests of the public, not only that the Medical Profession should consist of men of the highest attainments in the science of medicine, but it was also of the greatest importance that the high moral tone of the Profession should be to the fullest maintained. That tone was in part clue to the influence exercised over students and practitioners by the corporate Bodies with which they were bound to be connected, in order to obtain the degrees or licences, without which they could not legally practice. Under this Bill it was not only possible, but probable, that a very large number of medical men would in future not be intimately associate with any Corporation or University. The Bill would establish a kind of compound Institution, to which the Universities and Medical Corporations would each of them contribute a contingent of examiners. The qualification which the students would gain would not be such a qualification as would attach them to any Corporation, and no undefined Body of that kind would be able to exercise influence over them. No inducement would be held out to them to seek the honours and distinctions of the Universities and Medical Corporations; and, therefore, the connection of the Medical Profession with those Bodies would be broken. It must be borne in mind that these corporate Bodies had, generally speaking, no funds of their own; and, therefore, the majority must die of sheer inanition. He knew that fears of that kind were profoundly entertained in London and elsewhere. He had heard it stated that

    1461
    in London these corporate Bodies would not be in existence in 10 years; and if that were so, what must be the case with Corporations in other parts of the country, which now found it difficult to make both ends meet? Having no funds, they must ex necessitate rei die out. That was a very serious consideration for the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, and it would certainly be his duty to see that the matter was fully considered in Committee. These Corporations performed very useful functions, and, looking to that and the length of time during which they had existed, he should regret extremely the suppression of any one of them. In the Bill, as it came from the House of Lords, he found that the two Corporations of apothecaries who were the most ancient of the Medical Bodies in Ireland had been omitted. These Bodies performed most useful functions. The apothecary was undoubtedly the poor man's friend, and was always ready in the most generous manner to give him the benefit of his advice. It would, therefore, be very seriously felt if anything were to happen which would destroy the great body of apothecaries, who were the custodians of medicaments by which people were healed, and were the necessary complement of physicians and surgeons. He trusted that that House, which represented the popular element, would restore the apothecaries to the position to which they were entitled, and it would certainly be his duty to endeavour that that should be done.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he did not think that a Bill of this character ought to be pressed forward at the present time, when there were other measures of much greater public importance, interesting to a large portion of the community, which required the attention of the House. For several years past Bills on the subject had been introduced; and although none of them had become law, they had produced reforms in the Medical Licensing Bodies. Tear by year the necessity for a measure of this character had steadily grown less, and since last year a most important step had been taken in the shape of a conjoint scheme of the Scottish Medical Corporations, and the resolution that for the future they would issue no more single licences. There was strong evidence to be adduced from the Report of the
    1462
    Commission on Medical Degrees that the principle on which this Bill was founded was unanimously repudiated in Scotland, as prejudicial to the interests of Scottish medical education. The Bill practically disregarded what had been urged by the most influential minority of the recent Commission, and went entirely contrary to the ideas of the Scottish Medical Profession and the Scottish Medical Authorities. He was willing to allow that the present Bill was an improvement on the Bill of last year, both in regard to the constitution of the Board and other matters. It was much to be regretted that the Government had taken this measure into their hands. The Medical Authorities in Scotland, however, were willing to bring the long struggle on this subject to a close, by accepting the proposals of the Bill, if the Government would agree to certain modifications. He thought there would be but little opposition to the measure, if the Government could give an assurance that in Committee they would accept the proposed Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) with reference to medical examinations.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)could not agree with the hon. Member who had just sat down as to the time at which this Bill should be brought forward. A question which involved the interests of the Medical Profession was one of the most vital and important that could be discussed by the House. He hoped, therefore, that no time would be lost, but that the Bill would become law, with certain necessary Amendments, during the present Session.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was willing to admit that the Bill dealt with an important subject, which demanded attention; but, in his opinion, it was not the outcome of any general feeling in its favour on the part of the Medical Profession, but of professional jealousies. Medical gentlemen generally preferred to carry on their business without mixing themselves up in any agitation of this character, and on that account were easily manipulated to the opinions of any ring which might be formed. He submitted that undue influence was given to the Universities, some of whom, such as Trinity College, Dublin, or Oxford, really had no medical school of any consequence, while

    1463
    great institutions like the Apothecaries Hall were eliminated by the scheme. He failed to see how the operations of the Bill would strengthen the action of the Medical Council. In Committee, it would become his duty to move a considerable number of Amendments.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  ELECTIONS (HOURS OF POLL) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 97.]
  (Sir Charles W. Dilke, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain.)
  ELECTIONS (HOURS OF POLL) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 97.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    MR. E. STANHOPEquite admitted that at one time he might have held views on this subject different to those he now entertained; but since the passing of the Corrupt Practices Act, by which voters were no longer permitted to be carried to the poll, a different case had arisen. It was not, therefore, from any desire to delay the Bill that he thought it should be referred to a Select Committee. He objected to one rigid rule being applied to all constituencies. He had endeavoured to make himself acquainted with the views of the various constituencies on this subject, both large and moderate-sized constituencies, and the result showed that a very considerable difference of opinion existed in their views on the subject. This inquiry showed that some constituencies desired an extension of the hours of polling such as was proposed in the Bill; others were of opinion that no extension was required at all; while others, again, thought that the hours should be modified, but not prolonged to the full extent suggested. One or two places considered that a distinction should be made between summer and winter, the extension of hours being confined to the former period, in consequence of the increased difficulty of keeping order in winter when it grew dark earlier. What was really required was a more elastic system, which could easily be adapted to the peculiar circumstances of each constituency. He, therefore, thought that the proper mode of dealing with that Bill
    1464
    would be to refer it to a Select Committee. If that were done at once, the Select Committee might report the Bill to the House in. a fortnight or three weeks; and if the Session continued for the ordinary period there would be no difficulty in passing the measure through that House, and sending it up to the House of Lords in time for its proper consideration by that Assembly. He begged, therefore, to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be referred to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. E. Stanhope,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was willing to acknowledge the fairness of the hon. Member's speech; but he would remind the hon. Member that that subject was not new, but one that had been considered by two Select Committees, and discussed on several previous occasions. Many of the questions that had been raised by the hon. Member were questions of detail, which could be conveniently dealt with in Committee. The present Bill differed from the former measure on the same subject by substituting the number of electors as the test instead of the optional system, because when the optional system was proposed many objections to it were stated in that House. The hon. Member had attacked the adoption of a rigid system. As the Bill was now drawn, it proposed an extension of the hours in boroughs having over a certain number of electors. The limit fixed was, of course, open to consideration in Committee. There would, therefore, in future be two systems in existence. There were now two systems, because the hours of polling in the Metropolis were longer than the hours in the country, and that Bill would apply the London system to boroughs in the country with 5,000 electors and upwards. The hon. Member had spoken of the possibility of a Select Committee recommending the adoption of varying hours; but as long as they retained nonresident franchises it would be specially inconvenient to have different hours of

    1465
    polling throughout the country, as many people who travelled from a distance to vote would not know for certain the hours of polling at a particular place. That Bill had been proposed as the result of a very large amount of local inquiry made by a relative of his, now, unfortunately, no longer among them. With regard to the bearing of the lengthened hours upon the preservation of law and order, that matter had been very carefully gone into by the former Committee. They not only had before them the Chief of the Metropolitan Police, who was strongly in favour of the Bill extending the hours of polling in the Metropolis; but they also had similar evidence as to the School Board elections in the boroughs of the country, which caused considerable excitement. Those elections were all conducted under a system which enabled the local authorities to extend the hours between 8 and 8, and yet they were unaccompanied by any rioting or disorder. There was often a disinclination for the long hours on the part of the authorities who conducted the election, but not on the part of the people. In Manchester, for example, a great number of the people desired an extension of the hours, though those at the head of affairs might be otherwise disposed. The working of the longer hours in the Metropolis had been completely successful, and all the experience they had had of it was favourable. [Mr. E. N. FOWLER (Lord Mayor): Not in the City.] The City was in a very peculiar position, because, while in the Metropolis generally it was known to be difficult to get people to meet before 8 o'clock in the evening, it was very difficult to get them to meet in the City after 5 or 6 in the afternoon, because so many of them lived at Brighton and other places. It had been suggested that they should make a difference as to the hours in winter and summer; but that plan had been tried in the Ballot Bill of 1872, and after being carried with great opposition through that House it was rejected in the House of Lords. He had given up what, in his own opinion, was a compromise which might have been accepted on this subject, because he had found that there was great difference of opinion on the question, and that, on the whole, opinion was against giving the local authorities power to fix the hours of polling.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)admitted that for constituencies like those of Chelsea, and in the suburbs, later hours might be found convenient; but he did not think the same advantage was experienced in the City of London. In the City, at present, they found that after 5 o'clock in the afternoon the polling clerks were left sitting with nothing to do, as nearly everyone went out of town at 4 o'clock. That was not an argument against the Bill generally; but he thought that it was an argument in favour of giving to the local authorities some power to regulate the hours in which polling should take place in each particular constituency. He thought that the different questions which must arise as to each constituency would be far better considered in a Select Committee than in a Committee of the Whole House; and he would, therefore, support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL, while opposing the Amendment, suggested that as they had two Grand Committees sitting idle, one of these might dispose of a Bill of this kind, so that it might come before the House at an advanced stage.
    MR. TOMLINSONthought that a Select Committee was the best means by which individual opinions might be gathered. At the same time, as regarded his own constituency, he thought that the hours fixed in the Bill would be the most suitable.
    MR. SCLATER - BOOTHsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) in thinking that a Bill of this description might, with advantage, be referred to a Standing Committee. The necessary information would be more readily obtained by that method than by a Select Committee.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that they had only one object in view, which was, to frame a Bill which would allow all voters to go to the poll. For large constituencies it was absolutely necessary that some alteration should be made; but the question was, what was the proper standard by which to go? A Select Committee consisted of a very few Members, and the result of sending the Bill to such a Committee would be that they would practically have to go through the whole Bill again, losing sight alto-

    1467
    gether, perhaps, of the Report of the Select Committee. In a Committee of the Whole House, however, they had not the means of getting information which they had in a Select Committee. It was a question for the House to consider; but he thought that this was a matter of business, and the Standing Committees had proved themselves exceedingly useful in dealing with such questions.
    MR. CAUSTONsaid, he hoped the suggestion-to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee would not be agreed to, because it was a measure which could be dealt with very well by the House itself. They were about to extend the franchise at the present time, and he thought it would mean a large amount of disfranchisement to the working men in our large cities if the hours of polling were not also extended. He hoped the Attorney General would not press the suggestion which had been made, that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman would be rejected, and that the Bill would be proceeded with in Committee of the Whole House that night.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, if the suggestion of sending the Bill to a Grand Committee had been made at an earlier stage, he did not think any objection would have been made to it; but he must remind the House that they were approaching a period of the Session when to lose time over the consideration of such a Bill as this would mean the Bill being lost for the whole Session. He, therefore, asked the Government to proceed with the Bill now. He thought that no reason existed why a measure upon which there was no serious difference of opinion should not be got through Committee in a very short time.
    MR. RUSTONsaid, he could assure the House that there was scarcely any measure before the House at the present time which was regarded with so much satisfaction by a very large class of electors than the present proposal. A large class of the electors of this country had been enfranchised; but the effect of the hours of polling was such as to mean a considerable amount of disfranchisement. This proposal, which extended the hours of polling, was one which was regarded with immense satisfaction, particularly by the working classes. Having had occasion, recently, to consult a constituency numbering 7,000 electors many
    1468
    of whom were working men, he thought he could say this with confidence. This proposal might be regarded as a complement to the Corrupt Practices Act of a former Session. He could understand that in past times, when elections were characterized by a large amount of rioting and disorder, it was desirable that the poll in populous towns should be closed early; but under the new Act he thought no such necessity existed. He thought, therefore, it was desirable to proceed in passing an Act of this kind. There was an important fact to consider in regard to how this matter affected the working classes. In London alone there would be from 10,000 to 20,000 working men who were employed at their daily work four or five miles distant from their homes, and who found it absolutely impossible to leave their work and record their votes in their own polling districts without losing at least half a day's wage. This was a very important consideration, and as this measure would bring relief to the working men who had been enfranchised, and also to the many thousands who were to be enfranchised, he gave his earnest support to the Bill, and hoped it would be carried as rapidly through the House as possible.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he hoped the Government would not consent to the sending of this Bill to a Grand Committee. Irish Members were generally very inadequately represented on those Committees; and he protested against a Bill of this kind being sent to such a Committee. If this were done, it would simply mean a large amount of subsequent discussion on Report. If the Government wished to save time, his advice to them was to get the Speaker out of the Chair, and proceed with the Bill now.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid the suggestion of sending the Bill to a Grand Committee was made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and it had been supported in the most impartial spirit by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth). The Government had been inclined to suppose that it was the general view of the House that the Bill should be referred to a Grand Committee; but it was now quite evident that this was not the general view, and, as the hon. Member who spoke last said, would only lead to a waste of time.

    1469
    While quite willing to concur in sending the Bill to a Grand Committee if it had been the general view of the House that it should be so, yet, as it did not seem to be the general desire of the House, he believed they had no other course to adopt than to get the Speaker out of the Chair, and proceed with the Bill.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he must protest against the Bill being proceeded with now in Committee of the Whole House, because there were many hon. Members having Amendments on the Paper, who were not in their places to move them. It seemed to him that the Government wished to force the Bill through in the absence of those who had carefully considered it. In his opinion, that seemed to be a reason why the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was very much disappointed at the action which the Government had taken, because they had practically admitted the proposition he had put forward, and that some inquiry was necessary. He had suggested a Select Committee; but they had not adopted that suggestion, although willing to adopt the suggestion of a Grand Committee. Now, however, an hon. Member representing an Irish constituency came forward to oppose this course, and the Government gave way. He did not think this was treating him fairly in this matter. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and if this permission was granted he should ask leave of the House to propose that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Law. ["No, no!" and "Divide!"]
    Question put and agreed to.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Hours of polling in boroughs with more than five thousand electors. 31 and 32 Vict. c. 125).
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he should like to know if he would be in Order now in moving that the Chairman report Progress? He thought, under the circumstances, the Government would be quite prepared to assent to that Motion.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government could not assent to it.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had thought that the object of the Government was to secure that the Bill should be discussed by Members who had paid attention to the subject, with the object of making it as good a measure as was possible; but, at the present moment, there were hardly any Members present who had put down Amendments on the Paper. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was not present; and as the Government intended to go on with the Bill, he would move the Amendment which stood in the hon. Member's name—namely, to leave out the words in the 1st clause "to which this Act applies," in order to insert the words—
    "In a Parliamentary borough, which has, at the passing of this Act, a number of registered electors exceeding 10,000."
    It appeared to him that the limit contained in the proposal of the hon. Member—namely, boroughs exceeding 10,000 registered electors—would be a much better limit than that proposed in the Bill. As the House would not allow him to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, so that it might be inquired into carefully, he would make this proposition. He could assure the Committee that there was a large consensus of opinion in the smaller Parliamentary boroughs likely to be affected by the Bill that if the hours of polling were extended to the full extent proposed by the Bill, there would be much greater risk of bribery and corruption than there was at present. He knew that that was one reason why the Government were inclined, in the first instance, to accept his proposal that there should be some further inquiry into the matter. He believed the case of large boroughs was one which did require some alteration; but he thought it would be better to fix the limit at 10,000, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) proposed. The clause would then read as follows:—
    "At every Parliamentary or municipal election in a Parliamentary borough which has, at the passing of this Act, a number of registered electors exceeding 5,000, and not exceeding 10,000, the polls (if any) shall commence at 8 o'clock in the forenoon, and be kept open until 6 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, and no longer."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 5, to leave out the words "to which this Act applies," and insert the words

    1471
    "in a Parliamentary Borough which has, at the passing of this Act, a number of registered electors exceeding ten thousand,"—(Mr. E. Stanhope,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) had not moved the Amendment with the same object the hon. Member for Northampton had in view. The intention of his hon. Friend was that there should be a sliding scale— that in the case of boroughs with 10,000 registered electors they should be allowed to vote until 8 o'clock at night; while in boroughs with between 5,000 and 10,000 electors the poll should be closed at 5 or 6 o'clock. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire moved the Amendment in order to make it appeal-that 10 was substituted for five in the Bill itself. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) thought it would be more convenient to take the opportunity of discussing the figure to be substituted for the figure 5,000 now in the Bill, when they arrived at the figures. The hon. Member for Northampton would have been in Order, because he wished to move a sliding scale; but if it were desired to change the figures, it would be better to do so when they came to the figures themselves.
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he did not understand the object with which his hon. Friend had moved the Amendment, and he was sorry that the hon, Member for Northampton was not there to move it himself, seeing that it was one of which he had given Notice; because, although his hon. Friend might be moving it with the best intentions, still it would have been satisfactory to have heard what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Northampton at the time he placed it on the Paper. He had risen to protest against the poll being kept open in small boroughs from 8 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock at night. Anybody who was accustomed to take part in elections in small boroughs knew how important it was to have the town quiet as soon as possible after the election was over. Representing, as he did, a large acreage constituency where the voters came up to poll from considerable distances, if no declaration of the poll took place before 8 o'clock in the
    1472
    evening, the consequence would be that the whole of those enthusiastic voters, from the want of something to employ their time between the hours of 3 and 8 would be found drinking in the public-houses, and congregating together in a manner which would probably lead to inconvenient and undesirable results. He did not know whether, after what the right hon. Baronet had stated, that was the proper time to move any Amendment in regard to restricting the hours of polling; but he certainly thought that they were beginning at the wrong end. If it was necessary to extend the hours of polling, the beginning had better be made earlier in the morning instead of the hours being continued later in the evening. If a man wanted to go to the poll he would not object to get up a little earlier in the morning in order to do so; but he thought they were running a great risk of bringing about drunkenness and riotous proceedings if they kept the poll open late in the evening. It might be that it would only be good-humoured rioting; but, although commencing ill that way, it frequently degenerated into very undesirable rioting. If the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary that 12 hours should elapse between the opening and the closing of the polling booth, he thought it far better that the extra hours should be given in the morning, rather than that they should keep open the polling booth until 8 o'clock at night. Personally, he did not agree that the extension of the hours of polling was at all desirable; but if it was necessary to have the polling booth open for 12 hours, it was desirable to commence earlier rather than to continue it open later. He did not think the limit; suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire was that which was desired by the hon. Member for Northampton. As he understood the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton, it was that there should be a sliding scale in the case of the smaller constituencies, in regard to which there was no necessity whatever for an extension of the hours. Why should the hours be extended where the voters did not exceed 2,000 in number? He thought it was only in a case where they exceeded 5,000 that the hours of polling should be extended beyond 4 o'clock, and they might be further extended by

