Sitting of 27 June 1884

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—James Allanson Picton, esquire, for Leicester Borough.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order) — Third Reading—Lea Bridge, Leyton, and Walthamstow Tramways Extensions *; Uxbridge and Rickmansworth Railway,* and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Sea Fisheries Act (1368) Amendment* [265].
Second Reading—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [109], debate adjourned.
Report of Select Committee—Yorkshire Land Registries * [No. 243]; Yorkshire Registries * [No. 244]; Strensall Common* [No. 245].
Standing Committee on Law, &c. — Criminal Lunatics* [256], committed.
Committee—Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act (1883) Amendment* [231]— R.P.
Report—Yorkshire Land Registries* [24].
Third Reading—Colonial Attorneys Relief Act Amendment* [228], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  PORTUGAL—THE CONGO TREATY.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can give the House any information with regard to the Treaty with Portugal on the subject of the Congo?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: As I explained yesterday, I think it premature to give detailed information as to the arrangements in contemplation. It is an international arrangement relating to the river, similar to that which
  1544
  relates to the Danube. The Commission has power on the river alone.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHT: Then the territory will remain exactly as it is now?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The projected arrangement will in no manner, if it follows the lines of the Danube Commission, affect the territory.

  POST OFFICE-SUNDAY WORK IN POST OFFICES.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Postmaster General, with reference to Sunday work in Post and Telegraph Offices in Scotland, Why such work is reckoned and paid for as overtime in London and not in Edinburgh and other parts of Scotland?
  LORD ELCHOalso asked, Whether it is not a fact that, while Sunday labour is now generally imposed upon Post Office clerks in large towns throughout the Country, the clerks in London alone receive any compensating privileges in the shape either of extra pay or extra leave; and, whether, if this is so, he is prepared to place the provincial clerks on the same footing as their more favoured London colleagues?
  MR. FAWCETT: As I explained in answer to a similar Question a few days since, Sunday work in the Post Office in London has always been an exception, while in Provincial offices it has always existed. By the new classification, however, in 1881, the position of sorting clerks and telegraphists in the Provincial offices with regard to Sunday work was considerably improved, as they are not ordinarily called upon to do more than eight hours' work in four Sundays, and if employed for a longer period than this are paid for overtime.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman, by his repetition of his answer of the former clay, had not answered the Question which was on the Paper, which was, why Sunday work was reckoned exceptional in London and not exceptional in Scotland?
  MR. FAWCETTreplied, that there had always been so very much less Sunday work in London, and no Sunday deliveries in London, that the whole question of Sunday work in London and in Provincial towns had always rested on a different footing. The only change that had been introduced by the classification that had been made had been to

  1545
  improve the position of the Provincial staff considerably.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—PORTPATRICK HARBOUR COMMISSION—TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Why the evidence taken by the Commissioners to inspect and report on Port-patrick Harbour was not taken down in shorthand; whether the Report of the evidence and proceedings quoted from the local newspapers in the Commissioners' Report was taken from longhand notes; whether the Commissioners asked the correspondents of two local newspapers to take the evidence in shorthand, but considered the terms, which were at the usual rate, too high; what was the difference between the rate proposed and that which the Board of Trade are prepared to accept; and, whether Mr. Trevor, one of the Commissioners, expressed the decision of Her Majesty's Government when he remarked, soon after the commencement of the inquiry, in hearing of those present, and again at a subsequent period, that "the Government did not intend to spend any more money at Port-patrick?"
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that the Commissioners appointed by him did make some inquiries with respect to a shorthand writer in connection with the inquiry which they were carrying on; but by his instruction they abandoned the idea of having shorthand notes, and they did so without any reference to any special charge which would be made locally, but on the general ground that it was contrary to precedent in inquiries of this kind to put the country to the expense of a full verbatim report. But he might inform the hon. Baronet that there was a report in one of the local news papers which had been attached to the Papers put on the Table, which was sufficiently full, and a very fair, and a generally accurate account. As regarded the last paragraph of the Question, the hon. Member had been misinformed. Mr. Trevor told him that during the inquiry, and with special reference to the observations of one or more of the witnesses, he made a remark to the effect that he thought it might be taken for granted that, look-
  1546
  ing to the Act of Parliament of 1873, which released the Government from liabilities with respect to the harbour, Government would not spend any more money in the permanent maintenance of the harbour works; and all that he and his Colleague had to inquire into was whether any injury had been caused to certain specified interests by certain specified works. With that remark he (Mr. Chamberlain) entirely concurred.

  GOLD, SILVER, AND BRONZE COINAGE —LOSS ON COINING.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will be good enough to explain to the House the reasons for the great variations in "loss in coining" for gold and silver respectively, as set forth under the head of "Expenses" in the Coinage Return, No. 206, lately presented by him to the House; and, further, if he will state the special reasons for the unusually heavy expenditure for the year 1882, under the two heads of "Salaries and Expenses," and "Expenses incurred by other Departments?"
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the hon. Member's first Question, I have to say that the exact loss on any coinage can only be ascertained at the conclusion of the coinage, when the accounts are finally adjusted. In some of the years to which the Return refers large coinages of gold and silver were completed, and the whole balance of loss was brought to account, while in other years sums on account only were paid. As to the second Question, the hon. Member will probably recollect that in 1882 the Mint buildings and machinery were re-organized at a heavy cost, which formed part of the "expenses" of that year.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—MR. EDWARD GREER.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Edward Greer, who has been appointed to act as Sub-Commissioner for the county of Armagh at Lurgan, Armagh, and Newry, is the gentleman of the same name who formerly practised as a solicitor in Newry, and acted in that capacity for several of the landlords of the counties of Armagh

  1547
  and Down, and who was also Sessional Crown Solicitor for the county of Armagh; whether this gentleman's former partner in business, Mr. Robert A. Mullan, still practices in Newry, and appears before the Sub-Commissioners for county Armagh as solicitor for landlords; whether Mr. Greer was not formerly removed from county Down in consequence of local connections to a distant county; and, why has he now been appointed to a county with which he is even more closely connected than he was with Down?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the gentleman mentioned in the Question is a solicitor, who formerly practised for some time as a solicitor at Newry. He informs me that it is not the case that he acted for the landlords of Down and Fermanagh, his work being principally of a mercantile, and especially of a Parliamentary character. He was Sessional Crown Solicitor for Armagh for a short period, during which he abstained from any practice in the county. He has not practised for the landlords of Down or Armagh; and I have not made further inquiry into the circumstances.
  MR. HEALY: How long has he been appointed, and who is now the Crown Solicitor for Armagh?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Will the hon. Member give Notice?

  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—THE RAJAH OF TENOM — CREW OF THE "NISERO."
  MR. GOURLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, upon representations being made to him by the Foreign Office, he will make an allowance to the impoverished families of the crew of the Nisero?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I am afraid that I must, with every respect for him, absolutely decline to answer my hon. Friend's Question. Whatever representations the Foreign Office may make to the Treasury on this or any other question will receive our careful consideration.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Foreign Office, having stated that the crew of the Nisero are the victims of political complications, he is prepared to recommend the Chancellor
  1548
  of the Exchequer to make an allowance to their families?
  MR. STOREYasked, Whether our officials on the spot had objected to a Dutch expedition, conducted like the last, and to the Dutch proposal to employ Natives unfriendly to the Rajah to kidnap the crew, as methods calculated to result in disastrous failure, and have pointed out that the only way to rescue the captives is for the Dutch to carry out the terms of existing Treaties by granting free trade to the Natives; and, whether objections of this nature have been pressed upon the Dutch Government by our Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Foreign Office will be prepared to take into consideration any particular application which may be made in connection with this subject; but it is impossible to give any general pledge, or to fetter the discretion of the Treasury. With respect to the Question of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), the opinion of the British officials on the points referred to by the hon. Member are to the effect mentioned by him, and will be found in their Reports, which are comprised in the Papers laid bfore Parliament. These Reports have been communicated to the Netherlands Government; and Her Majesty's Government have strongly urged that, in their opinion, the re-establishment of the freedom of trade would be the most likely means of securing the liberation of the captives.
  MR. GOURLEYasked whether application should be made by the families or the owners?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEreplied, that each particular application would have to be considered separately.

  POST OFFICE-ABSTRACTION OF EVICTION NOTICES, STONEYBRIDGE, SOUTH UIST.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Postmaster General, Whether Alexander Lamont, ground officer of the proprietor of Stoneybridge, South Uist, recently obtained at the Post Office of How more registered letters containing eviction notices addressed to crofters at Stoneybridge, and served the notices on them; whether he gave the postmaster to understand that he was authorized by the addressees to receive their letters; and,

  1549
  whether the Law provides for the punishment of persons possessing themselves of letters which belong to other people without their sanction or authority?
  MR. FAWCETT: In answer to the hon. Member, I have to state that, owing to the difficulty of communicating with the Island referred to, I have been obliged to rely on the telegraph for my information. It is not clear that fraudulent means were resorted to to obtain possession of the letters in question; but if it could be proved that such means were adopted, it would become a question for the Crown officers in Scotland to consider whether the persons who obtained the letters had not rendered themselves liable to prosecution.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CORONERSHIP OF LEITRIM.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Irish Executive has been drawn to the action of the Sheriff of Leitrim in fixing Carrick on Shannon as the place for the nomination of candidates, on next Monday, for the office of coroner for the northern division of that county, Carrick on Shannon not being situate in that district, but at a distance from it, said action of the Sheriff being in direct violation of the provision of the statute 9 and 10 Vic. c. 37, s. 3; and, what steps the Executive will take to compel the Sheriff to comply with the requirements of the Law?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I received a detailed complaint on this subject a day or two ago, and at once telegraphed it in full to Dublin. The matter, I am advised, is not one in which the Government could interfere authoritatively; but the Sub-Sheriff was communicated with, and the provisions of the statute pointed out to him. So far as the short interval of time has allowed me to ascertain the facts, I understand that the Sub-Sheriff was, and still is, in some doubt as to the precise limits of the districts, and that search is being made among official records with a view to remove the doubts; but that, in the meantime, the Sheriff has determined to issue a new Proclamation fixing upon Manorhamilton, instead of Carrick-on-Shan-non, as the place of nomination.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—THE IRISH LANGUAGE.
  MR. J. H. M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a statement made at the meeting of the Council of the Gaelic Union in Dublin on Saturday last, to the effect that—
  "There was reason to believe that strong influence had been brought to bear on many National teachers to discourage the teaching of Irish;"
  whether such influence had been used by any officials of the Government; and, whether the Government will take steps to insure that no such influence is brought to bear upon National teachers to discourage the teaching of the Irish language?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Commissioners of National Education are not aware, nor am I aware, of any influence being brought to bear upon any national teachers to discourage the teaching of Irish. The Commissioners, in a recent issue of the school programme, to which the special attention of their Inspectors has been called, have issued special instructions that if there are Irish-speaking pupils in a school the teacher, if acquainted with the Irish language, should, whenever practicable, employ the vernacular as an aid to the elucidation and acquisition of the English language.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—FERMANAGH—SENTENCE ON A CLERGYMAN.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government are prepared to make any inquiries in the sentence recently passed upon a Catholic clergyman by the Fermanagh magistrates?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In this case the original decision of the magistrates was appealed against to the Quarter Sessions, the result being that the conviction was affirmed, but the sentence mitigated from imprisonment to a fine. These proceedings followed the ordinary course of the law, and I am not aware of any ground upon which the Government could institute inquiries. The Lord Lieutenant does not take into consideration individual sentences, except upon a Me-

  1551
  morial being presented, which has not been done in this case.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — REV. JOHN B. FRITH, J.P., ENNISKILLEN.
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, at the Enniskillen Quarter Sessions just held, the decision of the county court judge on a question of law, in a case in which a Catholic clergyman was concerned, was overruled by the other magistrates, all of whom were Protestants, and none of whom were persons acquainted with law; whether the Rev. John B. Frith, recently a plaintiff in an action for libel, and who has been declared by the verdict of a Derry jury to have acted corruptly in several cases, was one of the said other magistrates; whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a measure to prevent non-legal magistrates interfering with the decision of questions which are merely ones of law, or whether they will accept such a provision if brought forward as an Amendment to the County Courts Bill now before the House; and, whether the Lord Chancellor has yet taken any steps to appoint Catholic magistrates for the county Fermanagh, in which there has not been a single one except the resident magistrate, who is now stationed in another county?
  VISCOUNT CRICHTON: Sir, in reference to the last paragraph of the Question, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Fermanagh recommended a Roman Catholic magistrate in the same Petty Sessions district in which a Roman Catholic clergyman was convicted for assaulting the police; and if it is not a fact that of the four magistrates who presided on the occasion two were stipendiaries?
  MR. HEALY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if it is the case that Lord Erne did recommend a Catholic magistrate, it was a fact that that was the first instance in 40 years that a noble Lord did so?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will answer the Question on the Paper, on which I have official information. The only information I have as to the alleged fact mentioned in the first paragraph of the Question is contained in the newspaper
  1552
  reports, from which it appears that the County Court Judge simply announced the conclusion come to by the Court, of which he was a member, and declined to express an individual opinion. I understand that the Rev. Mr. Frith, who was in Court during the hearing of a part of the case, left before it was decided. It is not the intention of the Government to introduce any measure such as is suggested in the third paragraph of the Question. With regard to proposed appointments to the magistracy of the county of Fermanagh, the names of four Roman Catholic gentlemen have been brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, and the consideration of these cases stands over, pending the necessary inquiries which the Lord Chancellor feels it his duty to make. The hon. Member is in error in supposing that the Roman Catholic Resident Magistrate stationed in the county has been removed.
  MR. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has given us interesting information regarding the Lord Chancellor's work. I would ask if those inquiries are principally pursued by policemen?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Oh, no, Sir. The Lord Chancellor takes great care to inform himself to his own satisfaction as to the position and antecedents, and, as far as he can, the personal character of the gentlemen reconsidered. The inquiries were extremely difficult to make, and that was the reason the appointment was made so slowly.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Lord Chancellor has come to any decision on the conduct of the Rev. John Frith, J.P. Enniskillen?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Lord Chancellor informs me that he has not thought it right to enter as yet upon the consideration of this case, which is still sub judice, the Common Pleas Division having only given its decision a week since, and Mr. Frith's time for appealing against the Order made not having expired.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CAPTAIN M'TERNAN, A RESIDENT MAGISTRATE.
  VISCOUNT CRICHTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been

  1553
  called to the Judgments delivered in the Court of Common Pleas in Dublin, on Thursday, 19th June, on the application for a new trial in the case of "Frith v. Trimble," on which occasion Mr. Justice Harrison is reported in The Freeman's Journal of Friday, 20th June, to have said, in delivering his Judgment:—
  "The extraordinary evidence given by the resident magistrate, Captain M'Ternan, might have influenced the jury. He could conceive nothing more startling than that evidence. He said, on cross-examination, that the plaintiff was not straight, and acted corruptly and partially, and that his conduct was a pollution of the judgment seat. That evidence was in his (Mr. Justice Harrison's) opinion simply astounding."
  And Chief Justice Morris is reported in the same paper to have said—
  "He entirely agreed with Judge Harrison that, if he had been trying the case, he would have strongly advised the jury not to be in the least influenced by the evidence of Captain M'Ternan. That gentleman, to say the least of it, appeared to have had an arrogant opinion of himself. He divided his brother magistrates into knaves and fools; to one of them, Captain Collum, perhaps because he was a military man like himself, he gave the alternative of being either a knave or a fool (laughter). He thought his evidence most extravagant and indecent."
  whether he is aware that Lord Chief Justice May, in his charge to the jury on the occasion of the first trial, commented upon Captain M'Ternan's evidence in similar terms; whether the Rev. J. B. Frith and the other magistrates referred to in Captain M'Ternan's evidence have asked for an inquiry into the charges brought against them; and, whether the Lord Chancellor will grant such an inquiry?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The isolated passages from the Judgments of Chief Justice Morris and Mr. Justice Harrison, to which the Question refers, appear to be correctly quoted. But the Chief Justice agreed in the result of the Judgment of Mr. Justice Murphy, in whose Judgment no comment on Captain M'Ternan's evidence appears. I am aware that Chief Justice May, in his Charge, commented upon Captain M'Ternan's evidence; but the jury did not adopt his view. No such inquiry as is asked will be granted to review the decision of a Court and jury.
  VISCOUNT CRICHTON: My Question related to the charge against the magistrate, and not the case of the Rev. Mr. Frith.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—COLONEL HOPE'S GUNS.
  MR. FRENCH-BREWSTERasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, with reference to Colonel Hope's offer to supply the Government with certain guns, Whether, if these guns performed all that their inventor claimed for them, the result would be a large saving of expense to the Country, and an. increase to the power of the armament carried by Her Majesty's ships; whether it was distinctly stated in Colonel Hope's offer to the Government that, if his guns, or any one of them, failed in fulfilling the specification contained in that offer, he would himself bear all the expense of the manufacture, ammunition, and trial of such failing gun or guns; and, whether it was further stated in Colonel Hope's offer that he—
  "Accepted in advance any further conditions of trial within the energies stated,"
  and that, regarding—
  "All unforeseen objections that may be raised by either the Artillery or the Navy,"
  he (Colonel Hope) was willing that in his contract with Government—
  "General Lord Wolseley should be named sole arbitrator without appeal?"
  MR. BRAND: It is true that Colonel Hope has claimed for his guns the advantage that they would save a large expense and increase the power of the armament of ships. It is also true that Colonel Hope offered to bear all the expenses of construction in case of the failure of his guns, and to accept Lord Wolseley as arbitrator in the event of any difference arising between himself and the Department. Colonel Hope has been told that if he will produce a gun the War Office will give it a full trial; but the Secretary of State for War is not prepared to accept arbitration upon any question of difference arising respecting matters upon which he receives sufficient advice from a Committee composed of competent military and naval officers, assisted by two eminent civil engineers.

  EGYPT—THE CONFERENCE.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, in reference to the following statements—
  "That the Government have arrived at this conclusion, that they could undertake and en-

  1555
  gage, in the event of any common understanding with France, of consultation with the Powers, and of any plan resulting from those communications, that those results and the whole conclusion which they arrived at should be presented to Parliament before the Conference met;"
  and also, in reference to the former statement—
  "That the Government had spoken, not of laying an arrangement with France, but of laying an arrangement with the Powers before the House at a date anterior to the Conference;"
  whether those statements have been correctly attributed to him; and, if so, whether he is in a position, and is prepared, to lay any such arrangement with the Powers before the House, in accordance with the engagement of the Government, at a date anterior to the meeting of the Conference? The hon. Member added: I am in somewhat of a difficulty with regard to the Question which stands in my name on the Paper, because I received a communication from the Prime Minister in which he asked me to postpone my Question till Monday, not being able to make the necessary reference. I am sure the Prime Minister will acquit me of any want of respect to him; but the whole pith of this Question is to ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared—as I contend he is bound—to lay the results of certain consultations with the Powers before the House of Commons before the Conference meets? The Conference, we are informed, is to meet to-morrow; and therefore, if I accede to the proposition of the Prime Minister to postpone my Question, it must fail in its object. With every desire to convenience the Prime Minister, I am afraid I must press for an answer.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The answer the hon. Member desires me to give would have necessarily been founded on an investigation of a number of Reports; and as I have been lately compelled to spend a good part of my time in attending Cabinet Councils I have not had time to pursue those investigations. The hon. Member appears to think that the Conference may be postponed in consequence of my not answering his Question; but that would be entirely beyond our power. I may, however, state that our promise to the House was, that we should conclude, if we could, our negotiations with France; consult
  1556
  the Powers; and communicate the whole result, as far as lay within our power, to the House, before the meeting of the Conference. That, I believe, was the substance of the engagement. We have received no definitive answer from the Powers. No objection has been taken in such answers as we have received; but I think it appears that the Powers probably might make no definite answer until they became cognizant of the matters to be transacted in the Conference. I never entertained for a moment the idea that the question for the Conference and the communications with France were parts of one consecutive series of transactions; because, on the contrary, I was constantly questioned to know whether the Conference and the communications with France were distinct. I stated that the subject-matter of the two was distinct; but that we should consult the Powers on the communications with France. The Conference arose out of the absolute financial necessities of Egypt. France interposed the necessity of certain preliminary communications. The Powers interposed no such necessity. They had given their agreement to enter a Conference before they were cognizant of these communications. Since they have become cognizant of these communications they have not withdrawn their agreement to enter the Conference, and are now prepared to appear there.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Did the Prime Minister not inform the House some time ago that there were two steps that must be preliminary to the Conference? One was the conclusion of an agreement with France; and on the conclusion of that agreement there was then to take place a consultation with the Powers; and the Prime Minister distinctly stated to the House that he would lay the result of that consultation before the House before the Conference met. Am I correct in saying that?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No.
  MR. CHAPLIN: If the right hon. Gentleman has not received a reply from the Powers, and is not able to place the result of these consultations before the House to-day, I want to know how he is to fulfil his engagement?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I never made such an engagement as to await all the replies of the Powers upon the communications with France before the Confer-

  1557
  encemet. It would have been suicidal and absurd to do so. The Conference grew out of the financial necessities of Egypt; but the Powers did not regard the communications with France as immediately connected with the financial necessities of Egypt—at least, they have accepted the agreement to meet in Conference to-morrow, after they were cognizant of these communications. What I undertook to communicate was everything that depended on us—that is to say, our arrangements with France and our consultation with the Powers. All that depended upon us has been done, and the whole of it has been made known to the House.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question, in order to remove a misconception with regard to the statement which he made the other day. I wish to ask him whether he is correctly reported to have used the following language, in reply to a Question put by the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners):—
  "With respect to the action on the part of the Powers of Europe in regard to the evacuation of Egypt by a given date the despatch of Earl Granville states 'provided that the Powers are then of opinion that such withdrawal can take place without risk to peace and order.' Then the noble Lord asked whether it means one Power, two Powers, or throe Powers. Well, Sir, my answer to that is that the phrase 'reference to the Powers of Europe,' is one perfectly known to diplomatic practice and history. European questions have been decided under shelter of that phrase for half a century and more, and nothing could be more invidious than to presume a division of the Powers into separate lobbies or separate parties in such matters. We think it our duty to take the phrase which is known to diplomacy, and we are perfectly confident in its operation."
  I should also like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in the authenticated version of the speech of M. Ferry in the French Chamber, from, which the right hon. Gentleman quoted the other day, the following passage occurred:—
  "It has been said in the English newspapers, and repeated in the French, that this engagement of evacuation was potential, and that opposition to the evacuation on the part of a single Power would suffice to give England the right to remain in Egypt. This singular idea of a sort of veto, borrowed from the traditions of Polish Diets, is a construction as false as it is ridiculous. When the Powers meet, in Congress or in Conference the caprice of one of them cannot paralyze their decision; and if the Representative of the Republic, who was in this
  1558
  instance the mouthpiece of European interests, had had the weakness to lend himself to such a comedy, the Great Powers would certainly not have ratified it. They will be consulted in 1888, and it is they who will decide whether the situation in Egypt presents sufficient danger to warrant a prolongation of the English occupation beyond the 1st of January, 1888."
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think if the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to put a construction of my own on the words of M. Ferry in the French Chamber he ought to have given me Notice; but I will do all I can to answer the Question he has put to me. He has read a passage from an answer of mine to the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire, and as far as I could follow him the Report is singularly accurate and exact. With regard to the statements attributed to M. Ferry, I have not in my possession at this moment the document to which I referred yesterday. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman now read, I cannot be understood to affirm or deny its accuracy, for my memory would not serve me to such an extent; but I notice one observation ascribed to M. Ferry, that the caprice of one of the Powers would not suffice to defeat the general view that might be entertained by the Powers assembled in Conference. I should think there is no case on record in which the caprice of one of the Powers has sufficed to prevent the general view of the other Powers from taking effect; and the mode in which the question has always been dealt with is this—that the caprice of one of the Powers has always given way upon discussion in the Conference or Congress, and that unanimous conclusions have been arrived at. On the other hand, I think I am correct, speaking of the diplomatic history of this important question, in saying that no Power has ever, before going into a Conference or Congress, abdicated its right of individual action.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, with regard to the important answer which the Prime Minister had given, whether the House was to understand from his reply that the terms of the proposed Anglo-French Agreement would have no binding force between this country and France in future, supposing it was rejected by the Conference, or by a majority of the Powers, because such a construction might be put on his language? Another question was, whether

  1559
  they were now to understand that the French Government did insist that there should be a preliminary arrangement between this country and themselves before the Conference was held? He understood from the speech of the Prime Minister the other day that they did not; but now he understood from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that they did.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The French Government, in every strictness of speech, never, to my knowledge, made it a matter of necessity that there should be these communications; but they expressed a desire for them, and that desire was recognized by the British Government as altogether legitimate, and other communications arising out of them, necessarily occupying a certain amount of time, prevented the British Government, down to a certain date, from issuing invitations fixing the date of the meeting of the Conference. They exhausted the time that the necessities of Egyptian finance loft them in that way in a useful mode, as we think. With regard to the previous Question, I think the House has clearly understood that the Anglo-French communications are absolutely dependent, in the first place, on the action of the Conference, and then, with the action of the Conference, absolutely dependent on the vote of Parliament.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—EVENING SITTING—DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO KEEP A HOUSE.
  MR. MACFARLANEcalled the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that his Motion with reference to the Crofters' Commission was first on the Paper for the Evening Sitting; and, reminding the right hon. Gentleman that the same subject was prevented from being discussed on the night of the adjournment of the House for the Whitsun Recess, asked, Whether the Government would undertake to keep a House?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government would endeavour to fulfil their general obligation to make and keep a House on Friday evenings, certainly not without a recollection that the question which the hon. Member desired to bring forward was a question which very clearly called for discussion.

