Sitting of 9 May 1884

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions[May 8] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS — Second Reading— Tramways Provisional Orders (Birmingham and Aston Tramways, &c.) * [180].
Second Reading—Referred to Standing Committee on Law, &c.—Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices)* [3]; Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases * [4].
Consideration as amended— Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 4) (Belchalwell, &c.) [150], deferred.
Report—Commons Regulation Provisional Order*[172].
Third Reading—Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) * [170]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (Alton-Barnes, &c.) * [147]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) (Bovey-Tracey, &c.) *[148]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3) (Ashill, &c.)*[149]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 5) (Acton, &c.) * [151]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 6) (Ashen, &c.) * [152]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 7) (Abberley, &c.) * [153]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 8) (Abergwilly, &c.) * [154]; Water Provisional Orders *[163].

PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) (No. 4) (BELCHALWELL, &c.) BILL.— [BILL 150.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration read.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he had arranged with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that the Notice relating to this Bill should be postponed until Monday, the 19th May. He would, therefore, move that the consideration of the Bill be postponed until the 19th instant.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be postponed until the 19th instant,"— (Mr. R. H. Paget,) —put, and agreed to.
    Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday 19th May.

QUESTIONS.

  BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the appointment of centre superintendents to conduct the examinations for the Board of Intermediate Education in Ireland, preference is given to gentlemen from Trinity College and others wholly unconnected with intermediate education, nominated by individual members of the Board, or pressed on their notice by external influence, to the exclusion of the assistants in the intermediate schools and colleges of Ireland; whether a clerk in the Registry of Deeds Office, in Dublin, was appointed in 1882; in consequence of the numerous applications, have the Board reduced the remuneration of superintendents from twenty to fifteen pounds, and have they given notice of their intention to reduce it still further; and, in extension of this principle of economy, has the reduction of the salaries of the two assistant commissioners from a thousand pounds per annum to any less amount been recommended?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Assistant Commissioners inform me that, in selecting the centre superintendents of examinations, preference is not given to gentle-
  1838
  men from Trinity College and others wholly unconnected with intermediate education; but that the Board appoint only those persons whom they consider best qualified, and, if possible, those who have had experience in such work. A gentleman who was temporarily employed in the Registry of Deeds Office was one of the persons appointed in the year before last. The Board have reduced the remuneration for this class of service, in conformity with the recommendations of a Committee which recently inquired into the administrative arrangements of the Department. A reduction of the amount of remuneration given to persons temporarily employed for a purely occasional duty would afford no reason for reducing the salaries granted to permanent officials at the time of their appointment.

  ARREARS OF COUNTY CESS (IRELAND) —COLLECTION IN CO. LEITRIM.
  MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether any legal means exist for compelling the county Leitrim grand jury to collect the arrears of cess, amounting to £53 10 s. 8d. on the evicted lands of Colonel Tottenham, M.P. in the baronies of Rosclogher and Dromahaire; is it the fact that the owner has already been successfully decreed for poor rate and seed rate on said lands; can he explain why, out of £125 due, only about £50 was recoverable; and, if this be owing to a portion being over two years in arrear, will he give instructions to the Local Government Board for speedier collection to be insisted on in future; and, do any means exist of ascertaining the extra amount of poundage that falls on the rate and cess payers of Leitrim in consequence of the non-collection of the levies on evicted farms?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): £53 10 s. 8d. was returned as arrears of county cess, due on lands of Colonel Tottenham, which had been evicted. These arrears have been re-applotted on the lands liable, and it is believed no extra poundage will be imposed under this head. An arrear of poor rate and seed rate accrued while certain lands were un-tenanted. Colonel Tottenham, who is not, in any event, the person primarily liable, was decreed at the April sessions for poor rate and seed rate to the amount of £37 9s. 6d.; a balance claimed of

  1839
  £37 12.s. 1d. was irrecoverable by reason of more than two years having elapsed from the making and publishing of the rate, and the 12 &13 Vict., c. 104. protecting in such case the person not primarily liable. Colonel Tottenham has appealed, as he contends he had no beneficial use of the lands while they were untenanted. The clerk of the Guardians states instructions to proceed were given in time, but that the actual proceedings were not taken till too late. The Local Government Board is now aware of the default. I cannot say what the extra rate may be by reason of £37 12 s. 1d. being lost; but it is very insignificant.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— RED BAY PIER, CUSHENDALL, CO. ANTRIM.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary to the Treasury, By whom and at what date was the pier or harbour at Red Bay, Cushendall, county Antrim, constructed; at what date did the commencement of the collection of dues commence; who were the officers appointed in the first instance for the purpose of collecting the dues; when was the present harbour master appointed, and were there any other candidates for the office; what superior qualification did he possess over the others; and, why did he receive the preference?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, this pier was finished in 1851, and was handed over to the Grand Jury of the county of Antrim in 1857. Since that date the Treasury have nothing to do with it.