    1473
    a sliding scale, according to the number of electors on the Register. He was not, however, prepared to say what the eliding scale should be.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. S. Herbert) appeared to be labouring under a misapprehension. He appeared to think that it was intended to extend the hours of polling in boroughs of 2,000 electors, whereas, as the Bill was drawn, the extension would be limited to boroughs of 5,000 electors. The hon. Member suggested that the poll should be opened earlier in the day—at 6 o'clock in the morning instead of 8. That was a matter which had been carefully considered by one or two former Select Committees, and especially by one that was presided over by Sir Charles Adderley (the present Lord Norton), who was himself much in favour of the proposal. But it was found that in the building trade, in the summer months of the year, the men for whom this Bill was very much needed indeed, began their work so early that even 6 o'clock in the morning would be of very little use to them. All the people who were interested in the matter preferred an extension of hours in the evening to the opening of the poll earlier in the morning. He was, therefore, afraid that he could not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member.
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he was willing to confess that he had had in his mind the future constituencies rather than the present.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he should support the Motion for leaving out the words "to which this Act applies."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, they had not reached that point yet.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is, that the words "to which this Act applies" stand part of the clause.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, that was the point he desired to address himself to. He wished to support the proposal for leaving out those words, not with the view of accepting the words which followed, but for the purpose of including all boroughs; and his reason was this. He understood the ground upon which the hours of polling were to be extended was that it would meet the convenience of a great many electors who were employed at a distance from the
    1474
    place of polling, and who were unable to register their votes before 4 o'clock. Now, that was a difficulty which did not apply to large boroughs only. The difficulty in the small burghs in Scotland was quite as great as in the large. His own district of Kilmarnock consisted of five burghs, the largest of which had only 4,000 electors, while one of the remaining four had only 700, and many of the voters in all the burghs which he represented, being miners and shipbuilders, were employed several miles away from the place of polling. In the whole of his burghs many of the electors would not be able to attend the polling booth before 4 o'clock without sacrificing a large portion of their working time. In almost all of the burghs in Scotland there were a large number of men employed in the building trade, who did all the building work that was necessary to be done within a considerable distance of the polling places. Many of them at present patriotically sacrificed half-a-day in order to record their votes; but he thought that if this boon was to be given to the large boroughs, the small boroughs should be allowed to participate in it also.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked, that the hon. Member who had just spoken was mistaken if he was under the impression that the Bill would not apply to the district of burghs he represented.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he perfectly understood that it would apply to the Kilmarnock burghs; but he was speaking in the interests of other small boroughs.
    MR. E. STANHOPEexpressed his readiness to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet; and, as it would probably be better to discuss the question later on, he would withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that as the Bill at present stood it would only apply to two constituencies in Ireland—namely, Dublin and Belfast. He wished to ascertain clearly what was in the mind of the Government on the question. The borough of Belfast had 21,000 voters, and the City of Dublin between 13,000 and 14,000; but Cork, which was the next largest Irish borough, had a constituency below 5,000. Of course, if they got the extended franchise which the Government proposed, there would be

    1475
    other constituencies which would come under the Act; but he certainly thought that, even as the franchise stood, the Bill ought to be extended to such places as Cork and Limerick.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the constituency of Cork numbered 4,800, and he had intended to include the Irish Members among the large number of Members he had proposed to consult. The intimation he had given, that the extension would include three boroughs in Ireland, applied to Cork. Perhaps it would be better that he should say now what he should certainly have to say later on in the Committee— that, for himself, he was disposed to think that 4,000 would be a better number than 5,000.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he understood the Question before the House to be that the words "to which this Act applies" should stand part of the clause. Was he to understand that the Act applied to all boroughs, or only to certain boroughs which contained more than 4,000 or 5,000 electors? He not only wanted to know the mind of the Government upon the matter, but he wanted also to know what his own mind was upon it. He was very anxious to collect what his own mind was, and also that of his constituency, and at present he was not able to complete the operation. He understood the Bill, as it was framed at present, would not apply to the Kirkcaldy district of burghs which he represented, whereas a limit of 4,000 and upwards would do so. It was, therefore, important to him and to his constituents to know whether the Bill was to affect them or not. He represented a good-sized burgh, so far as the number of electors was concerned; it was a very long burgh, when the area comprised in it was considered, and the Bill should apply to it. He not only represented Kirealdy, but three other burghs, which were very small and compact; and he wanted to know if the Act would apply to those small burghs—whether, in point of fact, the smaller and compact burghs would be included within its operation? He hoped the Government would explain clearly what was in their mind, and whether they intended that the Bill should apply to the small burghs or not.
    MR. CROPPERsaid, that for his own part, representing, as he did, a borough
    1476
    with only a constituency of 2,000 electors in it, he was perfectly content with the hours of polling as they stood. He thought that in the small boroughs, as a matter of convenience, it was desirable to have the polling booth closed at 4 o'clock, so that they might not have people parading the streets all night in order to know what was going on. Those who were acquainted with the small boroughs would be perfectly aware that it would be productive of considerable inconvenience to keep the poll open until a late hour. He hoped, therefore, that the provisions of the Bill would not be extended to the small boroughs, and he recommended the Government to adhere to the figure which they had at first adopted.
    MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he lost his election in 1874 owing to the poll not being kept open after 4 o'clock. He had a very strong feeling that this would be a very beneficial measure, and that it ought to be applied to boroughs generally. There were a great many voters in all boroughs who were not able to reach the polling booth at breakfast time, or during the dinner hour, and if they were not prepared to loose half-a-day's work they would practically lose their votes. He did not think that it was at all fair to deprive these men of their votes because they happened to be hard working men. He failed to see any sound reason for confining the Act in the way proposed by this clause. If he understood the matter rightly, the whole question of imposing a limit or no limit depended on the words they were now discussing. If the words "to which this Act applies" were left out, it would be a General Act. He insisted that that was the point the Committee were now really discussing, and if the matter went to a Division he should certainly vote for the omission of those words.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he did not see why the matter should be confined to the question of keeping open the poll until 8 o'clock. For instance, why not, in some cases, have it 6 o'clock? He thought that would be a very fair compromise in the small boroughs; and he would suggest that in Ireland the hour should be 6 o'clock for boroughs with 2,000 voters, while the suggestion made by the Government for the larger boroughs might be acccepted as being perfectly fair. He did not propose, however, to

    1477
    take any part in the discussion of the English question.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHthought his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill was rather disposed to reduce the privilege the measure would otherwise confer in the case of the small boroughs. The only objection which seemed to impress the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. S. Herbert) was, that by keeping the poll open there might be riotous proceedings. Now, rioting, under the new system of voting, was almost absolutely unknown. Riots took place formerly in districts where the majority of the inhabitants were without a vote, while the minority had one. But since the vote had been conferred upon all householders there was just as much respect manifested by the working classes for the mutual rights of the electors as was displayed by electors of a higher standing in society. He thought it would be a great boon to have the hours of polling extended generally. His hon. Friend the Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper) said he was anxious to get an election over as quickly as possible in a small borough. Now, those who represented large towns, and had some experience in the matter, knew that it was the practice to cast up the voting papers after the poll was closed, and the result was often not made known until 10 or 11 o'clock at night. He had known in his own constituency a very large and good-natured body of persons congregate around a polling booth and patiently wait until the result was made known; and under the modern system of elections in no instance had they manifested a disposition towards rioting. He doubted very much whether it was worth while to make any distinction between the large and small boroughs. At any rate, if there were any constituencies that ought to be exempted from the operation of the Bill it should only be those where the electors numbered less than 1,000 or 2,000, and he hoped that the existence of such constituencies would be very much circumscribed when the next Dissolution was brought about.
    MR. BROADHURSTwished to ask the Chairman whether, if these words were allowed to pass, the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), and his own Amendment later on, would be ruled out of Order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member refer to an Amendment later on in the sub-section?
    MR. BROADHURST: Yes.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question now before the Committee is, that the words "to which this Act applies" stand part of the clause. If the Committee agree to insert the words proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), that Amendment, no doubt, would cover the latter part of the section, fixing the number at 5,000; but, at present, the words before the Committee are that the words "to which this Act applies" stand part of the clause.
    MR. WHITLEYasked what the effect would be, if the Amendment were withdrawn, upon his Amendment, which provided that the polls should be kept open longer in the summer than in the winter months?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, by his Amendment, proposes to leave out certain words which are quite of a different character, and that Amendment would not be interfered with by the one now under discussion.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONasked whether, if these words were struck out, he would be precluded from moving, in line 10 of the clause, after the word "any," to insert the words "or county," in order to bring county elections under the operation of the Act?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members are putting Questions prematurely. I think that it would be better to decide the Question now before the Committee before I answer any further questions of this kind.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, he had only put the question because he thought that it would be impossible to argue the question of the counties on the words now before the Committee; and it appeared to him to be more reasonable that the question should be raised distinctly by an Amendment. What he wanted to know was, whether he would be in Order, if the words "to which this Act applies" were continued in the Bill, in moving an Amendment which would have the effect of including counties?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see any Amendment to the effect stated by the hon. Member on the Paper.
    MR. H. SAMUELSON, said, the Amendment was not on the Paper; it only consisted of two words in line 10 of the Bill. He proposed to insert the words "or county" after the word borough.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that on the point of Order he would suggest that this was altogether outside the scope of the Bill. He believed that the noble Lord the Member for Barnstaple (Viscount Lymington), who had placed an Amendment on the Paper on going into Committee on the Bill to provide that an Instruction should be given to the Committee that they should have power to extend the Bill to counties, had fully considered this point. The noble Lord had asked for an opinion upon the point, and he was distinctly told that, before the counties could be included in the Bill, it would be necessary to move an Instruction.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think that the insertion of the word "county" would be clearly beyond the scope of the Bill.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONwished to explain the reason why he desired to move the Amendment. It was because the noble Lord the Member for Barnstaple (Viscount Lymington), whose Amendment was down upon the Paper on going into Committee as an Instruction to the Committee, had, somehow or other, disappeared without moving it. As he (Mr. H. Samuelson) was now informed that the insertion of the words he suggested would not come strictly within the scope of the Bill in Committee, he would move to insert them on Report.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he assumed that the ruling of the Chairman had now been given upon the point of Order, and he hoped the Committee would be allowed to go on with the consideration of the clauses of the Bill. He would simply remind his hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson) that the counties were altogether in a different position from the boroughs.
    MR. E. STANHOPErose to Order. He thought the clause did not apply to counties at all.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is so.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was about to consider the restriction which the clause did contain, and to discuss whether it should be applied to all boroughs. He would point out that he himself, on a former occasion, supported
    1480
    the general proposition for applying a provision of this kind to all boroughs; and he had done all he could to press that principle upon the attention of Parliament; but after the strong objections raised to it on the part of hon. Members, and especially of those connected with the small constituencies, he had consented to adapt the provision to the largest constituencies only. For his own part, he should have no fear of the general or universal application of the Bill to all boroughs; but he knew that that feeling was not reciprocated by a large number of persons in the House who did not share that view. A great many of them thought that this provision was altogether unnecessary in connection with the small boroughs. The operation of the Bill had, therefore, been limited to the case of the large towns; and if it worked well, they could hereafter extend it to the smaller boroughs. The proposition was now to apply a principle, which had worked well in the Metropolis, to boroughs of middle size; and he had no doubt that hereafter, if any proposition were made to extend the same provision to the small boroughs, that the Representatives of the boroughs, to which it was proposed to apply it now, would be able to rise in their places, as the Members for the Metropolis did now, and say that it worked well. He appealed to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) not to press his Amendment against all limitation as to the boroughs to which the Bill should apply.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he wanted to have an assurance that the words extending the application of the Bill which were contained in his Amendment, and in that of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), would be capable of being moved if the present words were allowed to stand?
    THE CHAIRMANreplied in the negative.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, it would then be his duty to support the omission of these words, in order that all limitation might be done away with. He could assure the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill that he would be sorry to do anything to jeopardize even a half-measure of this kind, in his endeavour to obtain a whole one; but his instructions on the subject were so definite, and his own opinion was so strong in favour of

    1481
    doing away with all limitations, that he dare not permit the Bill to pass without taking a Division upon this Amendment. Earlier in the evening the right hon. Gentleman, in replying to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), said that it would be very undesirable in many cases to have different hours of polling in different constituencies. He (Mr. Broadhurst) entirely concurred with that statement.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that was not his argument.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he was quoting the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and it was an argument in support of his proposal to do away with all limitations. It was quite a mistake to suppose that there was no necessity whatever in the small boroughs for the extension of the hours of polling. In the small boroughs it was much more easy for an employer, and for those who had authority over the workmen, to prevent them from voting before 4 o'clock in the afternoon, than it was for employers in large manufacturing centres. Speaking of his own constituency, he was bound to be frank with the Committee and to say that, so far as they were concerned, they needed no extension of the hours of polling at all. At the General Election in 1880, he believed that every voter who supported his hon. Colleague and himself had polled before 12 o'clock in the day. They had a general holiday afterwards, and the whole of the business was over before the dinner hour. He regretted to say that there were not a large number of constituencies which were as patriotic as his own. He hoped that would all be mended in time; but, until that day arrived, they ought to give every facility in their power to every man to enable him to record his vote without loss to himself or his family; and, therefore, to be in Order, he would move to strike out, in line 5 and in line 6, the words "to which this Act applies."
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is the Question already before the Committee.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire proposed to withdraw his Amendment, in order to bring it on at a later period of the clause, when they would be asked to fix the number of electors, whether 5,000, 4,000, or 1,000. His own opinion was that that would be a much more convenient
    1482
    mode of dealing with the subject. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) would be in no way prejudiced, and when they came to define the constituencies to which the Act was to apply, it would be competent to insert the figures. Personally, he was indifferent whether the figure was 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, or 4,000, because he was perfectly satisfied that no Liberal Government would propose, or the House of Commons pass, any measure of redistribution which would permit the retention of a constituency with less than 4,000 electors. He thought the extension would be far larger than that, and therefore he was indifferent in regard to what figure was put into the Bill. He would, however, suggest, as a matter of Order, that the question should be decided whether this Amendment was to be withdrawn, so that it might be raised later on when they come to insert the figures.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he did not think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent ought to be taken unawares; therefore, he would ask the Chairman whether, if these words were struck out, there would not still remain a limitation necessarily by the very title of the Bill? It was a Bill to extend the hours of polling in certain boroughs, and therefore it seemed to him that there must be some limitation. Consequently, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent would be unable to move any Amendment which would render all boroughs liable to these hours of polling. He would like to have the decision of the Chairman upon that point—whether they were in any way bound in Committee by the title of the Bill, because, according to the title, the Bill could not be applied to all boroughs?
    THE CHAIRMAN: In regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member, it is quite competent for the Committee to alter the title. It is obvious that, if the words "to which this Act applies" are left in, it would be necessary to put some limit, or else all boroughs would come in.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government did intend to fix a limit, and, therefore, it would be necessary to allow these words to remain in the Bill. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had expressed a hope, which he trusted would soon be realized, that in a,