MOTION.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL, THIRD READING (ENTRY IN THE VOTES).
  MR. PELL: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to call your attention to a point of Order, and to take your advice upon it. Some time between a quarter and half-past 8 last night, as you are aware, the Motion was put to the House that the Representation of the People Bill be read a third time. There were very few Members upon this side of the House at the moment; but the Treasury Bench was crowded. The cry for the "Ayes" was made in a very marked and distinct manner; but a challenge was made on this side of the House by myself—I am free to admit in a rather low tone—but a challenge was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) in a very emphatic manner, who desires, as he is unable to be here himself, that I should say so much for him—namely, that he clearly and distinctly challenged your decision. Well, Sir, you decided that the "Ayes" had it. I was not aware that it was my duty to challenge your decision again; and, of course, when the Question was put a second time, it may be said that I assented to it, and that in that way the Bill passed through the House. I certainly did not know that it was my duty to repeat my challenge, and to that extent I assented to your decision, that the "Ayes" had it. After that had taken place, and you had said that the "Ayes" had it, a remarkable scene occurred in the House. The Prime Minister rose in his place as the House was breaking up anxious to go to dinner, and attempted to call your attention to the fact that he was standing at the Table. The right hon. Gentleman had some difficulty in attracting your attention; and his supporters, no doubt eager for dinner, were passing away from the House in a perfect spirit of gaiety. Ultimately the right hon. Gentleman did succeed in attracting your attention; and I believe he requested you—I do not profess to give the precise words—to make a record in the Journals of the House that the Bill had passed nemine contradicente. I may be wrong; but I did not know that it was my duty to challenge a

  1561
  second time, or to call your attention to the fact that a challenge had been made on this side of the House. I want to know, Sir, what steps hon. Members are to take in order to prevent a similar occurrence again? I believe that the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Glare Bead) is ready to corroborate what I have stated; but I may add that I have taken the liberty of asking one or two Members on the other side of the House if my challenge was audible or not, and I have been assured by one hon. Member that he heard it, but that he heard no second challenge. As a matter of fact, I made no second challenge, and I am unaware whether my hon. Friend did. Now, after an experience of 16 years in the House, and having been a pretty regular attendant, I never witnessed a scene of this kind before, nor have I heard of anything like it. I, therefore, wish, Sir, to know in the interests of my constituents, should they return me again, how I am to act under similar circumstances, if they should arise in the future?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think I ought to explain to the House what occurred, as far as my action is concerned in the matter. When I put the Question, that this Bill be now read a third time, I certainly heard no dissentient voice in any part of the House. I am willing to accept the statement of the hon. Member, that he and another hon. Member did make use of dissentient exclamations; but when I put the Question that the "Ayes" had it I was satisfied, as far as my hearing goes, that no dissentient voice was raised. After the Question had been decided that the "Ayes" had it, and as hon. Members were leaving the House, the Prime Minister rose, and I called, in a voice sufficiently loud to be heard throughout the House, "Order, Order!" in order to direct the attention of the House to the action which the Prime Minister was about to take. The Prime Minister then said that he wished it to be recorded that the Bill had passed its third reading nemine contradicente. That wish was expressed a second time by the Prime Minister, and the House, as far as I am aware, distinctly heard the proposition made by the right hon. Gentleman. I then, amid silence throughout the House, put distinctly to the House the statement that this Bill was read a third time
  1562
  nemine contradicente, and to that statement no contradiction was made, and no dissentient voice was raised. I am aware, of course, that the circumstance was unusual. [An hon. MEMBER: Most unusual.] But I was of opinion that it was not without precedent. I was also of opinion that there was nothing whatever in the Rules, or Precedents, or Orders of this House to restrain the discretion of the House from recording a fact of that nature on an occasion of such importance. This is what occurred. Of course, I am in the hands of the House. I did not think it proper to refuse the application made to me—that the fact should be recorded on the Journals—and having put the Question, and there being no dissentient voice raised that I heard, the matter was recorded and was entered upon the Journals of the House. I now leave the matter to the discretion of the House.
  MR. PELL: May I ask whether the only course I and my hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) could have pursued, under the circumstances, in order to prevent this entry appearing upon the Votes, was to have challenged your decision, and to have gone to a Division; or whether we should merely have objected, at the last stage, when you put the statement that the Bill was read a third time nemine contradicente?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member had expressed his dissent to that last Question, the words would not have been added.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker—because this is a new procedure—I wish to ask whether there is any precedent for the words nemine contradicente having been added to the record of the passing of any Bill which had been of a contentious character, and the subject of frequent debates, and of frequent Divisions during its passage through the House? We have had many instances, of course, of Votes of Thanks, of Addresses to the Crown, and of other Motions of that kind, and also of Bills of a character such as making allowances to retiring Speakers, which have been passed with perfect unanimity, and with regard to which it has been the desire of the House that its unanimity should be recorded in a particular manner by the words nemine contradicente being added.

  1563
  But I wish to ask you, Sir, whether there is any record of any occasion on which any measure of a contentious character, which has been a matter of controversy, has been passed with these words?
  MR. GLADSTONE (who, on rising, was received with cries of "Order!")said: I wish to make an explanation. I wish to state the view upon which I acted, if it is the pleasure of the House that I should do so. The painful reflection impresses itself upon my mind, after hearing the hon. Gentleman, opposite, and on comparing his statement with my own experience, that the ordinary faculties of hon. Members appear to become dull as men advance in life, because I totally failed to hear the challenge of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), which he says was not low, and that of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), which he says was loud. Therefore, I am utterly convicted of incapacity to hear; and the hon. Member is not wholly without blame, for, undoubtedly, I did state as audibly as I could, and twice over, the purpose for which I rose.
  MR. PELL: I must have expressed myself incorrectly, or the Prime Minister did not hear what I said. I distinctly intended to say that my challenge was not loud, but that that of the hon. Member for West Norfolk was most emphatic.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I thought that the words used by the hon. Member were, "not low." The hon. Member will, I am sure, understand that I had not the slightest idea that he or any other hon. Member had challenged the third reading of the Bill, either when you, Mr. Speaker, said, "Those who are of the contrary opinion will say no;" or on the second occasion, when you said, "The Ayes have it." I should never have dreamt of perpetrating an error of so absurd and gross a character, nor should I have taken any steps had a single voice within my hearing been raised in an adverse sense. But the question is one of interest and importance, and perhaps I may be allowed to state what was the view of the matter upon which I ventured to act. It has been correctly stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the proceeding was not a usual proceeding. My view of the matter is this. We all
  1564
  know that the great bulk of the decisions of this House are unanimous decisions, and are decisions come to nemine contradicente. If we run through the Votes we shall see how far the bulk of our decisions are actually made nemine contradicente; but it would be totally out of keeping with custom, propriety, and good sense to record that they were arrived at nemine contradicente in all cases. What I understand is that, upon certain rare occasions, when it is desired to give a peculiar significance, then, if there be no opposing voice, after notice has been taken—not by way of Motion, but by suggestion—of the fact, this entry of nemine contradicente is made. What I am responsible for is this—for having believed, in the first place—and in this I am confirmed by what was stated by yourself, Mr. Speaker, in the Chair—that there is no Rule binding the discretion of the House in the matter; and, in the second place, that the occasion was one worthy of this proceeding. It appeared to me to be eminently worthy of it, because here was the very peculiar case of a Bill upon which the House had spent—I am speaking from, memory—some 18 or 20 nights, but with regard to which we were constantly assured by numbers of speakers opposite that they objected, not to the enactments contained in it, but to the passing of the Bill, because of something it did not contain. Under these circumstances, it appeared to me to be most important, at a time when the opposition had already ceased, when a great change was going to be made by the admission of 2,000,000 of persons to the franchise, that that unanimous assent of the. House to the third reading of the Bill should be marked. It is said to be an unusual proceeding. Certainly it is; and such a Bill as the Representation of the People Bill is an unusual Bill. The introduction of such a Bill rarely happens. There has been only one Bill of the kind in the present century with regard to which such a proceeding would have been appropriate—I mean the Reform Act of 1832. But the proceeding could not then have taken place, because the Bill was opposed to the last, and a Division was taken on the third reading. But on the last great Constitutional occasion before that—namely, the passing of the Bill of Rights—although there was a debate on that Bill, the very same pro-

  1565
  ceeding took place, and the passing of the third reading of the measure was recorded as having taken place nemine contradicente. I am extremely sorry if there has been a mistake as to the fact of the original challenge, and that any error should have arisen in consequence. That I deeply regret; but, taking the facts as I and others believe them to be, I am not prepared to say that upon an occasion so remarkable, so peculiar, and so important, the suggestion ought not to have been made for recording the very significant fact that no person thought fit to challenge the Motion for the third reading of the Bill.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I do not rise for the purpose of dealing, or attempting to deal, with the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, because we can perfectly well understand his reason for desiring to record the fact that the Bill was read a third time nemine contradicente; although, for my own part, I am bound to say I do not think that that fact has very much improved the position of the Bill. What I venture to ask your opinion upon, Mr. Speaker, is this. The Prime Minister has himself admitted that if he had heard opposing voices raised against the third reading of the Bill, he would not have asked you to state that the Bill had been read a third time nemine contradicente. We also have it from yourself, Mr. Speaker, that if when you, Sir, asked the House whether nemine contradicente should be recorded, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had called attention to the fact that he had said "No," the record that the Bill had been read a third time nemine contradicente would not have been made, and the declaration would not have been entered upon the Journals of the House. The question I venture to ask of you is this. It is clear that the record that the Bill was read a third time nemine contradicente was made under a false impression, because no one in this House can doubt for a moment the accuracy of the statement made by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) on his own behalf, and on behalf of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), that they did say "No." The Prime Minister does not doubt the fact that they did so; and I do not suppose that anyone else will question it. You have stated that if your attention had
  1566
  been called to this fact yesterday, you would not have allowed the record to be made. I wish to know, then, whether, Sir, you will not direct the Minutes of the Proceedings of the House to be amended by expunging the words which declare that the Bill was read a third time nemine contradicente?
  MR. SPEAKER: I am altogether in the hands of the House in the matter, and I shall, of course, take their directions upon the subject. As I said before, I accept most fully the statement of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) that both he and another hon. Member did raise a dissentient voice. Therefore, I am in the hands of the House, and I am prepared to do whatever the House may direct.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I give the fullest credit to the statement of the hon. Member; and I am content to take it that he did raise a dissentient voice when the Question was put, and that he omitted to make a second challenge. But I twice distinctly made the suggestion that the fact should be recorded. In the event of any alteration of the record being decided upon now, I am bound to say that I should desire that the record be altered on the ground of a new discovery as to a matter of fact, rather than in such a way as to restrain the discretion of the House on any similar occasion.
  MR. HEALY: I will ask you, Sir, as a point of Order, whether the entry in, the Journals ought not to contain an addition that the alteration is made at the instance of the Tory Party?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will himself make the Motion. ["No, no!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: It would be necessary that a Motion to that effect should be made.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I am perfectly ready to make the Motion, because I am sure there has been a complete misunderstanding. A good many Members were absent who, if they had supposed that their absence would have led to such a result, would have been here. They were absent because they considered that the matter was really at an end, and they did not think the time of the House should be taken up with a Division. I venture to make the Motion which has been suggested.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It might be convenient that the Motion should be made

  1567
  on the ground of the matter of fact without the smallest addition.
  MR. HEALY: I presume that in a matter of this kind it is competent not only for hon. Members to assent to the Motion, but for other hon. Members to object, and, if necessary, to divide upon the Motion. Of course, in that case, the Government must make up their minds which Lobby they will go into.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: May I ask what the words of the Motion are?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I should propose, as a matter of form, that the entry of the words nemine contradicente in the Votes of yesterday should be read, in order that those words may be expunged, it having been stated that they were introduced under a misapprehension of the facts.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Perhaps it would be better to let the record stand as it is, with merely an addition that the only dissentients were two Tories.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I was present when the Question was put, and I distinctly heard the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) challenge the first decision. The last, however, was not challenged. I have only risen, however, to ask if it is not really trilling with the House to bring forward a matter of this kind? Unquestionably the decision was unanimous. There were only four Conservatives in the House at the time. As the hon. Member has now called attention to the circumstances, the public will be perfectly conscious of them, and is it necessary to put the House to further trouble in the matter?
  MR. PELL: I really must ask the permission of the House to make one remark after the observations of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen). He has expressed an opinion that in bringing forward the matter I am only trifling with the House. I can hardly consider the question as one in which the House is being trifled with, when the Prime Minister himself went out of his way to desire that the entry should be made in the Journals of the House.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think the House must consider whether, by adopting this Motion, we may not establish a rather inconvenient precedent. Occasionally there have arisen doubts whether the Speaker has heard a negative given. I have always understood that
  1568
  the discretion rested with you, Sir, and we have had full confidence that you would decide to the best of your ability. But it appears to me that if we place any Motion on record, it would be a precedent for re-opening the Speaker's decision in almost all cases. I think it has been generally understood that if an hon. Member has not said "No" in a way that reaches you, the House is always ready to abide by the decision of the Chair. In this particular case it appears that only one other Member besides the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) said "No" when the Question was first put, and did not say it afterwards. Therefore the dissent was not continued, and the House would be re-opening a decision in a way which is not desirable, and might be found inconvenient in future. The hon. Member did not speak in a loud voice, or in a voice which was heard by the Speaker; and I think he ought to be content with making known the fact that there were only a very small number of Conservative Members present, and that two of them did object.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I differ entirely from the right hon. Gentleman, and I must confess that I think there is no alternative but to expunge the words nemine contradicente. What we are discussing is a matter of fact. As was said just now by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), it is competent for any person to take a Division on the Question of the omission of these words. But the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) has stated publicly in the House that he did challenge Mr. Speaker's decision, and the Prime Minister has accepted the statement that he did challenge the decision when the Question was put.
  MR. HEALY: Not the second time.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Whether the hon. Member did it once or twice is not the question. He did challenge the decision, and we have now placed on the Journals of the House something which is diametrically opposed to the fact. I cannot conceive that there can be two opinions upon the matter. Either the Question was challenged or it was not. If it was challenged, then undoubtedly these words ought to be expunged. If it was not challenged, they are perfectly correct. The hon. Member distinctly states that he did challenge it, and under

  1569
  the circumstances, I cannot conceive how the House of Commons can be parties to a record which is contrary to the fact.
  MR. DILLWYN: I do not think that an interval should have been allowed to elapse before the objection to the entry was taken, but it should have been taken when the words nemine contradicente were proposed to be recorded. My hon. Friend should have stated then that the third reading had not been passed nemine contradicente; and in that case it would not have been so recorded. But having been formally and duly recorded, I think it is too late to raise an objection now. Having said so much, I must confirm the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). I was present, and I did hear him, in a low tone of voice, say "No;" but only once.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I think that the House had been placed in a false position in the matter by the Government and the Leader of the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan. (Mr. Healy) has said that it will be competent for any Member to oppose the Motion for altering the Journals of the House; and I wish to give both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition notice that I will offer the strongest opposition to any such Motion. I am quite prepared to lay before the House the reasons why I am antagonistic to the Motion. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) has put the matter unfairly and incorrectly before the House. [Mr. CHAPLIN: Why?] I will tell the hon. Member why. Nobody intends to cast the slightest doubt upon the words of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). But that is not the question which is now raised. The question is, whether the words nemine contradicente are correct or not; and I maintain that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire has himself given the strongest proof that the words nemine contradicente are accurate. The final, and actual, and recorded challenge is not when the Question is put the first time, but when it is put the second or final time. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman has himself borne testimony to the accuracy of the entry. When a Question is put by you, Sir, or by the Chairman of Committees, everybody knows that it is put twice. After the Question is put a first time, the House is cleared for a
  1570
  Division, and it is only the second time the Question is put that has anything of a final character. There was no second dissent on this occasion; and, therefore, the third reading was passed nemine contradicente. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) has drawn attention to what is, after all, the central part of the question. You, Sir, are the authority to decide, by the Rules of the House, whether or not dissent had been expressed. If such dissent did not reach your ear, no dissent, as a matter of fact, was expressed. That has been established as a complete and unalterable precedent. As to the assertion that your action in the matter was unprecedented, I would call the attention of the House to the circumstance that, when your Predecessor was in the Chair, and summarily closed a debate, the House unanimously declared that the fact that the Speaker's decision was unprecedented was rather a recommendation than otherwise.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: There is no Question before the House.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I wish to ask, Sir, whether, in regard to the second Question—which was the Question to which the Prime Minister's Notice referred—the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) has not distinctly stated that he made no challenge; and, that being taken in connection with your directions for the entry to be made, whether, under the circumstances, the statement of the hon. Member coinciding with your own statement, the question can be reopened?
  MR. SPEAKER: The House is in full possession of the circumstances; and I prefer to leave the question to the discretion of the House.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Would it not be better to have some Motion before the House? At present there is no Motion.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTErose—
  MR. HEALY: I rise to a point of Order. We have hitherto been discussing the question without a Motion before the House, and every Member has been heard who was desirous of being heard. It might occur to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be undesirable to put his Motion, because it might be afterwards regarded as unfortunate that any Motion of the kind should be re-

  1571
  corded on the Journals of the House of Commons, even although it were defeated. As the discussion has hitherto been allowed to proceed without a Motion, I would suggest that the discussion should continue to go on without a Motion, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman a locus penitentice.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTErose—
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to know whether it is visual to allow proceedings of this kind at the commencement of Business? There has been a full previous opportunity of correcting the error. I was in the House myself at the time the Prime Minister proposed the entry of the words nemine contradicente, and I carefully watched the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) and the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), who was by his side. They sat still, and made no objection for a long time until the cheering subsided. The only ground, therefore, could be that the hon. Member did not understand the Latin language, because the Motion was expressed in the clearest way.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman said he rose to a point of Order; but he is not raising a point of Order, but entering into a discussion.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There has been a double opportunity of correcting the error—namely, when the Question was put that—"The Ayes have it," and subsequently when the suggestion of the Prime Minister was put from the Chair that the entry nemine contradicente be made. I ask, therefore, whether, if the matter is to be further dealt with, it ought not to be after Notice?
  MR. RITCHIE: How is it possible for an hon. Member to have an opportunity of correcting the Journals of the House until the record of its proceedings has been distributed?
  MR. SPEAKER: In my view, the unusual circumstance of an entry in the Journals of the House having been made that a Bill was read nemine contradicente justified the interference of an hon. Member at this stage. If, therefore, any hon. Member wishes to propose a Motion on the subject, I consider that, under the special circumstances of the case, he might be allowed to do so.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to make such a Motion, because I think it is an entirely new practice to place on the Journals of the House the words nemine contradicente in the case of a Bill which has been a contentious one throughout, and as to which there obviously had been no agreement of opinion on the part of the whole House. The Prime Minister says it has been occasionally the practice to insert the words nemine contradicente, when the Bill was of such importance that it was desirable to have such a special record. Now, I would put it to you. Sir, whether there are any precedents later than the Bill of Rights in which those words have been added in regard to the third reading of a Bill which has been the subject of contention in the House? The cases in which it was usual for those words to be inserted were cases in which there was a unanimous feeling in the House, and when it was desirable to mark that unanimity—as, for example, in respect to Votes of Congratulation to the Royal Family, or of Condolence on the decease of distinguished persons. But if we were to introduce that new practice, it would not be confined to the Prime Minister; but any hon. Member might move, after a contentious Bill had been read a third time, that it should be recorded that it had been passed nemine contradicente, and confusion would arise. I would therefore now propose—
  "That, the honourable Member for South Leicestershire having called attention to the fact that the Question, that the Representation of the People Bill he read the third time, was challenged by him, the entry in the Votes of the proceedings on the Third Reading of the Bill be corrected by omitting from the Votes the words 'Nemine Coutradicente.'"
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the honourable Member for South Leicestershire having called attention to the fact that the Question, that the Representation of the People Bill be read the third time, was challenged by him, the entry in the Votes of the proceedings on the Third Reading of the Bill be corrected by omitting from the Votes the words 'Nemine Contradicente.'"—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
  MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that I believe it is a fact that Bills which have been opposed during part of their progress through this House, on passing their final stage without opposition, have the words nemine contradicente appended to the

  1573
  entry relating to them. I believe the fact to be that the term nemine contradicente applies not to what has passed on every stage during the progress of the Bill, but to the final stage. A Bill might be opposed at one stage, or at another stage; but if on reaching the final stage it passes without opposition, the words nemine contradicente are appended. I stated before that I was not aware I was bound by any precedent or Order of this House to decline to have entered in the Minutes the words I have referred to under the circumstances in, which the Bill passed its final stage.
  MR. PELL: I should like the Question, as put from the Chair, to be amended by the addition, after the word "him," of the words 'and another Member.
  MR. HEALY: I rise to Order. I wish to submit to you, Sir, whether, if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is allowed, it should not be brought forward as a separate Motion? You have now put the Question from the Chair, and no one has any power to amend the Motion. Mr. Speaker cannot amend any Motion in his hands. Therefore, I submit that if this Amendment is put, it should be made the subject of a separate Division.
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand that it is simply proposed to move an Amendment to the Motion, and the hon. Member in doing that is perfectly in Order. He proposes to move, after the words "by him," the insertion of the words, "and by another hon. Member."
  Amendment proposed, to insert after the word "him," the words "and by another Member."—(Mr. Pell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GLADSTONE: I hope that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) will not press his Amendment. A single "No" is as good as 100 for this purpose. Moreover, I do not think it would be regular for the hon. Member to appear as sponsor for another Member.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is that the words "and by another Member" be here added to the Amendment.
  Several hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw!
  MR. PELL: I withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  DR. LYONS: I rise to move an Amendment to this Motion. This is a very important matter as affecting our procedure, and a matter that may involve us in very great difficulty in the future, unless we proceed with care. Therefore I rise for the purpose of moving that a small Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the facts of the case, with instructions from the House to search the Journals and consider all precedents believed to be applicable. I happen to be tolerably familiar, owing to researches I have made, with the history of the action of this House; and I can state what is, perhaps, known to many Members, that the addition of the words nemine contradicente is a thing constantly taking place. It is repeatedly to be found in the Journals of the House. There are, no doubt, restrictions to the use of this phrase; but I believe myself that this was one of the occasions when it was proper for the addition to be made. It is clear that although the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) may have challenged the final stage when the Question was first put, he did not challenge it when the Question was put the second time, when Mr. Speaker said—"The Ayes have it," or at any rate that if he did, he did not do it in an efficient manner. It is on the Question being put the I second time that the vote is taken, if there is a Division, and the record entered upon the Minutes is the record of the decision of the House on that last formal Question as it reaches your ear. It is the duty of any hon. Member who differs from the general sense of the House, if he wishes such difference to be recorded, to take care that his dissent reaches your ear. I would put this point to the House, whether the real and proper object which the hon. Member has in view is not fully met by the fact that he has raised this discussion to-day, because the Motion put will appear on the records of the House, and from them it will be seen that the Bill was not passed unanimously. If the hon. Member wishes to occupy the unenviable position—a position which probably some day he might find reason to regret—of being one of the few persons who opposed this Bill when the House was practically unanimous, let him occupy that position, Had he sub-