  COASTGUARD (IRELAND)—ARRANGEMENTS FOR TRANSMITTING PAY OF MEN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, How long is it since cars were allowed to convey Coastguard Officers in Ireland to get the monthly pay for the men instead of, as formerly, sending the money by the men from station to station; and, whether it is a fact that seven shillings is paid for such conveyance at Ballintoy, county Antrim, while another person has tendered to do the work for four shillings; if so, why was the smaller offer not accepted?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that reference had been made to the local officers, and he found that pay cars had been used for many years
  1840
  when public cars were not available. A payment of 7s. was made in this case, which was not excessive for a distance of 14 miles. An offer of a conveyance for 4s. was made; but it was not a proper conveyance. Such arrangements must be left to the local officers, and there was no reason to question their discretion.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—WICKLOW MAGISTRACY—APPOINTMENT OF MR. MARTIN LANGTON.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Lord Chancellor has come to any decision in reference to the appointment of Mr. Martin Langton to the Commission of the Peace for the county Wicklow?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Lord Chancellor informs me that the case of Mr. Langton is still under consideration.
  MR. W. J. CORBET: I will repeat the Question on Monday.

  THE QUEEN'S COLLEGES (IRELAND) —THE EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the statement that the calendars of the Queen's Colleges being published before the time fixed for the Royal University examinations, If he was made aware by the Queen's College authorities that the calendars so published only contain the examination papers set in the preceding year, and are therefore valueless in reference to the University examinations of the year in which they were published; and, whether there is any valid reason why the papers set at sessional examinations held in May or June should not be published, in a separate form or otherwise, so as to be accessible before the ensuing examination of the Royal University in October?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It appears to be sufficiently obvious, without explanation on the part of the Queen's College authorities, which I do not think they were bound to give in this case, that the calendars could only contain the examination papers set at preceding examinations, and not at examinations to be held after their publication. With regard to the suggestion that the papers set at the sessional examinations in May and June should be published in a sepa-

  1841
  rate form or otherwise, so as to be accessible before the ensuing examination, it appears to relate to a matter which is academic rather than administrative, though, no doubt, a consideration of expenditure would be involved in which the Treasury would be concerned. The Government having now appointed a Commission of Inquiry, I think that the House will not think it unreasonable if, pending its Report, I hesitate to answer Questions which are really academical Questions, bearing on the relation of the Queen's College examinations to the Royal University which, I think, ought to be, and I hope will be, referred to this Commission.
  MR. O'BRIEN: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the Question I put to him, which was, whether the Queen's College or Colleges made him aware that the examination papers published in the calendar were not in the papers of the year? This is not the first time the Queen's College authorities gave misleading and evasive information; and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not perfectly plain that the answer put into his mouth by the Queen's College was calculated and intended to shirk the point raised?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. O'BRIEN: I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the Question I put on the Paper.
  MR. SPEAKER: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he did not feel called on to answer Questions which were merely academic. The second Question now put by the hon. Member is not in Order.
  MR. O'BRIEN: On the Vote for the Estimates I will see whether the right hon. Gentleman will not be a little more communicative.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—COST OF POLICE IN CHARGE OF HOLDINGS IN CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, To what fund the expense of the six police is placed who are in charge of Mr. Coote's three farms in the barony of Costlea and County of Limerick?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The men are a part of the county force, and are chargeable as such.
  MR. O'SULLIVAN: Are they charged on the county of Limerick?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot say offhand; but I feel sure the free force is not sufficient for a county like Limerick, and for more in excess of that the county pays a moiety.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— GIRLS' SCHOOLS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could state to the House what is the average cost for 1882 per child in the ordinary National Female Schools of Ireland, as paid in salary and result fees from all sources; what is the average cost for 1882 per child in the Model Schools (female department) of Ireland, as paid in salaries and result fees from all sources; and, what is the average cost for 1882 per child in Convent Schools of Ireland, as paid in capitation and result fees from all sources?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that the Education Department does not keep separate Returns showing the cost per pupil in female schools as distinct from male or mixed schools, or of the amounts paid in salaries and result fees as distinct from other payments, such as gratuities for training monitors, good service pay, &c. The information asked for could not therefore be given, off-hand; and in order to obtain it it would be necessary to employ about 22 members of the Department at overtime for about a fortnight.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. JOHN HAMILL.
  LORD ARTHUR HILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in The Daily Express of the 23rd April, and to a leading article in the same paper of the 24th April, signed "Vigilant," with reference to the recent appointment by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland of Mr. John Hamill to the commission of the peace for the county Louth; whether the statements made with respect to Mr. Hamill are correct; whether he is the same Mr. Hamill who presided at a meeting of the Town Commissioners of Dundalk on the 23rd April, when a vote of condolence to Her Gracious Majesty the Queen, which had been passed at the previous meeting of the board, was rescinded; whether it is the intention of