    1483
    very short time there would be no small constituencies in existence; but the Government were dealing with things as they were, and the Bill had to be applied to the constituencies as they were. If the happy day should ever arrive to which his hon. Friend referred, the objection of the hon. Member for Stoke would remedy itself; but, dealing, as they now were, with very small constituencies, some of which did not contain as many as 1,000 electors, they had to consider whether these words should be retained or not, so as to determine whether the extension to 12 hours should apply to all boroughs, or whether some other provision should be made. He thought the House would agree that the keeping of the poll open for a long time was not a benefit in itself. All that was wanted was to keep the poll open for the exact time that would allow all voters, according to their position, to vote. No one wished, either for the convenience of the Presiding Officer, or for the avoidance of corrupt practices, or for the prevention of rioting, that the poll should be closed too early to allow the electors to record their votes. Nor should it be kept open late unless they were to obtain some benefit from, keeping it open. It was because it was thought necessary and beneficial to keep it open for longer hours than the law at present allowed that the Bill had been introduced. He would ask those who represented small constituencies whether they could not poll all the voters in those constituencies between the hours of 8 and 4? [Cries of "No!" and "Yes!"] There was evidently a difference of opinion upon that point. Therefore, upon that point, let them vote and determine whether or not in certain constituencies it would be sufficient to keep the poll open between the hours of 8 and 4. If it was, it would be advisable to apply the Bill to all other constituencies, but not to them. He did not see why they should force this Bill upon the unwilling Representatives of very small constituencies, who knew their constituencies could be polled within the hours named. If these words were retained they could always determine the limit to which they would apply the Bill. If they were rejected they would be bound to apply the Bill to the small constituencies containing only 600 or 700 electors, whether they required it or not.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, the question was not the size of a borough in which a voter lived, but the distance from it at which he worked. He did not think it was easier for a man, who was working three or four miles away from the polling booth, to record his vote, if he was an elector for a small borough than if he was an elector for a large one. It must be borne in mind that, under the Corrupt Practices Act, the candidate and his agents were not allowed to pay the voter's travelling expenses; and he could not see why any difference should be made on account of the size of a borough. A man who worked three or four miles away from a small borough in which he lived, would find it just as difficult to go to the polling booth and vote as one who worked the same distance from a borough containing 5,000, or 10,000, or 50,000 electors.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he thought it was more possible for employers to put pressure upon working men in small boroughs than in large ones. He had known instances in which employers had sent their workmen, whom they suspected were going to vote contrary to the way in which they wanted them to vote, out of the borough to a place in which they were kept employed until 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening, and, in consequence, prevented their voting at all. He believed the measure was absolutely necessary in order to free working men from the pressure which would otherwise surely be put upon them at election time in small as well as large boroughs; and if the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) persevered in his intention to divide the Committee on his proposal to leave out the words "to which this Act applies," he should vote with him.
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he rose to repudiate the doctrine of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, on which he based his argument in favour of the Amendment—namely, that, under it, it would be less possible for employers to prevent their workmen voting. On behalf of employers, he maintained that they would never think of doing anything so base as the hon. Member had implied. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Attorney General, he thought that the statement made by

    1485
    him had placed the Committee in a somewhat false position, inasmuch as he had left the question an open one, notwithstanding the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The hon. and learned Gentleman said it was a question which Members representing small boroughs would decide for themselves—a statement entirely at variance with that of the President of the Local Government Board. As far as he could make out from the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, every Member who believed it to be to his own interest to vote for the extension or restriction of the hours of polling would do so.
    MR. FRANCIS BUXTONsaid, the hon. and learned Attorney General had referred to some boroughs of 600 or 700 voters, and said that in respect of them there was no necessity for the Act. Although the borough which he represented (Andover) was a borough of much more importance than those mentioned, containing, as it did, at least 900 voters, he might be allowed to state, in their behalf, that there was no question in which they took a stronger interest than that raised by the Amendment, the principle of which he hoped would be established by this Bill. As the borough had but one polling place, and many of the electors found it impossible to get there in time to record their votes—that was to say, before 4 o'clock in the afternoon—he sincerely trusted the Committee would adopt this Amendment. To have one hour of closing for the larger boroughs and another for the smaller boroughs, would, as far as he could see, lead to confusion without any good result.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 78: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 135.)
    MR. WHITLEYcontended that the hours of polling named in the Bill were an unreasonable extension of those now fixed by law, and he proposed that they should be altered to between 8 A.M. and 7 P.M. during the summer, and 8 A.M. and 6 P.M. during the winter. If this Bill was to be what, a few months ago, he was told it was—namely, a measure for giving every working man an opportunity of recording his vote, some protection other than that which the Bill
    1486
    proposed must be provided, and such, was the object of the Amendment he was about to move. There were certain localities in Liverpool and other great towns where it would be almost impossible for respectable working men to record their votes without danger to themselves at an hour so late as that prescribed by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had told them that 8 o'clock would be the hour in London. Now, there was no doubt that at that hour a large amount of drinking took place; and he had ascertained that that was the case in Liverpool. The town, again, was divided into separate districts—in one part there would be a large number of Protestants, and in another a large number of Roman Catholics, and the result was that there existed at all times a considerable amount of excitement; the Constable having assured him that at election time, if the polling went on at a late hour, he could not be responsible for the peace of the localities. Therefore, he believed that the extension of the hours of polling provided for by the Bill was an unreasonable extension and an unwise one, because it would lead to a great deal of malpractice of the kind he had indicated. Again, he held that it was the true interest of the ratepayer that workmen should have an opportunity of recording their votes, and that they should be protected by the State in exercising the franchise; but the Committee would note that, as a rule, most working men left off work in the winter months at about 4 o'clock, and therefore he was convinced that 6 o'clock in the evening would be sufficiently late to enable them to record their votes. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had said this was simply an Extension Bill, and he (Mr. Whitley) would be glad to see the legitimate intention of the measure carried out; but he earnestly hoped the Committee would be induced to accede to a reasonable extension only of the hours of polling, and his own idea of what was reasonable in that respect he had embodied in the Amendment he was about to move. He believed there were some boroughs where the extension proposed in the Bill would not be open to the objections that lay against it in the case of others, and with regard to them he would suggest that the local

    1487
    authorities should have the power of determining the hours that would be most convenient in their localities. Finally, on the ground of avoiding the abuses to which polling at a late hour must give rise, and with the object of bringing about the universal desire that the independent working man should have the opportunity of freely exercising the franchise, he submitted his Amendment to the favourable consideration of the Committee.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 7, leave out all the words after "until" to the end of the sub-section and insert "7 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day and no longer between the 1st day of April and the 30th day of September in each year; and shall commence at 8 o'clock in the forenoon and be kept open until 6 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day and no longer between the 1st day of October and the 31st day of March in each year."—(Mr. Whitley.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SAMUEL SMITHsaid, he could not acquiesce in the Amendment of his hon. Colleague. His own experience was, that in Liverpool it was the universal feeling amongst the working classes that it was necessary that the polling booths should be kept open until a comparatively late hour, in order that the people should not lose their opportunity of recording their votes. In Liverpool, large numbers of the working classes worked two or three miles away from the polling places during the day-time; and he was satisfied that unless they were to extend the hour till 8 o'clock, as proposed in the Bill, thousands of people would be disfranchised. Nor was he in favour of leaving the matter to the decision of the local authorities, as suggested by his hon. Friend. He thought, on the contrary, there should be a limit of time fixed by the Bill. With regard, however, to the hours of opening the poll, he thought a later hour than 8 A.M. might suffice when the closing hour was 8 P.M.
    MR. C. JAMESsaid, he was not in favour of any curtailment of the time proposed in the Bill, which would prevent a number of colliers exercising the franchise. These men had to walk very often two miles to the pit's mouth, descend a mile or so under ground, and walk another two miles afterwards;
    1488
    then they had to return to the bottom of the shaft and be wound up. Again, when a collier reached his journeys's end he would have to wash before going to vote; and therefore he said, if this Bill was to be of any use to the colliers, 8 o'clock must be the very earliest time at which the polling booth was closed. Finally, he appealed to the Committee not to agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) in the interest of a worthy class of men.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the discussion of this question had been anticipated somewhat on the Motion for Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) having made some remarks bearing upon the subject, which he had ventured to answer. He could not help thinking that the hours proposed in the Amendment before the Committee would not be thoroughly satisfactory, either to colliers or to men engaged in the building trade. A good deal of evidence had come before the Government in regard to the hours of work obtaining in the various boroughs, which, if his hon. Friend were acquainted with it, he believed would cause him to confirm the statement that the hours he had proposed in his Amendment were not really such as would suit the classes he had alluded to. In 1872 the sliding scale scheme was proposed by the Government of the day; but the House of Lords rejected it on the Motion of Lord Shaftesbury. The Bill came back to the Commons, and the clause was again inserted; but the House of Lords once more rejected it, and the scheme was then dropped. On the whole, he thought the Committee would do well to adopt a fixed hour for polling.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had great sympathy with the object of the Amendment of his hon. Friend, who had given good reasons why the hours proposed should be considered in reference to the localities mentioned. But there was this objection to it, in common with the Bill itself—namely, that it introduced a rigid instead of an elastic system. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend would be inclined to adopt the plan which he himself had hinted at, of the local authorities fixing hours which would be suitable to the various localities.
    MR. HOULDSWORTHsaid, he had no hesitation in accepting the proposal

    1489
    that the local authorities should have the power to fix the hours in the various districts; but he should feel it his duty to oppose the proposition of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley), and he was convinced that in large constituencies such as he represented, and that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, it would be perfectly impossible for the working men to exercise the franchise without an extension of the polling hours. The principal reason for that was that, as the House was aware, conveyances could no longer be used, and that prohibition had introduced an entirely new element in the large constituencies. An immense number of working men worked at a considerable distance from their homes, and he had statistics in his possession showing that in some wards in Manchester at least one-half, and in some cases as many as 75 per cent, of the working men would be disfranchised unless the polling hours were extended. As to the fear that an extension of polling hours would cause a danger of riot or disturbance, his view was that the danger of riot or disturbance arose not so much in connection with the polling as with the declaration of the poll, which, under the present system, often took place late in the evening, when there was a certain amount of excitement among the people, and a large number of people congregated to hear the declaration. If hon. Members knew the practice in these large towns, where there were a large number of polling districts, they would know that it was impossible for any large number of people to be congregated at any one of the polling stations when the polling was going on. The great danger was when there was a declaration of the poll, and there was an excited mob gathered together to hear the result; and he should suppose that the effect of this Bill, if it was carried into effect, would be practically that the declaration of the poll, instead of being made, as it was at present, at 9 or 10 o'clock in the evening, would be postponed to the following day. That, he thought, would be a great advantage. It would avoid the danger arising from a great number of people congregating together. He could not agree to the present proposal, and he must support the Government.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he still thought the hours he proposed would be amply
    1490
    sufficient to enable working men to record their votes; but he would not press his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he would not trouble the Committee by repeating the arguments he had used in support of his previous Amendment; but he wished to say that the result of a careful inquiry he had made in many boroughs in respect to the polling hours was, that there was the utmost difference of opinion. In some boroughs the people desired no change; in others they wanted the change which was proposed in the Bill; while in others they thought an elastic system was the best. They might, he thought, adapt the Bill to the season of the year, or the different circumstances of the locality; and these people earnestly hoped the Government would adopt some such Amendment as he now proposed, and for which he had already given reasons.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 8, at end, add "unless the local authority shall make an order varying either the hour when the poll shall commence or when it shall close, hut so that the poll shall always he kept open for 10 hours at the least." — (Mr. E. Stanhope.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, that, so far as his experience in connection with this matter had gone, it was entirely contradictory to that of the hon. Member and to the hon. Member's Amendment. He had found that there was a strong and almost unanimous feeling against leaving this matter to the local authorities, it being felt that in matters of this kind the House of Commons should decide, and not relegate the decision to Town Councils, there to be fought all over again. With regard to the suggestions of riot and possible drunkenness from late polling, he had seen late polling in London districts, both for School Board and other elections, and he had seen no riot or drunkenness; neither did he think it would occur anywhere else. If there was any voting in the world that ought to be done in the open daylight, it was the voting for the House of Commons itself, and they in the House should be the last to talk to people outside of the danger of voting under the influence of excitement.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought what he might have said had been somewhat anticipated, and that he could only repeat what had been said by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. When this proposal was made on a former occasion, almost with one accord the House rose against it, and the strongest objection was urged against leaving this power to the local authorities. The proposal was open to the objections he had advanced earlier in the evening, and he could not assent to it.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he would not trouble the Committee with the Amendment next standing in his name, as he thought the Committee had decided on the principle of it earlier in the evening.
    MR. CARINGTONhardly understood the course adopted by the hon. Member; but he should certainly take the sense of the Committee as to retaining "five thousand."
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, leave out the word "five," in order to insert the word "four." — (Mr. Carington.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he had an Amendment, to leave out "five," and insert "three." He thought the Bill ought to be made applicable to all parts of the Kingdom, and he should, therefore, vote against "five thousand" standing part of the clause; and if the Forms of the House would permit it, he should move to substitute "three thousand."
    MR. CARINGTONsaid, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was prepared to accept "four" instead of "five," as the Committee might decide.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsupposed the Government had some reason for inserting the limit of "five thousand;" but he did not understand why the right hon. Baronet had so readily expressed his willingness to accept "four" instead of "five," or even a lower number. This was not a question of the number of electors, so much as of the number of polling places in a
    1492
    constituency, and the occupations of the people. To apply this Bill to a borough like Shoreham, a large agricultural district, having 6,000 electors, in which there were about 22 polling places, with a very few electors to each, was quite unnecessary; but it was necessary for a municipal area, densely populated, containing a large number of working men who were employed in factories—men who had to vote at a few places only, and who would have great difficulty in voting within the present hours. He should have preferred to see a distinction based on the number of polling places rather than the size of constituencies; but he thought the Government ought to adhere to the limit they had inserted, or to give some reason for abandoning it.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the line of 5,000 was the line he had proposed as the result of inquiries among local authorities; but they should take in view the fact that there were a large number of places very close up to or just under 5,000, which were very important places. They had asked for this change, and as soon as the Bill was introduced this year five or six Members, coming from both sides of the House, had urged him to extend the area of the boroughs. There \vas some doubt as to whether the limit should be 4,000; but as to that not being the highest limitation his mind was made up, and he thought there was a strong feeling in the Committee in favour of an extension of the boroughs.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that earlier in the evening he had ventured to urge the Committee to make inquiries by means of a Select Committee, and everything that had been said since had justified that suggestion. The best answer that had been given to him was that the Government had made inquiries. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had most carefully considered the matter, and had come to the conclusion that "five" ought, after all, to be put in; and that was a good argument in support of his proposition. He could not understand that the right hon. Gentleman now said he thought there should be further inquiries; and he hoped the Government would tell the Committee that they would stick to their previous decision.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that during this discussion both county and borough Representatives had spoken, and said the feeling in the counties had greatly grown on this subject, and there had no doubt been great progress in opinion on this matter. In the view of the Government they were not disposed to say arbitrarily that because at one time they had thought "five" would be the best number, they must now adhere to that figure, in spite of information given by borough Members.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSwished to say a word or two on behalf of another class of men who had been mentioned. Remarks had been made about agricultural labourers and miners; but the Committee had heard nothing as to fishermen, and the distance they had to go to sea, and the distance they had to go to get home. A very large number of boroughs in Scotland were sea-coast towns, in which a large proportion of the constituents were fishermen, and this Bill would very much affect them. In one borough—Kilrenny, in St. Andrew's burghs, for instance—there were 360 electors, of whom 248 were fishermen. In Pittenween, of 270 electors 120 were fishermen. The total number of electors in the St. Andrew's burghs was only 2,600; so that if the limit of 3,000 was put in the Bill, a very large number of these men would be prevented from enjoying the franchise under the most favourable circumstances. He hoped the Government would consider the case of these men, and reduce the limit as low as possible.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he thought the Irish Members were entitled to have some distinction made between Irish electors and other electors. Owing to the limited franchise in some of the large and more important towns in Ireland there was only a small electorate, and the consequence was that, if the original figure was adhered to, only two cities, Belfast and Dublin, would come within the provisions of the Bill, while Cork, the third city in Ireland, would be excluded. He thought such cities and towns as Limerick, Londonderry, Cork, and Waterford ought to be considered, and that the limit should be fixed at "one thousand."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had agreed, on the part of the Govern-
    1494
    ment, to accept 4,000, instead of 5,000, and that would bring some of these places within the Bill. He pointed out that the Bill which had been passed earlier in the evening would abolish the distinction between the English and the Irish franchises.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Baronet had reminded his hon. Friend of a Bill which had been passed without dissent; but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would remind the right hon. Baronet that the time had gone by for passing different laws for England and Ireland. That principle, he thought, had been abandoned. He objected to the proposal in the present Bill, because, as his hon. Friend had pointed out, the figure in the Bill, while it would apply to English boroughs containing a certain population, would not apply to Irish boroughs of the same size, as the electorate in the latter was less than in the former. He urged on hon. Members who voted for the Amendment in the last Division to press on the Government —for they seemed very open to pressure — the necessity of reducing the number of the constituency to which the Bill was to apply until they had brought it down to 2,000.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: On the whole, I think, we can on this occasion support the word "four." There seems to be a strong opinion on the part of a large majority that such alteration should be made.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'four' be there inserted."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had intimated it to be the intention of the Government to take the figure 4,000, as it would not be satisfactory either to one side of the House or the other. It would not meet the case of the small boroughs; and, as a matter of fact, they might just as well retain the figure 5,000. It was argued that the difficulty was to be met by a multiplication of the polling places; but the real difficulty was that the working men whom it was sought to assist in getting to the poll were working away from, the polling places. These men in a small borough had as much right to be able to vote as men similarly situated