  1575
  mitted to the example of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), who delivered himself at the end of the proceedings, who kept his position resolutely and firmly, and left the House before the Bill passed, I could have had some sympathy with him; but the man who challenges a Division ostentatiously when the Question is first put, and does not challenge on the second formal occasion, cannot be considered a very strong partizan. It is evident that the action of the hon. Member (Mr. Pell) does not emanate from Ms desire to record his vote, but is the result of a mere after-thought, and is an attempt on the part of the right hon. Baronet opposite to secure some public recognition of the fact that the House was not unanimous. The right hon. Baronet fears that what happened yesterday would otherwise be very conspicuous and remarkable—that is to say, the abstention of the Opposition from taking a Division against the third reading of the Bill. Everyone had an intimation that the debate was to close last evening, so that nobody could complain of surprise; and if hon. Members opposite had wished to enter any protest against the decision about to be taken, it was their business to be present to record their votes. But they knew perfectly well that it was desirable that in the future they should be free from the charge of having voted against the Bill. I have no hesitation in saying that this is really a Party afterthought; an action taken with the view of recovering the position lost last night through the Opposition not being present to stand to their guns when the last fight on the Bill was to take place. I do not intend, so far as my vote goes, to support the Opposition in that side-wind of credit which they seem desirous of obtaining, looking at the enormous danger that would be threatening this House if decisions from the Chair formally given, and not challenged a second time, or, at any rate, if challenged, only challenged in a half-hearted manner, were allowed to be altered on the following day upon the whim of such a Member. I repeat that this is a Party move, the result of a second consideration, an after-thought, with a view of affecting "another place," to enable that "other place" to say, as they could now only say in a very formal manner, that this House was not unanimous. If the Op-
  1576
  position had desired to challenge the vote in a very distinct manner, it was their business to be in their places, and to take care that their challenge was recorded.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move?
  DR. LYONS: I move that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the facts of the case, with power to search the Journals of the House, and to inquire into precedents.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Motion?
  An hon. MEMBER: Write down the Motion.
  DR. LYONS: If it is not seconded, it will be unnecessary to write it down.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: Sir, I have heard a great deal from time to time of what I may call the high crime and misdemeanour of wasting the time of this House. I should like to ask if any hon. Member present ever witnessed a finer specimen of that performance than that to which the House has just been treated. What happened last night, Sir? Why, the Members of the Conservative Party, almost to a man, quitted this House when the Question for the third reading of the Representation of the People Bill was about to be put; and, therefore, their plain intention was to let the third reading pass nemine contradicente. I said they left the House almost to a man. I think, however, that two Gentlemen remained; and one of those Gentlemen, or both, challenged the Division in somewhat of a feeble voice—in a voice that was inaudible to a great many in this House, and to Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Well, the Members of the Conservative Party this morning find that a solitary Member, or two Members of their body, who remained, did in some feeble manner challenge the third reading; so they came down here, as we may say, in their thousands to-day, to raise a discussion and waste the time of this Assembly with a paltry question as to whether your decision, Sir, was challenged or not. Is that a policy which befits the great Conservative Party? Certainly, I had thought that they had intended to try out this question of the Representation of the People Bill on broader grounds than this. I thought the whole country was to be convulsed with the question that was to be raised upon it—

  1577
  that the whole Conservative Party were to be called to support the resistance to this grave infraction of the liberties of the English people—for so it has been described. But, instead of trying the question out on this ground, they came down with this twopenny-halfpenny Motion, wasting the time of the House, and peddling in the most paltry way. The House, no doubt, desires that this matter should now entirely drop, and that we should proceed to the consideration of the Business on the Paper.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I think there is one conclusion which can be arrived at from the discussion that has taken place this afternoon—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and many hon. Gentlemen sitting on the same side of the House, have deliberately entered into a conspiracy with those Gentlemen who do not approve of Sunday closing in Ireland. I do not think I ever, in the whole course of my life, witnessed anything so despicable as the course adopted by the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) in getting up and talking for a great length of time on a matter which could not have interested him in the slightest degree, merely for the purpose of obstructing useful legislation. I am opposed to the Bill that will come on this afternoon for Sunday closing in Ireland; but still, I do not think it is at all in accordance with the spirit of fair politics that Gentlemen of experience should stand up in this House and place themselves in the very despicable position of obstructing, and deliberately obstructing, useful legislation, by speaking upon matters of no importance. I trust nobody in this House will continue this discussion. If they do we can only believe that their object is the obstruction of useful legislation.
  MR. KENNY: I only wish to make one reference to the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition. I understand that it is said that the Motion last night was challenged. Well, Sir, I was in the House at the time when you put the Question, and I recollect that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) both said "No." But when you gave your final decision, and when the time came for challenging that decision, these
  1578
  Gentlemen sank into silence and said nothing. It would be absurd, I think, for any hon. Gentleman to support a Motion like this, brought before us for the purpose of setting out a false principle.
  MR. MACLIVER: I object to this Motion, Mr. Speaker, because it contradicts the facts of the case, and because it is a revision of your decision as Speaker. Instead of omitting the words which the right hon. Baronet opposite has proposed to omit, I think the House ought to retain the words, and add these —"On the following day, June 27th, this fact was objected to by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), who said that he and another hon. Member challenged the vote, though they had not been heard by Mr Speaker." I think that would put the matter in chronological order, and would satisfy all parties.
  MR. RAMSAY: I feel in some difficulty in agreeing to this Motion—difficulty arising from this fact. I understand you, Sir, to say, that the proposal made by the Prime Minister that the words nemine contradicente should be placed on record should be assented to by the House, and recorded by you on the Journals in accordance with the terms of the Motion of the Prime Minister. Now, I think it would be a strong measure, and one which I think hon. Gentlemen opposite would shrink from taking, to alter the Votes of this House on a question as to whether some hon. Gentlemen had cried "No" when you put the Question. Two hon. Gentlemen cried "No!" as they say; but as they did not challenge your decision on the second occasion, as they were silent, I fail to see on what ground it is that this House is asked to strike out from the Journals the words nemine contradicente, which were formally assented to as a distinct Motion in themselves. As I understand it, the Motion did not imply that there had been no previous opposition. Our Journals sufficiently show that a great body of Members were opposed to the Representation of the People Bill. Why we should strike out the words nemine contradicente I do not know, and I cannot but regret that so much time should have been wasted upon a question of the propriety of altering the Journals in respect of a Motion formally carried in the usual way.
  MR. MONTAGU SCOTT: With all submission to the hon. Member, I think the real question is this—is the entry true as a matter of fact? Was there any dissension in the House? Mr. Speaker puts the Question in this "way —"As many as are of that opinion will say 'Aye,' the contrary 'No;'" and then he may say—"I think the 'Ayes' have it." He puts that to be challenged when he thinks the Ayes are in a majority. If he thinks the "Noes" are in a majority, he says—"I think the 'Noes' have it." If there are dissentients, Mr. Speaker's decision is challenged. It was challenged yesterday, and the voices of the hon. Members who challenged it were heard by hon. Members on the other side as well as on this side of the House, though the voices may not have reached Mr. Speaker. It is allowed that those hon. Members did dissent. Then, if that is so, how can you put nemine contradicente on the Votes? How can you put that down when you heard the challenge yourselves? The question, I say, is—was there any Member dissenting, any Member contradicting the statement "The 'Ayes' have it"? The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) was heard to do so by Members behind him and Members opposite to him; and I am surprised and astounded that now, when it is pointed out to hon. Members opposite that these words were entered on the Journals of the House through a mistaken interpretation, they should get up and say—"We will insist on keeping this false statement on the Journals."
  MR. HEALY: I think it must now be evident to the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) that he has made the greatest mistake of his whole life. He finds himself made the instrument of the Party with which, apparently, he does not wish to seem to have the smallest connection. I warned him of that; I advised him to let the discussion proceed without trying to put the Motion, because, as I pointed out, it would be irrevocable. However, he persisted, and the Motion is now the sport of the House. He cannot withdraw from it, for if he did he, too, would be the laughing-stock of the House. I do not charge him with belonging to it; but we know that the Tory Party have been charged with being, to a large extent, the pub-
  1580
  lican Party of the country. Is it consistent with the right hon. Baronet's position that he should lay himself open to the taunt that on a question of great Constitutional importance, on a question involving a most important principle and an action which has not been taken for centuries—ever since the Bill of Rights—he makes a Motion merely to assist the cause of the publicans? I do not charge him with doing this; but we know how unscrupulous the Radical Party are. He has made that Motion, and now, above him and behind him, he sees his young barbarians here at play, and he is unable to do anything to restrain their gambolings. Looking at the unfortunate and ridiculous position of the Leader of the Opposition, I must say he would have acted wisely if he had taken the advice of even so young and inexperienced a Member as I am. He made the Motion, however, and now he cannot help its being dragged in for other purposes. Thus we have the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition exposed to a series of taunts, and placed in such a false position that I do not think anyone occupying his power and influence was ever placed in before.
  MR. BIGGAR: I am very sorry on this occasion to be obliged to differ from a great many of my hon. Colleagues. Something has struck me as being very peculiar in this discussion; the sight of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Kenny), and the hon. Member for Wexford County (Mr. W. Redmond) objecting to hon. Members wasting the time of the House through antagonism to the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, and yet themselves occupying time by making speeches. I am of opinion that it is of the greatest importance that the Journals of the House should accurately state the facts of the case. It must be manifest to all present that, in point of fact, from some cause or other—I do not pretend to say what—the Journals of the House do not correctly state the facts as they really are. I think that, for that reason, it is very desirable that the Motion should be carried. I blame the Prime Minister very much for what he has done. No doubt he believed he was doing a very sharp thing last night when he asked us to put these words on the Paper. He did it in the absence of a large proportion of the Members of the Opposition, and he spoke in a foreign language. If

  1581
  the right hon. Gentleman had spoken in English I could have formed some idea of what he meant. I had considerable difficulty in knowing what he intended to convey. I may say for my Irish Colleagues that it is of the greatest importance that this precedent should be set, and that the Journals, being wrong, should be corrected. There have been cases in which we, the Irish Members, have disputed the Records, and in which a majority of the House has decided in a manner contrary to the real facts of the case. If we are able to get the House to decide in strict accordance with the facts, it is probable that at no remote time we may have an opportunity of getting statements that appear on the Records changed in such a way that they will actually do justice to our Party.
  MR. SPEAKER: Before I put the Question I wish to correct a misconception which seems to prevail in the minds of some hon. Members. The term "the decision of the Speaker" has been used more than once. I wish to point out that it was not "the decision of the Speaker," but the decision of the House. The decision "That the words nemine contradicente appear on the Journals of the House" was no decision of mine. The Question practically was "Is it your pleasure that these words appear on the Journals?" and a single dissentient voice would have prevented them being added.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 125: Majority 43.

  AYES.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Eckersley, N.

  Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Elton, C. I.

  Beresford, G. De la P.

  Estcourt, G. S.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Ewart, W.

  Blackburne, Col. J. I.

  Ewing, A. O.

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Floyer, J.

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

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Fremantle, hon. T. F.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Gibson, right hon. E.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Greene, E.

  Cotes, C. C.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Grosvenor, right hon. Lord R.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

  Curzon, Major hon. M.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Harris, W. J.

  Digby, Colonel hon. E.

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

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Donaldson-Hudson, C.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Hill, Lord A. W.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Hill, A. S.

  1582

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

  Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.

  Jerningham, H. E. H.

  Otway, Sir A. J.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Paget, R. H.

  King-Harman, Colonel E. R.

  Patrick, R. W. Cochran-

  Knight, F. W.

  Pell, A.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Phipps, P.

  Leighton, S.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

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

  Repton, G. W.

  Ritchie, C. T.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Ross, A. H.

  Long, W. H.

  Round, J.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

  Mac Iver, D.

  Scott, M. D.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Wallace, Sir R.

  March, Earl of

  Warton, C. N.

  Marriott, W. T,

  Whitley, E.

  Master, T. W. C.

  Mulholland, J.

  TELLERS.

  Muntz, P. H.

  Thornhill, T.

  Nicholson, W. N.

  Winn, R.

  NOES.

  Allen, H. G.

  Fry, T.

  Allman, R. L.

  Gabbett, D. F.

  Anderson, G.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Armitstead, G.

  Gordon, Sir A.

  Arnold, A.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Grafton, F. W.

  Barclay, J. W.

  Grant, A.

  Barnes, A.

  Harrington, T.

  Barran, J.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

  Healy, T. M.

  Blake, J. A.

  Hill, T. R.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Holden, I.

  Borlase, W. C.

  Hollond, J. R.

  Brassey, Sir T.

  Jenkins, Sir J. J.

  Bright, J.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Kinnear, J.

  Bryce, J.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Buchanan, T. R.

  Leahy, J.

  Buszard, M. C.

  Leamy, E.

  Buxton, F. W.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Caine, W. S.

  Lusk, Sir A.

  Cameron, C.

  Lyons, R. D.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Macfarlane, D. H.

  Campbell-Bannerman, H.

  Macliver, P. S.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  M'Carthy, J. H.

  Causton, R. K.

  M'Clure, Sir T.

  Clark, S.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Collings, J.

  Mappin, F. T.

  Collins, E.

  Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

  Cowen, J.

  Cropper, J.

  Meldon, C. H.

  Cross, J. K.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Davies, R.

  Monk, C. J.

  Davies, W.

  Moore, A.

  Deasy, J.

  Morley, A.

  Dickson, T. A.

  O'Brien, W.

  Dodds, J.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Fairbairn, Sir A,

  Palmer, C. M.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Palmer, G.

  Ferguson, R.

  Parker, C. S.

  Findlater, W.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Pease, Sir J. W.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Pease, A.

  Forster, rt. ton. W. E.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Fry, L.

  Pennington, F,

  1583

  Picton, J. A.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  Playfair, rt. hn. Sir L.

  Stafford, Marquess of

  Potter, T. B.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Stewart, J.

  Power, J. O'C.

  Stuart, H. V.

  Price, Sir R. G.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Pugh, L. P.

  Thompson, T. C.

  Ralli, P.

  Vivian, Sir H. H.

  Ramsay, J.

  Vivian, A. P.

  Eedmond, W. H. K.

  Waugh, E.

  Richard, H.

  Webster, J.

  Roe, T.

  Williamson, S.

  Ruston, J.

  Wills, W. H.

  St. Aubyn, Sir J.

  Wilson, Sir H.

  Sellar, A. C.

  Wilson, C. H.

  Sheil, E.

  Simon, Serjeant J.

  TELLERS.

  Small, J. F.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Smith, S.

  Noel, E.

  Smyth, P. J.

  MR. HEALY: Mr. Speaker, there is one question I wish to ask with reference to this subject. It has hitherto been usual, especially in the case of great Bills, to put, after the third reading, the Question "That the Bill do now pass." Such a Question was put by the late Speaker in the case of the Irish Coercion Bill; and I wish to ask whether, if a case of this kind occurs in the future much contention would not be saved if the Motion "That the Bill do now pass" were put from the Chair?
  MR. SPEAKER: The putting of the Question, after the third reading, "That the Bill do now pass," has of late years fallen into desuetude, and has become, practically, obsolete. I do not think that it is the pleasure of the House that the putting of such a Question should be revived.
  MR. HEALY: It is not three years ago that Mr. Brand, the late Speaker, put such a Question in the case of the Irish Coercion Bill.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  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 Question [20th June], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that, on the last occasion when the Bill was before the
    1584
    House, they had the unusual honour of the Prime Minister coming in late in the debate, having no doubt been necessarily detained elsewhere; and, in a few earnest words, urging very strongly upon the House the importance of coming to an immediate decision. Being anxious, as he (Mr. Warton) always was, to treat every suggestion of the Prime Minister's with all possible respect, he might be permitted to remark that the right hon. Gentleman, on that occasion, had not heard the extraordinary arguments and the strange figures put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He (Mr. Warton) was quite sure that the Prime Minister was as anxious as he was that the House should not come to a conclusion on that very important question hastily; that it should not come to a conclusion under a misapprehension; and that it should not come to a conclusion based upon figures which were misleading, if not absolutely false. It would be within the recollection of the House that the Chief Secretary for Ireland made use of a most extraordinary argument. It was this—that, where the Act was in force, there was only one case of Sunday drunkenness against 17 on week days. That constituted a specific allegation which he (Mr. Warton) wished to take this opportunity of challenging. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman did not represent what was actually the case. Anyone who had read the Returns would see that a misapprehension existed in the mind of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He was, no doubt, led into the mistake by starting from a perfectly erroneous assumption—that erroneous assumption being, that the number of persons who had been taken up for drunkenness in the year ending April 29th, 1883, was 2,923 in the exempted cities; whereas, in truth and in fact, the number so taken up—-as shown in a Return ordered on the Motion of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Ewart)—was not 2,923, but 1,248.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I hope I am not out of Order in correcting the hon. Member.
    MR. WARTON: I think you are. ["Order!"]
    MR. TREVELYAN: On a question of fact, I stated that my figures were drawn not from the Return which the

    1585
    hon. and learned Member quotes, but from the Return of persons arrested for drunkenness, for being drunk and disorderly, and for crimes connected with, drunkenness. That makes the whole difference.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he accepted the correction of the right hon. Gentleman, but only to a limited extent. He protested against that new set of figures being sprung upon the House simply because of some complication that existed in the mind of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in mixing up arrests for drunkenness with arrests for crimes connected with drunkenness. It was a little too bad for the right hon. Gentleman to avoid dealing with Returns officially laid before Parliament, which perhaps he feared to face, and to spring upon the House a set of perfectly new figures which were not based on a correct standard. He was, therefore, perfectly correct when he said that the right hon. Gentleman proceeded upon an entirely false basis. He had no right, when dealing with the question of arrests on Sunday for drunkenness, to mix up with that question some imaginary number, derived he (Mr. Warton) knew not whence, and crimes connected with drunkenness. He should therefore stick to the test which he considered a right one—namely, that of arrests for drunkenness. He should proceed upon approved figures and upon acknowledged facts. The Chief Secretary had startled the House by drawing an alarming comparison between the one to 17 cases of Sunday drunkenness in the country with the one to six cases in the exempted cities. That was an utterly fallacious comparison; and the results could only have been obtained by the extraordinary process which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had now had the fairness to reveal. Taking a fair comparison of the figures, it proved that the proportion of arrests for Sunday drunkenness in the excepted cities was but one in 17 arrests, as against one in 15½ in the districts to which the Act applied. Therefore, the contrast was not very alarming. Moreover, the comparison was in itself somewhat unfair; because in the cities there were readier means of arrest than in the country. A man might be drunk for hours in a country place before he was taken notice of by the police; but in a city like
    1586
    Waterford or Limerick he would very soon be arrested. The difference in the ratio of arrests was more than accounted for in this way. In Scotland, where Sunday closing prevailed all over the country, the proportion of arrests for Sunday drunkenness was one in 680 of the population in the towns, and only one in 8,333 of the population in the country. Therefore, the chances of arrest in a Scotch burgh were about 12 times as great as in a country district; and, looking at the Irish statistics from that point of view, he held that the comparison was really strongly in favour of the cities. He would now institute a comparison between the state of Ireland 10 years ago and the present time. He was sorry to trouble the House with the figures; but those figures which had been already quoted by the promoters of the Bill were false both in then-sources and in their application. He would compare the years 1872–3 with the years 1882–3, which would show the real results of the Sunday Closing Act, and the figures he should give would be perfectly authentic. In 1872 the total number of arrests outside the five cities which were now excepted from the operation of the Act was 55,775, and in the cities 27,514. In 1873 the numbers were 62,516 and 33,107. The total for the two years in the country was 118,291 arrests. In 1882 the arrests were 68,482 in the country, and 19,015 in the cities; and in 1883 there were 68,903 in the country, and 20,623 in the cities. These figures gave a total for the non-excepted portion of the country during the two years of 137,385, as compared with 118,291 in 1872–3. The startling fact was here disclosed that there was an increase of 19,094 arrests under the operation of the Act. On the other hand, in the excepted cities, where drink was obtainable in an honest and honourable way, drunkennes had decreased. The arrests in those cities during the two years 1872–3 numbered 60,621; but in the two years 1872–3 they diminished to 39,638, showing a decrease of 20,983. The result of this Sunday closing legislation, therefore, had been what every student of human nature would expect—namely, that whilst there had been an increase of drunkenness in places where prohibition prevailed, there had been a decrease where the same interference was not permitted. Nothing

    1587
    disposed him more to be angry than to think of the utter ignorance of human nature which was displayed by those who brought forward these Bills. They knew very well that "Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant," and that when men were forbidden a thing, that was the very thing they proceeded to want. He recommended hon. Gentlemen to study the fables of their youth. There was, for instance, the fable of the chicken, who was told by its mother not to go near a well, and, of course, did so on the first opportunity. In dying accents the hapless chicken exclaimed—"Had it not been for the prohibition, I ne'er had been in this condition." The result of the prohibition of Sunday drinking was, that instead of drinking in proper and decent licensed houses, men were driven to get the drink they wanted, and for that purpose would have to resort to unlicensed and ill-regulated houses. That had been the case in Scotland, where shebeens had increased by many dozens, and in Ireland, where he believed the increase was even greater. Therefore, when hon. Members talked about the arrests—strong though that argument was—they must look carefully at what was known to be generally going on—namely, the determination of those who were not allowed to get honest liquor in an honest way, to get dishonest liquor in a dishonest way. Of course, people did not get such good liquor in the shebeens, because the keepers of those places, being subject to prosecution, must make great profits, and would not be likely to keep good liquors; and thus Parliament was creating, for no good purpose whatever, except the folly of some amiable enthusiasts, a class of men who were compelled to be law breakers. He had always admired the merciful spirit of our Criminal Law; but nothing could be more unmerciful than imposing extreme and unnecessary restrictions of this kind, which compelled people to break the law in defence of their honest rights. The House had been flooded with 13 or 14 county Bills for Sunday closing; and, in the debate on the Cornwall Bill, he gave a number of extracts to show how Sunday closing had operated in Wales. He would now boldly assert that the great majority of local and representative bodies in Wales, and all the associations entitled to re-
    1588
    spect, had testified their abhorrence of Sunday closing wherever they had experienced it. Town Council after Town Council had passed resolutions to that effect. Many who were ardent supporters of Sunday closing in Wales when it was only in prospect were now its determined opponents; and, when the next General Election came, many hon. Members who thought to retain, their seats by the aid of Sunday closing would find it necessary to reconsider the matter, and to recognize that public opinion had changed. In Cardiff there had been a great establishment of spurious clubs since Sunday closing was instituted. He (Mr. Warton) was not opposed to honest and respectable working men's clubs, and did not see why working men should not have clubs as well as other people. But he did object to clubs that were merely irregular and unlicensed drinking clubs, with a 6d. subscription, and power to take in any number of friends at any hour of the day or night; and that was the sort of club which had been established in Cardiff and Swansea since Sunday closing came into vogue. The police in those towns knew all about it, and Inspector after Inspector would tell you the same. Talking of Inspectors, he mistrusted the reports which were made by Inspectors in Ireland to the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to the results of Sunday closing. When it was known that the head of a Department was so strong and bigoted a partizan, he would be sure to get reports of the nature he wished for. Moreover, it was not likely that these Inspectors would throw dirt at themselves by admitting that drunkenness had considerably increased in their districts. However, the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not be able to upset or explain away the figures which he (Mr. Warton) had given, and which showed that, whilst drunkenness had increased in the prohibited districts, it had decreased in the excepted cities. It was, however, just possible that in the whole of Ireland there was a large temperance population. Well, he wished to see a decrease of drunkenness everywhere; but he observed that there was more hope of that in the removal than in the imposition of absurd restrictions, and in letting people get their liquor quietly and without any fuss and intrigue. He hoped to live to see the