  1843
  the lord Chancellor of Ireland to appoint to the commission of the peace for counties in Ireland persons who neither reside in the county nor possess any property qualification; and, whether there would be any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return giving the names of all those magistrates who, in the past four years, have been appointed "county magistrates," not having been recommended by the Lieutenant of their respective counties, together with a statement showing the amount of property each possesses in the county, and the reasons for such appointments? I may also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the late Lord Chancellor Law did not decline to appoint Mr. Hamill?
  MR. SEXTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question, I would ask whether Mr. Hamill did not hold the Commission of the Peace for the borough of Dundalk for three years before his appointment to the county; and, whether, as regards the vote referred to, it is a fact that it was not rescinded at all, but expunged on the ground that when it was passed the board was resolved into a sanitary committee, and was not, therefore, qualified to deal with the subject?
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELL: I would also wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Mr. John Hamill is not one of the most considerable owners of property in Dundalk (the county town of Louth), and also the owner of considerable property in the adjoining county of Monaghan; whether he has not been twice elected in two successive periods to the chairmanship of the Town Commissioners of Dundalk; whether he has not, under Commissions of the Peace issued by three successive Lord Chancellors— namely, Lord O'Hagan, the late Mr. Law, and the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, acted as a magistrate in the borough; whether he was not recommended by the board of Town Commissioners for the magistracy; whether he has not discharged the duties of his magistracy in the borough with intelligence and independence, and without complaint from any quarter; and, whether, in the opinion of the Chief Secretary, any different or higher standard of qualifications is required for the due discharge of magisterial duties in counties from that required in boroughs?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I followed the Question of my hon. and learned Friend to the best of my ability, and I believe what I am going to say will cover all the points raised, except the question as to the unanimity of Mr. Hamill's election to the chairmanship of the Town Commissioners, as to which I am not aware. With regard to the general question, I am not willing to enter into a matter which I could not answer in less than a quarter of an hour, as to the difference between the qualification of a county and a borough magistrate; but I have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Hamill is qualified both for one and the other. I have read the letter and article referred to in the Question asked by the noble Lord, and I do not propose to enter into the statements therein contained with respect to Mr. Hamill, which are of a personal nature, and which, after all, if submitted, would not be to his disadvantage, but would be distinctly to his credit. I refer to the allusion to his early history. What I am able to state is that Mr. Hamill is a gentleman of position and independent means. He was appointed a magistrate for the town of Dundalk so far back as 1881 by Lord O'Hagan when Lord Chancellor, and was re-appointed to that office by Lord Chancellor Law, and later still by the present Chancellor. He has discharged his duties as magistrate and as chairman of the Town Commissioners in an efficient and upright manner. He was strongly recommended to the Lord Chancellor for the Commission of the Peace for the county of Louth, to which the Lord Chancellor, after particular inquiry, appointed him. I believe the recommendation of his colleagues on the Town Commission, who best knew him, was unanimous. He presided at a meeting of the Town Commissioners of Dundalk, he being the chairman of that body, when the vote of condolence to Her Majesty, passed at a previous meeting, was rescinded simply on the ground of its having been irregularly entered on the minutes of the Board; but it is not true that he objected to such a vote being passed. On the point of his duty on this occasion he consulted the town clerk, and found that there was no other course which he could legally pursue. I cannot speak as to the intention of the Lord Chancellor as to future appoint-