    1495
    in a large borough. All working men had a right to be able to exercise the franchise without a sacrifice of wages. The case put by the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Marjoribanks) was put as a strong one. There was also the Irish case to consider; and as an Amendment, to test the question later on, he would move to insert the word "two."
    COLONEL KING-HARMANwished to know how many of the fisherman referred to by the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Marjoribanks) practised their vocation during the daylight?
    MR. MARJORIBANKSreplied, that fishermen mostly practised their vocation during the daylight. They went out at daylight to shoot their lines, and returned home about 6 o'clock in the evening.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he hoped the Committee would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler); and he wished to say a word with regard to the reply given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) earlier in the evening as to the reason 5,000 was adopted rather than 6,000. It was evident that 5,000 was adopted, not because it was logically more correct than 6,000, or than 4,000, but because the Government thought it as far as the Opposition would allow them to go. This measure, like other Liberal measures, had been framed upon what was possible with the Opposition, and not merely upon what was right and necessary. It was not in the slightest degree logical. Logically, all voters, whoever they were, and wherever they lived, had a right to be enabled to exercise the franchise. The Opposition always made a deal of talk about the large number of working men. Well, if there were so many Conservative working men, the Opposition, surely, were as much interested in giving them facilities for voting as the Liberals were. What would the Conservatives have to say to the working men, when, on asking for their votes, they were told—"We cannot vote for you, because the polling places are closed too early?" What would the Opposition say to the working men as to the course they had taken in refusing to give them facilities for registering their votes?
    MR. GATHORNE-HARDYsaid, he should not have troubled the Committee
    1496
    at all had it not been for what had just fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Broadhurst). His opinion was, that the hon. Gentlemen who were opposing the reduction to 4,000 were not those sitting on the Opposition side, but those sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. He had not heard during the course of the debate—and he had been sitting there during the greater part of the evening—any hon. Gentleman on the Opposition side of the House throw any impediment in the way of the Government in this matter. He had been rather surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) name the number 4,000 instead of 3,000, which he (Mr. Gathorne-Hardy) should be perfectly satisfied to see adopted as the limit; indeed, he should not be in the least afraid of seeing an opportunity to record his vote given to every elector. He had been for years Member for a small borough, and was aware of this, that with the existing hours there was ample time for everyone to register his vote. Without wishing to cast any imputation on the employers of labour in the borough, he might mention that the last hour before the closing of the poll was the hour when the workmen polled. For these reasons, he was not anxious that there should be any change in the hours; but he objected to hon. Gentlemen getting up and casting on the Conservatives the imputation that they were the Members who would prevent working men from voting, when, in reality, it was the Government who would do so.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished to know whether the Government meant to hold to the view that in certain cases two boroughs could count as one for the purposes of the measure? Whatever the figure ultimately decided upon might be, he should like to have an assurance from the Government on this point.
    MR. H. G. ALLENdesired to say a few words on behalf of a very meritorious class of voters who had not been hitherto mentioned. He referred to workmen in Her Majesty's Dockyards. He had the honour to represent a Dockyard constituency of under 4,000 persons. A great number of the workmen lived three or four miles from the place where they voted, many of them having to cross a ferry to get to it, and all these would be greatly disappointed if the line of population was so laid down as to exclude them

    1497
    from the boon of being allowed to vote after the working hours. Under the circumstances, he thought that a small limit should be adopted. The Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) would include his constituency, as it proposed to make the limit 3,000. He thought that the right hon. Baronet was going to accept that limit, and very much regretted that he had not.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 93: Majority 4.—(Div. List, No. 136.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Government accepted their defeat with cheerful resignation, as he had already thrown out to the Committee a suggestion as to the possibility of the figure "three" being adopted as against "four" [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: No; the figure "two."] He would now propose that the word "three" be there inserted.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'three' be there inserted."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    MR. H. H. FOWLERwas sorry the Government had not accepted their defeat on this question in a spirit of complete resignation. He had certainly understood the decision of the House to be in favour of the figure "two" in the last Division. If the Government persisted in adhering to the figure "three" —which he trusted they would not—in clear opposition to an overwhelming majority of their own side—[Mr. R. N. FOWLER (Lord Mayor): Oh, oh!]. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was not aware that the Lord Mayor could be described as belonging to the side of the Government. They would be happy to welcome him on that side, however. But what he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) maintained was, that the Government, if they persisted in the figure "three," would do it in clear opposition to an overwhelming majority of their own side. Unless the Government were prepared to accept his Amendment, he should trouble the Committee to divide again.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Division taken was merely whether the figure "four" should stand part of the clause. After that, of course, every other figure was
    1498
    open to consideration. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton spoke of the overwhelming opinion of the Members of the Party of whom he himself was one. Well, no doubt, the opinion of every Member should be taken into consideration, and there were a class of Members whose opinion, above all, should be taken into consideration, and they were the Members who represented constituencies of between 2,000 and 3,000. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton represented a constituency of many thousands. He (the Attorney General) undertook to say that if they would ask hon. Gentlemen who represented constituencies of between 2,000 and 3,000 what figure they preferred, it would be found that the majority were in favour of 3,000 ["No, no!"] Then, he could only say that the opinion of the majority of these hon. Members would be of value. He, however, did not agree with the hon. Gentleman who said "No." The Government had gone down as low as "two," and that, he thought, was as low down as they could go.
    MR. E. STANHOPEwas glad to hear what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman. So little did those hon. Members who represented between 2,000 and 3,000 electors think about the limit being fixed at 2,000, that there was no Amendment to limit the number to that figure on the Paper.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, there was one Member in favour of fixing the limit at 1,000, as there was an Amendment on the Paper containing that figure.
    MR. WILLIAMSONthought he was precluded from moving the Amendment he had on the Paper. He sincerely hoped the figure 2,000, or even 1,000, would be adopted in preference to 3,000. He knew cases in which men, though living in small boroughs, worked four or five miles from the polling places, and such men, he maintained, had as perfect right to have facilities for voting as those who lived in large and populous places.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he had voted against the Government in the last Division, but should support them now. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) should, he should think, be ashamed to support an Amendment recognizing the possibility of a constitency having so few as 2,000 voters.
    MR. WILLISsaid, he was very sorry that this change was proposed, as he was for men voting in the daylight and not in the dark. He wanted people who desired to vote to make some sacrifice in order to do it. He would rather narrow than enlarge the hours of polling, and was, therefore, sorry the Government had been defeated on the question. He should support the proposal to fix the limit at 3,000.
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that as far as he could gather from the speeches he had heard, and the general tenour of the Committee, and looking at the majority last time, it was clear that that majority were under the impression that the present opportunity was too good to lose—that they had only to press on to obtain another advantage. The best thing to be done, under the circumstances, was to move to report Progress. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Sidney Herbert,)—put, and negatived.
    Original Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 67: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 137.)
    MR. BROADHURSTappealed to the Government to reconsider the whole question between now and the Report stage.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Definitions).
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEmoved to insert, after "borough," in line 23, "or combination of boroughs." He understood that it was the intention of the Government that combination of boroughs should be included in the Bill; but he feared they would not be unless they were specified, for the clause as it stood provided only for combinations of "places." Now, "places" were mentioned in the clause as something distinct from boroughs, and unless the words he proposed to insert were inserted, he feared that it might be held that combinations of boroughs were excluded from the benefits of the Act.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, after "borough," insert" or combination of boroughs."—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)assured the hon. Member that the Bill had been drafted with the view of including a combination of boroughs.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, at end, to add "the word ' Councillor' shall, in Ireland, be taken to mean Alderman."—(Mr. Small)
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Short title) agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 261.]

  REVISION OF JURORS AND VOTERS LISTS (DUBLIN COUNTY) BILL.
  (Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Mr. Trevelyan.)
  REVISION OF JURORS AND VOTERS LISTS (DUBLIN COUNTY) BILL.

    [BILL 124.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2 (Power to appoint revising barrister).
    MR. BERESFORDproposed to leave out, in line 7, "Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors," and insert "Chief Justice." He said, that in England it was the custom for a Judge of Assize to have the power of appointing Revising Barristers. In Ireland it would be much more convenient that the Chief Justice should have the power of appointing the Revising Barristers, instead of the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Justice being a Crown official, while the Lord Lieutenant was really a Party appointment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, leave out "Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors," and insert "Chief Justice."—(Mr. Beresford.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors ' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the proposed Amendment was entirely contrary to the

    1501
    practice in Ireland; and he was persuaded that if the practice to which the hon. Member (Mr. Beresford) had referred as existing in England, did not already exist, it would not be adopted now. The whole analogy in Ireland was against the Amendment. In every other county in Ireland the revision was done by a County Court Judge, who was appointed, like all other Judges, great and small, by the Executive. In the City of Dublin there were two Revising Barristers who were not County Court Judges, but they were appointed by the Executive. The Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench had no particular official administrative capacity under the Judicature Act. The only offices to which he appointed were those specially attached to the Queen's Bench, and all other important patronage, except that which was applied by competition, was in the hands of the Chancellor. To place this matter in the hands of the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench Division would be to cast a reflection upon the impartiality of the Lord Lieutenant. He thought Earl Spencer might be safely trusted to make this appointment.
    COLONEL KING - HARMANpointed out that, in the absence of the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Justice would appoint. The Bill ran—"The Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that the Lords Justices did not include the Chief Justice.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he thought that in England the system of appointing by Judges had given complete satisfaction. No one had suggested that Revising Barristers in this country were actuated by political motives.
    MR. WARTONsaid, it was clear that a Judge was better qualified than the Lord Lieutenant, who was not a lawyer, to find out who was capable of revising voters' lists. The only argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) seemed to be that such and such was the practice in Ireland, and, therefore, they must stick to it. He hoped that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman would see it was proper that Judges should appoint lawyers. He should certainly support the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Beresford).
    MR. GRAYsaid, the present system was a most objectionable one in practice; but the proposed arrangement would be equally objectionable. The present Chief Justice happened to be a gentleman of such strong political proclivities that recently he was obliged to retire from the Bench on the occasion of a well-known political trial of great importance. He had to do so because of a partizan speech he made a short time previous. The idea of suggesting that, contrary to the ordinary practice, this gentleman should have the power of the appointment in question, was certainly most extraordinary.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he wondered whether the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gray) did not consider that the Lord Lieutenant was a strong political partizan?
    MR. GEATsaid, it was clear, from what had occurred recently, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) held the opinion that Earl Spencer was a strong political partizan.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. WARTONproposed to insert, after "time," in line 9—
    "Whenever satisfied that the Recorder of Dublin is unable, from unavoidable absence or illness, to discharge his duties with regard to the registration of Parliamentary voters and the revision of the list of jurors."
    He very much regretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) was not present, because he had most conclusively proved that the present Revising Barrister was not overworked. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown that the Recorder of Dublin was not occupied in his official duties more than 160 days in the year; but English Judges worked 220 and 230 days in the year; and it had been shown by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) that in Belfast the Revising Barrister worked many more days a-year, and sat longer on each day, than the same official in Dublin. Besides, it had not been proved that on a single day the Revising Barrister was not able to attend to his double duties, because he could so arrange his time that he could perform his different duties at the proper time. As a matter of fact, the Revising Barrister could not take his vacation at the time of the year he

    1503
    would like, and this was the reason of this monstrous joke to give another piece of patronage to the Lord Lieutenant. The Revising Barrister was not overworked, and there was no justification whatever for this new appointment. It was possible that at times the Recorder might be unavoidably absent, and it was only at such times that this Bill ought to be brought into operation.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 9, after "time," insert "whenever satisfied that the Recorder of Dublin is unable, from unavoidable absence or illness, to discharge his duties with regard to the registration of Parliamentary voters and the revision of the list of jurors." — (Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the objection to this and the following Amendment was, that they would result in nothing better than a sort of fiction. If the main contention on which the Bill was founded was right, the Lord Lieutenant would, annually, have to be satisfied that the Recorder required relief. The justification of the Bill depended upon this point—that, according to the ordinary routine of the criminal and civil sittings in the city and county, the business of the Recorder was so heavy up to the month of revision that he could not possibly get through his revision work without breaking up his ordinary sittings, and sitting continuously from June to Christmas. If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) were carried, all the Recorder would have to do would be to decline to break up the sittings that he had subsequent to the 1st of October, and to state to the Lord Lieutenant that he was unable, in a satisfactory manner, to get through the heavy revising business which must begin not earlier than the 9th of September. Consequently, every year, a substitute would be appointed, and they would lose the great advantage of having a permanent officer for the business of registration. He did not think the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member would work.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, it was much to be regretted that this was the first time there had been anything like an attempt to justify the introduction of the
    1504
    Bill. The measure passed the second reading and into Committee sub silentio; and against the adoption of such a course the representatives of the taxpayers of the country had a right to protest. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton) had stated what he knew to be the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and, therefore, it was evident there was much difference of opinion as to the engagements of the Recorder of Dublin being such, as made the appointment of a new officer necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) had offered his justification or his explanation of the Bill at the proper time—namely, upon the second reading—there would have been an opportunity of comparing his statements with those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. He (Mr. Tomlinson) was not at all satisfied, after hearing the remarks of the Chief Secretary, that there were sufficient grounds for the creation of the new office which was proposed; in fact, the whole affair seemed very like a job.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHconfessed that he heard with considerable surprise the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan). He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had occasion to look into this matter very carefully in the years 1877 and 1878, during the preparation of a Bill dealing with the Irish County Courts, which was about that time carried through the House. At that time the offices of Recorder of Dublin and Chairman of Dublin County were consolidated. A salary was allowed to the Judge holding both offices, and it was understood that he should do the duties of Revising Barrister as well. He could answer for this, at any rate, that at that time, and for some little time afterwards, the duties of the Recorder were by no means so heavy as to prevent him fulfilling completely and satisfactorily the duties of Revising Barrister. Probably, there were complaints that the Recorder did not hold Courts enough; but the remedy was to direct him to hold Courts at more places. Of course, he did not know what was the case now. It might be that the civil and criminal business of the Recorder had so much increased that it was im-

    1505
    possible for him to perform the duties of Revising Barrister; but the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) had not given them sufficient evidence in support of that position. He understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), than whom no one had a better acquaintance with the matter, had distinctly denied that that was the fact. If the Recorder could satisfactorily perform the duties of Revising Barrister, it seemed to him (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) that it was proposed to create an entirely unnecessary office, and to throw an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers.
    MR. TREVELYANwas glad the hon. Gentleman had started this question, because it gave him (Mr. Trevelyan) an opportunity of saying two or three words in regard to a subject which had been so often referred to. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) had said he (Mr. Trevelyan) had offered no explanation of the Bill upon the previous stages. As a matter of fact, he made a distinct statement the last time the Bill was in Committee; and on that occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), speaking with much emphasis, characterized the Bill as a political job. He (Mr. Trevelyan) could not but believe that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who arranged for the consolidation of the offices now held by the Recorder of Dublin, was slightly incorrect in thinking that the Recorder actually discharged his duties as Revising Barrister without remonstrance. In January, 1880, the Recorder wrote a letter to Mr. Burke, the late Under Secretary, in which he said there was one portion of the functions, lately discharged by the Chairman, which he could not undertake—namely, the revision of the list of Parliamentary voters; and he respectfully asked the Government to take steps to relieve him of that part of his duties. He had read a very carefully composed Minute of Lord Chancellor Law, the gist of which was that, if the statement by the Recorder, that this work would take 21 days, were correct, something must be done. The right hon. Gentleman was as well acquainted as anyone with these matters. But it was thought well to wait, in order to
    1506
    ascertain whether the period of 21 days was required. Well, the Recorder tried in vain to cut it down; and he found, in spite of everything attempted to shorten the time, the work took 23 instead of 21 days to get through. He need not go through the subsequent proceedings, and would simply observe that his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was so convinced of the necessity for an alteration that a Bill was prepared. Both Mr. Hamilton and himself had considered the matter without any political ideas whatever; and it never occurred to him that he was doing anything more than carrying out the traditional policy of the Irish Office by introducing the present measure.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, it appeared to him that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would remove any difference of opinion which had existed as to the necessity for this measure. Hon. Members opposite seemed to be opposed to anyone connected with Ireland getting anything in the shape of increased pay, and he believed the hon. Member for Wexford would confirm that view. They had to consider whether or not they could obtain a proper revision of the jurors and voters lists in the county of Dublin, and whether or not the small payment to be made for it was required. For his own part, he was always delighted to meet with a proposal for the remuneration of gentlemen of the Irish Bar; and although hon. Gentlemen opposite, for right reasons, no doubt, were opposed to it, he thought the Committee ought to carry out the views of the right hon. Gentleman as proposed in the Bill.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that applications on this subject were made by the Recorder of Dublin as far back as the time when the Duke of Marlborough was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Committee should bear in mind that persons had to come a distance of 15 or 16 miles, and that, too, at harvest time, to Kilmainham Court House, in order to secure the privilege of the franchise. He noted as a peculiar circumstance that while the Notice Paper contained Amendments in the names of the hon. and learned Members for Sheffield, Bridport, Plymouth, and other hon. Members,