    1589
    day when, amongst the humblest classes as amongst the highest, it would be considered a disgraceful thing to get drunk; but Bills of this kind would not advance that end one jot. In fact, this kind of legislation had a very bad effect. It inculcated the notion that a man need not look after his own morals, but must have them attended to by a grandmotherly Government, who would keep him straight under all circumstances. That feeling crippled the moral strength of a man and degraded him. The principle was that adopted by the mother of Mr. Verdant Green, who wrote to the Vice Chancellor of the University, asking that her son should be always in bed by 9 o'clock. In the same way these Sunday closing people said—"You must not drink on Sunday, because we think it wrong for you to do so. In our superior wisdom and sanctity we shall dictate to you and make you feel our power." Surely, it was a very moderate thing to have the public-houses shut from 2 to 7 on a Sunday; but all these matters were subject to compromises. There were extremists belonging to every Party. On one side, in this matter, there were many virtuous and high-toned, but narrow-minded men. On the other side, there were many who were dissolute, unthinking, and careless. But between the two extremes were the men of moderation. They were neither saints nor sinners, and they generally got their way. Personally, he was as much opposed to the attempt of the saints to inflict their notions upon him as he should be to any attempt of the sinners; he liked to steer with an even keel between the two classes of fanatics. He hardly knew whether the well-meaning fanatics did the most harm, or the evil ones. Now, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given the House some figures, and he (Mr. Warton) had given them some others, which he believed to be worthy of more attention. The fair and proper thing would be to investigate the matter fully and carefully. An experiment having been made, it would be more statesmanlike to appoint a strong Committee to inquire into its working and its results, than to precipitately legislate with a view to its extension and permanency again before the facts were thoroughly known. He was altogether opposed to Sunday closing; but, as a compromise, he would
    1590
    agree to have the experiment tried a little longer; but he objected to have this iron measure rivetted on Ireland until it was fully proved to be for the good of the country. He objected also altogether to the proposal to include the five hitherto exempted cities. Doubtless, there had been some agitation in favour of the measure; but that was an age when agitations were very easily got up. Men herded together in societies and associations; and very few took the trouble to think for themselves, and to carefully examine both sides of a question. They believed what they were told by a few active and unscrupulous agents, and so a popular cry was worked up. This Bill had been hastily concocted to gratify those who did not take the trouble to think, and who were anxious to press upon others regulations to which they did not conform, and to lay upon others burdens which they did not themselves have to bear.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, that, as an English Member, he must apologize for interposing in the discussion, because he considered that an Irish local question should be settled by Irish Members themselves. He would, therefore, have left all the talking upon the Bill to them; but to his surprise, however, he found that not only were the Irish Members not unanimous on the question, but a large majority who had spoken in the debate were going to vote against it. [Mr. GIBSON: We do not want to talk it out.] The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond) said he would vote for the Bill, not because he was in favour of it, but because he had promised to support it.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, the hon. Member was under a misapprehension, and he was not opposed to the Bill.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, that from everything he had heard, and considering the fact that a majority of the Irish Members were about to vote against the Bill, he thought he was justified in assuming that they were opposed to it. Were they or were they not in favour of it? [An Irish Liberal MEMBER: In favour of it all over Ireland.] Then he wanted to know why the Irish Members were not in favour of it? He was bound to say that he had seen no evidence of the measure being desired by the Irish people. On the contrary, although Peti-

    1591
    tions signed by many influential persons had been presented in favour of the Bill, he doubted whether, if the question was put to the vote of the Irish people to-morrow, they would find a majority in favour of it. He understood the hon. Members for Dublin were opposed to it, and the hon. Members for Cork and Limerick were not in its favour. He heard a great deal in favour of Sunday closing; but what he wanted to know was, why there should be a difference between closing public-houses on Sunday and on any other day of the week? He could quite understand the position of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who was opposed to drinking at all times. The principle of the hon. Baronet was straightforward and plain; but he was at a loss to understand what principle there was in preventing all drinking on Sunday; and much less could he see why, if such a principle was good, it should not be applied to the whole Empire, and especially to England. In London they knew it had been tried, and they also knew with what result. If they were in earnest in putting down drink, the way to do so was by setting a good example. Let them begin in that House by putting down the bar and withdrawing from their clubs. Why were the Lords and Bishops and rich men, who had well-stocked cellars, to enjoy their wine on a Sunday, and the poor man not to have the right of obtaining a glass of ale? The prohibition then should apply to the club of the gentleman, and no private drinking should be tolerated. He could see no reason whatever in favour of the measure; and if the hon. Member proposed his Amendment he should certainly vote with him.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that in Ireland there was a general anxiety that the Sunday Closing Act should be made permanent. There had been no change of opinion on this subject. ["Oh, oh!"] He believed he was right in saying that fully four-fifths of the Irish people were in favour of Sunday closing, and that a majority of the Irish Members would be found voting in favour of the Bill. ["No, no!"] He had attended scores of public meetings in Ireland, and found that the working classes were thoroughly in favour of Sunday closing. He would ask the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz),
    1592
    and others who opposed the Bill, to allow a Division to be taken upon it, so as to test the feeling the House. In that case he believed that the Irish Members would not go into the Lobby against it. Indeed, he doubted if 10 Irish Members would vote against it, if they were allowed to go to a Division. It was absurd to say that the Irish people were not in favour of the principle, seeing that it had been in partial operation during the last six years, and that it had been admittedly a great success in repressing drunkenness. He would not waste time further in discussing the Bill; all he asked was that the House should be allowed to express its feeling upon the question by going to a Division.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he must complain that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had taken good care not to give an opportunity to the Irish Members to express their opinions. If the Bill had been in charge of a private Member, he (Mr. Leamy) could have understood that he would seize any opportunity of bringing it under discussion; but this was a Government Bill, and he thought it was not fair that it should be taken at a time when the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that those who were opposed to it were absent, and had not, on account of the short notice, an opportunity of being present. The hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had stated—and he (Mr. Leamy) would like to know how he obtained the information—that four-fifths of the Irish people were in favour of the measure; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland also stated that the Government had investigated the matter, and also found that the people were in favour of it. They were now made aware how the Government had arrived at that conclusion. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said the Executive had made inquiry of the Resident Magistrates and of the Local Government Board. He also spoke of the Report of Dr. M'Cabe, who said he had spoken to many persons well acquainted with the feelings of the artizan classes in Dublin, and Dr. M'Cabe said the artizans and labourers might be divided into three classes, one of which he described as an honest class, and he said the honest working men were in favour of it. The Chief Secretary for

    1593
    Ireland had stated that he did not approve of that description; but the Report went on to say that there was a certain portion of the working classes of Ireland, hard drinkers, who desired to have public-houses open, and who would get drunk whether the houses were closed or not. Of that there could be no doubt. Upon that the right hon. Gentleman remarked that the Bill would certainly put difficulties in the way of such people. Did the right hon. Gentleman not think that there were many people in England suffering from the same temptation, that he should go to Ireland in order to teach them not only how to obey the laws of England, but also the laws of God? The right hon. Gentleman quoted statistics in regard to Sunday arrests for drunkenness before and after the passing of the present Act. What he (Mr. Leamy) should like to know was, whether there was any means of ascertaining at what hour these arrests were made? "Was it quite clear that some of them were not the results of Satin-day's drinking? The arrests on Sunday were really no test at all, because arrests made after 12 o'clock on Saturday might be set down as Sunday drinking—whereas, as a matter of fact, the drinking took place on Saturday. He would submit that they should be arrests made after the time of opening public-houses on Sunday; because, if they did not, they must include a number of arrests which could not have been produced during the five hours the public-houses were open. He believed it would be found that this had not been done, and the Return was, therefore, worthless for the purpose it was quoted. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Scotland as an example in favour of the Bill. All he (Mr. Leamy) could say was that he saw a statement made a short time ago, that, in Scotland, they were doing a roaring trade on Sunday, not in public-houses, but in mock clubs. He saw a statement the other day, that the police had been occupied lately in arresting the people who made use of these clubs as they went out. Then, in regard to Wales, he saw that at a meeting lately, the Mayor, he thought, of Wrexham, stated that there had been more drunkenness in Wrexham since the passing of the Sunday Closing Act in Wales than on any other day of the week. The right hon. Gentleman had
    1594
    asked the question, if Sunday closing would lead to a decrease of Sunday drinking; and, out of 74 who answered, 25 were in the negative and 20 in the affirmative, and there were a good many answers which could not be classed as either affirmative or negative. It was clear that there was no unanimity on the subject. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that Sunday closing gave rise to unlawful drinking houses; and, if so, what was the good of the Act? Then the right hon. Gentleman asked if the closing would be likely to lead to illicit distillation; and on that question three answered in the negative; but he (Mr. Leamy) found that while illicit distillation in England and Scotland was very small, there being only 16 in England, and 14 in Scotland, in Ireland no fewer than 883 cases were reported last year. He thought that was not very satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman had hardly treated the House fairly in regard to this question. He knew very well that when the Act was first passed, it was only passed for a certain number of years, in order to see how it would work. Now it was proposed to make the Bill perpetual, not only in regard to the country embraced in the former Bill, but also in regard to the case of the other five cities. That was surely entirely unfair. Before they proposed to make the Act perpetual for the five cities they ought surely to see how it would work, as they had done in the counties. Then the right hon. Gentleman, who had professed his desire to carry out the wishes of the Irish people, might have waited until the Franchise Bill had been extended to Ireland. At present, the franchise was not such as to indicate the feeling of the people of Ireland on this matter. The people who now gave an opinion were, to a large extent, those who would not be affected by the Bill; but the majority of the people who would be affected had no means of giving effect to their opinions. It had been said that the priests of Ireland were in favour of the Bill. Now, he could never understand the attitude of the Irish priesthood on the subject. If the publicans were such bad people as they sometimes heard painted in sermons, surely they were as bad on a week-day as on a Sunday; and then the Irish priests, to be logical and consistent, should call upon the Government to close

    1595
    public-houses not only on Sundays, but also on holidays. These days were quite as holy as Sundays, and there was certainly more temptation on those days than on Sundays, because the people were all idle and crowded into the towns. In fact, holidays were of all days those in which he would have thought restrictions on drink might be required. He thought he was justified, also, in saying that if the priests were opposed to Sunday drinking in public-houses, it was open to them to come forward and set up in every village a good national club; and he hoped the Bishops and priests would set to work to found in every village a good national club and library, where they could meet, so as to give the people some means of intellectual enjoyment. In that way they might, perhaps, learn something of the sort of Government under which they lived. Another matter that he did not understand was the action of Tipperary and Wexford in this matter, and why they should he so anxious for the Bill. These two gallant counties for many years passed a voluntary law closing the public-houses on Sunday within their limits, and the Tipperary and Wexford people obeyed that law, as to which he made no complaint, because they made it themselves. However, they did not seem to be satisfied with their own laws, and so they came over there to have them ratified by an alien Parliament; and not only that, but these two counties, having passed this law for themselves, were not content until, contrary to all their principles of Home Rule, they forced it on other places like Waterford, that did not want it. He thought the Chief Secretary for Ireland had acted unfairly in bringing forward such a measure as this without due notice to Irish Members. He knew that to hon. Members in Dublin 24 hours' notice was not sufficient; and those who were not opposed to it in principle were opposed to the manner in which it had been brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman said they must take this measure before they would go on with any other Irish Business, and he charged them with keeping back the Purchase of Land Bill by opposing the present measure. He (Mr. Leamy) told him that, when resolved to oppose a Bill, he would oppose it without any regard to what Bill might come after.
    1596
    The Government had tried the experiment of such a Bill as the present in England, and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had inquired if such a Bill would be likely to lead to disturbance in the large towns in Ireland. He found that they were a law-abiding people, and not likely to create a disturbance; but it was an extraordinary announcement that one of the reasons put forward in favour of the Bill by the Chief Secretary for Ireland was, that the Lord Lieutenant was satisfied that there would be no disturbance in Dublin if it were passed. Did the right hon. Gentleman know what he was saying? Was it to be laid down as a principle that a good law could not be passed for Ireland without a fierce agitation, and a bad law could not be averted without riot and disturbance? It was quite ludicrous that Lord Spencer should feel such a concern for the souls of the people of Dublin. They were making an experiment on the people of Dublin, and he did not believe it would be possible to enforce the measure without great discontent. There had already been great reason to complain in Ireland of the way in which the present Act was administered as a kind of political engine, and so they would be sorry to see it extended. Public dinners to Members of Parliament were entered by the police, and people taking part in them were prosecuted. Only the other day that took place at New Ross, though he could hardly say that he was sorry for New Ross, as on Friday they had its Representative (Mr. J. Redmond), who was so insulted, calling for the extension of Sunday closing to the rest of Ireland. It was true that the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated that he had given instructions that it should be discontinued; but so long as it could be used as a political engine he did not think Irish Members would help the Government in passing it. A great deal had been said of the popularity of Sunday closing in Scotland; but Irishmen were not like Scotchmen, although he believed the Scotch people came originally from Ireland, although they had not the humour of the Irish about them. They were strict Sabbatarians, and therefore Sunday closing was, to a great extent, germane to their disposition. The Irish, on the other hand, went in for amusement upon Sunday, and marched about

    1597
    to the music of the fife and drum. They went in, too, for a great deal of excursion, and therefore it was not fair to them to offer them a Scotch Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had been asked to put into the Bill a clause to prevent the Bill being applied as it had been to prevent gentlemen of the same politics dining together at an hotel, and also to give the magistrates no discretion in granting exceptional licences on the occasion of such gatherings; but he would make no concession whatever to the wishes of the Irish Members. As he had said, they were told practically that until the Bill was passed, no other Irish legislation would be taken up. "Beggars cannot be choosers." That was the spirit in which they were to be treated. Well, whatever the Government threatened, he would oppose this Bill; and he thought his Colleagues, although some of them were in favour of the principle of the Bill, would oppose it also, because of the unfair manner in which its opponents were treated. He could not understand why Government should be so anxious to have the Bill passed now, especially as they could obtain, for another year at least, all they wished for by the passing of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The country, too, would have full opportunity of understanding the measure before irretrievably committing themselves to it, for everyone knew how extremely hard it would be to get it repealed if it once passed into law. He hoped the Bill would not pass this Session, and he was perfectly convinced that it would not.
    DR. LYONSsaid, he wished to offer a few observations upon the Bill, as he had given close attention to the subject of it for a large number of years, and had likewise done all he could to ascertain the feeling of his constituents, the people of Dublin, in respect to it. Here he wished to say he considered the Irish Members had a good right to find fault with Her Majesty's Government. Some weeks ago, Tuesday and Friday nights were given to the Government, in trust, for the special purpose of enabling them to pass one or two great measures; and it was now particularly inconvenient to find them departing from that honourable engagement, by forcing this Bill upon the time of the House, while measures far more urgently called for were set aside. The Irish Members wanted
    1598
    to see the question of Poor Law Administration and the Law of Settlement disposed of. These matters had been pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but all that could be got from him was the promise that Bills dealing with them would be brought in without delay. He certainly would have great cause to complain if the promised measure was made to give way to this one, on which there was such a wide difference of opinion in Ireland. Both he and his hon. Colleague had warned the right hon. Gentleman against bringing forward such a measure as this; but he regretted to say that the Members for the City of Dublin were on that occasion treated with scant courtesy both by the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Lieutenant; and here they had a Bill brought in in direct opposition to their wishes, and in the very teeth of the advice they had given the right hon. Gentleman. His experience told him. that there was a strong feeling in Dublin against closing the public-houses in the City of Dublin; and although the right hon. Gentleman might succeed in inducing the House to pass this Bill, he would fail to carry with him that general consensus of opinion on which the success of a measure like that entirely depended, and the Government would go on manufacturing artificial crime without in any way forwarding the cause of temperance. This, too, was the opinion of a most illustrious individual, the wisest Prelate in Ireland, than whom no one ever upheld the character of his high office in the Church with greater dignity. He alluded to his Eminence Cardinal M'Cabe, whom he had consulted on this question of Sunday closing, and from whom he had received the following letter:—
    4, Rutland Square, Dublin, Feb. 18, 1884.
    "My dear Dr. Lyons,—On the receipt of your letter of the 15th inst. I communicated with the parish priests of the city with the view of obtaining their opinions on the Sunday closing question. I need not tell you that these clergy-men have had their attention frequently called to the subject, and that their intimate relations with their parishioners give them abundant opportunities of studying the question in its relations to the advancement of temperance. Were it clearly proved that the closing of public-houses in Dublin on Sunday would have the effect of guarding our people from the dangers of intemperance there would not be the slightest difference of opinion amongst the clergy. But as there are very strong arguments for and

    1599
    against the measure, the parish priests are divided on the subject. On one point they are unanimous, that the hours during which public-houses are now open might be profitably restricted. On the question of earlier closing on the evening of Saturday there is perfect unanimity also, as all are convinced that excessive drinking on Saturday night is most provocative of drunkenness on Sunday. My own private opinion on Sunday closing has never undergone any change. On one occasion, a few years ago, I was waited on by a small deputation of gentlemen, for whose experience and judgment I entertained the highest respect. They pressed me very strongly to sign a declaration in favour of Sunday closing in Dublin. As the question resolved itself into a matter of mere opinion, which involved no principle, and as the deputation stated that they spoke with the authority of very largo experience, I complied with their request. I did not care to insist upon my own opinion, which possibly might be erroneous now, as it was founded on the experience of other times when, happily for myself, my duties brought me into constant communications with the classes for whom the contemplated legislation is intended. I feel now that I should not have been persuaded to sign the document in question. Reviewing the whole subject, and keeping in view the danger to which in the present state of our people the closing of public-houses all day on Sunday is likely to lead, I would be sorry to see it enforced by a stringent law. From what I have heard within the last few days I am inclined to believe that a compromise between the contending parties might be effected. I think if these houses were allowed to be open between the hours of 2 and 6 o'clock p.m. on Sunday their owners should agree to close at 10 p.m. on Saturday night. This latter arrangement would, in my opinion, do the greatest good.—Believe me, yours sincerely,
    "E. Card. MACCABE."
    He had forwarded that letter to the right hon. Gentleman, and had commended it to the attention, of the Government, as it would be practically impossible to enforce such legislation as was now proposed. He had been connected for the last 25 years with one of the largest hospital establishments in Dublin, and he was sorry to say that amongst the most painful cases treated there were those of intemperance, and many of those cases were admitted during the time when public-houses were closed, and when the presumption of the law was that there was no possibility of getting drink—namely, on Sunday mornings. There were several cases he could bring forward in support of his statement, and he would refer to one in particular, in which a child, only six years of age, was brought into the hospital insensible from the effects of porter. He had taken great pains to inquire
    1600
    into the matter; and there could not be the smallest doubt that a vast quantity of drink was consumed within the hours when the public-houses were closed on Sundays; and they had this result—that the wives and children of early age were made to participate in the drinking, and the children had become drunkards at an early age. The clergymen who had had practical experience had assured him that the foundation of drinking habits was most conspicuous in those places where private Sunday drinking was common in consequence of the regulations in force against Sunday trading. The class of clergymen of whom he was speaking were constantly in the habit of visiting houses where it was suspected secret drinking was going on, and they told him that in numerous houses which they visited they found quantities of drink stored. In one house, in particular, was a small room in which several dozens of porter were consumed on a Sunday morning before 10 o'clock. He was speaking to one of the unfortunate people who happened to be a victim of drink, and he asked him—"Where on earth he got the drink on the Sunday?" He replied— "I have not the slightest trouble in getting drunk six times over on the Sunday before 10 o'clock in the morning." He then asked him—"How about the police?" and he explained that it was impossible for the police to check this evil of secret drinking, for those who were in the habit of drinking did not frequent the same place, but went from one house to another on different days. Similar testimony had been given him by the police themselves. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland chose to glean a little practical experience on the subject, and of the working of the Act in Dublin, and to act the part of Haroun-al-Raschid, he (Dr. Lyons) would undertake to be his guide, and he could not imagine any more useful function that he could perform than this. He (Dr. Lyons) would guarantee the right hon. Gentleman's safety among the working classes of Dublin, who he confidently asserted had no sympathy with lawless violence. He was quite sure of this—that he would be convinced that any attempt to deal with this question by prohibitory legislation, or by multiplying regulations, would be perfectly useless. Reform

    1601
    must come in a totally different way from that of legislative action. They could not legislate so as to coerce men into sobriety; for nothing they could do, nor would any amount of ingenuity, keep men from drinking if they wished to do so. He had had pointed out to him in Dublin no less than 70 private places in which drink was to be had; and it was perfectly impossible to deal with this evil by any direct system of legislation. The hon. Member was then proceeding to refer to the case of Scotland, when—
    MR. CAINErose to Order. He wished to ask whether the hon. Gentleman was not transgressing Rule 13 of the Standing Orders, which dealt with repetition and irrelevance?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has certainly spoken at great length on this subject, and the House has shown symptoms of impatience. I cannot, however, say that so far he has transgressed against the Rule in question; but, possibly, the hon. Member may see his way to curtailing his remarks.
    DR. LYONS, resuming, said, he was speaking on behalf of the citizens of Dublin and as their Representative; and he respectfully submitted that, on a question of that kind, he was fairly entitled to make any comparisons that were fail-and pertinent to the case. He was not ready to admit that he had repeated anything he had said; and if he had given instances which he thought necessary for the enforcement of his views, after the recent experience they had had of Cabinet Ministers talking for four hours on particular subjects, he did not think the House would consider that he had been speaking too long on this matter.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman is in Order, in discussing the question before the House, in referring to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not transgressing any Rule of Order.
    DR. LYONS, again resuming, said, the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) had evidently come there not to hear argument, but with a settled determination to vote in a particular direction, and all argument, therefore, was
    1602
    wasted upon him. He had confidence in the good sense and fairness of the House, and should address his observations to the numerous other hon. Members whom he saw around him. He should be sorry indeed to see the City he represented submitted to the stringent system of legislation that existed in Scotland, and which was productive of a vast amount of demoralization. He deplored most deeply the demoralization which followed the indulgence of illicit drinking. He claimed to be as strong an advocate of temperance as anyone; and he would venture to say that by inculcating temperance principles, whenever he had had the opportunity, he had succeeded in making many converts to temperance —he would not say teetotalism—in away that many hon. Gentlemen might not imagine. He always believed that the better mode to keep people from excessive drinking would be to teach them to use those drinks for the purpose of enjoyment and refreshment which they could with safety employ. For instance, he would refer to a case in which he had succeeded in inducing a number of workmen to substitute tea for porter and whisky during their work by persuasion. ["Order, order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say with regard to the remarks which the hon. Member is now making that they do not appear to me to bear upon the subject before the House.
    DR. LYONSsaid, he was coming to the point. He was merely pointing out how it was perfectly easy, in a case like that to which he was referring, to insure the conversion of people to temperance, and he was going to say that these men became substantial temperance men. They did not drink again after having had this experience of the value of tea.
    MR. CAINE: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to ask if the hon. Member is in Order in going on deliberately with exactly the same sentence he was using when you called him to Order?
    MR. SPEAKER: I was waiting to see whether the hon. Gentleman was speaking to the point. I confess that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman do not seem to apply to the subject before the House, which is that of drinking on Sundays.
    DR. LYONSagain resumed, and proceeded to observe that he believed if more facilities were given to the labour-

    1603
    ing classes on Sundays for using non-intoxicating drinks there would not be so much drunkenness. That was a point in the urging of which he did not yield to his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine).
    MR. CAINE: I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether, in a debate on the Sunday closing of public-houses in Ireland, the hon. Gentleman is in Order in discussing my opinions and conduct?
    MR. HEALY: I rise to Order; and I appeal to you, Sir, whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) is not entitled to your protection from the hon. Member for Scarborough?
    MR. SPEAKERnot replying,
    DR. LYONSproceeded. He thanked the hon. Member for Scarborough for his interruption. If the hon. Member was enthusiastic on this subject in his way, he (Dr. Lyons) was also enthusiastic in his way; and he hoped the hon. Member would give him credit for speaking his real sentiments on the subject. He was going to refer to the results, which he was fairly entitled to do, of Sunday closing in Wales. A very remarkable meeting took place in Wales not long since, at which two Roman Catholic clergymen spoke, and their testimony was that the result of Sunday closing had been most disastrous to the cause of temperance. They had themselves visited localities where drink was illicitly sold, and they gave a horrifying picture of the scene. Men and women and numerous children were congregated together in close rooms, with large quantities of porter before them; and large supplies were in the houses; and these clergymen expressed the greatest possible regret that they had been advocates of the measure, not knowing the demoralizing-effects to which it unquestionably led. With this evidence before them, he must say to ask the House to vote in favour of Sunday closing was to ask them to do something which was extremely wrong. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to prove that Sunday closing was capable of reforming the evil. He had to apologize to the House for speaking so long; but the question was one which so vitally concerned his constituents that he had felt bound to do so. His experience was that the large majority of the people of
    1604
    Dublin were opposed to the measure. The right hon. Gentleman had favoured them with a number of figures bearing on this subject. He (Dr. Lyons) regretted that there was not sufficient time to discuss them at length. He ventured to think his right hon. Friend would not question the independence, judgment, and great ability which distinguished the Irish Bench. Now, a very considerable number of the members of that Bench had particularly remarked upon the great increase in the number of arrests for drunkenness in the districts in which the Sunday Closing Act was in force. He (Dr. Lyons) had carefully avoided questions which had previously been discussed in this debate; but, if the House wished it, he was perfectly ready to go into the figures at length, and he had a large supply of figures with him which he might quote to them. He could only promise them, that if the Bill stood over to another day, he would then venture to lay those figures before the House; and he believed he should be able to show that the figures so triumphantly given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland were based on pure fallacy.
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood further adjourned till this 'day,
    The House suspended its Sitting at five minutes to Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  CROFTERS AND COTTARS (HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND) — REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. MACFARLANE, in rising to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on the condition of the Crofters and Cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and to move—