  1845
  ments further than merely to say that I am satisfied he will appoint fit and proper persons to the Commission of the peace, for which I am advised that no qualification such as being the holder of property in the county is necessary. I have reason to believe, however, that Mr. Hamill holds property largely in the county of Louth, though the part of the county is the borough of Dundalk, and he is also a considerable landowner in an adjoining county. The general Return asked for cannot be given, as there are no materials for preparing it except as regards the appointments made by the present Lord Chancellor since his accession to Office.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUBCOMMISSIONERS) — MR. WILLIAM GRAY.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. William Gray, who is one of the Sub-Commissioners for fixing rent in Ireland, is the same Mr. William Gray who is reported to have been in the habit of attending, and occasionally presiding at, political meetings where cheers for the suspects and the Land League, and cries of "no rent," and denunciations of landlordism were common topics, and who, in one speech, said:—
  "If Griffiths' valuation of a farm be twenty shillings per acre, and the taxes, say, three shillings, then eight shillings and sixpence would he a fair rout. But I am not certain that, when the forces represented by steam, and the contemplated arrangements in America are fully carried out and developed, even this will not he an exorbitant rent;"
  and, in a speech on another occasion, is reported to have said: —
  "The farmers did not get, as they should get, the benefit of the Healy Clause… . . They would not, however, give up agitation; and, before 1891, they would have another Act, which would be a greater improvement on the Act of 1881 than the Act of 1881 was on that of 1870…. Lord Monck was a landlord, Judge O'Hagan, who betrayed the early traditions of his youth, Litton, who by false promises was elected for Tyrone, and who now betrayed the farmers, and Vernon, were all landlords."
  MR. TREVELYAN: At present I know of no authority for these statements, except an anonymous paragraph in a London evening newspaper; but I am making inquiry on the subject. I
  1846
  hope the noble Lord (Lord Arthur Hill) will accept this as an answer to his Question on the same subject.

  POST OFFICE—ADVERTISEMENTS OF TELEPHONE COMPANIES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether at any time he demanded royalty, at the rate of one-tenth of the charges of the Telephone Companies, for the insertion of advertisements in their own catalogues, printed at their own expense, for the use of their own subscribers; and, if so, on what ground this demand was made, and why, having been made, it was abandoned?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that at no time has a royalty been demanded for charges paid to the Telephone Companies for advertisements. A royalty was demanded on a certain payment of one guinea which was made by some subscribers to telephone exchanges in addition to their ordinary subscription; but on the character of this payment being explained the demand was at once relinquished.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)-ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—NEWRY UNION.
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that on the 31st March, several charges have been brought against Mr. Joseph Bell, the returning officer of the Newry Union, in relation to the recent election of three guardians for the Newry Division of that Union, viz.: that he rejected on illegal and frivolous grounds many votes tendered on one side, and that he recorded a large number of votes tendered on the other side, although same were objected to and ought not to have been received; that his rulings were not consistent with each other, or with his decisions at previous elections; and that, by these means, he contrived to give Messrs. Sinclair, Savage, and Todd a very small majority over the outgoing guardians, and declared them elected; whether it is not also alleged that the returning officer wrongfully permitted several persons to remain in the Board room till late hours at night inspecting the papers relating to the election, contrary to the