    1507
    not a single Amendment had been put down by the Members for Dublin, who were more connected with the Recorder than any other Members of the House. Under the circumstances, he could only congratulate hon. Members who had given Notice of Amendments upon their new born zeal in this matter.
    MR. WARTONsaid, his recollection was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had proved, with mathematical clearness, that there was no necessity for the Bill. On the other hand, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had not ventured to say that the Recorder had in any single year been unable to discharge his duties owing to unavoidable absence or illness. Therefore, he maintained that there was no reason for the Bill; but if the right hon. Gentleman would get up and say that the various duties of the Recorder called him in different directions at one time, and prevented his getting through this work, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. TOMLINSONremarked that in England the Revising Barrister, having revised the county list, went on with the borough list; and he thought it was for the Government to explain why they should not adopt in Ireland a custom which had been found to work very well in England, especially when it appeared that the system in operation in Ireland was not satisfactory.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that very little could be urged in favour of this proposal. If the hon. Member had looked further into the question, he would have seen that £100 was a very little payment for the work required to be done; five guineas a-day being the smallest pay of a Revising Barrister— that was to say, if you were desirous of securing the services of a good man. Again, the revision for the county and for the borough ought to take place simultaneously, and it was for that reason that one man could not carry on both operations.
    COLONEL KING - HARMANasked whether the amount of £100 stated in the Bill was the only amount to be paid for this new office. One reason for his objecting to the Bill was that it gave an appointment to some supporter of
    1508
    the Government. If the matter was to end with the £100 he should not oppose it; but he strongly objected to being told hereafter that the payment was to be five guineas a-day for as long as the Revising Barrister chose to keep the list before him. He wished to guard against the work being unnecessarily prolonged, which might happen through a briefless barrister being employed upon it, by fixing the amount at £100, and no more.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that 200 guineas was the proper and usual fee for a Revising Barrister in England, and it ought to be the fee in Ireland.
    MR. HEALYthought the Government might adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport by making the payment £200 a-year.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was willing to agree to the insertion of the words "not exceeding one hundred pounds."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 3, insert, after "paid," the words "a sum not exceding one hundred guineas per annum."—(Colonel King-Harman,)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was no advocate of giving large sums of money to Irish barristers; but in this instance he thought the Government would act wisely in refusing to put these words into the Bill. Dublin included several large Metropolitan areas. At the next revision there would be 50,000 voters to deal with; and the probability was that, if this hard-and-fast line were drawn, no one would take the office. He suggested that it would be far better to leave the matter in the discretion of the Treasury, and that the Government should decline to admit the proposed Amendment.
    MR. WADDYpointed out that the Amendment should properly follow the "salary."
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he cared not where the words were inserted; all he wanted was to have the words of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland embodied in the clause in such a manner that his object would be secured. He was willing to withdraw the Amendment for the purpose of its being inserted at another place.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the word "salary," insert "not exceeding one hundred guineas."—(Colonel King-Harman.)
    MR. HEALYsaid, he earnestly hoped the Government would consider what they were about in this matter. Irish Members on those Benches had always taken a stand in that House in favour of economy. How could they expect to get an efficient man to sit, perhaps, for six weeks revising 40,000 or 50,000 votes, and to do the work even decently, for 100 guineas? They might get a man just called, and who, perhaps, never held a brief—the son of a Tory Judge, perhaps—who would give his decisions all one way; but what they wanted was someone in whom the people could trust.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, as long as the franchise remained as now in Dublin, he should be decidedly of opinion that the business ought to be done for 100 guineas, and to that sum he should adhere. But there might be changes in the course of years which would render the payment too small to secure a proper revision of the list in Dublin County. Personally, he would suggest that no sum should be named, on his assurance to the House that the 100 guineas should not be exceeded as long as the work to be done remained as at present.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was satisfied with the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman that the sum of 100 guineas should not be exceeded, being at the same time open to the argument that, in the event of there being more work, there should be more pay.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Provision for absence of revising barrister) agreed to.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would now ask the Committee to agree to the following clause:—
    (Deduction from salary of future Recorders.)
    "When first after the passing of this Act a vacancy occurs in the office of Recorder of Dublin, there shall be deducted from the salary of the person appointed to he Recorder, and of his successors in that office, the sum of one hundred guineas."
    New Clause (Mr. Trevelyan) brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, the Committee had not heard the amount of the Recorder's salary and he was averse to reducing the salaries of Judges who were generally not overpaid—certainly without knowing all about the matter. He understood that the Recorder was to be relieved of the work of revision, because his time was so fully occupied in other ways that he could not give his attention to it. If that were so, it seemed an odd arrangement to reduce his salary.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could not express any opinion as to whether the salary of the Recorder was small or not; but the amount of the salary was £2,500 a-year.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the Recorder of Dublin was not overworked, and the Government knew this very well. They said he was overworked when they made the new office, and they said he was not when they made a deduction from the salary.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that the clause, as it originally stood in the draft of the Chief Secretary, provided that the extra charge which would be thrown upon the Treasury should be deducted from the salary of the Recorder; but as the clause had now been altered, the only amount thrown on the Treasury would be 100 guineas. He should be glad to learn what was the reason for this proposition, and he thought the pruning knife might very well be used with regard to the salaries of these officers.
    MR. TREVELYANpointed out that he had not named 100 guineas; and while sympathizing with the hon. Member in his interest on behalf of the Treasury, he thought the proposal could not be adopted.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was dissatisfied with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, and asked for some further explanation.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. PARNELLthought it would be in the recollection of the Solicitor General that last year a Memorial was addressed to the Lord Lieutenant on this

    1511
    matter, and he declined to interfere, on the ground that the revision was to take place in a short time. He thought the Government ought to make some inquiry into the matter.
    MR. TREVELYANpromised that the points of difference should be carefully considered.
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  CRIMINAL LUNATICS BILL.
  (Mr. Hibbert, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  CRIMINAL LUNATICS BILL.

    [BILL 256.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HIBBERT, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that it carried out a great many recommendations that had been made by persons well acquainted with the subject, as well as certain decisions that had been come to by the House. He did not intend to proceed with it in Committee until the 8th of July, and he hoped the House would assent to take this stage now.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
    MR. R. H. PAGETfelt that at this late hour it would be useless to attempt to oppose the second reading of this Bill, nor did he propose to do so; but he believed the provision with respect to the charge for criminal lunatics would require great consideration, with a view to its being amended when the Bill got into Committee.
    MR. HEALYsaid, it was very important that the House should know exactly what were the intentions of the Government, and that further time should be given for considering the measure.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  COLONIAL PRISONERS REMOVAL BILL [Lords].— [BILL 257.]
  (Mr. Evelyn Ashley.)
  COLONIAL PRISONERS REMOVAL BILL [Lords].— [BILL 257.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Evelyn Ashley.)
    MR. R. H. PAGETcriticized the terms prescribed by the Bill.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, the Bill was only circulated to-day, and hon. Members had not had an opportunity of studying it. It was not treating the House in a fair manner to bring it on in this way, so soon after its circulation, and at such a late hour. He himself had not studied the measure, but had glanced at the Memorandum which accompanied it, and certainly thought it opened up a very large subject of discussion, which would keep the House occupied a pretty considerable length of time. Even after they had devoted a long period to it, he did not believe they would pass it. It proposed to allow the removal of prisoners from one part of Her Majesty's Dominions to another— it would permit such a large scope of removal that those of them who wished to keep a jealous eye on the conduct of British gaols would be inclined to see it thoroughly thrashed out before passing into law. They might have prisoners removed from Ireland to the Colonies, which might mean transportation.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he could put the hon. Member right in one word. The provisions of the Bill were simple, and had only a humane purpose. It was only intended to permit removals where the effect of keeping prisoners in the gaols in which they had been first confined would be to endanger health or life. The Bill was intended for such a case as this—where a European committed some crime in the tropics, in Sierra Leone, for instance, and was convicted and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. Imprisonment for any length of time would mean death to a European. Power was taken in the Bill to prevent such an accident. In Heligoland, moreover, there was no prison at all, and this Bill would give power to remove a prisoner convicted there to some other place.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had carefully examined the Bill, and was disposed to think that it was not one that should be opposed as at all a dangerous measure. He believed it to have been dictated by feeling of humanity; but, at the same time, he wished to say a word as to the abuse of the system of putting Memoranda in front of Bills. If Mr. Speaker would look at the present Memorandum, he would see

    1513
    that it not only laid down the scope of the measure, but gave reasons why the House should pass it. It went the length of saying that the Bill had been sent by Circular to Colonial Governors, and had either been approved or not objected to by the great majority of them. The Memorandum also said that, though it was not likely that the necessity for putting in force the powers of the Bill would frequently arise, still it would occasionally occur. He put it to Mr. Speaker whether that was not an abuse of that liberty allowed to Members who introduced Bills for the purpose of giving a short indication of what the nature and scope of a Bill was? If this sort of thing were to be allowed, was there any limit to the debatable matter which could be introduced into a Memorandum?
    MR. SPEAKER: I have to say, in reply to the hon. Member, that a Memorandum attached to a Bill should be a plain statement of the scope of the measure, and should contain nothing in the shape of argument.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 109.]
  (Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 109.]

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [20th June].
    MR. HEALYsaid, that before the Motion was put he would ask the House to consider what it would involve. There was a Morning Sitting to-day, and he would put it to hon. Members whether their time could not be more profitably employed than in taking a measure which was almost certain to be talked out? The Government had their Irish land and education schemes, and a number of other measures which did not relate to Ireland, to dispose of; and would it not be better to proceed with one of these than for the third time waste a day over the Irish Sunday Closing Bill? Seeing that the measure only applied to five cities, there could not be said to be any very keen demand for it. He would ask the Government to give some consideration to the wishes of certain Members of the House, and
    1514
    to remember that there were other Bills about which the people of Ireland were more anxious than they were about this Sunday Closing Bill. They were anxious, for instance, to see whether the hybrid Board under the Purchase Bill of the Government was to be carried or not.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Government very much regretted the waste of time which occurred; but he trusted that in the course of to-morrow they would see the second reading of the Bill in question disposed of.
    MR. HEALY: Very well; we shall see.
    MR. COURTNEY: I am not able to say positively that we shall; but I hope so. We want to get rid of this Bill—it is an obstacle that blocks the way.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to know what Bill would be put on the Paper immediately after the Irish Sunday Closing Bill?
    MR. COURTNEY: The Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, that, as one who supported the Bill proposed to be brought on as the first Order to-morrow, he wished to say that it would tend to the more speedy passage of the measure ultimately, if Bills of a more important character were disposed of by the Government first. There could be no doubt that the supporters of the Bill in Ireland would view with a great deal more satisfaction the action of the Government in taking up and disposing of Bills of a more pressing character. As he said, he was a supporter of the Sunday Closing Bill; but he did not think the Government should bring it forward when there were so many Bills requiring a more pressing attention at the present moment. He hoped the Government would reconsider the matter, and put down on the Paper some measure of greater importance than this.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday next.

MOTIONS.

  PERSONAL ESTATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. COCHRAN-PATRICK, Bill to make provision for the Administration of the Personal Estates of persons dying domiciled in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COCHRAN-PATRICK, Mr. SELLAR, Mr. ARTHUR

  1515
  ELLIOTT, Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL, Dr. WEBSTER, Mr. BOLTON, and Mr. DALRYMPLE. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 262.]

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACT (1866) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Bill to amend "The Naval Discipline Act, 1866," ordered to be brought in by Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN and Sir THOMAS BRASSEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 263.]
  House adjourned at Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—; Summary Jurisdiction (Repeal, &c.) * (155); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 11) * (156).
Second Reading—National Debt (Conversion of Stock) * (145).
Committee—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (127); Secretary for Scotland (79–157).
Committee—Report— Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (128); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (126); School, &c. Buildings (Ireland) * (129).
Report—Benefices (Tiverton Portions) Consolidation Amendment * (72–154); Cruelty to Animals Acts Amendment (No. 2) * (103–158).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 4) * (119); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 9) * (120); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 10) * (121); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 3) *

1333
(122); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) * (123); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Waterworks) * (124), and passed.

THE SUEZ CANAL.
  EXPLANATION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I wish to make an explanation as to a slight mistake which has arisen probably from a misreport; but much more probably from my not having expressed myself quite clearly. It is with regard to the Suez Canal. The other day I stated that a very strong Committee had been appointed to consider the subject, and that it had come unanimously to the conclusion that the neutralization of the Suez Canal would be contrary to the interests of this country. According to the report, it is made to appear that I went on to say that Her Majesty's Cabinet had sanctioned the plan which had been condemned by the Committee. Exactly the contrary was the case, because Her Majesty's Government entirely agree in the resolution arrived at by the Committee, and they sanctioned the thing recommended by the Committee, which was subsequently embodied in a Circular dated January 3rd, 1883, which would make the Canal free, instead of its being neutralized, and so would have rendered it impossible for men-of-war to use it in time of war. I find, however, that I must entirely acquit the reporters of the mistake. My noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Cork) reminds me that I did make the mistake, and I apologize to your Lordships for having done so.
EGYPT (THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH FRANCE) — VOTE OF CENSURE.

  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I beg to give Notice that, on Tuesday next, I shall move to resolve—
  "That the terms of the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France, as indicated in the correspondence recently presented to Parliament, are such as in the opinion of this House will not lead to the establishment of tranquillity and good government in Egypt, and will fail to produce results adequately corresponding to the sacrifices which England has made, and may be called upon to make, in that country."

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.

  (NO. 79.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That this House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, the Bill was proposed with the intention of meeting complaints of very long standing. It had been commonly thought in Scotland, for many years, that if a Member of that House, or of the House of Commons, cognizant with Scotch affairs, and, if possible, of Cabinet rank, were appointed to supervise the Business and legislation appertaining to Scotland, it would be of advantage to Scotland. So far as this Bill was calculated to effect that object, it was one that deserved every support. But there were provisions in the Bill about which he was not enthusiastic; and he was somewhat at a loss to ascertain upon what principle of selection the subjects to be entrusted to him had been assigned to the Office. The Bill proposed to make some considerable changes in matters of the executive and administrative Government. In the Schedule to the Bill about 50 Acts of Parliament were enumerated, which were now administered by the Treasury, the Home Office, the Privy Council, and the Local Government Board, which were henceforth to be placed under the control of the new Secretary. But though the Schedule contained many trivial Acts, it omitted some important ones. It omitted the Education Act, the administration of which was not to be transferred to the new Secretary. He did not wish to say one word to discourage the Government from proceeding with legislation of this kind; but he asked their Lordships to consider why, above all things, the one most distinctively Scottish institution should be omitted from the scope of the Bill. There was another subject—the Department of the Register Office. That was also a distinctively Scottish Department; and he did not see why these two, which he considered of a most important character as affecting Scotland, should be excluded from the scope of the measure. He wished, to take that opportunity of expressing his opinion that, as

  1335
  regarded the Education Act, at all events, this omission from the Schedule of the Bill constituted a grievous blot upon the Bill, and that the measure would not be complete unless it were made to include the education enactments relating to Scotland. He had been requested by some of his noble Friends not to rest satisfied with merely stating his own views on the subject, but to bring forward a distinct Resolution in regard to it. He therefore begged to propose the following Resolution:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the supervision of education in Scotland should be intrusted to any department charged with the distinctive administration of Scotch affairs."
  THE EARL OF FIFEsaid, that when the Bill was read a second time, a few weeks ago, the practical unanimity that then prevailed as to its general principles was so refreshing that he had not ventured to trouble their Lordships with any remarks of his own, more especially as, three years ago, he had had the privilege of raising the question of the appointment of a Minister for Scotland in their Lordships' House. He was glad to see that the few remarks which he then so feebly made had received such ample recognition as they did in the Bill now before their Lordships. As it was now agreed that Scotland was to have a Minister of her own, he hoped he might be allowed to say a word in support of what had fallen from his noble Friend on his left (the Earl of Minto). He begged Her Majesty's Government not to allow this graceful concession which they were making to the wishes and the wants of the Scottish people to be marred by the omission of what, in the opinion of some of them, would be a most valuable part of the measure—namely, that of not including the Education Acts among those to be administered by the new Secretary. The arguments which were urged against his proposal to include education appeared to him to be partly of a technical, and partly of a red-tape character, which, if good at all, might be applied with equal force to every function which it was proposed to transfer to the new Office. If there was one thing about which Scotland had every reason to be proud, it was the superiority of her educational system, which, although only finally established in 1870, was the outcome of three centuries. Long before the Education Act or Whitehall
  1336
  Department were ever thought of, the education of the people of Scotland was far in advance of the other parts of the country; and the question now was, were they in Scotland maintaining their old supremacy in these matters? Thoughtful people connected with Scotland had told him that they had very grave doubts on the point whether, relatively, we were maintaining our old position in this respect. That was hardly to be wondered at, when it was remembered that it must be the aim of a Whitehall Department to level up the other parts of the country to the Scottish level, rather than energetically to push forward Scottish education, and to make it in every way more effectual. To Scottish eyes, that looked very like levelling down; and, in practice, he greatly feared it would be found to be so. As was well known, the education of Scotland was not under the same Act as that of England; it was not regulated by the same Code; and it was not managed at the present moment by the same officials. It was notorious that the two systems were essentially different. If there was one thing that was thoroughly and purely Scottish it was their educational system; and when it was found that education was not to be included in the functions of this new Secretary, great disappointment and surprise were expressed in Scotland; for it was felt that the inclusion of that subject would tend to maintain their old educational supremacy, which was the envy and admiration of England. He should certainly support his noble Friend, even if he found it necessary to put the House to the trouble of a Division.
  On Question?
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause I (Short title).
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he wished to make some observations with reference to a subject to which he had directed attention on the second reading. He stated on that occasion that he was not prepared to oppose the Bill.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I rise to Order. I understood the noble Earl behind me (the Earl of Minto) to move a Resolution; but that Resolution was not put by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that there should be any misunderstanding; but I certainly did not hear the noble Earl make any Motion. I was not aware of his having done so; and I put the Question as to going into Committee, being entirely unaware that there was any Motion proposed.
  THE EARL OF MINTO: I moved a Resolution distinctly.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I repeat that I am very sorry there has been any misunderstanding1, for which I am partly responsible; though I confess I did not hear the Motion proposed, and it was not on the Paper. What is to be done? Shall I go back again?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was of opinion that such a course would be very irregular.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he thought that it would save some time in discussing the different Amendments on the Paper if the discussion on his noble Friend's Resolution were taken on the first Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not see how any alteration of the position could be made. It appeared to him that it would be necessary for the House to resume, and then to go into Committee again. The irregularity or neglect seemed to him to be on both sides; because if the noble Earl, who was interested in this matter, had stopped the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, when he put the Question, the misunderstanding would not have arisen.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was really very sorry; but there were two things which ought to induce the Committee to excuse his mistake. One was, that no Notice was given on the Paper of any Amendment to the Motion to go into Committee. And the other was, that the construction of the House was such that noble Lords speaking from a particular part of the House, unless they had very excellent voices, or exerted them to the fullest extent, were not easily heard on the Woolsack.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I rejoice extremely at this slight discussion, because it justifies so entirely the Motion that I had the honour to submit the other day. I do not think it is a matter of very great moment, if my noble Friend will permit me to say so, whether the discussion takes place now, or later, on the Amendment of the noble Marquess
  1338
  (the Marquess of Huntly) to the Schedule; but as it appears to me that the constitution of the House will be shaken to its foundation if the noble and learned Earl resumes the Woolsack, I hope the matter will not be pressed.
  THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, he was sorry that he had failed to make himself heard by the Lord Chancellor; but he distinctly moved a Resolution, which was seconded by Lord Fife, and in so doing he had acted quite in Order.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that as the Resolution of the noble Earl related to the subject of the first Amendment on the Paper, the inconvenience of checking the discussion upon it was merely a formal inconvenience. The discussion could be carried on the first Amendment.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Appointment of a Secretary for Scotland. Assistant Secretary).
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he wished to refer to the 3rd paragraph of the clause, which said—
  "The Secretary may appoint a permanent Assistant Secretary and such other officers as the Treasury may determine."
  He had called attention to this point on the second reading of the Bill; but could not say that the answer which was given to him at the time removed his objection to the words. It seemed to him, from the way the paragraph was drawn, that upon any one Government following another, there would be a different Secretary for Scotland appointed; and that he would be empowered, if he got the sanction of the Treasury, to remove the officers under him at the moment, without any word being said. He thought it would have been better if, instead of using the words "the Secretary may appoint," the phrase simply were "the Crown may appoint." He would not have made this suggestion, if he had not had some conference with gentlemen whose opinion was worth something on the subject, and who before now had taken a leading part in the matter. He did not wish to move an Amendment at present; but, threw out the suggestion, in the hope that, before Report was brought forward, Government would give him an assurance that it would not be necessary to do so. He believed his suggestion would carry out the object of