    1605
    "That the Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners upon the condition of the Crofters and Cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Soot-land demands the immediate attention of the Government, with the view to giving legislative and administrative effect to its recommendations,"
    said, he was extremely sorry that the Motion was not still in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), as he (Mr. Macfarlane) would rather have taken part in, than introduced, the subject to the notice of the House. He would remind hon. Members of a discussion which took place in the House on the 4th of August, 1882, in regard to this subject, and the Resolution, which he moved on that occasion for the appointment of a Royal Commission. The statements which he made on that occasion, and in which he referred to the depopulation of the Highlands, had been contradicted, and he had been told by the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. J. Ramsay) that it was a pity this subject should be dealt with by men so ignorant of the subject. The hon. Member, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate of that time, declared that the population of the Highlands had not decreased; but, as a matter of fact, according to Census Returns, his statement was quite correct. In Argyll, alone, for example, during the last 50 years they had lost 24,505 persons out of a population of 100,573; and taking the general increase of population throughout Scotland, which amounted to 78 per cent during that period, Argyll had now only 76,000 persons, instead of 150,000, giving a population of 24 to the square mile. The Lord Advocate said if they took Scotland county by county, the Highlands were more thickly populated now than at any period of which they had an authentic record. The figures he (Mr. Macfarlane) had quoted, however, he thought, showed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in making that assertion, was entirely in the wrong; and he (Mr. Macfarlane) now gave them in order to prove the allegation he had then made, and which had been contradicted. "With reference to the Royal Commission, which had, after all, been appointed, and its Report, he might say that he objected at the time of the appointment of the Commission to its constitution. He thought it was not sufficiently repre-
    1606
    sentative of the class into whose grievances it was to inquire. He would say, however, as to the noble Lord the Chairman of that Commission (Lord Napier and Ettrick), that it would be a long time before the people of Scotland would forget the kindly and sympathetic manner in which he had fulfilled his functions as Chairman, and the desire he showed to protect the people from the wrong which had been inflicted upon them. It was impossible to read the Report of the Commission without seeing that the noble Lord was in keen sympathy with the people. He would not refer to the other Members of the Commission, beyond saying that his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) was a friend of the people. As to the Report, he asked the Government to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. The Government would probably plead that they had not the time to introduce a Bill so as to deal with the question; but he would suggest that they might withdraw the London Government Bill, which the citizens of London did not want, and then they would have abundant time. As a citizen of London, he confessed that he could still live without much suffering if that Bill were not proceeded with; but the people to whom he referred were not in a position to wait. This Commission was either to be a substantial protection to the people, or it was not; and if it was not, instead of proving a blessing, it would prove a curse to them. Even now, the people said they were being evicted, because of the evidence which they had given before the Commission. Although this statement was denied by the Duke of Argyll, he (Mr. Macfarlane) believed it nevertheless to be strictly accurate. It was, of course, very difficult to prove that that was the case, because it was hard to see into the motive of the landlord, when he gave notice to the people to quit; but a deep conviction undoubtedly existed in the minds of the people, and he believed it to be a well-founded conviction, that they were being evicted because of the part they had taken in this agitation, and in consequence of the evidence they had given. He had seen a letter which had been addressed to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, on behalf of some of the crofters, written by a lady, showing that it was not the

    1607
    fact, as alleged, that the persons evicted had been evicted for non-payment of rent, and that, in many instances, there had been no arrears of rent due. It was firmly believed that they had been evicted from a feeling of vindictiveness. As a Scotchman, he maintained his right to interfere in this question; and as he had some experience of a similar class in Ireland, he submitted that what was done for them might well be claimed for their fellow-subjects in Scotland. But there were opposite cases; and the lengths to which some landlords were prepared to go was shown by the statement of General Burroughs, who refused to give indemnity to those of his tenants who gave evidence before the Commission. He said the property was his, and if those people were not content and happy, they could go away. That was a glaring example of the extent to which the rights of property could go. People who had been born and bred on the property for generations before the General was heard of, and whose forefathers had lived on it for hundreds of years, were told they could go away. He hoped the Government would act on the recommendations of the Royal Commission and remove the grievances of these poor people. If there was any trouble in store in the Land Question of Scotland—and he thought there would be trouble unless the Government took immediate steps to remedy the grievances—it was due to the abuses of the rights of property. The screw had been turned once or twice too often, and the people were now resisting. He had always urged that the principal cause of distress among the crofters was the curtailment of their holdings; and he would cad the attention of hon. Members to the passages in the Report, in which the Commission distinctly affirmed that proposition, and he could not use stronger words than were used in the Report. The question of the increase of rent, which was another great grievance, was also dealt with by the Commission. In the first place, there was the difficulty of area; and, in the second place, there was the question of the increase of rent, both of which were substantial grievances. The next point to which the Commissioners referred was the waste land appropriated for purposes of sport; and several of the witnesses denounced deer forests as a most
    1608
    demoralizing institution. In following passages they described how, through these causes, the crofters and cottars were driven down to the seashore to practise fishing without any practical knowlege of that occupation, and without either boats or harbours; so that they were not able to make a living. The agitation, in the opinion of the Commissioners, had no chance of subsiding until the fair demands of the crofters had been met. They had been accused of being very unreasonable. Everybody who objected to abuses was accused of being very unreasonable. He was sure that he himself, at least, was a moderate and reasonable person. He was not going to propound any remedies whatever for the state of things depicted in the Highlands by the Royal Commission. Her Majesty's Government had referred this question of the crofters and cottars to the arbitration of a Royal Commission. They named their own arbitrators; and all that he asked the Government to do was to carry out the award that had been given. He did not use stronger language than the Commissioners had done. They had shown that there were intolerable grievances affecting, perhaps, 40,000 families and 200,000 persons. Must the crofters agitate in a violent manner before they obtained anything? Let them not, for Heaven's sake, have a premium put upon violent agitation. That was the inevitable consequence of refusing the demands which were made in a peaceable manner. It was impossible that the intelligent crofter should not contrast his condition with that of the Irish tenant, and ask to what the difference was due —whether it was due to violent agitation in the one case, and to peaceful, quiet, law-abiding habits in the other? The crofter had a right, was absolutely entitled, to claim that, under the same Government and under the same Crown, he should be put in as good a position as his brother tenant in Ireland. But they did not ask even that. They did not ask for an Act like the Irish Act; but they simply asked the Government to fulfil the award of their own arbitrator. If that were refused, they would ask violently, and more violently, until they were put upon the same footing as their Irish brethren. He could not conceive that it could be any objection to the demand that it was made by a Scotch

    1609
    Member for an Irish constituency. The Home Secretary, he believed, was full of compassion for the Highlanders, among whom he had passed a great deal of time. Let him show his sympathy by carrying out the award of the Commission he had himself appointed, and which had been chosen by himself. He would now move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    DR. CAMERON, in seconding the Motion, said, the thanks of the nation were due to all the Commissioners, and especially to Lord Napier and Ettrick, its Chairman. Their Report had been adversely criticized from the landowners' point of view as regarded their interests; and, solely because it had been so criticized, he would say it was equally capable of being criticized from the crofters' point of view. If anyone regarded the Report of the Commission from the crofters' point of view, they would find ample evidence of the landlord element in the constitution of the Commission, and it bore evidence of its having been drawn up by men of the landlord class. Indeed, four of its Members held between them 1–63d part of the land of Scotland and l–20th of the land devoted to deer forests. When the Commissioners said the evidence was influenced by prepossessions, it might be retorted that the Report was similarly influenced, for, to his (Dr. Cameron's) mind, it most unmistakeably evinced the fact that the four Members he had referred to had not overcome their inborn prejudices, their innate sense of justice not being sufficient to enable them to do so. The Commissioners refused to stereotype evils by granting fixity of tenure, but they recognized the evils resulting from so large a proportion of land being devoted to deer forests; they recommended certain restrictions, but they would apply them only to future and not to existing cases. They referred to the delegates evicted after having given evidence before the Commission, expressing their regret if anyone had suffered in consequence. No one could read the Report without being convinced, that had there been an infusion on that Commission of those in the crofter interest, the subject would have been dealt with in very different language. They would, in that case, probably have referred to the evidence of evictions for the posses-
    1610
    sion of a gun or a dog, or for marrying against the wish of the landlord. It was evident to anyone who read the Report of the Commission, that the Commissioners sought to avoid all irritating matters; and the effect of that avoidance had been that the Report was quoted to show that there was no grievance in the Highlands. If anyone, however, wanted to understand the significance of the Report of the Commissioners they must read between the lines. The Commissioners, for example, recommended that official residences should be provided for Sheriffs in the Highlands to render them more independent of landlord influence. What did that mean? He had in his hand the account of an eviction which took place, the subject being a medical man who was medical officer of health for the district, and also medical officer of the prison. He wrote a report to the Board of Supervision on overcrowding in his district, and also with reference to the amount of hospital accommodation; and thereupon he was evicted. He had a practice in the town, but no one was permitted to let him a house. He had to remove his family to a distance, his practice failed, and the man shortly afterwards committed suicide. That was one of the things he read between the lines of the Report. The Commissioners, with respect to the payment of rent, recommended that no tenant should be allowed to take over arrears of rent. In some cases tenants paying £4 a-year were compelled to take over arrears of £12 or £16, and the reason was this — if at any time it became desirable to evict them, they could be evicted, for they were always three or four years in arrears. Another great complaint made was of the damage done by the deer coming down from the forests; and this Commission, largely composed of owners of deer forests, proposed that there should be an inalienable right in every tenant to shoot deer trespassing on their arable lands. The appropriation also by landlords of commons was a fertile source of quarrels; it was at the root of almost every agrarian dispute. Well, in Shetland and Orkney the Commissioners declared that wherever a division of common lands took place, the rights of the people and of the occupiers ought to be respected. Having described the scope of the Commissioners'

    1611
    recommendations, the hon. Member went on to say that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would tell them that he had not time to consider the proposals made on behalf of the crofters with a view to legislation. Well, he (Dr. Cameron) would ask — How many years did he want to consider the subject? Why, the vast majority of the proposals had been before the country again and again for years past. What had been done in the way of giving the Scotch crofters a better security of tenure? A recommendation to that effect was contained in a Report before the House in 1851; or of giving them the advantage of a better technical education, as had been proposed by Sir John M'Neil. They had all heard of Mr. Walker's Report to the Royal Commission on Land of 1880. Well, Mr. Walker recommended that townships should be laid down in eligible sites with long leases? In 1871 there was a Truck Commission, which reported emphatically against truck. The Crofters' Commission recommended that truck labour and truck sale offish should be put an end to. Was that a novelty, and would the right hon. Gentleman deal with that recommendation? And one of the Sub-Commisioners of that Truck Commission not only reported strongly against truck, but, in collecting evidence for that purpose, he was so strongly impressed with the importance of the Land Question, that he said the present insecurity of tenure was inconsistent with a stable relationship of landlord and tenant. He said it might be maintained that, in the present state of agriculture, no tenure so short as one year ought to be permitted. Well, that Report had been before the country for 12 years, and what had been done in respect to it? Another recommendation was that no Procurator Fiscal should be allowed to engage in private practice. So obvious was the advisability of this from a legal and administrative point of view, that the present Home Secretary and Attorney General—when in Opposition—voted in its favour, and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury gave it his support; but when he (Dr. Cameron) brought up the matter the other day, and while the Report was in the hands of the Lord Advocate, the Government turned their backs on the
    1612
    proposal and voted against it. Some of the most important recommendations of the Commission might be carried into effect by a stroke of the pen; they had been repeatedly before the House, and the Government, if the Blue Books regarding Scotch affairs were not treated as so much lumber. Then, as regarded increased grants for Education, the Vice President of the Council and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might settle the matter between them in a very short time. One of the most important recommendations of the Report related to the giving these people instruction, through the medium of teaching the Gaelic language. But that was a recommendation suggested by Sir Joseph Kay-Shuttle worth in 1874, and by the Scotch Education Commission in 1875. Why was it not attended to? There was likewise postal and telegraphic communication to be accelerated. The Commissioners had told them that there was a great fishing industry at Barra; but the fact that it took six days for a letter, and three for a telegram, to reach that point from the mainland was a disgrace to any civilized country. Could not the Postmaster General do something to improve such a state of things? The Commissioners also recommended that training ships should be sent round among the Western Islands, in order to afford the lads there an outlet for serving their country. Would his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty order a training ship to go to those Islands, instead of trying to pick rip boys among the slums of cities? The chief objections to the Report had been taken by the Commissioners who dissented, and others, to that portion of it which related to the creation of townships. It was said that that was a retrograde step, and would have the effect of perpetuating poverty in the Islands. That was not his opinion, nor was it the opinion of Lord Napier and Ettrick, who wanted to bring benefits within the reach of all through the commune. In the words of M. Laveleye, the township or commune was "the organic cell of the social body;" for nothing could replace that powerful bond which attached the individual to his native village and the cultivator to the soil. He would beg Her Majesty's Government to do something to show that they did not mean to shelve the Report of this Commission, If they allowed it

    1613
    to drop, there would result from the appointment of the Commission a great deal more harm than good, because suspicions would be aroused which could not but work immense mischief. Many proprietors had already been stimulated to take steps to decrease the number of their tenants. He was, however, happy to say that a number had acted differently—such, for instance, as the hon. Member for Caithness (Sir John Sinclair) and the Duke of Sutherland, who had made liberal proposals with that view. They had said—"This Report shows a bad state of things, and we will have it remedied." But that was not the case with others who had taken action in the Courts. If the Government could not introduce legislative measures that year, let them do something in the way of the administrative reforms which he had shown could be effected by a stroke of the pen. The present state of opinion in Scotland was favourable to action. The people of Scotland were long-suffering; but they were pertinacious, and they were thoroughly aroused on this subject. The Government might dislike this question. He quite understood that it might give rise to Party difficulties; but it appeared to him that a good deal too much was sacrificed to Party interests in that House. The matter was not one that could be allowed to sleep. At present, he believed, the people of Scotland were prepared to accept this Report; but, if they were denied this Report, they would fall back upon the evidence, and their demands would probably be much more radical. At the present moment, as compared to what it would be in the future, the. question was—
    "As a little fire quickly trodden out,
    Which, being suffered, rivers will not
    quench."
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners upon the condition of the Crofters and Cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland demands the immediate attention of the Government, with the view to giving legislative and administrative effect to its recommendations,"—(Mr. Macfarlane,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. D. CAMERONsaid, he should not think it right to vote against the Resolution of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane). But whether he should support the hon. Member or not would depend upon whether he thought it worth while to alter the terms of his Resolution in order to secure that support, seeing that he recommended legislation in a direction contrary to what he (Mr. D. Cameron), for his part, thought desirable. Before he could vote for the Resolution it would be necessary to add words to show that it would apply only to that portion of the Report which had been unanimously signed. He (Mr. D. Cameron) doubted whether the time for raising the question was either opportune or wise. Last year the question was forced on the attention of Parliament; for there were, unhappily, many manifestations of irritation and of lawlessness, which formed the subject of general comment. But, besides, there was an unusually bad harvest, which produced discontent. The result was that the subject was brought before Parliament, and he believed it to be the duty of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the causes which produced this state of things. That Commission was appointed, held a number of meetings, and, after unusually protracted sittings, they at last issued a Report, which was now the subject of discussion. He supposed it would be considered unlikely, if not impossible, for any Government, in so short a period as had elapsed since the presentation of the Report, to be prepared with any legislative proposals on the subject. He therefore thought that this debate partook more of the nature of an academic discussion than of a practical legislative character. He had still greater doubts as to the wisdom, of the course now pursued. Once a debate was started in that House, it was not always easy to foresee the result; and he could easily understand that there were others who might wish to take part in this debate—Representatives of large burghs, and who might fully sympathize with the crofters, but who yet felt that they had amongst their constituents persons equally steeped in poverty; and if these great advantages were to be bestowed upon the crofters, their constituents might ask a share. Therefore, if the object of the hon. Members supporting the Resolu-

    1615
    tion was to propose legislation in favour of the crofters, they might well consider whether they did good by discussing the question at the present moment. If the Government had been left alone, it would have been almost impossible, having themselves recommended the appointment of a Commission, to allow the question to be shelved. He conceived it would be their duty, and he believed it would be their duty, now or early next Session, to undertake some legislation. Referring to the speeches which had just been made, he felt no reason to blame their tone. He considered, on the whole, that they were moderate, and they contained nothing which he could object to; but he was bound to say that the hon. Member for Carlow, in his quotations, hardly did justice to the Report, as representing the views of the Commissioners in regard to deer forests. If he had continued the quotation, the House would see that the Report declared "that not only landowners but the whole community benefited by the system." The hon. Gentleman also talked as if the present race of landlords were the oppressors of the people; but he (Mr. D. Cameron) defied anyone to find a single word in the lie-port which justified that assertion. It was notorious that the complaint of the crofters were not made against the present landlords, but landlords of 60, 70, or 80 years ago, who dispossessed them of the lands which they thought they ought now to be allowed to reoccupy. Another point which he thought had not been established, although frequently asserted, was, that those who had given evidence before the Commission, had been, in many cases, evicted in consequence. That statement had been denied; but the truth of the matter might easily be ascertained by inquiring whether the names of the evicted crofters corresponded with the names of any of the witnesses. He should like to say a word to those who objected to the Report on different grounds, and, among others, that it was very little less than a thinly-veiled Communism. Those objections were directed against three portions of the Report of the Commission — 1, the constitution of the townships; 2, the compulsory 30 years' leases; and, 3, the large demands proposed to be made on the Public Exchequer. With regard to the first of those points, he held himself entirely free from
    1616
    all responsibility. Hon. Members would see that he protested in a Memorandum, which had been added to the Report, against this recommendation of the Commissioners as to townships, on the ground of injustice, and as by no means advantageous to the crofters. From that Memorandum he had nothing whatever to retract. If there was one thing more than another which the crofters demanded, it was more land; and it was clear they could not profitably occupy more land unless they had the means to stock it. That was the key to the whole position, and the recommendations of the Commission on that point he looked upon as by far the most important portion in the Report. How did the Commissioners propose to deal with the matter? In their Report they stated that they were not without hope that occupiers of townships, partly from their own resources, and partly with the assistance of their friends, would be able to stock the land. But he must say that if they had resources, this question would never have arisen. Another recommendation was aid from friends. Well, he knew that during the last 30 years, many of the inhabitants of his own district had emigrated to New Zealand and Australia, and they were in the habit of sending money home as a gift, not as a loan, to their friends. It could not be supposed, however, that those friends, who had gone abroad, and had their own way to make, would send, say, £100, home on loan, without any security, to a corporate body called a township. Another mode the Commissioners referred to, for stocking those townships, was the multiplication of stock by the process of natural increase; but he was afraid, in the West Highlands, nature was not so kind as farther South, and that the noble Lord the Chairman of the Commission (Lord Napier and Ettrick) must have taken his idea as to the prolific character of the stock in the Highlands from the prolific nature of the people. In many parts of the West Highlands cows did not calve more than once in two years; and they considered that if every 20 ewes had 12 or 14 lambs, and they only lost 20 or 25 per cent in the first winter they were tolerably well off. There was not much room, therefore, for multiplication of stock. He believed that if the recommendation of the Report as to town-

    1617
    ships were made law to-morrow not a single new township would be created in the Islands—from the Butt of Lewis to Barra Head. With regard to the compulsory 30 years' lease, he ventured to say that was a practical proposal, and for that reason he was a warm supporter of it. He did not say that there were not portions of land favourably situated that might not be profitably occupied by the crofters; but what the Commission recommended was, that the high land and the low land should be taken together, and that the "tit bits" should not only be taken, while the unprofitable land was left. Speaking as a landlord, he did not see how, under proper restriction, there could be any objection to granting a lease to ail industrious tenant; or, even in fixing the rent, if it were fixed according to the custom of the district. He held, on the contrary, that it would form ail element of strength to the land; and he believed, also, it would add to the value of the estate. With regard to the third part, which recommended the expenditure of a large sum of public money, he, as a Member of the Commission, had signed that part of the Report with considerable hesitation; but he thought they made the best recommendation they could. He hardly saw how they could avoid something of the kind. They were instructed to report on the condition of the crofters, and they found that condition iii most places exceedingly bad, and the cause was undoubtedly poverty; therefore, they had to try and find a remedy for that poverty. Of course, if they were to be helped out of that poverty, it was necessary that they should recommend assistance which should be of a comprehensive character. The Commission had not the power to make those grants. It was the Government and Parliament which made these large grants; and it would be for Parliament to decide the order in which these matters should be dealt with. He was glad that the Resolution which had been submitted affirmed the principle that no Land Bill would be satisfactory to the crofters in the Highlands which was not accompanied by some administrative remedies. He would like to indicate his own idea of what would constitute a fair solution of the difficulty, and what they had a right to expect from the House of Commons. He admitted that,
    1618
    when he began his labours, he thought the difficulties were so stupendous that he and his Colleagues would be unable to find any remedy. But, at the same time, he felt they had to do their best to find some solution, and they would have been unworthy of the confidence of Her Majesty if they had not brought forward some proposal. The first and most important point to be dealt with was the erection of harbours and piers for fishermen; and he saw no reason why the Government should not appoint some Scientific Commission to report on the harbours and piers which might be constructed for the benefit of fishermen. It would not be necessary that the money should be found all at once; but he thought Parliament was bound to set aside a certain sum of money every year—not, perhaps, a large sum—in order to assist the fishermen, and to instil in them some confidence that their case had not altogether been neglected. He also thought some means should be devised to remedy the grievance connected with the heavy education rate, which pressed very hardly on the people of the Highlands. Then he thought provision should be made—and this would not be costly—to promote voluntary emigration, so as to relieve the congestion of the population in certain parts where it had been ascertained that, if the whole land were divided amongst the people, there would not be enough to support them. He also thought that assistance might be given by loans, taking the security of the landlord, to enable the crofter to settle on and stock the land now occupied as sheep farms or deer forests. And, lastly, there was the proposal, to which he had already alluded, to make it compulsory on the landlord to give 30 years' leases, with full compensation at the end for improvements. If approved by the Government and sanctioned by Parliament, these proposals would he believed be accepted gratefully by the crofters and their well-wishers. If they asked more they would likely run the risk of losing all. If the House of Commons should see fit to give effect to some such proposals, a spirit of contentment would be aroused the importance of which could scarcely be over-estimated, and the present irritation and despondency would give way to a feeling likely to produce among the crofters oblivion of the past and hopefulness for the future.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) had rendered good service to the House in bringing the subject before it. He (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) would press the Government to indicate what they intended to do with regard to the recommendations of the Commission, as it was absolutely necessary that the Government should make a declaration that they would do something. He had no hesitation in saying, from his own personal knowledge of the Highlands, and from what he saw in the course of the investigations of the Commission, that the country would not be satisfied unless the Government took very decided action in the matter. With regard to the question of townships, two other Commissioners and himself were very clear upon the point; and the Chairman (Lord Napier and Ettrick), who had not hitherto been familiar with the subject, had come to the distinct conclusion that the recognition, expansion, and adoption of the township in the Highlands was the only way in which they could immediately benefit the people of the Highlands and the Islands; and in that view he entirely concurred. With the extended franchise which was to be conferred upon them, he had no doubt that the townships of the crofters would form most valuable centres of political intelligence. He should, therefore, be very sorry to see the townships suppressed. Another point to which he wished to refer was the deer forests. He had very unwillingly, and with great hesitation, signed the Report upon that subject in deference to the opinions of his Colleagues, and only in order to have a unanimous Report. What was the state of the Highlands with regard to deer forests? He believed that the acreage of Scotland altogether was some 18,000,000 or 19,000,000, and it had been stated that about 2,000,000 of those 18,000,000 were at present under deer forests, which had been created within the last 50 years. Now, that was bad enough; but it was not the whole truth, because those 2,000,000 of acres were almost entirely in the Northern half of the country beyond the Grampians; so that, in reality, they must take those 2,000,000 of acres out of, not 18,000,000, but about 10,000,000 of acres. Thus, in reality, so far as the Highlands were concerned, the deer forests extended to
    1620
    about one-fifth of the country. In consequence of the demand for sport, these forests were now so closely shut up, that they were of no use whatever for any purpose but sport. It could not, however, be supposed that they could allow the system to go on; and that was a subject that the Government must take up immediately. It was with the very greatest hesitation, as he had said, that he put his name to a Report which did not interfere to some extent with the existing forests; but, in regard to future forests, it was high time that Government interfered. He had lately seen an advertisement announcing that a farm of 20,000 acres was to be sold on the West Coast of Scotland; and, as an inducement to purchasers, it was stated that there were no tenants or crofters on the land. That he called a shameful advertisement. The first wish of a purchaser of a large tract of land ought to be that it was inhabited by contented and prosperous people. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department knew that the people of the Highlands were a quiet and peaceful people; but it was very often found that people of those characteristics were, wken roused, very difficult to deal with. Their grievances were entirely social, differing from the case of Ireland, where separatist views were largely held; while the Highlanders, on the other hand, were among the most loyal people in Her Majesty's Dominions. He did not ask the Government to state what they were going to do, but that they would say that they would do something; and he trusted that they would, without delay, take some action in accordance with the recommendations in the Commissioners' Report.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that the last speaker (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) appeared to wish that the House should form the opinion that the landlords in the North of Scotland had sacrificed the interests of the population for the mere luxurious possession of a sporting ground. He could not agree with the hon. Member in that opinion. To his mind, the land was devoted to that purpose for which it was best fitted; and, when natural products were devoted to the purposes to which they were best suited, the interests of those who were concerned in working those products were best served. Hon. Members talked as

    1621
    if those who possessed deer forests used the land for a purely selfish purpose. But the land was used for the manufacture of sport, which was a better business, if he might so express himself, for the population concerned in it, than any other trade now carried on in the Highlands. He asserted, from his own experience, that the classes who were concerned in the manufacture of sport, arising out of the deer forests, got better wages, were better housed, and were better off in every respect, than the classes who were concerned in sheep farming and other agricultural pursuits in other districts of the Highlands. Great prosperity was found in the neighbourhood of deer forests. It might be said that these forests were capital things for the population who remained upon them, but bad things for the people who were cleared from the land. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; but it was not to make deer forests, but to make sheep farms, that the great clearances in the Highlands had been made. What was the real evil from which the crofters in parts of the Highlands were suffering? It was poverty; and the crofters were poor because the country was treated in a very niggardly manner by nature, and because parts of it were exceptionally and unduly crowded. He thought the Commissioners had not carried on their investigations in accordance with the dictates of common sense. What the Commissioners, in his opinion, ought to hare done, was to have gone and coin-pared those parts of the Highlands where the crofters and peasantry were prosperous, with those parts where the population was far from prosperous; and, if they had done so, they might have arrived at some conclusions as to the conditions which went to produce prosperity. There was a district of the Highlands, with which he was acquainted, that could compare favourably with any other part of the United Kingdom; and the reason was not far to seek, for the population was about half what it was 60 or 70 years ago. Before that reduction in the population, this district was in a state of poverty. Now, there was no part of the United Kingdom where the peasants were more independent, or more prosperous. [An hon. MEMBER: Where is it?] A part of Ross-shire. He would give any hon. Member the details. That being so, in regard to one
    1622
    part of the Highlands, was it not natural to suppose that over-population was the cause of the misery and poverty of other parts? If that were so, how was this extraordinary proposal for establishing communal property likely to diminish it? The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had quoted an article in which he said M. de Laveleye had recommended the establishment of village communities in England. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) did not recollect that article; but he was very confident that so good an economist would not commit himself to any such proposal.
    DR. CAMERON: He deals with what is referred to by the Commissioners.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; but the question was whether he had really grasped the question. No writer who was a competent authority, and who was acquainted with Indian, Russian, and other communes, would recommend that anything like the old system of common property should be restored.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: No, no; communal government.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the recommendations of the Commission went beyond that, and meant the restoration of the system of common property. To adopt any such scheme would be a retrograde, and not a progressive, measure. What, in his opinion, they ought to do, was to aim at diminishing the population, and bringing about some balance between the soil and the population the soil had to support. When they had done that, he, for his part, should gladly accept such subsidiary recommendations as had been made by his hon. Friend (Mr. D. Cameron); but until they had done that, until they had discovered the effects of the Highland climate and the Highland soil, and until they had diminished the population in the manner which had been suggested, he believed by adopting recommendations such as those of the Commissioners' Report, they might perpetuate and render permanent the evils which they all deplored, but they would never do anything materially to diminish them.
    LORD COLIN CAMPBELLsaid, that no one who retained a recollection of certain platform orations could fail to be struck by the sober and earnest tone of some of the speeches delivered in the course of the debate, or venture, without some fear and trembling, to con-

    1623
    tinue the discussion lest, in view of the solemn warnings of hon. Members, he should have to invoke police protection on leaving that House. There were few spectacles more sublime than that of an hon. Member, who was notoriously wooing a Scotch constituency, enveloping himself in the folds of philanthropy, and posing as the champion of a downtrodden people. He could assure the hon. Member that he did not intend to yield one jot to him in the matter of regard he had so suddenly developed for the crofters, not only in the county he (Lord Colin Campbell) represented, but in the Highlands of the North and West of Scotland; but he did wish to express the hope that the House would not be led by the Report of the Royal Commission to sanction what he was sure would result in hasty and ill-considered legislation upon this subject. That Report was a very bulky document, and it was founded upon some 3,900 pages of evidence, and it was perfectly monstrous and absurd to ask Parliament, within three months of the issue of the Report of the Commission, to sanction every single re-commendation contained in it. The hon. Member for Carlow was, no doubt, quite within his right in raising a discussion on this subject; but he (Lord Colin Campbell) objected to the terms of the Motion, which asked them to give immediate effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners. He did not for a moment question that the hon. Member for Carlow had mastered all the contents of that volume, for nothing was too large or too small for his brain. But he should have considerately borne in mind that there were some brains less capacious, some appetites less insatiable, some digestions that were unequal to work of this kind. The hon. Member ought to rest satisfied with having been the first to bring the question before the House — an honour for which, within the last few years, there had been a pleasant rivalry between him and the hon. Members for Inverness (Mr. Fraser-Macintosh) and Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). The hon. Member had complained of the composition of the Commission. But if the name of the hon. Member for Carlow had been substituted for that of the hon. Member for Inverness, he had a strong suspicion that the hon. Member for Car-
    1624
    low would not have brought this matter forward, and they would have heard no complaint as to the constitution of the Commission. He had been among the first to urge on the Government the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission; and he must say he did so mainly because he thought it most impolitic to allow the people of Scotland, or any part of them who believed they were labouring under grievances, to drift into Hibernian methods of agitation. ["Oh, oh!"] He had never had much hope that anything could result from it, because he could not see that, with the exception of the introduction of the Irish Land Act, there were any conditions essentially different from those which obtained when Sir John M'Neill made his Report to the Board of Supervision in 1852. Now, what had been the result of this Royal Commission? Whatever might be said as to its recommendations, it had undoubtedly astonished and puzzled the country. It was a Report which was full of inconsistencies and anomalies requiring much attention and sifting. So grave, indeed, were these inconsistencies and anomalies, as well as some of the recommendations, that there were some grounds for the suspicion that the Report was never intended to be taken seriously by Parliament. He believed the truth to be that the six Gentlemen who composed the Commission were not able to agree upon the main recommendations which were urged upon them by the noble Chairman, and that the Report was really a compromise between their varying and discordant views. A very able pamphlet had been circulated, written, he believed, by the Professor of Political Economy at Edinburgh, in which some of these inconsistencies and anomalies were exposed. He did not wish to go at length into the question; but he wished to enter his protest against the extraordinary doctrine of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), who spoke of the recommendations of a Royal Commission as if they were the "award" of an arbitrator, and called upon Parliament immediately to give them effect. That was a doctrine which would place Royal Commissioners above Parliament. The hon. Member for Carlow had not given the House any proof that persons had been evicted for giving evidence.

    1625
    With regard to that portion of his speech which dealt with, the subject of depopulation, the fact was, that the hon. Member omitted to notice that the decrease in the population of rural Scotland to which he had referred was not confined to the Highlands, but was general all over the country; and the Royal Commissioners themselves repudiated the idea that it was due to evictions. The hon. Member had not brought before the House a single atom of proof; but had merely told them what was his belief, and had asked the Government to take action in consequence of that. The Commissioners, however, had themselves said that many of the allegations of oppression and suffering with which the pages of that Report were loaded would not bear searching analysis. The most important recommendation of the Commission was that relating to the township system, and yet it was supported only by four out of the six Members. He believed the introduction of the township system would be a retrograde movement, and would end in the very system which was in vogue at the time when Sir John M'Neill conducted his inquiry in the Highlands, and which was contemporaneous with that great famine in the Highlands that called for the utmost exertions of public and private charity. One of the recommendations of the Commission was that Parliament should provide funds for making fishermen's harbours. He must say he hoped the Government would see their way to take steps in that direction; but he could not forget that, while Parliament was advised to take this step, a Committee, presided over by the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), was still sitting on that question, and it was extremely doubtful whether its recommendations would tally with those of the Royal Commission. That, he thought, was in itself one reason why the Government was justified in waiting. He agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow that there were recommendations which deserved the attention of the Government; but most of them referred to questions which came under the cognizance of Departments, and might be left to the Heads of those Departments. He found it impossible to vote for the Motion, because he wished to leave the
    1626
    entire question to the mature consideration of the Government.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have listened with great interest and attention to this debate, and I think that no one can fail to have been struck with the extremely earnest tone that has been, adopted by most of the hon. Members who have spoken, whatever may be their differences of opinion upon the subject. I cannot help referring to the speech of my hon. Friend opposite the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. D. Cameron). There was one part of that speech which I am sure we all heard with regret, and that was the announcement that he will shortly cease to be a Member of the House. A more wise or more temperate speech, or one which could do more credit to the sympathies of the hon. Gentleman's heart, it would be impossible to conceive. Well, Sir, I also listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) who introduced this Motion, and to the speeches of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) and others who have spoken to-night. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) deplored the fact that I am not a Scotchman, and he expressed a great deal of sympathy with me on that account. But I have endeavoured to repair the defect of nature in that respect as much as possible, and I venture to say that there are a great many Scotchmen who have not seen or known as much of the populations of the West Islands as I have. My hon. Friend the Member for the borough of Inverness (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) has been good enough to allude to some remarks I made on the subject when I had the honour of receiving the freedom of the great City of Glasgow. At all events, there is no one in this House, or out of it, who has a more entire appreciation of the qualities of these populations or a greater desire to remove the grievances and the sufferings which they at present endure than I have. My hon. Friend (Mr. Macfarlane) who introduced this subject began with some reference to the test of population. Now, I have long and carefully examined that question, and I am quite sure that you cannot safely rely upon the increase or decrease of population as a test or guide in this matter. You will find some places which have decreased in

    1627
    population, but whose prosperity is unquestionable; and you will find other places which, have increased in population, but which are in a very miserable condition. Let us take the county of Argyll, which has been referred to by previous speakers. If we take up the statistics in reference to the population of Scotland, we are at once struck by the decrease which has taken place during the last 40 years in. the population of Argyllshire. It would be an entire mistake to say that a part of that decrease has not been due to eviction. No doubt, a small part of the decrease is duo to eviction; but what has been the great cause of the diminution? Why the enormous increase in the neighbouring City of Glasgow. The prospect of higher wages has induced large numbers to leave the counties of (Scotland for the large towns. Everybody who knows anything of the rural history of England knows that the great distresses which existed in counties like Dorset, Somerset, and Wilts, were due to the fact that the manufacturing industries which formerly existed there had emigrated to the North. Scotland has suffered from misfortunes of the same character. One industry in Scotland has now disappeared, and in many places great misery has been left behind. The manufacture of kelp in the Western Hebrides supported and encouraged a largo population which, when the manufacture disappeared, had no other means of subsistence. Unless, therefore, we bear all these facts in mind we shall be misled by mere statistics of population. Generally speaking, it is said that the increase of population is a proof of the prosperity of the place in which it takes place. That is not always the casa. In the Island of Skye there has been a certain decrease of population; but in the neighbouring Island of Lewis there has been an immense increase of population. Is it true that the increase of population in Lewis has been contemporaneous with, or caused by, the prosperity of the Island? One of the few counties in Scotland in which the population has diminished is the county of Kinross, which is represented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. No one will say that because Kinross has diminished in population it is less prosperous. I find there is an increase of population in the Orkneys; but I am
    1628
    certainly not of opinion, though I do not know the Orkneys very well, that that is due to an increase of prosperity. Neither will I say that I believe the decrease of population in Perthshire is a test of decreasing prosperity in that county. I only refer to these matters in order to show how careful we must be in applying the test of population.
    MR. MACFARLANE: I only referred to the decrease of population in some counties with the view of substantiating the statement I made two years ago, and which has been denied, and not for the purpose of proving prosperity or otherwise.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not desire to misrepresent the hon. Member; but I know that in discussions on this subject population is very often taken as a capital test, whereas, in reality, it is no test at all. Now, Sir, I beg the hon. Member to believe, and I ask the House to believe, that the Government are not insensible of the great and pressing importance of this question. The very appointment of this Commission is proof of that. That the Government do consider the Report of the Commission a very important circumstance in the case I beg to assure hon. Gentlemen; but I observe that it is from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Eraser-Mackintosh) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. D. Cameron) that the most moderate and prudent counsels as to the manner of dealing with the Report have been heard. Now, Sir, with reference to this Report. Everybody is aware of the difficulties surrounding the large questions with which the Report of the Commission deals. The subject-matter of the Report is divided into three classes. First of all, there is the question of the tenure of land, and everybody knows that that in itself is a most difficult question; secondly, there are certain financial proposals — proposals which involve the expenditure of large sums of money, and which, therefore, require to be looked at from many points of view; and, thirdly, there are certain administrative proposals upon which I shall have something to say, I hope not unsatisfactory, in answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and in regard to which the task of the Government is not so difficult, as the matter of administration

    1629
    comes more within the scope of the action of the Government than any of the other matters. Now, first of all, let me speak upon the question of the tenure of the land. I cannot admit the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) and the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), that the Report of the Royal Commission is like the finding of an arbitrator—a thing which the Government had nothing to do but to execute. That, certainly, is not in accordance with the Order of Reference. The Reference given to the Commission was that—
    "Whereas we have deemed it expedient that a Commission should forthwith issue to inquire into the condition of the Crofters and Cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and all matters affecting the same, or relating thereto."
    That is a view of a Royal Commission which has never yet been taken; indeed, if such a view did prevail, the Government would do extremely wrong in ever appointing a Royal Commission at all, because by so doing they would altogether destroy the responsibility of the Executive, and shift it to the shoulders of other people. Now, as regards the question of the tenure of land, I am not at this moment going to express any opinion. In my judgment, it would be extremely wrong for the Government to express loose opinions either for or against upon a question of such immense importance, unless they were able to legislate at once—unless they were prepared at once, on their responsibility, to introduce a measure upon the subject. Individual Members might do so; but it would be inconsistent with the duty of the Government to make loose statements upon a question of so important a character. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) has suggested that we should sacrifice the London Government Bill, and thus afford an opportunity of dealing with this vexed question. Even if we were to abandon that Bill, I am by no means sure that we should be able to settle this great Scotch Land Question in what now remains of the present Session. Now, with reference to the immediate urgency of this matter. I do not deny there is a part of the matter concerning a portion of the population which, is extremely urgent; but I see with satisfaction that the Commissioners say—
    1630
    "On the whole, we cannot entertain a, doubt that the small occupiers of the Highlands and islands hare participated in no small degree in the benefits which modern legislation and commerce, and the prevalence of philanthropic principles in government and individual action, have conferred on other classes of their countrymen. We remain under the impression that while in the whole community there was a larger proportionate number of persons living in rude comfort in former times, there was also a larger number in a condition of precarious indigence. The average amount of moral and material welfare is as great now as at any previous period, and the poorest class were never so well protected against the extremities of human suffering."
    That is the finding of the Commissioners upon the general condition of the small occupiers in the Highlands. And then, Sir, when I come to the recommendations of the Commissioners in respect to the alteration of the Land Law, I am struck very much by the fact that it is admitted by the Commissioners themselves that the recommendation with reference to the communal holdings, which is deserving of examination, does not touch or deal with the condition of the poorest class who most largely demand our sympathy. The Commissioners say—
    "It may be objected to the scheme which has been proposed, that the protection and encouragement afforded to the higher class of crofters above the level of-the £6 line are withheld from those of an inferior condition, forming, in most localities, we regret to say, the vast majority, and who may need such safeguards equally or more. This must be admitted. The poorest sort are here endowed with no formal security against eviction or excessive rents. The inequality of treatment is manifest, and may appear unjust. If we allow it, we do so not from a want of sympathy for the class excluded—we accept an evil to avoid a greater evil still."
    Now, what is the greater evil to which the Commissioners refer? Why—
    "To invest the most humble and helpless class of agricultural tenants with immunities and rights which ought to go hand in hand with the expansive improvement of the dwelling and the soil, would tend to fix them in a condition from which they ought to be resolutely, though gently, withdrawn. These people ought either to pass as crofters to new holdings of a higher value, or take their position among the cottars as labourers, mechanics, or fishermen, with a cottage and an allotment, or migrate to other seats of labour here, or emigrate to other countries."
    It is quite plain, therefore, that in this respect there is a great grievance, and we have to consider how far we can deal with one class of people upon the prin-

    1631
    ciple of fixing them on the soil, and deal with another class who most require consideration on the principle which would resolutely, though gently, withdraw them from the soil. Now, we have had, as we always do have, a very able speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour); but I am bound to say I entirely dissent from his views on the subject of deer forests. That deer forests have been carried a good deal too far, is an opinion I have held for a long time; and I cannot agree with the view the hon. Gentleman has expressed on that subject. It is quite true that diminution in the population of Scotland was originally due to the formation of large sheep farms. I never walk in a Highland strath without seeing the ruin which has been caused by sheep farming during the last half-century. I am very sorry that the black cattle, which in the old days were found perfectly consistent with the exercise of moderate sport, have disappeared. In the old forests—not the creations of modern times—the deer were fewer, but they were bigger. Better sport was not to be had than was to be found in the ancient deer forests; indeed, people were satisfied to walk a whole day to get a shot at a big buck. It is not inconsistent with sport that the black cattle should be on the hills; but if people are determined to have deer forests very much under circumstances which would exist if there were preserves of pheasants in the suburbs of London, the conditions are totally changed, and the population must necessarily be removed. I believe that one of the causes which have led to the distress which we all desire to allay—one of the causes which have led to the discontent we all desire to relieve—has been the undue extension of deer forests in Scotland. There are other recommendations which are very important, no doubt—namely, the financial proposals of which my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. D. Cameron) spoke. The hon. Gentleman said—"We went to the West Highlands, and we found that one of the great causes of the misery of the population was poverty." That is a great cause of misery everywhere; but when you have proposals to relieve misery and poverty out of the public purse, you have to look into the matter very carefully. Such
    1632
    relief cannot be confined to one part of the country, or to one class of the population. When, in order to relieve misery and poverty, you propose to take money out of the pockets of people who are just as poor as those to whom it is to be given, the House will at once see the difficulties which beset the use of money in this way. After all, public charity is like private charity; and, unless it is administered with discretion, it will tend far more to pauperize than enrich. Therefore, when you come to Parliament with a large proposal for a financial grant, which is to be levied on all parts of the country—England, Scotland, and Ireland—for particular purposes, that, I say, is a matter which must be extremely carefully considered before a responsible Government could assent to such a demand. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) to say that, in his opinion, relief ought to be given in respect of the education rate. The hon. Gentleman said—"You compel these people to receive education, and at the same time call upon them to pay an education rate." But that is an argument which cannot be confined to the Islands of Scotland. [Dr. CAMERON: Excessive rate.] Well, but there is a large number of people in England who complain of the excessive education rate. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: It is 5s. or 6s. in the pound.] I am not going into details. All I want the House to do is to look at the nature and magnitude of the financial proposals, because then they will see how carefully the proposals ought to be considered before a final conclusion regarding them is arrived at. My hon. Friend also referred to harbours. Again, I think that is a matter deserving of most careful consideration; indeed, it is now being considered. I think the East Coast of Scotland has as much claim as the West Coast, because, although the West Coast has claims, it is better furnished with natural harbours than any part of the world I know. One of the great attractions in yachting on that coast is, at least to me, that you cannot go five miles without finding a capital harbour somewhere, which nature has given to the coast. You may knock about the English Channel all night and not be able to get into harbour; but on the West Coast of Scotland you may drop your anchor

    1633
    almost anywhere and feel as safe as if you were in dock. All these claims upon the Public Exchequer have to be looked into and well considered before the Government can take action in regard to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) referred to another matter—namely, postal and telegraphic communication. I may say that long before I joined the Government I was constantly persecuting the Postal and Treasury authorities with demands as to the improvement of postal and telegraphic communication in the Highlands of Scotland; and I am not sure I should not receive some censure from the First Lord of the Treasury if he only knew the number of telegraphic stations which I have been more or less instrumental in procuring in the Highlands. I am informed that the Department has taken administrative action with the view of meeting the complaints which had been made on this head. Well, then as regards the sending of a ship of war to these coasts. [Dr. CAMERON: Training ship.] Of course, I cannot answer for the Admiralty; but it seems to me that what the hon. Member (Dr. Cameron) suggests is not at all unreasonable. I think that a great Naval Power like England should avail itself of every opportunity of making its forces available for civil purposes in times of peace. Then the hon. Member says he wants a light ship at Stone Ferry. So do I. When I was with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) the other day on the Trinity Lighthouse ship, I said to him—"It is quite patent there is a want of beacons in the entrance to Stone Ferry." I do not understand why more has not been done in that direction. These are all the chief points to which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) referred, and I am not at issue with him on any one of them. The Government do not approach this subject in any other than the most sympathetic and friendly spirit; but I hope I have shown that it would be quite impossible for them to embrace in its entirety the Motion of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane). Because, what does he do? He endeavours to pledge the House of Commons, many of whom cannot have carefully studied the He-port, by an absolute Motion to the adoption of the recommendations of the Committee. That the Government should
    1634
    give immediate attention to the Report I entirely agree, and they have given immediate attention, to it. I have studied this Report as carefully as it is possible to do, and I am satisfied that the Government cannot assent in terms so absolute to give legislative and administrative effect to all the recommendations it contains. If, however, the hon. Member (Mr. Macfarlane) means that the Government are only to do so much as they reasonably can I entirely agree with him. The Government are perfectly alive to the urgent importance of the question; we are attending to it and are anxious to give effect, at the earliest possible moment, to such recommendations of the Committee as we think will be found to be practical, useful, and advantageous.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought the House generally was inclined to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; and he trusted that the Government would next Session bring in a Bill, giving effect to the views of the Members of the Government responsible for these administrative reforms. There was one point that the Government should have regard to—namely, the excessive amount levied in school rates in some parishes of the Highlands. He had hoped that the Home Secretary would have given some attention to this point. Then there was an administrative reform, of some importance to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not alluded, and that was with regard to the administration of justice. On that point the Commissioners reported very strongly indeed; in fact, their recommendations went much further than anything he desired to urge on the House. They recommended that the Sheriffs should be placed in a position of complete independence. The recommendation to which he invited special attention was that Procurators Fiscal, who were so closely identified with the administration of the law, should be prevented from carrying on any private work or business from which they derived profit other than their official legal business. In a Question he had put to the Lord Advocate he had called attention to the fact that the Procurator Fiscal in the Island of Lewis, which belonged solely to one proprietor, was also the law agent of that proprietor. This was against the principle which was laid down a good