  1339
  the Government and remove any dubiety on the point.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that the clause was worded strictly in accordance with precedents, and was very similar to that in the Bill relating to the Local Government Board for England. He might say that the Assistant Secretary was never appointed by the Crown, but by the Head of the Department.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Secretary may sit in Parliament, 30 amp; 31 Vict. c. 102 (England), 31 amp; 32 Vict. c. 48 (Scotland), 31 amp; 32 Vict. c. 49 (Ireland); and Clause 4 (Seal, style, and acts of the Secretary) severally agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Powers and duties of the Secretary).
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in rising to move an Amendment, to leave out from the second paragraph the following words:—
  "Other than offices and appointments pertaining to law and justice,"
  said, he ventured to think it was a great mistake to omit from this new Office, if it was to be a substantial Office, the power of making appointments relating to law and justice in Scotland. His reasons were these—the present appointment to offices pertaining to law and justice was vested in the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and it seemed to him it should now pass to the new Department under the same conditions as other business which was passing from the Home Department to the new Scottish Department; and he would further say, with regard to all that business, that, wherever it was possible, the endeavour of the House and the Government should be to put the new Scottish Secretary, relatively to Scotland, in as nearly as possible the same position as the Secretary of State for the Home Department had hitherto stood to that country. He did not think it would be a good thing for the Secretary of State to continue his relations with Scotland purely through the connection of patronage. If this Bill was to pass, the sole relation of the Secretary of State to Scotland would be purely the recommendation of the grace of the Crown to persons under capital sentence; then he would have anatomy and vivisection and the exercise of the legal
  1340
  patronage of Scotland. He did not see I the slightest connection between anatomy and vivisection and the right to pardon persons under capital sentence, and the exercise of the legal patronage of Scotland. It seemed to him that it would be more desirable, more logical, and more satisfactory in every way, both as regarded the new Scottish Secretary and as regarded the Secretary of State himself, if this connection were entirely cut off, and the new Secretary were placed in the same position as the Secretary of State in regard to this question. In regard to the question, another reason he would venture to urge was that he thought the great danger this office laboured under, and the great apprehension he had respecting it, was that it would not have sufficient weight and sufficient strength imparted to it by the Government; and it was for that reason he brought forward this proposition, and that he should support any proposition the object of which was to extend the weight and the influence of this new official. It was quite certain, if this new Minister was to start his Office under discouraging conditions, his Office would be a failure; and he ventured to say nothing could more contribute to that result than the fact that the whole of the patronage of Scotland— which, in fact, was mainly legal and judicial—should be outside the scope of the new Minister's Office. While the Minister might perform his duties as well as it was possible to do, those who wished for the reward of public service would be looking, not to him, but to an official in London. That was not the case in Ireland, where similar conditions of local administration prevailed; and, therefore, he thought if they were to give a fair start to this Office, and not make it a mere paper Office, they would have to do something in the way he had indicated. One word as to the position of the Lord Advocate. Under this Amendment that position would be distinctly what it had always been, except that his guidance, and advice, and recommendation—always powerful, and necessarily sometimes absolute— would be given to the new Secretary, and not to the Secretary of State. There was a widely-spread impression that the Lord Advocate exercised the legal and judicial patronage of Scotland; but that was not so. It had always remained in

  1341
  the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and it had never been a theory of the Constitution that the Lord Advocate, who was a practising barrister, should appoint the Judges before whom he practised. From the Judges of the Supreme Court down to the macers who walked before the Judges, the whole of that patronage was in the hands of the Secretary of State; and though he quite admitted that the Secretary of State must be under the guidance of the Lord Advocate in circumstances of this kind, all he wished was that the lay person guided by the Lord Advocate should be, not the Secretary of State, but the new Scottish Minister. Another advantage connected with his Amendment was that it would associate the Lord Advocate more closely with the new Office than he would otherwise have been. He thought the position of the Lord Advocate, if care were not taken by the Government, would resemble Mahomet's coffin— suspended between heaven and earth. He would not know exactly whether his principal relations were with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to whom he paid £60 a-year for lodging at the Home Office; or whether they were to be with the administrator of the rest of Scottish business, and closely connected with that official. If they wanted to make Scottish administration homogeneous, if they were to give it proper scope and a wide basis, they would have to link the Lord Advocate and the new official as closely as possible together, and. dissociate the Lord Advocate as much as possible from the Secretary of State for the Home Department. These were the reasons he would give at present in support of his Amendment, and he ventured to hope their Lordships would take a wide view of the whole subject, and be inclined to give their assent to that Amendment.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 16, leave out from ("State") to the end of the sub-section.—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, the Amendment of his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) was an important one, though he was sorry to have to say Her Majesty's Government could not now accept it; but what view the House might take on the matter would, of course, naturally have great weight
  1342
  with the Government. His noble Friend said the Bill was more likely to fail from not being big enough than from any other cause. That might be true. The question as to what length the Government would go in this Bill had been under consideration for a very long time, and the Amendment of his noble Friend went to the very root of the scheme of the Bill; because under the Bill it had always been intended that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should remain as he was now, the head of the Department of Justice in Scotland. To that Department was retained the Prerogative of mercy; for, in the opinion of the Government, the Prerogative of mercy ought not to be exercised by an official less in rank than a Secretary of State.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Amendment has nothing to do with the Prerogative of mercy.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that to the head of the Department of Justice the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy naturally belonged; and by the noble Earl's Amendment the Secretary for Scotland would become the head of the Department of Justice.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) to say the Secretary of State exercises the Prerogative of mercy? That is quite new to me.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, the Crown, upon the advice of the Secretary of State, exercised that Prerogative, which came practically to the same thing. The Secretary of State, in exercising the legal patronage for Scotland, depended for advice from the Lord Advocate. It had always been the custom that the Secretary of State for the Home Department consulted the Lord Advocate in making any appointment of that kind that was to be made, and it was only natural that he should do so, considering that the Lord Advocate knew more about the legal luminaries of Scotland than any other person; but to hand over the appointment of Judges to the Secretary for Scotland would be, in the opinion of the Government, to detract from the dignity of the Lord Advocate, because the Lord Advocate, though he had no absolute right now of being consulted by the Secretary of State, still it had always been the custom that he should be consulted; and he might almost

  1343
  say that he had acquired a customary right to be consulted; while in the new Department which the Bill constructed there would be no provision in it which would compel the new Secretary to consult the Lord Advocate, and there could be no custom which would insure that the Lord Advocate should be consulted. Consequently, the dignity of the Lord Advocate would suffer if the Amendment were carried. He did not think his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) was quite correct in what he stated as to Ireland. He (the Earl of Dalhousie) believed the judicial appointments in Ireland were not made by the Viceroy, but by the Crown, or the Prime Minister, acting on the advice of the Viceroy. However that might be, the reason the Government could not accept the Amendment was because it involved a very considerable enlargement of the Bill. They constructed their Bill keeping in view certain landmarks, if he might so speak, and they were without any evidence of Scottish opinion in favour of the enlargement proposed.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he did not think the noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie) quite understood the effect of the Amendment of his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery). He (the Marquess of Huntly) certainly did not understand that its effect would be to take away or derogate from the power or duties of the Lord Advocate. It would simply transfer his power of recommendation from the Secretary of State to the new Secretary, allowing the Lord Advocate to remain in the same position that he was in before. He should support the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he was sorry that he was not able to be present at the second reading of the Bill; but he would take this, the first opportunity he had of expressing his acknowledgments to the Government for acceding to the general opinion of the Scottish people by the introduction of this measure. He confessed, however, that he was very much disappointed, both with the character of the measure itself, and with the reply of the noble Earl representing the Government (the Earl of Dalhousie) to this Amendment. This Amendment seemed to him to touch the whole root of the matter. Unless the new Office was really an efficient one, it would not meet the wishes of the
  1344
  people of Scotland, and it would become an object of ridicule more than anything else. The answer of the Government to the Amendment was simply that the Office of the new Secretary for Scotland would not be of sufficient importance to justify its carrying with it judicial patronage. Brit if the Government consented to the creation of a Secretary for Scotland at all, surely he was the proper person to exercise that patronage. The Government had brought forward this measure, not because they themselves thought it necessary or desirable, and he complained that they did not throw their whole heart into the matter. He preferred to have no Bill at all rather than a Bill creating an official under the dignified appellation of the Secretary for Scotland, whom they declined to invest with all the functions which seemed appropriate to such a position, while, at the same time, hedging it round with restrictions that would make the Office ridiculous. He wished simply to express his disappointment with the Bill as it stood. He agreed with every word that had fallen from the noble Earl opposite who had moved the Amendment, and he would certainly support him.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he regretted very much that the officer to be appointed under the Bill would not be a Secretary of State; but under the circumstances, as the Bill in its present form had been accepted as a sort of instalment, and as he thought the reasons were distinctly in favour of the Amendment, he would support it.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he ventured to think that they should not, at a moment's notice, so largely extend the scope of the Bill as to include so important a matter as advising Her Majesty as to the Prerogative of mercy.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: There is no question whatever of the Prerogative of mercy.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he must apologive to the noble Earl for having misunderstood him. He regretted that Notice of the Amendment was not given a little sooner, in order that they might have had more time to consider it. He never heard it suggested that this particular function should be entrusted to the new Secretary, until he saw the Petition presented to that effect in their Lordships' House, and until he saw the

  1345
  Amendment on the Paper that afternoon. He should be largely guided in his vote by the opinion of the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench below the Gangway (Lord Watson), because he had held high Office in Scotland, and knew what would be the effect of this Amendment if carried.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he had been intrusted to present a Petition which emanated from a body who were entitled to speak with some weight— namely, the Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland. That Petition strongly urged that an Amendment in the sense of that proposed by his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) should be inserted in the Bill. He quite sympathized with his noble Friend opposite (Lord Balfour) that they were asked to decide this question on somewhat short Notice; but, as his noble Relative was intimately acquainted with Scottish affairs, he could not hare much doubt as to the reception which this Amendment would meet with in Scotland. He was reminded of an interesting incident. On one occasion during the Administration of Lord Melbourne, a deputation waited upon him and urged the abolition of the church rates. Lord Melbourne listened attentively to the views of the deputation for some time, and then asked them if they were prepared to say that they had the country with them in their views? The deputation replied that they had not. Then Lord Melbourne asked them if they had a majority of the people with them? The deputation admitted that they were not prepared even to say that. Lord Melbourne then advised them to go home; but he had no difficulty in assuring them that, if they returned with the support of the country behind them, no Government could refuse them what they asked. This was not a new question in Scotland; but recently the demand and desire had taken form and shape, and had assumed a fresh intensity. He admitted that the Government could refuse such extensions in the Bill as were now asked for; but he hardly thought they would, if they considered the large extent to which the country was looking for a practical measure.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there were some considerations connected with the Amendment which it was well for their Lordships to keep in view. He did not know whether the Amendment
  1346
  was meant to extend to the highest judicial offices. If that was the intention, he was not sure that the words of the Amendment would cover such appointments. The highest judicial offices were in the direct appointment and patronage of the Crown, and the Crown made the appointments on the advice of a responsible Minister. There might be strong reasons for saying that some of the minor offices, such as officers of ceremony who walked before the Judges, might not require the intervention of the Secretary of State; and it might be a matter deserving of consideration whether the new Secretary for Scotland might not be intrusted with some of those minor appointments. But if it was really intended that the new Secretary should be the person to advise the Crown as to the highest judicial appointments in Scotland, he did not think noble Lords connected with that country would be prepared to contend that offices of that immense importance should be filled in Scotland in a different manner to that in which they were filled in other parts of the United Kingdom. In England, all these higher judicial offices were filled by the Crown on the recommendation either of the Prime Minister or of the holder of the Great Seal. In Ireland, these appointments were made by the Crown on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant and the Prime Minister. Now, if it was intended by the Amendment to include these high judicial offices, he could quite conceive that the arguments of the noble Lord might be sound, if the Secretary for Scotland was always to be a Minister of Cabinet rank. There would be no disparagement to the dignity of these great judicial offices in Scotland if a Minister of Cabinet rank recommended such appointments to the Crown; but he did not think those high offices should be in the gift of any subordinate Department, the head of which was below Cabinet rank. He could not but fear that, after some experience, complaints would arise in Scotland if the great judicial appointments of that country were made by a Department of the Government, the head of which was of decidedly inferior rank to those Ministers who advised the Crown in regard to the highest judicial appointments in other parts of the United Kingdom. He thought, however, it

  1347
  might be further considered whether there were any minor legal appointments which might well be intrusted to the new Secretary, without absolutely placing all judicial appointments in his hands; and, therefore, noble Lords might leave the matter over in order to give time for further consideration.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he believed the Office which it was proposed to create was wholly unnecessary for the proper conduct of Scottish Business. He could quite understand that it was necessary to have a Cabinet Minister who should give his attention to Scottish Business; but he believed the measure, as it now stood, was wholly unnecessary, as it would not expedite Scottish Business; and, moreover, the less they gave a supernumerary to do the better.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, the Bill of last year had been condemned over and over again in Scotland as an unworkable and unsatisfactory measure. In speaking on that Bill last year, he did not say a syllable against its principle; but he only complained of the time at which it was brought forward. He did not think, therefore, that any noble Lord should saddle a charge of inconsistency upon him.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he welcomed the speech of the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor), as it was the first time he had thought it necessary to address their Lordships on this subject. The noble and learned Earl said he was not sure that the Amendment would include the highest judicial offices. His (the Earl of Rosebery's) answer to that was, that he was quite satisfied to take the Amendment as it stood, and to chance the highest judicial offices being included in the Bill. If they were not included in the Amendment, they would very shortly follow its adoption. He was somewhat surprised at the remark of the noble and learned Earl that the people of Scotland would not put confidence in Judges who were not appointed by a Minister of Cabinet rank; but that argument came with strange force from the noble and learned Earl, who had expressed his high appreciation of the judicial qualities of the Judges in Scotland. He was inclined to think, if the new Secretary was not to be a man of straw—if, on the contrary, he was to be a man of worth— that, under the guidance of the Lord
  1348
  Advocate, he would have just as good opportunities of recommending fit persons to hold the highest judicial offices in Scotland as a Cabinet Minister who might not have the slightest possible acquaintance with Scottish affairs. He was not one of those who wished for a Secretary of State for Scotland; but he wished for a substantial Minister for Scotland, and for that reason he should ask their Lordships to divide on the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, with regard to the observations of his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery), he wished to say that he had, not only upon all occasions on which he had an opportunity since he filled his present Office, expressed his very strong sense of the eminent services rendered by the Judges in Scotland, and of the admirable manner in which they administered the excellent system of law in Scotland, but for many years before he filled any judicial position, having had much experience at the Bar of their Lordships' House in the argument of Scotch cases, he had uniformly formed and expressed the same opinion as to the high judicial qualities of Scotch Judges.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he desired to explain the vote he was going to give. He gathered from the discussion that had taken place that it was evidently the general wish of the people of Scotland that the new Secretary should be a man of some importance; while it was equally evident that the Government, in deciding upon the subject, would not comply with that desire. The way to get such an Officer was to give him considerable functions to perform, and the only way to secure that the appointment should be exercised with judgment, was to confer upon him such functions as would make the position an object of desire to the able men who would compete for it. The arguments upon the question itself were very nearly balanced on the subject; and, therefore, the consideration that it was desirable, ceteris paribus, to confer as much power and dignity on this Office as they conveniently could, would induce him to vote for the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that, considering the tone of the debate, and the united opinion of all Peers coming from Scotland and of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of

  1349
  Salisbury), the Government, although not accepting the Amendment of his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery), would not put the House to the trouble of a Division.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Reservation of rights of Lord Advocate).

SCHEDULE.