    1635
    many years ago by the then Sheriff of the county, who declared the functions of factor, or land agent, to the proprietor and Procurator Fiscal to be altogether incompatible, and not such as should be performed by one person at the same time. It was very discouraging to the Scotch Members and the people of the Western Islands to hear the Lord Advocate defend the existing system; for the right hon. and learned Gentleman had declared, in answer to his (Mr. Barclay's) Question, that he did did not see any impropriety in the law agent of the proprietor of the Island of Lewis acting also as Procurator Fiscal for the Crown. There were grave allegations against the administration of justice by the Procurator Fiscal. The Lord Advocate had been induced to make inquiries; but, presumably, he had made them of the Procurator Fiscal himself. The accounts he (Mr. Barclay) had received from independent sources were very different from the statement of the Lord Advocate; and he would urge on the Home Secretary—for he presumed he, in theory, was still the Minister for Scotland—the necessity of his interposing in this matter, and of exercising the authority of Secretary of State in such a manner as would assure the people of the Western Islands that they should have someone amongst them representing the Crown who would deal with them impartially and see that justice was impartially administered. At the present time it was not easy for these simple people to know whether the law agent was acting on behalf of the Crown or of the proprietor; and it was very easy to see, under such circumstances, that the people of the Islands had great reason to be dissatisfied with the administration of the law. They were at a loss to know whether it was the proprietor or the Crown who was acting oppressively against them. There was great reason now to apprehend very serious difficulties in the Islands. The people had been waiting a long time, and had become somewhat impatient, to see what was going to come out of the Report of the Royal Commissioners, on which they built very great hopes — far greater hopes, he was afraid, than were likely to be justified. When they saw the result of this debate, and understood that very little could be done by the Go-
    1636
    vernment—he was not blaming the Government; but, in the nature of things, that would be the case—they would be very disappointed. The Government, he held, were responsible for seeing that the representatives of the Crown were placed in a position to deal fairly between the landlords on the one hand, and the crofters on the other—to deal with them in such an impartial manner as could not be expected from a person holding, at the same time, the positions of prosecutor for the Crown and law agent for the proprietor. That was the point he wished to urge on Her Majesty's Government. There could be no doubt that great dissatisfaction existed in the Western Islands as to the administration of justice there. Somewhere about 10 years ago, it was alleged that disaffection existed owing to the action of the factor of the proprietor, who held also the post of Procurator Fiscal. The Sheriff of that time satisfied himself, by inquiry, that the action of the gentleman in question showed that the post of Procurator Fiscal and the duty of factor to the proprietor were inconsistent, and he caused him to hand in his resignation. The course taken by the Sheriff fully justified the Commissioners in their Report, and fully justified him (Mr. Barclay) in urging on the Government the necessity of doing something to render satisfactory the administration of justice in the Western Islands, and to satisfy the people that they had in the service of the Crown one who would act towards them fairly and justly in the administration of the law.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he would not trouble the House with the remarks he had intended to make on the subject, although it was a subject of great importance, because he believed that at so late an hour the discussion ought to cease. He would only make one observation as to going to a Division. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) proposed to take a Division. He (Mr. Bryce) confessed that, looking at the whole position of the debate, and at what had been said by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with such fulness and precision, with regard to the different recommendations contained in the Report of the Commission, he doubted whether much would be

    1637
    gained by going to a Division. He would suggest to the hon. Member that it would be as well to rest content for the moment with the assurances of the Home Secretary. He trusted they might depend on what had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the Government taking action as soon as possible on the points he referred to, and also on the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, the importance of which was very great. Everyone who read the Report must feel that there was considerable danger of oppression, and that it was actually practised, particularly in remote parts of the Islands. There were difficult financial and legal questions with regard to the constitution of the township communities, the establishment of which the Commissioners had suggested, questions which required to be well weighed before legislation could be undertaken. It might be taken, however, that the Government were so far awake to the importance of the matter that they would probably announce and bring in next Session a measure dealing with it. Meanwhile, he hoped that no further time would be lost in effecting those administrative reforms to which the Report pointed. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Macfarlane) shared the favourable impression which had been made in most quarters by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations, it would not be necessary to divide.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he did not agree with a great deal which had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He did not think that to hold up deer forests to such an amount of abuse and opprobrium was at all warranted by the facts. What was the recommendation of the Commissioners as to the deer forests? Why, that provision should be made for protecting the crofters against any diminution of the arable or pasture area now in their possession. He believed those words would be endorsed by nearly every Member of the House. What was the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He gave them a terrible account of the depopulation of the Highland glens—of the many houses which were to be seen in ruins and without inhabitants. But the history of
    1638
    these ruined places was not such as the right hon. and learned Gentleman supposed; and the cases referred to, he (Mr. Marjoribanks) was prepared to argue, were special ones. The Report of the Commissioners did not support the gloomy view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; and he thought it would be far better for the House to abide by the Report of the Commission as to the question of deer forests, rather than enter into sentimental denunciations. As to the question of harbours, he would express the hope that the Government would be cautious before they entered on any very great system of giving grants for the construction of harbours or piers on the Western Coast of Scotland. He was inclined to think that grants of public money were only justified in cases where some distinct life-saving purpose was to be effected. It was very doubtful whether, for the purpose of developing any trade or fishery, the Government should make free grants. There might be cases when it was very proper to grant loans at low rates of interest; but he doubted whether they were cases where free grants should be made.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that after the statement of the Secretary of State for the Home Department he did not wish to put the House to the trouble of a Division. He would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had not derived as much satisfaction from, the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary as some hon. Members seemed to have done. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had replied with great sympathy, but had not told them that he hoped to do anything, nor could he say that other Departments of the State would do anything. It might not yet be possible to settle an exact plan; but the Government should have informed the House that they intended to take action whether they agreed with the Report of the Commissioners or not. The Report of the Commissioners showed a state of things which imperatively demanded that action should be taken by the Government. Every page of the Report teemed with evidence to the effect that there had been extreme depopulation in many parts of the Highlands, and overcrowding in others.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Representation of the People* (159); Licensing Act (1872) Amendment* (160); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 4)* (161); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 7) * (162); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4)* (163); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) * (164); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8)*(165); Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 14)*, (166); Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 15) * (167); Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order* (168); Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment* (169).
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (Highways)* (141); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (132); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 11)* (156); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 12)* (142); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 13)* (143); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) * (136); Tramways Provisional Orders* (150); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) * (151); Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings (Scotland) Provisional Order* (148); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2) * (149); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders* (137); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 2) * (138); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 5) * (139); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 6)* (140); Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) * (144); Newcastle Chapter (130).
Committee—Benefices (Tiverton Portions) Consolidation Amendment* (154).
Committee—Report—National Debt (Conversion of Stock)* (145).
Report—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (127).
Third Reading—Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (128); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (126); Fisheries (Ireland) * (77); School, &c. Buildings (Ireland) * (129), and passed.
Withdrawn — Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland)* (146).

PUBLIC HEALTH—OUTBREAK OF CHOLERA AT TOULON, FRANCE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in rising to ask a Question of which he had given private Notice—namely, Whether the Government had any information to impart in regard to the outbreak and spread of cholera in the South of France? said, he wished very much to impress upon the Government that there were certain things they were enabled to do; and particularly the necessity that they should take measures of precaution. An Act was passed last year, which gave very extensive powers to the authorities for the prevention of diseases; and he had no doubt that Her Majesty's Government intended to put those powers into force. But, if he remembered rightly, the Act was only in continuance for one year, and it expired in September next. It was, therefore, important that it should he renewed; and he would like to know, not that he had any great doubt about it, whether it was intended to renew it? The second point which he wished to draw the attention of the Government to was the importance of urging upon local authorities to take measures, such as the use of disinfectants, and other means that might be considered desirable, for the prevention of the disease. He also wished, lastly, to put it to the Government as to whether it was their intention to send out some qualified medical man, in the nature of a Commissioner, to inquire into and report upon the exact character of the disease, about which there seemed to be a good deal of difference of opinion. It was desirable, at all events, to know whether the disease was Asiatic cholera, or whether it was a disease due to local causes.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have to state, in reply to the first part of the Question of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon), that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ask your Lordships to renew the Act of last year to which he has referred, and which expires, as he says, in September next. In reply to the second part, I have to state that great precautions have been taken by the Government in the shape of orders and instructions issued to sanitary authorities. Under those regulations, an officer of the

  1517
  Customs may detain a vessel on its arrival in England, if he suspects it to be infected with cholera. He must give notice of the detention to the sanitary authority of the place of detention, who must thereupon cause the ship to be visited and examined by their medical officer of health or some other medical man. Moreover, without any action on the part of the Customs officer, the medical officer of health may visit and examine any ship which he has reason to believe is infected with cholera, or has come from a place infected with cholera. If, after his examination, the medical officer of health certifies that the ship is infected, no one can leave it until he has been examined by the medical officer of health; and, should he be found to be suffering from cholera, he must be sent to an hospital. Doubtful cases may be detained on board, or at an hospital, until it is ascertained whether the disease is cholera. Provision is also made in the regulations for the disinfection of articles on the ship. As regards the question whether a Government official should be sent to Toulon to report on the outbreak of cholera there, the Local Government Board think that at present there is a want of evidence to show that it is more than an outbreak of severe and excessive diarrhœa engendered by the insanitary conditions of the place. That, so far, is satisfactory. Moreover, it is stated that Drs. Brouardel and Proust have been commissioned by the French Government to make inquiry as to the disease and the measures which are taken to prevent its spread. It may be anticipated that the Report of these gentlemen will contain the information required. In these circumstances, it appears premature at present for the Board to determine whether they should recommend the Treasury to incur the expense of sending an Inspector to make special inquiries.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he was much obliged for the answer of the noble Lord; but he must express his great disappointment at the concluding observation—that the Local Government Board did not think fit to send out a Commissioner to inquire into it on the ground of the expense. He protested against any such conclusion as unworthy; and as the outbreak was, apparently, a very serious matter, he hoped the Go-
  1518
  vernment, or, at any rate, the Local Government Board, would give it their earnest consideration.
  LORD CARRINGTONsaid, that he would bring the recommendation of the noble Earl under the attention of the President of the Local Government Board.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL—DEBATE OF TUESDAY, JUNE 24.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he must ask permission to be allowed to make a personal explanation. Last Tuesday, when the House was considering the Bill for the Protection of Young Girls, he stated that the noble and learned Earl on the Front Bench (Earl Cairns) had no right to contend that the House was bound by the compromise arrived at by the Select Committee fixing the age of consent at 16; because he himself, on one occasion, voted in favour of an Amendment proposed in Committee by the noble Lord (Lord Mount Temple), to raise the age of consent from 16 to 17. He (the Earl of Milltown) was then contradicted by the noble and learned Earl; but he found, on reference to Hansard, that the noble and learned Earl did last year, when the Bill was then before the House, support that Amendment both by speech and vote, and that the Amendment was also supported by two other Members of the Select Committee, the Bishop of London and Lord Norton, making, with the Mover, no less than four Members of the Committee who had thrown the compromise to the winds.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he had, on Tuesday last, understood the noble Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Milltown) to refer to the Committee stage of the Bill in this, the present, Session; and he pointed out that when the noble Lord (Lord Mount Temple) proposed an Amendment to raise the age to 17 years, he (Earl Cairns) recommended its withdrawal, on the ground that the age of 16 had been fixed as a compromise, and should be accepted. The noble Earl was, however, quite correct in stating that when, last Session, the same noble Lord brought forward an Amendment with the same object, he (Earl Cairns) did support it.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACTS—OVER-PRESSURE IN BOARD SCHOOLS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to direct attention to the Elementary Education Acts of 1870 and 1876, as now enforced by the Education Department of the Privy Council, with special reference to over-pressure in schools under Government inspection; and to the increasing burdens imposed upon ratepayers for the maintenance of board schools; also, to bring under the notice of the House the present position of voluntary schools, said, that, while he asked their Lordships to recall to their recollection the circumstances which attended the passing of the Act of 1870, he wished it to be understood that he was not objecting to the principle of the Act, but only to the manner in which it was put in operation by the Education Department. In their Report the Commissioners appointed in 1861 to inquire into the state of Elementary Education stated that satisfactory progress had been made, and that the number of children in schools had increased from 500,000 to 2,500,000; and there was no expression of opinion in the Report as to the want of school boards, or to the want of a higher Standard in elementary education. He thought that that Report showed that there was no great demand for the system introduced under the Education Acts. The Act of 1870, as worked by the Education Department, was oppressive, in that it required a larger amount of work, and, consequently, caused a large amount of pressure to be put not only upon the scholars, but also upon the teachers, which pressure affected the children and the teachers both in mind and in body. He would not detain their Lordships by quoting from many of the numerous Reports which had recently appeared from great medical authorities on the subject of over-pressure in elementary schools; and he had no doubt their Lordships were aware that Dr. Crichton Browne had reported, and that very ably, on the subject at the request of Mr. Mundella. It was, he thought, much to be regretted that the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council (Lord Carlingford) had not put the House in possession of that very able Report; but, happily, they
  1520
  had the words of Dr. Crichton Browne himself, in a letter which appeared in The Times of the 16th of June, in which he said that his Report contained strong evidence that over-pressure existed in. elementary schools. The Education Department might have had their own reasons for not making the Report public; but when Dr. Crichton Browne said he was requested by Mr. Mundella to visit some schools, and to report to him as to any defects he might discover in the present system, he (Earl De La Warr) was at a loss to understand how it could be said that that Report "in no proper sense originated with the Education Department." Speaking of the increase of headaches among children, Dr. Crichton Browne said—
  "Headaches in children used to be rare, and were regarded as almost always importing organic disease of the brain; but they are now of daily occurrence."
  He further stated—
  "By far the largest mortality from this disease (hydrocephalus) is among infants under five years of age, in whom education has not begun; but it is a significant fact, to which attention has not hitherto been directed, that during the last 10 years, when education has been so much extended, an enormous and disproportionate increase has taken place in the number of deaths ascribed to it in the education and post-education periods."
  Numerous instances were reported of failing sight in consequence of overwork; and what was said with reference to scholars applied in a hardly less degree to teachers also, especially pupil teachers. Dr. Pridgin Teale, President of the Health Department at Leeds, said—
  "The nation can hardly realize what is the life of these pupil teachers. Apprenticed to their calling at the age of 13 or 14, they spend five and a-half hours a-day in the fatiguing work of drilling little children in their lessons, and in trying to maintain their attention."
  Besides the overwhelming testimony of medical men to the ill-effects of overwork upon scholars and teachers, similar evidence was given by managers of schools, masters, and others. He would refer to one or two cases only among many. One writer said—
  "Most of us are suffering from the strain put upon us by the amount of work demanded by the New Code."
  Another master wrote—
  "As things are going on at present this high pressure will be the cause of infinite mischief to teachers and scholars, not, perhaps, now, but in a

  1521
  few years. My opinion is, that over-pressure must continue as long as the Department continues to hold out money prizes for the host-crammed children."
  A master in Manchester said—
  "I believe the health generally of teachers and scholars to he seriously affected; the eyesight of our scholars is palpably suffering, and I do not believe the mental condition to he nearly as good as it was."
  The cause of the evils here alluded to was not the Act itself, but the manner in which it was enforced by the Education Department. The requirements were too great, and they were year by year increasing. Nearly every Standard in Schedule I. of the present Code showed increased requirements when, compared with the Code of 1881. Before the introduction of the New Code, the full class subjects grant was paid, if 50 per cent of the scholars passed; whereas it was now required that 75 per cent should pass. There was another change in the last Code, which was important as affecting over-pressure—namely, that every child whose name had been on the books for 22 weeks must be presented for examination. In the former Code it was required that a child should have attended at least 250 times before being presented for examination. Were they to go on, year by year, increasing the difficulties which children and masters had to encounter? They must remember that the Education Act of 1870, under which the Education Department exercised their authority, was an Act "to provide for elementary education in England and Wales." But that appeared to be lost sight of by the Department, for what did they find in the Code of Regulations recently issued? Education was offered for almost any purpose or profession. It was true there were, first, elementary subjects—reading, writing, arithmetic, and needlework; but there followed what were called class-subjects, and what were they? They found among these subjects singing, English, geography, all of which were good things. Then they came to elementary science and history. Then followed what were called "specific subjects"—algebra, Euclid, mensuration, mechanics, chemistry, physics, animal physiology, botany, and principles of agriculture; including also Latin, French, and domestic economy. He asked whether that could be called elementary educa-
  1522
  tion? Why should these subjects be taught at the expense of compulsory rates? He should really be glad to know in what sense schools which taught these subjects could be considered elementary schools? He did not say that there should be no such schools; but he held that schools which existed under an Act of Parliament intended to promote elementary education, and which were in a great measure supported by compulsory rates, and were intended for the poorer classes, ought not to be giving an education fit only for secondary schools, and involving an expenditure far above what was required for primary schools. Now, in order to attain to the higher Standards, not only in elementary subjects, but also in what were called class and specific subjects, more work was necessary both for teachers and scholars, and over-pressure was the result. The Act of Parliament, as he had said, was not so much to blame. It was the Education Department, who put on the pressure, either through Codes of Regulations or by means of Inspectors. Every individual child had to pass an examination by an Inspector, before a grant of money could be made for that child; and, in fact, the payments to the school depended entirely upon the results of examination. Their Lordships would easily see what the consequence must be. The masters, the managers, and the ratepayers, in the case of a board school, were all interested in the children gaining as high a percentage of marks as possible, in order that the school might obtain the highest Government grant. It was, therefore, no secret that children were frequently kept over-hours at work, when the day of examination was approaching, in order that they might pass well. This was the evil at the bottom of the whole system. It was the making Government grants in aid of schools dependent upon the results of individual examination—in other words, the holding out of money prizes for the best-crammed children. What had been well described as the "epidemic of examinations which has overrun the country" had laid its hand upon the Education Department. Before leaving this part of the subject, he must ask their Lordships to notice one other cause of pressure. When once children had been placed in a certain Standard, they must every year be raised

  1523
  to the next Standard, without any reference to capacity or ability. It did not follow that a child who could do an addition sum could be brought without difficulty to do a rule-of-three sum. But, somehow or other, the child must be brought to do the rule-of-three sum, or the school would lose some of the Government grant; and pressure must therefore be applied in some way or another. There was one more fertile source of pressure—the practice of giving lessons to be done after the hours of school. It was not an absolute requirement; but, owing to the mode in which money grants were made, it became almost a necessity. Happily, however, it had recently been decided in the Court of Queen's Bench that home lessons could not be enforced. He passed on now to another point, the sources from which a large portion of the elementary schools were maintained. There was, first, the grant of the public money, which, as he understood, was, for the coming year, over £3,000,000. That was a very large sum; and, as it seemed to him in many respects, very lavishly expended. Then there was a large sum raised by rates for board schools—upwards of £1,500,000, and a considerable sum for voluntary schools. Many of their Lordships doubtless knew that the school rates were becoming a very heavy burden to ratepayers. When the Education Act enforcing them was passed, a rate of 3d. in the pound was the amount generally named; but now the rate exceeded, in most places, double that sum, and oven more. In London be was informed it was 8d. or 9d., and was expected to be still higher. He held in his hand a statement, which he believed to be correct, that in 189 places the School Board rate was 1s. and upwards; in 214 from 9d to 1s.; in 519 from 6d. to 9d.: and in 610 from 3d. to 6d. That was the natural consequence of the expensive system carried on and encouraged by the Education Department—expensive buildings, high salaries, which were a necessity for the class of teaching now given, and many other costly items, which we were told in 12 years had raised the sum expended by the London School Board to about £12,000,000. It might be said that the ratepayers were doing it themselves. That was true to some extent, and, no -doubt, they had themselves to blame;
  1524
  but the fault rested not wholly with them. The Education Department applied a stimulus through Inspectors, and by offering large grants of public money. He ventured to urge that an elementary school, which was in a great measure supported by rates, should confine itself to elementary subjects. If more was wanted, let there be schools of another class which were not supported by compulsory rates. There was one other matter which he could not pass over without notice. It was that of the large number of infants brought into public elementary schools under the regulations of the Education Department. It was not a little startling to hear a statement made a short time ago by Mr. Mundella that there were 400,000 children between the ages of three and five years in elementary schools; and though it appeared in the Education Act of 1876 that "a child means a child between the ages of five and 14 years," yet the Education Department encouraged the attendance of children who could scarcely speak or walk, and, what was more, threw upon the ratepayers, aided by grants of public money, the burden of providing teachers and accommodation for them in schools which were, in fact, nurseries and not schools. There was no country in Europe where the children were taken into primary schools before the age of six. He had in his hand a statement from the chief manager of a large school numbering 1,235 children, in which there were 146 infants under the age of five years. It was added—
  "Every infant, oven the youngest, is liable to be examined, if the Inspector chooses to do so. … Those under five have not been hitherto examined; but we are required to present every child for examination between the ages of five and seven."
  He would refer now, for a moment, to the position of voluntary schools. He need hardly remind their Lordships that there was a considerable number of persons in this country who had a conscientious objection to schools where religious instruction was not given, or given only in a very limited and indefinite manner; and that was not confined to one class of persons only; it was found to a great extent in all classes, and not the least in the poorer class. He might adopt the words of the Royal Commission to which he had before referred—

  1525
  "That it is placed beyond all doubt that the great body of the population are determined that religion and education must be closely connected."
  The semblance of religion in board schools did not satisfy the desire for Christian instruction. The proof of that lay in the fact of there being such a large number of voluntary schools. Now, he thought it clear that the development of the present system of board schools was not the legitimate result of the Education Act of 1870, which was not intended to supplant voluntary schools, but rather to supplement them. The action, however, of the Education Department tended to suppress them. Encouragement was given to pro-occupy districts with school boards, offering special advantages of a higher education, which voluntary schools could not afford; and he believed that prizes and scholarships were sometimes offered in board schools, while voluntary schools were excluded from this advantage. He was at a loss to know why the Education Department should make it their aim to encourage the board school to the detriment of the voluntary school, unless it was for the reason that distinct religious teaching was given in the one, while in the other, if any at all was given, it was of a decidedly negative character. And what was the result? Parents who desired to have their children educated as Christian children could not do so where there was only a board school, and that applied to a large number of persons in this country. It applied not only to members of the Church of England, but, in like manner, to Roman Catholics, to the numerous body of Wesleyans, and to all who believed that religious instruction was an essential part of education. And thus the school-board system was unjust in its present operation, inasmuch as those who, from conscientious motives, could not send their children to board schools, were, nevertheless, compelled to pay rates in support of them, while they were, at the same time, maintaining voluntary schools. Was there no way of meeting that difficulty? Surely, some consideration should be shown to those who were supporting efficient schools, and yet were compelled to pay rates for board schools. It was a matter which deserved the consideration of the Education Department, whether exemption from the payment of rates, or some
  1526
  other mode of relief, could not be granted to those who were maintaining voluntary schools carried on under the rules of the Education Department, and where the children passed well through the examinations of Her Majesty's Inspectors.
  LORD NORTON, in rising to call special attention to the effects of paying for education by grants on results, said, that the system was at the root of all the complaints which had been made with regard to over-pressure in connection with national education in this country. Provision for the education of all young children, under all circumstances, by a fixed scale of payment oil specific results of teaching was not only absurd in itself, but a unique idea which had occurred to no other country but England, and one which could stand the test of neither reason nor experience. It was, in his opinion, high time it was reconsidered. Mr. Mundella's test of its success, in moving the Education Estimates a few days ago, was that one-sixth of the population had been brought under the system. The Vice President's argument only proved, however, that the limits as to the age and class of children to be educated at the public expense, which Parliament had laid down, had been largely exceeded. One-sixth of the population must include all children of every class within school age. The right hon. Gentleman said also, in speaking of the expenditure, he omitted the local and voluntary contributions and the many binds of schools for poor children which came under the Estimates of other Departments; so that the sum of £3,000,000, which he asked the House to vote, was not half the amount of the public money expended on the education of children. The principle of payment by results was first started in the Revised Code of 1862. It was recommended, in order that good proof might be obtained of teachers doing their duty, and for the purpose of securing to the taxpayers a quid pro quo for their money. A general inspection of the recognized schools was thought too vague, and the individual examination of every child by minute and identical regulations was substituted. There was no higher authority upon this subject than the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter). In a recent letter the right rev. Prelate pointed out that when he was engaged