  POWERS AND DUTIES OF SECRETARY OF STATE.
  LORD BALFOUR, in moving, as an Amendment, to include—
  "The general Register of Sasines and other offices mentioned in Section 8 of 42 amp; 43 Vict, cap. 44,"
  said, this was regarded as a great and very important matter in Scotland. There was no institution in Scotland which was looked upon just now with so much discontent as the management of the Register of Sasines, and the Keeper of the Records. The system of registry and transfer of land in Scotland was of very ancient date—namely, 1599. In 1617 an Act was passed by the Scottish Parliament, enjoining that there should be a general Register in Edinburgh and local Registers throughout the country. For many years the Department was in close connection with the Secretary of State for Scotland; but, on the abolition of that functionary, it passed very largely under the control of the Court of Session, and, for nearly 200 years, it was managed as entirely a Scottish Office. It was only in recent times that any control on the part of the Treasury had been felt in Scotland in regard to this Department. In 1817 certain powers were given to the Treasury, and it was enacted that the officers should be paid by salary and that the Treasury should receive the fees; but the Act did not come into effect until the death of the Chief Keeper in 1845. In 1853 the Treasury appointed a number of what were called "Official Searchers;" and he thought it was agreed on all hands that the system had broken down, because a very large proportion of the searches were conducted not by the official searchers, but by non-official members of what was now a regular profession. After 1853 there was
  1350
  a good deal of discontent as to the arrangement of this Department, and a Commission was appointed in 1861 to inquire into the whole of the matter. Their Report, which was issued in 1863, contained two recommendations—first, that local Registers should be abolished; and, secondly, that the fees should be so regulated as to cover only the expenses of the Department. A Bill embodying these recommendations, and providing that, in the event of there being any surplus, it should be applied to the reduction of the fees, was prepared and introduced in 1866, and considered by a Select Committee, but was never passed into law. In the next year nothing was done, because of the Reform Bill occupying the attention of Parliament at the time; but, in 1868, an Act was passed, called the Land Register Act, which, among other things, abolished all the local Registers, and centralized the Department in Edinburgh. It appointed the Lord Clerk Register to be a paid official, to manage the whole Department, and have considerable powers of patronage; the Treasury was to fix the fees, but only so high as to cover the expenses of the Department—that provision being very distinct. The new position of the Lord Clerk Register, however, was found inconvenient; and, in 1879, an Act was passed, restoring the Office as one of the great unpaid Offices of State for Scotland, and appointing a Deputy Clerk Register to fulfil the functions which the Act of 1868 had laid on the Lord Clerk Register, the patronage being transferred to the Treasury, subject to the control and advice of Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State. The Treasury, from the time they had first begun to have anything to do with this Department, had been continually usurping more and more power in regard to it; and he did not believe there would be a single dissentient voice in Scotland when he said that the interference of the Treasury, which had gone on increasingly year by year, had been disastrous and productive of a great deal of mischief, and that there was no Department which was at the present time so badly managed or gave rise to greater dissatisfaction, especially among the Profession, than the Register House in Edinburgh. When this Bill was being read a second time, he had made a casual remark, that he

  1351
  thought it would be well to include this Department in the Bill. He had then no intention of moving an Amendment such as that he was now about to propose; but that remark had brought upon him such a flood of correspondence from Edinburgh and Glasgow that he had resolved to take the matter up, and look further into it. He would give an instance of the sort of treatment that the Treasury had been extending towards Scotland in the matter of fees. The 25th section of the Land Register Act of 1868 distinctly laid down the proposition that the amount of fees should be so regulated as to pay only the working expenses of the Department. Let them see how the Treasury had read that provision. He held in his hand a Return which was moved for in the House of Commons in 1877 by Mr. Mackintosh, and he found that, in the previous eight years to that date, the fees drawn amounted to £219,531. The total expenditure for salaries and other expenses for the same period was £178,951, and the balance had been appropriated by the Treasury. In other words, in those eight years, the Treasury had taken as a tax, from those who transferred land and lent money upon land in Scoland, no less than £40,580, or £5,000 a-year. But the grievance did not stop there. The Act allowed the Treasury, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, to pay compensation to the keepers of those district Registers which were done away with; but the Treasury had been quietly paying this compensation all the time out of the fees of the Department, and not out of moneys provided by Parliament. He was fortified in bringing this matter before the House by an opinion which was obtained at the instance of the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow, and the Society of Writers there, in the year 1871. They resolved to take the opinion of counsel as to whether it was right that these compensations should be paid out of the fees of the Department, and they selected as the counsel to whom they should go, Sir Roundell Palmer, who had become well known to their Lordships under another name, and Mr. James Anderson, Q.C. The point put to them was, whether the Act empowered the Government to pay that compensation out of the surplus fees, or whether the fees must be reduced to an
  1352
  amount sufficient to defray expenses of the Department? The opinion they received was, that the Act empowered the Treasury to pay the compensation from funds provided by Parliament, without reference to the surplus fees of the Register House, and that these compensations should be included in the Estimates annually voted by Parliament; and counsel were of opinion that it was not in the power of the Treasury to impose fees fur raising funds to meet these compensations. But, in spite of this, the Treasury, during these eight years, had paid no less than £56,000 in the form of compensation, or, together with the other sum, had quietly taken out of the pockets of those who were transferring land in Scotland and lending money on land, a sum of £ 11,000 a-year. He did not ask their Lordships to take this matter into consideration as a money question. He was also perfectly aware of the questions of Privilege that might arise between this and the other House of Parliament in that respect, and would therefore do nothing to raise anything of that kind; and he merely used this as an illustration of the sort of treatment a Scottish Department would receive at the hands of the Treasury, if it were not sufficiently controlled, and to show that the control which was supposed to be vested in the Secretary of State for the Home Department, was entirely delusive because the right hon. Gentleman had so much to do, that he had never been able to pay proper attention to the matter. The object of his Amendment was simply to place the Department under the new Secretary for Scotland. He did not propose that the new Secretary should have any power to fix salaries or alter fees; but he would have power to appoint officers and to control the Treasury, which was at present vested in the Secretary of State, but which had only been vested in him in 1879. There was also a great number of other details connected with the Register House as regarded its routine which might be brought before their Lordships, and which required looking into, and which might be very much improved by someone on the spot. But, meanwhile, he would only say that he believed that a great deal of money was at present wasted by the system that prevailed, and that if his Amendment were agreed to, a great saving would be effected,

  1353
  and, certainly, the cost of transferring land would be greatly cheapened. The new Secretary ought, at all events, to have an opportunity of trying what he could do in this direction; and he hoped their Lordships would also avail themselves of it in order to see what could be done with a Department which, he believed, was at present the cause of very grave and well-founded complaint. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Schedule, Part I., page 3, line 15, after ("Fishery Board"), moved, to insert ("General Register of Sasine and other offices mentioned in Section 8, of 42&43Vict. c.44").—(The Lord Balfour.)
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in opposing the Amendment, said, that in regard to the mismanagement of the Department he would not pronounce any opinion. The Register House had now, for many years, been more or less under the control of the Court of Session. In England, he believed that the analogous matters were controlled by the Master of the Rolls. The view of the Government with regard to the Register House was that it ought rather to be placed more directly under the control of the Court of Session than it was at present. The authority which the Court of Session had over the Department was very vague and undefined, and had at times been disputed. The control of the Register House required a great deal of legal knowledge, which the Secretary created by the Bill would not necessarily possess; and, therefore, in the view of the Government, such reforms as might be required would be more effectually carried out by placing the Department more directly under the control of the Court of Session.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he did not intend by the Amendment to interfere with the privileges of the Court of Session, or the Lord Advocate. All he asked was, that the powers conferred on the Secretary of State for the Home Department should be transferred to the new Officer.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 34: Majority 4.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Words inserted accordingly.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY, in proposing an Amendment bringing the Elementary Education of Scotland under the control of the new Secretary, said, he considered that those who framed the measure had dealt with the question in what he might call rather a ''funking" manner. The question whether education should be included under the new Office was one which the Government ought not to have shirked, as he thought they had done. At the meeting which was held at Edinburgh in the beginning of the present year, and which represented all shades of opinion on the subject, the resolution which was passed, embodying the almost unanimous opinion of Scotland, included education among the subjects that ought to come under the control of such a Department as the Bill created. His noble Friend opposite (Lord Balfour), who now, he understood, opposed the proposal, was present at that meeting; and if he still held to his Amendment that education should not be included, he (the Marquess of Huntly) should like to know why he (Lord Balfour) had not entered his protest against that resolution when it was carried unanimously in Edinburgh? He had made inquiries into the subject, and he believed those who, at the present moment, were taking the greatest interest in education, were strongly of opinion that, under the Scottish Minister to be created by the Bill, education would be further developed. There was one point in connection with the history of education he should like to call attention to. By the Act of 1872, which a great many Englishmen shook their heads at, School Boards and compulsory education were established in Scotland, and a Board was constituted for a certain number of years, for the purpose of carrying out the Act. In 1878–9 a large and most influential deputation, headed by the late Duke of Buccleuch, came to London, and urgently represented that the Board should be made permanent. He (the Marquess of Huntly), however, at that time thought the Government were wise in placing the Department of Scottish Education under the Privy Council. The reason why that was done was, at that time, there was no Minister attached to Scotland specially attending to the Scottish Business, and who could specially undertake the duties of this

  1355
  Office. But, under this Bill, they were going to appoint a responsible Minister, with the object of placing under his control all the peculiarly distinctive Scottish matters; and they intended to invest him with authority to conduct all Scottish Business. What he would like to ask was, what was, and what was not, Scottish? Because, of all things Scottish, the system of education was the most Scottish. He (the Marquess of Huntly) had presented Petitions from every large town in Scotland, but one, in favour of his Amendment, and he understood that the only Body which really was opposing it was a Body called the Educational Institute. He was informed that that Body consisted mostly of teachers, and it was one which might be considered wishful to conciliate the powers that be. Therefore, he did not think it should be put in the balance against the vast number of Petitions and the expressions of opinion on the other side. The only other Body, he believed, against the proposal was the Edinburgh School Board, which, however, did not really vote against it, but only carried the "Previous Question" by a vote of five to three, out of eight persons. He endorsed what his noble Friend (the Earl of Fife) had lately said—that education in Scotland was not on such a satisfactory footing as some people thought. He would allow that statistics showed a vast levelling-up of the masses; and he believed, in the towns, the effect of the Education Act of 1872 had been very good and beneficial; but, in the rural districts, he believed the Act had not kept pace with the wishes of those responsible for it; and, certainly, there was a very strong feeling that, in these districts, some greater encouragement must be given towards providing for the bringing on of efficient pupils. Their system in Scotland was dissimilar to any other; and in that country their ideas on the subject of education were rather advanced, and they contended that they should have a man born North of the Border who should be head of the Department dealing with that subject. If they left his proposal out of the Bill, they would leave out the kernel of the whole matter. He submitted that the Bill would be valueless, unless they gave the new Secretary the duties of the Education Department for Scotland. This was a Bill which was not announced by dyna-
  1356
  mite, or accompanied by agitation, but had been introduced in response to the national feeling of Scotland; and, therefore, it would be a grievous error on the part of their Lordships if they did not include the administration of education among the duties of the new Secretary. As to the objections raised to his proposal, there were only two or three worth consideration. One was, that this was not the right time to do it; and another, that it would give the Minister too much to do. In his opinion, there was nothing in either of those objections, and he hoped their Lordships would not be swayed by them. He looked upon them as side winds by which it was hoped to dish those in its favour. If their Lordships thought that education should be placed under the new Minister, why should it not be done now? Another objection was, that perhaps the new Secretary might be a Member of their Lordships' House, and then there would be some difficulty as to who should represent the new Secretary in the House of Commons, and move the Estimates. That he did not consider a valid objection. Certainly, he had no fear, if the new Secretary were a Peer—for instance, the noble Earl who now so efficiently represented the Home Office in that House—that the Department could not, under a somewhat similar arrangement, be efficiently represented in the House of Commons; and as to the allegation of increase in the expenditure, there were at present officials in the Education Department who had entire charge of Scottish Business, and he did not want to interfere with the present arrangements in that respect. The noble Marquess concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Schedule, Part II., page 4, after line 4, moved to insert—

  "Education

  35 & 36 Vict. c. 62.

  41 & 42 Vict. c. 78.

  45 & 46 Vict. c. 18.

  46 & 47 Vict. c. 56."

  —(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he must ask their Lordships not to consent to the Amendment. He would not deny that opinions in Scotland were divided at the date of the meeting to which the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Huntly) referred, and at which he (Lord Balfour) was present. But he had an advantage

  1357
  over his noble Friend in having been present at the preliminary meeting, at which the terms of the resolutions to be laid before the subsequent meeting as a whole were discussed. With reference to the first resolution, it was suggested, on the part of some of those who disapproved of the transfer, that, if it were passed, it would commit everyone attending the meeting to support the idea that the educational affairs of Scotland should be transferred to the new Secretary; but it was not amended, only, he believed, on the ground that a majority of those who were there disclaimed the idea of committing those who openly disapproved of the matter; and he had never ceased, either before that time, or subsequently, and up to the time of the deputation to the Prime Minister on the subject, to guard himself against being committed to the transference of education to the new Secretary. Therefore, he did not think that owing to the terms of the resolution he was in any way precluded from bringing forward his view of the matter on this occasion. He did not think the noble Marquess would find any of those in Scotland who had charge of the administration of the Education Acts who desired the transference to the new Department. The noble Marquess had brought forward a large number of Petitions which he had got from Town Councils and similar bodies; but none of those who were actively engaged in the practical work of education had, so far as he knew, committed themselves very much on one side or the other. Those who thought with the noble Marquess had a great advantage in this respect over those who thought the other way; because when, on the second reading, the noble Marquess intimated his intention of moving his Amendment in Committee, he (Lord Balfour) objected to it, and the Government said they would not consent to the inclusion of education in the Bill; and the result had been to stir up those who wanted it into a state of preternatural activity to send up Petitions, whilst those who were opposed to it had been lulled into a sense of false security by the declaration of the Government. There had been a certain amount of discussion and agitation about this question, having a substratum of popular opinion at work, which had been largely stimulated by a newspaper in Edinburgh, and he might say by the exer-
  1358
  tions of the noble Marquess himself. By means of a circular signed "Huntly," which had been widely circulated in Scotland, Petitions were invited in support of the noble Marquess's proposal. He ventured to think it was a somewhat new departure for noble Lords in this House to, if he might use the expression, "tout" for Petitions about the country in reference to a matter before their Lordships' House. However, he did not know, judging by the Journals of the House, that the noble Marquess had met with any great amount of success.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: Petitions have been presented by me from every town and city in Scotland, except Glasgow.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that, in his opinion, Glasgow was a very important place, and certainly not the least important of all the large towns, especially in the matter of education. But the circular he held in his hand was addressed to the Convener of a county, and he did not think a single county had petitioned in favour of the proposal; and therefore it appeared that the noble Marquess had not been equally successful in the counties; neither had he, as he asserted, received an overwhelming amount of support in favour of his proposal. His objection to the transfer was that it was a bad thing to do, and he did not admit as a reason for it that the new Secretary would not have enough to do. In fact, his impression was that the new Secretary would have enough to do, if he did what was proposed to be laid on him by the Bill as it now stood, without the new duties which, it was proposed to impose upon him. But if the administration of education ever was to be transferred to that Official, the present was not an opportune moment for the change; for a Committee of the House of Commons, presided over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was now considering whether there should not be one Education Department for the whole of the country. The Report of the Committee ought to be seen before any change in the present system was made. He should himself much prefer that there should be an Education Department for the whole country, which would only have education to attend to; but if they laid these duties with respect to Scotland on the new Secretary, they would, in all time to come, prevent the

  1359
  possibility of such a Department being created. He asked their Lordships to pause and consider what might be the outcome of a transfer such as was proposed. The point which the noble Marquess seemed chiefly to rely on was, that the educational system of Scotland had been, and was now, wholly different from that of England. He admitted that it was different, and differently administered; but he would ask noble Lords who urged that objection to point out in what way Scottish education had suffered from its administration by the Committee of the Privy Council. He did not know any way in which it had suffered. Scotland had got its own Code; and he believed it had been very nearly satisfactory to the people of Scotland, if not entirely so, and that it was, in all respects, a very good Code. Neither was it the opinion of those who administered the Code that it had suffered. Another grave objection which he entertained to the Amendment was, that if they had two separate educational systems—if Scottish education was to be separated from English education, the grants would also have to be separated —two grants would have to be proposed separately in Parliament, and they would, in all probability, be settled at so much a-head of the population. The present average grant per head in Scotland was 17 s. 8d., and in England 16 s. 2d. If hey multiplied that by the number of children whom it concerned it would be found that, at that moment, the Scottish people were spoiling the Saxon to the extent of about £35,000 a-year; but if educational matters were transferred in the manner proposed, and the purposes were made separate, that would not continue to be the case, because the superior efficiency of Scottish schools would no longer tell in the race for grants. It was quite true that the Scottish national system of education had always been much more a system which gave higher education than that of England but were noble Lords aware that, for the last few years, it had been the Scottish Education Department that had been urging the School Boards of Scotland to do more for higher education? A Commission, of which he was a Member, in 1880, recommended to Parliament that more money should be expended for higher education in Scotland. More than one Circular had been issued by the De-
  1360
  partment to School Boards in Scotland to take up the matter; but he was sorry that, through a poor and paltry spirit of economy, there had been no proper response. The fault did not he with the Scottish Education Department, but with the School Boards in populous centres, who had the power, but did not exercise it, because they were afraid of the rates. If they got this £35,000 taken off their Education Vote, they would make the matter much worse. One reason why he should like to have education referred to a Committee of the Privy Council rather than to the new Secretary, was because, at present, they had a Scottish Committee of the Privy Council, composed of eminent men belonging to Scotland, thoroughly imbued with Scottish ideas, who might be trusted well to look after education; and if they gave it to the new Secretary, they would leave him to act alone without the Committee, who were well qualified to advise him. He might be told that this Committee was a sham, and was not called together. He would admit there was something in. that objection. The Committee should be more often called together; but it was a mistake to say it met as seldom as was generally supposed. Whenever any points of policy had to be I discussed, it was very frequently called together. There were many other reasons why the proposal of the noble Marquess should be rejected. It would lead to great inconvenience in several ways. For instance, if they transferred education, he was convinced they would have a great deal of difficulty with the Treasury in money matters in the future. At present, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a Member of the Committee of Council on Education, and heard himself the views of his Colleagues, instead of their being filtered to him through Departmental officials. It would also be extremely inconvenient in respect of teachers, if that change were made. At present, certificates of teachers trained in England were recognized in Scotland, and Scottish certificates were recognized in England, and that interchange was of great advantage to both countries; but, he was bound to say, more especially to Scotland, because there were far more Scottish teachers came South, than English teachers going North. On the one hand, there was no Roman Catholic Training College for teachers in, the North, and all the teachers for Ro-

  1361
  man Catholic Denominational Schools had to be trained in the Colleges of that Body in the South; while, again, many teachers belonging to Dissenting Bodies in England, such as Wesleyans and others, could not get admission to the Denominational Training Colleges there, and they came to Scotland. Therefore, it would be seen that any change in the present condition of things in this respect would entail a great deal of unnecessary expense, and it would be a matter for great regret if the existing practice were discontinued. If the expense of training teachers for England and Scotland was to be defrayed out of different purses, great inconvenience must be caused. It had been suggested that if the change were made, it would make it more difficult for the new Official to be a Member of the House of Lords. He did not think that was an objection; to which either he or their Lordships should say much; but of this he was satisfied—that it was to the interest of Scotland, and the wish of Scotland, that the most efficient man for the time being, whether he was in the House of Commons or the House of Lords, should be chosen as the Minister for Scotland. That point was clearly brought out at the great meeting held in Edinburgh in the winter. The second resolution was; to the effect that the Department should be presided over by a person of eminence, and be joined to the Office of the; Lord Privy Seal. It was represented ' that by the resolution, as it stood, they were asking for a Peer to be their Minister; but that interpretation was disclaimed. The latter condition was deleted from the resolution; and no part of the proceedings was more enthusiastic than the declaration that the best man should have the appointment, whether he was a Member of the House of Commons or a Peer. He was encouraged, therefore, to say that he believed that if the change were made, as proposed in the Amendment, it would create a considerable amount of difficulty in the future administration of this Department, for if the Member who had to move the Education Votes, or who was responsible for a large educational expenditure, had a seat in their Lordships' House, the Votes would then have to be moved by a subordinate in the other House. Great fear had been expressed on all sides lest they should do anything prejudicial to the Lord Ad-
  1362
  vocate. He could imagine nothing more prejudicial to the Lord Advocate than declaring then that the Minister was to be more generally in the House of Commons than the House of Lords. If he were to be always in the House of Commons it would make it almost unnecessary for the Lord Advocate to have a seat in that House, and that would be a change which would not be welcomed by the people of Scotland. He hoped the reasons he had given would induce their Lordships to suspend their judgment until they saw how the new Department would work, and whether it was really the case that there was such a strong feeling in favour of the transference as was represented by the noble Marquess opposite.
  LORD REAYsaid, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) had stated that at the present moment the Education Department allowed 17 s. 8d. per head for Scottish children, and in England they only allowed 16 s. 2d.
  LORD BALFOUR: What I stated was, that the Scottish children won that amount. The conditions were equal; but the superior efficiency of the Scottish schools enabled the children taught in them to win 17 s. 8d. against 16 s. 2d. in England.
  LORD REAYsaid, he believed if they transferred the educational arrangements of Scotland to the new Secretary, that it was more likely the difference in favour of Scotland would be increased. He thought the suggested prospect of a Minister for Education for the United Kingdom was very remote indeed; but his appearance would probably tend to equalise the grants and to unify the codes — now separate — on which the grants were made. In England, problems of a different order had to be solved from those which they had to deal with in Scotland and in Ireland. There was the English problem, the Scotch problem, and the Irish problem. As regarded Ireland, the matter was not doubtful. The Privy Council had been warned off by the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The former declared before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Education—"I certainly think it would be a great misfortune to put Irish education under an English Minister." And the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reply to a Question put to him, said—

  1363
  "I regard myself as Minister of Education for Ireland. The difficulties of communicating Irish feeling to London in certain points appear to be quite enormous, and the kind of questions connected with education have so much bearing upon the general state of content and discontent in the country that the Irish Government, which is responsible for the general condition of the country, would be willing to make almost any sacrifice of labour in order to keep it in its own hands."
  The same difficulty existed with reference to Scottish feeling, and that was why the Bill was brought in. Mr. Cumin, the Assistant Secretary to the Education Department, in his evidence before the same Select Committee, said that he was not sure whether it was a wise thing to have abolished the Scottish Board; and that, though, on the whole, there was, no difficulty in the joint administration of English and Scottish education, there was a good deal of difference between the two systems. He (Lord Reay) could not conceive that the Government, for one instant, could have thought it would be possible to have a Scotch Educational Staff at the Privy Council while there was a Scotch Secretary elsewhere. The, Scotch Secretary being the retriever from the Treasury, they could not exclude him from the most important duty of securing to Scotland a high educational grant, to which her educational proficiency and her contributions to the Imperial Ex-chequer undoubtedly entitled her. But, in addition, he could not deny that the object of Scotchmen in reconquering their administrative independence was to remain ahead. They considered that to their education they owed the place they had won in the British Empire, and they wished to keep that education up to the highest possible level. They stood to the Empire in the same progressive position as Baden stood to the German Empire. The Baden schools and the Prussian schools had a different organization. If there was a country from which in this matter we could learn something it was Germany. The House would perhaps allow him to quote the opinion of one of the most eminent men in Germany, given in a recent eulogistic article on the University of Edinburgh: —
  "What we, on the Continent, have to guard against most in the future, is the danger that, to the inevitable military legions and to the peaceful but also organized legions of the working classes, we should add legions of scholars, drilled, examined, and ruled on a hard-and-fast line. More pernicious than any other undertakings would be that species of administrative educational fanaticism which centralizes and
  1364
  levels down, failing to grasp the fact that the ultimate object of all public educational institutions must be to create independent, energetic individualities."
  Scotland did not wish its schools to be transformed into so many incubators of the Education Department. It wished to give to the Empire, as heretofore, hard-headed, loyal citizens. Was it in. the interests of the Empire to centralize? Was it not much more in the interests of the consolidation of our Empire to give to its various component and loyal parts as much self-government as was compatible with the preservation of the unity of that Empire for which Scotchmen were at all times ready to make any sacrifice? The Scottish problem was how to promote secondary education. As the Government had put in the Sche-the administration of Scotch secondary education, which would, he had no doubt, be improved by the Royal Commission over which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) presided so ably, and as they were told it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to separate secondary education from primary education, he would vote for the Amendment of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly) to remove a distinct omission from the Schedule. If the Amendment of the noble Marquess was rejected, they would undoubtedly have gone a step further in the direction of centralization. As he had said, they did not want their schools in Scotland transferred to a Central Educational Department, such as that sketched by the noble Lord. What they did want was to give an education on national and historic lines to develop logical faculties of observation, to obtain results at a minimum of cost, and to retain that practical turn of mind which it had been the great good fortune of Scotland to possess. He did not believe that by a centralizing and levelling system these results would be obtained, and he would certainly vote for the Amendment of the noble Marquess, because he did not wish primary education in Scotland to be taken from the high pedestal on which John Knox had placed it.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he thought, if any portion of the educational arrangements of Scotland was transferred to the new Department, it would be expedient to transfer the whole system; but he held that it would be a great misfortune if they were to transfer

  1365
  any portion of the education of Scotland to the new Office. He should vote against the Amendment, because, although he was perfectly prepared to create an Officer of State a Secretary for Scotland, and place him in the position of a Secretary of State for the Home Department, he was not prepared to place any one Officer in the position both of Secretary of State for the Home Department and President of the Education Department. He thought to join these two functions was too much for any single Minister. His second objection was this, that such a proposal would narrow very much the whole educational system in Scotland. If they agreed to the Amendment, they, in effect, reversed the whole policy of the Scottish Act of 1872. The principle upon which that Act was founded was, that education should be managed locally by the ratepayers; and that such supervision and control as was necessary should be furnished, not by a Board in Edinburgh, but by a body of men possessed of the greatest educational knowledge and authority, and who were far removed from all the petty jealousies which he was afraid were only too prevalent in Edinburgh. It was for that reason specially that, in the Act of 1872, provision was made for the establishment of a Board for three years only, and when that period expired, the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) was of opinion that it was desirable that the Board should cease. Since that time, the supervision and control of education in Scotland had been conducted to great advantage by the Committee of the Privy Council, which numbered among its Members several of the most distinguished of Scotchmen. If the Amendment was agreed to, the Secretary for Scotland would have the business of the Home Office as well as the business of the Education Office to attend to, and it would be absolutely necessary and indispensable that a permanent Board should be established in Edinburgh, and the result would be that the Board would become the Education Minister. In Scotland, with all their many virtues, they also had some failings, and such things had occurred before now as jealousies between Edinburgh, Glasgow, and many other towns. The notion of an Edinburgh Board was strongly opposed to the wishes of a large number of Members of the other House, and
  1366
  especially by many supporters of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he did not propose to establish any Board.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked whether he was to understand that it was not intended to establish any Office connected with Education in Edinburgh?
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he had made no proposal to establish a Board.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, in that case, he should like to know what was the object of transferring the administration of Scotch Education to the new Secretary, and why the business could not be transacted by the Department which carried it on so ably at the present time? He should vote against the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he believed there was a tendency to level down rather than to level up in the matter of education in Scotland. He should support the Amendment in the interests of Scotch Education, and hoped their Lordships would agree to it. It was said by some that it would be a mistake to adopt the Amendment, because they would lose that useful rivalry which existed under the present system. He ventured to think that, under the new arrangement, that rivalry would be greatly increased.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he was in favour of the Amendment, because he thought that if they created a new Office, they ought to place every confidence in the man who held it. He would vote for any proposal such as this which had for its object decentralization.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that the ground on which the Government opposed the Amendment was a sound ground. It was, in the first place, that the people of Scotland were not unanimous in favour of the proposal of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly, which would involve a very great change, transferring to the hands of the Scottish Secretary a larger amount of work than would be given by the Acts mentioned in the Schedule. The Government were of opinion that such a change as was thus involved ought not to be made until the people of Scotland had fully considered the matter. The arguments of the noble Marquess who moved the Amendment were to the effect that Scottish education would largely benefit, if it were transferred to the

  1367
  hands of the Scottish Secretary. Even if it were quite certain that the change would be a great benefit to education in Scotland, he (the Earl of Dalhousie) thought they should hesitate to make such a change so long as public opinion in Scotland was uncertain, and had not been pronounced in an unmistakeable manner. But there were considerations pointing in the opposite direction, and he believed it was very doubtful whether Scottish education would benefit by being handed over to the Secretary for Scotland. The duties of the Education Department were now carried on by the Lord President of the Council, who was invariably a Cabinet Minister, and by the Vice President of the Council, who was solely concerned with Education. Consequently, it might fairly be argued that the handing over of Scotch education to a Scotch Secretary who had other duties to perform, and who was not necessarily in the Cabinet, would not benefit education in Scotland, but would rather place that country in an inferior position to England and Ireland. Another point in the question was with regard to the matter of expense; for if they made the proposed change, Scotch Estimates would be very much greater than they now were, while the English Estimates would not be very much reduced. There would be all the difference between keeping one household and keeping two. And in regard to the Government grant, so long as the Scottish education was under the same Department as the English, no objection was made to the larger grants given to Scotland; but if the Scottish education was transferred to the new Department, it was not improbable that English and Irish Members might object to pay the larger grants to Scotland. He did not know that it could be alleged that the Scotch Code did not meet the wants of the Scottish people. It was drawn up and administered by the Scottish Education Department, which was entirely separate from the English, though its Parliamentary Chiefs were the same. So far as he was informed, the Department kept touch with the Scottish people through the Inspectors and the School Boards. The Commission of 1867, too, was unanimous in the opinion that the jurisdiction of the Privy Council ought not to be disturbed. Another reason why the transfer, even if it were ex-
  1368
  pedient, should not be made now, was that a Select Committee was considering whether there ought to be a Minister for Education for Great Britain. If it could be shown that the Scottish people were in favour of the change proposed by the Amendment, it might be expedient to accept it, even although education should suffer at first. But the Government did not think there was sufficient ground for imposing the charge of Scottish education on the new Secretary. The objection of the Government to such a course was not an objection of principle; it was not based so much on the belief that Scottish education would probably suffer by such a change, as upon the ground that they did not think they would be justified in making so large a change without some much more strong expression of opinion on the part of the people of Scotland than any that had hitherto been made.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided: — Contents 18; Not-Contents 37: Majority 19.
  Resolved in the negative.
  LORD BALFOUR, in moving an Amendment to omit the educational endowments of Scotland from among the subjects to be placed under the control of the new Office, said, he felt justified in doing so on the ground that the Amendment was the natural corollary of the decision just arrived at by their Lordships with respect to elementary education. He could not imagine any reason on the other side, and he hoped the two things would not be separated. He could understand the policy of including all education, or that of excluding education altogether; but he could not understand the policy of dividing the charge of education. As many schools that had endowments were also in part elementary schools, one practical result that would ensue by placing the management of educational endowments under the new Secretary, if the Amendment were not adopted, would be that, in future, the elementary schools and the endowed schools would have to be inspected either by two different Inspectors, or by the same Inspector reporting to two different authorities. That was only one of many other anomalies that would arise. He was perfectly certain that, whatever the people of Scotland might feel about having education transferred to the new Department, there

  1369
  would in no quarter be any difference of opinion that the two matters must be dealt with by the same authority; and it was for that reason he would now move the Amendment.
  Schedule, Part II., page 4, line 5, moved, to leave out ("Educational Endowments, 45 amp; 46 Vict. c. 59, except section 32").—(The Lord Balfour.)
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was very sorry that he could not accept the Amendment. Until 1882 the educational endowments of Scotland were under the Secretary of State, just as the Universities were; and if a Scottish Department had existed at that time, it was perfectly certain that the control of the endowed institutions would have been transferred to it, and not to the Privy Council. So far as he knew, no one objected to handing over the Universities to the new Office. Indeed, it would be departing from the principle of the Bill if they were not included. Now, it might be said that there were three grades of education in Scotland—on the one hand, they had the Universities, which were now under the Home Office, and which no one objected to have under the new Secretary; on the other hand, they had the Board schools, which the Government and this House had decided to allow to remain as they were; and, thirdly, they had the endowed schools, which might be said to occupy a position midway between the Universities and the Board schools, although, no doubt, it was part of the scheme of many of those institutions that primary education should be given in them. Were they to go with the Universities, or were they to be treated on the same footing as Board schools? That was the question. After carefully considering the arguments pro and con, the Government had decided that the endowed schools should go with the Universities, and the Government adhered to their original intention in this matter. This measure was of a somewhat tentative character; and it was important that an experiment of this kind should be made, which, by transferring a part of the educational machinery to the new Office, would bring the question of transferring the whole more prominently before the Scottish people than it had ever hitherto been.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that they had had several remarkable
  1370
  speeches that night from the Government Bench; but he must say that the speech which had just been made was the most extraordinary. He very much doubted whether the provision was ever intended to be in the Bill at all in the outset; at least, he had been unable to ascertain how, in the first instance, it had got into the Bill. If it had been determined that the whole of the educational system of Scotland should be brought under the new Office, he would have been perfectly prepared to acquiesce in that finding; but was it not absolutely ridiculous to determine that primary education was to remain subject to the control of the Privy Council, while the Universities were to go to the new Secretary, and secondary education was to go with the Universities? He submitted that that state of things was thoroughly unsatisfactory. He would suggest that, having regard to the present empty state of the House, his noble Friend (Lord Balfour) should withdraw his Amendment, and bring it up again on Report.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he had no hesitation in accepting the suggestion of his noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown). He would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment, in order to raise the question again on Report.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he hoped the Government would not take the two noble Lords who had spoken as representing the opinion of Scotland, and that they would not stultify themselves in any way by withdrawing from the position they had taken up on this question. Only the other day the noble Lord who moved the Amendment (Lord Balfour) circulated a very voluminous Report from the Endowed Schools Commission, of which he was Chairman. That Report was issued by the Education Department; and, by a curious mistake, only the evidence was given, the Report being omitted; so that the Department had, in fact, issued the Report without the Report. He did not know whether that might be taken as a specimen of the manner in which the endowed schools would be administered by the Department; but he did not think that proceeding was calculated to inspire confidence in its method of conducting business, or that it had shown any claim to have its control over the Scotch endowed schools continued.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  On the Motion of The Lord BALFOUR, the following Amendment made:—Schedule, Part III., page 4, after line 20, insert—
  ("General Register of Sasines and other offices mentioned in section 8 of 42 amp; 43 Vict. c. 44, except the power to fix the salaries and emoluments attached to any of the said offices.")
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 157.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.