  1527
  in a very special inspection of schools before the Revised Code was brought out, he thought he found great negligence of grounding in the teaching, so that children in the top classes, pretending to advanced things, often did not understand the very elements of the subjects in which they were supposed to have been so highly educated. Other children were found leaving the school from the lower classes, not having risen at all. The right rev. Prelate was of opinion that payment by results had mitigated these evils. But he qualified his approval of the system most materially, by confessing that it had been drawn too tight, and that schools had suffered and were suffering from it. The right rev. Prelate stated that the Code compelled all scholars to learn at the same pace—an evenness of progress which was simply impossible; and, although he allowed that Mr. Mundella had been relaxing the system, he had not gone far enough. The right rev. Prelate further said that he constantly saw schools dislocated by an attempt to keep to the Standards. The sum of all this he (Lord Norton) took to be that though payment by results might have diminished from negligence, it was a Procrustean method, too rigid for a system which required for any realization of its object—that of training all sorts of children's faculties and characters—freedom to the teacher, adaptation to every case and circumstance, and independence of resources to carry on the entire work. Mr. Mundella informed some complainants that over-pressure was not the fault of the Code, but of its administration. "Be content," said he, "with small grants, and there need be no over-pressure." But as long as the income of a school is made up of grants on exhibited samples of work, the school will exert itself to the utmost to earn grants. Earning had become the usual phrase for the school administration and the test of educational success. Every fresh edition of the Code was appreciated by the amount of grants that might be earned by it. Teachers were valued by their earnings. Children were cared for in proportion to their grant-earning capacity. School-books were advertised as calculated to earn the Code grants. National education had become degraded to a lottery of Government prizes. The point for
  1528
  which he contended was, however, being gradually conceded; but the system was so slow in its process of reform, that he feared it would leave permanent injury to National education behind it. In recent editions of the Code, the "merit grant," and payment on average attendance, were steps towards the more rational system of all other countries. However, the Revised Instructions to Inspectors, just circulated, admitted almost the whole of his argument. These minute Instructions were the climax of official complication. They carried precision down to the description of large hand, as writing three-eighths of an inch in height. If this system were to be continued, and such minute directions laid down, they might supersede personal inspection by some mechanical invention. He would specify some of the terms of the Revised Instructions. Examinations were to be by samples of classes, and not of all children individually. Again, as to "class subjects," Inspectors were simply to say whether a grant should be made in them or not. "Specific subjects" were said to be intended for a few only, and therefore only to be attempted in the larger schools. This was an admission that the 4th Schedule was absurd in village schools, and that rigid Standards were altogether absurd for all schools alike. The leading journal, with its instinct of the tendency of opinion, observed on these instructions that—
  "The bold abandonment of individual examination on certain subjects, as now distinctly avowed, cannot fail both to save the Inspector's time, and to relieve the burden that weighs heavily on some children's minds,"
  —in other words, they would relieve over-pressure. The Times also found in the limit put on specific subjects—
  "A plain discouragement of pretentious pursuits of higher subjects."
  In these admissions, he found confirmation of his repeated representations. What system of school-support, then, should take the place of abandoned payment on results? They could not do better than follow the terms of the new Government Instructions. The Inspectors should be experts, capable of going frequently and unexpectedly into schools, as the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) did, and examining samples of classes, noticing the mutual bearing of the children and the teachers, to report

  1529
  simply whether each school was fit to continue on the recognized list for public payment or not. After due warning, a badly-reported school would cease to be recognized until efficiency became restored. This would terminate the fraud of educating by way of making "earnings;" the teachers would have fixed incomes with prizes for extra good service; and they would be free to exercise each their special talents in the best care and training of every child. They would cease making their pupils only a means to increase a precarious income. The further fraud of underhand attempts to stretch elementary education over higher science would lose both its incentive and its means, and pretentious pursuits would not occupy the place of elementary instruction. School Boards were obliged to have their own Inspectors, who reported, not in got-up results, but on the general features of education. One of them had just expressed an opinion that the fixed annual examinations are a fatal mistake. In one of his Reports, Mr. Matthew Arnold had said that—
  "A decline of intellectual life was distinctly due to the mechanical mode of examination introduced by the Revised Code."
  It was not jealousy of popular education that suggested these misgivings; but, on the contrary, it was a desire to save the people from the falsehood of an educational system which mistook a cram of scraps of evanescent knowledge for training the faculty of acquiring knowledge usefully.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in asking the Lord President of the Council, Whether he will sanction grants to schools belonging to school boards which are evading the law, as recently declared by the Law Courts respecting compulsory home lessons, by compelling by regulation the attendance of children beyond the statutory hours of attendance at school? said, that he should not have been surprised if the noble Lord the Lord President had objected to his Question, as implying that he would usurp that dispensing power, the claim to which had been one of the principal causes of James II. losing his Throne, but that the Lord President and the Education Office were constantly straining the law. Last Session the Lord President maintained the legality of home lessons; and the Education Office
  1530
  was now, as at Staines, enforcing the spending of the ratepayers' money for children of the age of from 3 to 5, although the Act of 1870 only gave authority over children of from 5 to 13, and they had no right to provide Kindergärtens at the public expense. Since the legal discussion against home lessons, the Keighley and the Bradford School Boards had increased the hours of attendance in school; but the Bradford School Board had thought better of it, and decided to comply with the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. The tide of over-pressure was rising, and now children and teachers were no longer the only victims to it, for to-day the newspapers had announced the unfortunate death of an assistant School Inspector, owing to overwork.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, that as the noble Lord opposite (Lord Norton) had referred to a letter of his, he should like to make a few observations on the question before the House. The noble Lord thought that payment by results had had a bad effect upon the schools, and that it was likely to have a still worse effect as time went on. He (the Bishop of Exeter) could only say, as far as his experience went, that it had seemed to him, and it still seemed to him, that the plan of payment by results very greatly improved schools. It greatly improved schools in two important particulars. In the first place, before the introduction of payment by results, there was, in a great many cases, a neglect of the more stupid boys. Very little pains were taken with those boys; because the master found that, taking the school altogether and presenting it to the Inspector for examination, the labour he had to spend in working up those duller children never brought him credit, and, consequently, never affected his personal interest very largely. In the second place, there was a tendency to neglect the lower classes; because the Inspectors generally confined their judgment of the school to what they saw of the upper classes. The system of payment by results produced two things—it led the master to see, as far as possible, that every boy, even the dullest, should be taught reading, writing, and arithmetic; and, in the second place, it compelled the master to look to the younger children, because these children were compelled to be individually examined quite as much

  1531
  as the children more favourably situated. A great change had come over the condition of schools in consequents of this system of examination, and in consequence of the method in use of payment by results. The system, however, required very careful watching. If they put a man under the system of payment by piece-work, instead of payment by day-work, there was a tendency to sacrifice the man to the work. The end of the matter was they made the man a mere grinder at one class of work; while, in the meanwhile, he himself was seriously hurt as a man, because he was confined in his scope, and his whole mind was made mechanical. If they made the master grind at one class of things, and nothing else, there was a tendency to make his mind mechanical. In the long run, he unfitted himself for the work he had to do, and that was the objection to the mode of payment by results. It had to be carefully watched; but he thought they were very far from, the time when it would either be wise or safe to give up the system. There was another thing in the Code which required careful modification, and that was the rigidity of the Standards. If he were a schoolmaster, he should be perpetually fretting against the rules by which the promotion of boys from Standard to Standard was regulated. The master had to satisfy the Inspector that he had made the right promotion; but he (the Bishop of Exeter) maintained that the master ought to have the organization of the school and the promotion of the boys in his own hands. He admitted, however, that a great deal had been done in relaxation of this rigidity, and he was not at all inclined to complain that the Code had done mischief on that score. He thought, however, its working should be carefully watched. With regard to over-pressure, of which a great deal had been recently heard, he was afraid that there was some overpressure; but he did not very well see how it could be avoided. But few children suffered from it, the chief sufferers being the pupil teachers and the masters. In making these remarks, however, he, at the same time, confessed that he thought the present system was working very well, and that all that was wanted was that the authorities should be kept alive to the necessity of making constant improvements. He could not fol-
  1532
  low the noble Lord opposite in saying that payment by results ought to be given up as a principle. Of two things he felt sure. It would be a mistake to give up the system of individual examination. He advocated a closer and more thorough inspection; because he was of opinion that mere watching of a school was not sufficient for a thorough and reliable carrying out of the Act.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that, two years ago, he had said that the school system in England was in great danger of producing injurious effects on the rising generation. That he was not mistaken in the matter was proved by the fact that the complaints that had been made with regard to over-pressure appeared to be well-founded. He could not doubt that the over-pressure of children was very general, and still more general among pupil teachers, who were drawn from the wage-earning class to a far larger extent than he would wish to see. A distinguished physiologist had given him a reason for its telling with peculiar severity on children of the wage-class. The same wonderful transmission of hereditary faculties, natural or acquired, which made the pointer puppy to point and the retriever puppy to retrieve almost spontaneously, enabled the children of those who for generations had had the advantage of high culture to master abstract reasoning, such as involved in the study of grammar or algebra, with far more facility and at a much earlier age. And yet grammar was inflicted upon the poor children in our elementary schools at a very early age. He greatly rejoiced at the two recent decisions of the Judges; the one declaring that a schoolmaster had no legal authority to impose home-lessons, which were a grievous hardship to children in the thousands of cases where the whole family had only one room to work in, eat in, and sleep in, but which were in many other cases reasonable and desirable; and the other that the necessities of the child's family were a reasonable cause for its absence from school. He could not agree with his noble Friend opposite (Lord Norton) as to the evil of payment by results, and he was confirmed by the opinion of the right rev. Prelate; but he thought that grants should only be given for really elementary subjects. He was not at all opposed to poor children of extra-

  1533
  ordinary and exceptional industry and ability being enabled to prosecute higher studies; but that should be done by means of scholarships to higher schools. It was not desirable that every school all over the country should be capable of teaching children up to the VIth and VIIth Standards, for this entailed a great share of the master's time and attention being devoted to the two or three clever children in his school. If a middle-class parent wanted his child, of no exceptional ability, to learn Latin and algebra, and so forth, why should he not pay for it? Why were the ratepayers and taxpayers of the country to go out of their way to provide education in these subjects for those who could well afford its cost? As a student of, and believer in, political economy, he believed that they ought to adhere more strictly in the matter of education to the general principle that a fair price was to be paid for the article, and that they ought not to help a man to obtain advantages which he could perfectly pay for, but rely instead upon the simple principle of supply and demand.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he rose for the purpose of calling their Lordships' attention to the case of Hay-field School, in Derbyshire, which was not of itself important, but was only material, because it threw a light on the course which the Education Department were at present pursuing, and because it indicated the danger to which the Department was exposing itself. The case of Hayfield, which had been sent to him by the vicar of the parish, signed by some 50 or 60 of the inhabitants, was, he was sorry to say, the old and ordinary case of a small country parish of 2,800 inhabitants, which had been somewhat harshly and oppressively dealt with by the Department. There was a question as to the sufficiency of the school accommodation, the Inspector deciding that more was required, and the inhabitants proposed to make an addition by building an Infant School, attached to the National School; but in consequence of the owner of the proposed site being abroad, the conveyance could not be completed, and the Education Department took the opportunity of enforcing a school board on the parish, which, he thought, was very sharp practice. He dared say the Department had statutory powers to do that; but it was a practice
  1534
  which was likely to lead to ill effects. According to the proportion of school accommodation to the inhabitants, accommodation, was required in this parish for something under 500, and the National School and the Wesleyan School together had accommodation for 596; yet, in spite of that, the Education Department inisisted that a rate should be levied, and that additional school buildings should be raised. Of course, the inhabitants indignantly protested against the rate to be levied. These cases might seem a small matter, but were only large when often repeated, and they involved a large Constitutional question, as showing the spirit in which the Act was administered. It bore out what appeared to be the doctrine of the Education Department—that any contrivance or interpretation of the Act, however narrow and pedantic, and however harsh, was permissible, if the result would be to diminish the number of the Voluntary Schools and force the adoption of the School Boards. The leaning was always in that direction. He thought that was a very unfortunate tendency. He looked upon the Act of 1870, not as a thing that any of them liked in every respect, though they had all supported it. He himself had supported it; but it was a compromise between violently different opinions on the subject of education. He felt certain at the time that that compromise would not succeed, unless it was worked in the spirit in which it was originally introduced and recommended. This new spirit which was coming over the Education Department, this fanatical attachment to school boards; this contempt for the feelings of small parishes; this attempt to fasten school boards upon them—all these things discredited the Education Act. To his mind, the Education Department was being invaded by a policy of extremes; they were seized with a desire to push everything too far. On religious questions, voluntary schools were being squeezed out in order that school boards might be thrust in. They knew there had been constant pressure on the rates, resulting in great discontent at their continual increase, and that considerable invasion had had to be made on the rights of parents to secure education for their children; but if that was to be done without great discontent, it must be done with great

  1535
  judgment and moderation. Then there was the question of pressure upon the children, as to which his noble Friend who had spoken on the subject (Earl De La Warr) had shown the danger had greatly increased in recent years. No doubt, they could not get children to learn without exercising a certain amount of force, and a certain amount of risk must be run; but it was evident that the danger was increasing. It was not that children's brains had grown softer, or that the subjects taught were harder than they were; but it was a fact that very many more now suffered from over-pressure than formerly. In this matter, the same fanatical spirit, regardless of all moderation, had got hold of the educational machine. It was also seen in the system of payment by result. In the early days, he thought that that system was worked with moderation and care by the Department. Now, however, there was a general feeling that it was being worked too hard; while the spirit of the Inspectors and the Department was in favour of a too severe pressure. Unless great care and moderation was shown, it was to be feared that, in this respect, great injury would be done. There was another question which was more important still, and of which he thought the Education Department had not heard the end, and that was the question of expense. There, again, an utter want of moderation had been shown. The rates had been pushed up higher and higher, in order to build magnificent buildings, to pay gigantic salaries; and in order to introduce the teaching of subjects which were never dreamt of when the Act itself was before the House. One excuse after another was being made by those who had the control of education; but the rates were rising higher and higher; and this was the important thing he wanted the Government to consider—that discontent was also rising higher and higher. A very well-known Liberal Peer had assured a friend of his (the Marquess of Salisbury) in the Northern counties the other day that if a man wished to contest the county, if he would only throw away all political principles to the winds, and declare himself neither Whig nor Tory, but would simply declare himself utterly opposed to education, he would carry the seat for the county. He suspected that the noble Lord who said so
  1536
  was not very far out; and he feared that if the Education Department did not sufficiently reflect on the number of enemies with which their cause had to contend, as long as they acted with sagacity and moderation, and did not allow the fanatical and pedantic theories of some of their friends to press them too far, so long, he believed, little would be said, and they would be strong enough to maintain the compromise of 1870, and to push forward the great enterprise which that compromise contemplated. Their enemies were not dead. They were sleeping, and the sleep was being unfortunately disturbed. There was more discontent among the parents, the farmers, and employers of labour at the way in which children, were withdrawn from employment than formerly; there was also more and more discontent amongst the ratepayers, on account of the large sums extracted from them and expended by school boards; and also amongst the religious Bodies, who looked with more and more jealousy at the apparent object and desire of the Education Department to thrust religious education out of the schools; and parents were more and more resenting interference with their rights. If the education authorities allowed themselves to swim further with the current which now appeared to be carrying them away, he feared that the expenditure incurred at present would become much greater, and that a result would come about which both sides of the House would equally regret, which was that the present progress of the system of education, which, on the whole, worked well, would be seriously injured.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had asked the Education Department to think of the enemies with which it might have to contend. He could assure the noble Marquess that the Department did think of its possible enemies, among whom he feared, from the speech they had just heard, that the noble Marquess himself must be counted.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, no.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): Certainly, the tone of the speech of the noble Marquess might make them think so. The noble

  1537
  Marquess had evolved almost every word of that speech out of the recesses of his own mind, a dangerous process, which might do with matters of opinion, but would not do with matters of fact. If he had studied the facts of the question, the acts of the Education Department, and the changes of the Codes, it would be impossible for him to have expressed some of the views he had stated. The line he had taken up was that the present authorities of the Department were a fanatical set of people, who were driving everything too hard in all directions in favour of board schools, against religious education, and in favour of ultra-education altogether. But whatever the merits or demerits of the Department might be, the truth was, that such had not been the course taken by the Department during the existence of the present Government, nor had it been the effect of the recent changes in the Code; and, therefore, these charges could not fairly be brought against it. The Codes, us recently revised, instead of pushing the system of results to excess and of increasing any tendency to over-pressure, had acted in a precisely opposite direction. Although the Department adhered to the principle of payment by results, which it believed to be necessary in order that the taxpayers of the country might get the worth of the enormous sums spent on education, it had in many respects mitigated the severity of the system. The noble Marquess talked about the perpetual increase of the rates; but that must have been evolved out of his own mind, for, as a matter of fact, the figures told a story precisely the reverse. The rates, instead of increasing, had been steadily decreasing.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In London?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he was referring to the country generally. The payments of the ratepayers towards the expenses of school boards taken per child in average attendance amounted, in 1874, to £2 14 s 1d. while in 1882 it amounted to £1 17 s. 1d. Then, taking the cost of maintenance per child in average attendance, the proportion paid out of the rates in the year 1878 was over £1, and the annual grant was 15 s. 1d.; whereas in 1883 the amount paid out of the rates was 16 s. 1d.,
  1538
  and the annual grant had increased to 16 s. 7d.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That did not show what the ratepayers paid.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): The figures showed how much was paid per child, and that had decreased; but the number of children had happily increased, of course. He also denied that the Department had insisted unduly upon the creation of school boards. In the particular case to which the noble Marquess had referred—that of Hayfield—it was not until a board school had been established that any controversy arose, and it was only then that the voluntary people began to think that they would rather have voluntary schools than pay an education rate. The people who were in favour of a voluntary school might, without difficulty, have established one before the introduction of a school board; but they did not do so. When once the board school had been set up it was not possible for the Education Department to interfere with the arrangement. To say that the Education Department was going out of its way to build board schools in order to supplant voluntary schools was not consistent with the facts of the case. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had asked him whether they would withdraw the grant in case of home lessons being required. They would not do so. There were no statutory hours of attendance; but a grant could not be earned without a minimum attendance, and that was all the Department had to do with the matter. Home lessons were, in very many cases, a useful part of school business, and half-an-hour would be about as much time as would be required for them. It would be, he believed, contrary to his duty to condemn home lessons as a rule; but there were children by whom, and there were homes, perhaps, consisting of single rooms, in which, it would be unreasonable to require that home lessons should be done. Every case must be treated by the Department upon its merits; and if it was found that there were school boards which were in that matter grossly unreasonable, or treated the children improperly in other respects, the Department had power to withdraw the grant. And now a word about the two speeches with which

  1539
  that conversation began. Those speeches formed a curious phenomenon in the educational controversy. He did not know whether there were two other gentlemen in the country who would agree in condemning, as he understood the noble Lords (Earl De La Warr and Lord Norton) to do, the whole educational system from top to bottom. He would not now make a speech about payment by results. He heard his noble Friend's speech, and he had heard it before. He made a speech then in reply, and he did not propose to make it over again, especially after what had fallen with much greater weight than he could pretend to from the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter). The higher subjects were taught only in a small minority of schools to a small minority of children; and that minority was not increasing, but diminishing very much. The question was, whether it was unwise of the ratepayers to furnish a minority of the children with something beyond the three R's, something which might enable them to pass on to those scholarships which his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) would like the riper children to obtain. But how were they to obtain them, if they were confined to the three R's? That was a part of the system, however, which ought not to be carried to excess. But the views of his noble Friend on the matter contrasted in the most curious way with the Scotch view. Scotch education was managed under a totally distinct Act, Code, and Department. It was as Scotch as if the Department had been moved out of the building at Whitehall. It was a remarkable feature of the Scotch system that Scotsmen would not tolerate their parish board schools being treated as mere primary schools. They were more than that. Scotsmen insisted, in regard to a great number of their board schools, that the higher subjects should be taught; and the result was that a large number of boys obtained an education at those schools which enabled them to pass on at once to the Universities. He (Lord Carlingford) did not ask English educationists to imitate this state of things, though it might be worthy of imitation; but that was the view of one of the best educated countries in the world. At the same time, it was impossible that they could give elementary school children the opportunity of getting
  1540
  a higher education, if higher subjects were to be absolutely excluded. And now a word as to over-pressure. With all the means of information at his disposal, he felt a strong temptation to treat it as a mere spectre; but he would not do so. He believed there was some small residue of fact in this huge spectre, growing up in the mist of opinion on the subject. The large majority of Inspectors reported against the existence of over-pressure; and here was what one of the most eminent of them (Mr. Oakley) said the other day, at a great educational gathering in Manchester—
  "He positively abhorred the notion of over-forcing and over-straining young children, and nothing of the kind would ever be required by the regulations of the Education Department, properly understood."
  He (Lord Carlingford) could trace the alarm on the subject to nothing else than the novelty of the regulations, which might have unduly frightened some teachers and managers with regard to the amount of grant they were likely to get. But the present Code was far less likely to lead to those bad results than the former ones. The rigidity of the Standards, instead of being increased, had been relaxed. The Report of the Education and Management of Schools Committee of the Leeds School Board, on the question of charges of over-strain or pressure in the public elementary schools in this town, stated that, after a most careful examination of 45 children, referred to in the Schedules, there did not appear to be a single instance of clear and undeniable injury to the "health or physical well-being" of children by schoolwork or attendance, during a period of five years. It was further observed by the Committee that the children instanced in the Returns were, to a large extent, cither infants, or in the very earliest Standards, and not more than 10 or 11 years of age. The Committee thought it should be borne in mind that the Government grant was paid for the dull and delicate children, withheld from examination, in exactly the same proportion as for the brightest; that the Standard grant was precisely the same for the lower as for the higher; so that there was not the slightest inducement to press children unduly forward: and that the grant was calculated on the average of children coming up to a minimum requirement in each Standard.

  1541
  As to payment on results, the Committee stated that the present system of individual examination of the children was the only guarantee of really effective instruction of the whole of the children, and of their yearly progress from Standard to Standard. Apart from such individual examination, the Committee said the children might be examined in classes. But what would be the result? The precocious might answer for the dull, and the children might remain in the same class for years without the least guarantee of progress. He would not detain their Lordships longer; but he must protest, on the part of the Education Department, and on the part of those who were interested in education in this country, against the extremely pessimist view taken by the two noble Lords who commenced the debate with regard to a system of education which, although much had yet to be done, they had considerable reason to be proud of.
  LORD COLCHESTERcalled attention to one remark of the noble Lord who had just spoken, that they were bound to look to bringing all the children into the schools. He could not suppose that the noble Lord meant to refer to the board schools alone; but the bringing of children into voluntary schools could not affect the increase of the education rate to which he referred. The allusion of the noble Lord to the Scotch system appeared to cast a censure on what was now being established by public or private agency throughout England — a system of schools of different grades, whore a clever boy might rise from one grade to another by scholarships, but which recognized the principle that an education intended to terminate very early should not be identical with the first years of a course intended to continue much longer.

NEWCASTLE CHAPTER BILL.—(No. 130.)
(The Lord Bishop of Durham.)
NEWCASTLE CHAPTER BILL.—(No. 130.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE BISHOP OF DURHAM, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that in the year 1878 an Act was passed for the creation of four new Bishoprics. Among the Sees affected by the provisions of that Act was the dio-
  1542
  cese of Durham. The counties of Durham and Northumberland contributed a far larger sum than was necessary to provide the minimum endowment for a new Bishopric, as specified in the Act, and the Bishopric of Newcastle was accordingly created. That step had been followed, it must be allowed, by the most beneficial results. The Act provided that such arrangements as were immediately necessary for the working of the diocese might be carried out by an Order in Council. In accordance with its provisions, the whole of his (the Bishop of Durham's) patronage in the diocese of Newcastle was, with his full consent, handed over to the new Bishop. It was necessary, however, to provide for other matters, in order that the ecclesiastical framework of the diocese might be completed, and the Bill now before their Lordships dealt with those matters. The Bill proposed to create a Dean and Chapter for the diocese of Newcastle, and, as connected therewith, to transfer a canonry of the cathedral church of Durham, which was attached to the Archdeaconry of Northumberland, to the new diocese. That formed the main part of the Bill, which was framed on the lines of the Truro Chapter Act. This remark applied to the first 10 clauses, on which, therefore, it was unnecessary to dwell. The 11th clause of the Bill would empower the executors of certain deceased persons who had promised donations to the Newcastle Bishopric Endowment to give effect to their known intentions. The 12th clause would re-transfer to the See of Newcastle certain patronage which had been transferred about a quarter of a century ago from the See of Durham to Sees that were at that time more slenderly endowed with patronage than they were now. It likewise dealt with other transferences of patronage which were advisable. The 13th clause would allow the Archdeacon of Northumberland, who was at present required by virtue of his Archdeaconry to reside within the diocese of Newcastle, and by virtue of his Canonry to reside in the diocese of Durham, to retain his residence and stall in Durham, until, by the voluntary acceptance of some preferment in the diocese of Newcastle, he transferred himself thither. He would, in conclusion, move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Lord Bishop of Durham).
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that he was one who had felt it to be his duty to consent to the retransference of patronage proposed by the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.