  1847
  Workhouse regulations, and without the presence of any agent of the other side; whether it is also charged that the minute book has been falsified in relation to a motion which had been before the Board of Guardians in reference to the election; whether it is also charged that the porter's book, giving the hours of outgoing of the persons who had inspected the election papers, had been wrongfully altered, and that the returning officer's son refused to give the porter the names of the persons who had inspected the election papers, thereby rendering the porter unable to fulfil his duty by inserting the names in the book; whether complaints of these matters were sent to the Local Government Board as far back as 31st March, demanding a re-scrutiny and an inquiry, and whether the Local Government Board has since admitted that the returning officer was wrong in a large number of his rulings; and, whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board to direct a re-scrutiny of the disputed votes by a properly qualified person, and an investigation into the conduct of the returning officer as requested, and whether such re-scrutiny and investigation will be held without further delay?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is the case that charges of the kind mentioned in the Question were made, and have been the subject of much correspondence. Several votes were found to have been improperly recorded for all the candidates; but the rejection of such votes would not disturb the return of Messrs. Sinclair, Savage, and Todd. The Local Government Board cannot institute a general scrutiny of all votes recorded at the election; but I understand that a day or two ago they addressed a letter to the hon. Member with reference to several specific votes objected to, and that they are prepared to entertain any further objections to particular votes. The Board also, as I understand, furnished the hon. Member with the Re-turning Officer's explanation as to the complaint respecting the presence of persons in the workhouse, and the alleged falsification of the minute book, and they await any further observations he may make on the subject. They cannot decide, while the correspondence is going on, whether an inquiry is necessary or not.

  THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND —SYLLABUS OF LECTURES.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a letter of the Very Reverend Dr. Walsh, a Member of the Senate of the Royal University and of its Standing Committee, published in The Freeman's Journal of May 3rd, in which the writer states that—
  "As a matter of fact, neither the Senate of the Royal University, nor its Standing Committee, nor, so far as I know, any individual member of either body, has had any opportunity of in any way considering the merits of, or consequently pronouncing any opinion upon, the proposal,"
  that Fellows of the Royal University should publish an annually revised syllabus of their lectures, with a view to securing absolute fairness of University examinations; and, whether he has any observations to make upon the letter of the Very Reverend Dr. Walsh, as it is in apparent contradiction to the statement he was understood to make that the preponderance of opinion among the authorities of the Royal University is not favourable to the proposal?
  MR. TREVELYAN: What I said was that, so far as I had been able to ascertain, the preponderance of opinion among gentlemen in responsible positions in connection with the Queen's Colleges and the Royal University was unfavourable to the proposition contained in the hon. Member's inquiry. What I said as to the Royal University was gathered from the answer which I received from the secretaries. I have no doubt that Dr. Walsh is right in saying that the Senate and Standing Committee were not consulted. I suppose there was no time to consult them. There will be an opportunity for those interested to raise this question before the Commission.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—NEWRY UNION —SALARY OF THE MASTER OF THE WORKHOUSE.
  MR. LEAHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Newry Board of Guardians, which at present contains several members whose elections were disputed, intends to increase by £20 the salary of the master, who, until fourteen months ago, was porter

  1849
  of the House at less than half of his present salary, and who was censured by the Board a few months ago; and, whether the Local Government approves of such action under the circumstances?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There are some Guardians on the Newry Board whose elections were disputed; but, even if they have been improperly returned, which has not yet been proved, the circumstance would not affect the decision of the Board of Guardians on a point such as that referred to, as the hon. Member will see by a reference to Section 30 of the Poor Relief Act—
  "The Guardians are, on the 10th instant, pursuant to notice, to consider a proposition to increase the Master's salary; and if they resolve to do so, the Local Government Board will give the matter the necessary consideration; but the objection which has been lodged against the election of certain Guardians affords no reason for the postponement by the Guardians of the discussion on the subject."

  THE PARKS (METROPOLTS)— THE RABBITS IN RICHMOND PARK.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been drawn to two men having been convicted and sentenced to a month's hard labour for having committed a trespass upon Richmond Park in search of rabbits, and to the fact that the witnesses against them were a carter to the Board of Works, who watched them for an hour, and a "watcher," who was sent to watch certain dead rabbits which had been hidden; whether it is the business of carters in the employ of the Board of Works to act as guardians of the rabbits in Richmond Park; whether the "watcher" is paid out of public funds, and what are his functions; and, who has the right to shoot or trap the rabbits in Richmond Park?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The matter referred to has not been specially brought under the notice of my Department, as it concerns the Ranger. The watchers are paid out of money voted by Parliament. It is their duty to watch the deer and to preserve order after the park constables go off their duty. If, in the course of their duty, they see offences being committed, it is their duty to interfere. The right to shoot or trap rabbits in Richmond Park is in the gift of the Queen. The Duke of Cambridge,
  1850
  who is the Ranger, exercises this right at the present time, and bears all the expense of feeding and preserving the game. The carter referred to in the Question was not, on the occasion mentioned, spending the time for which he was paid by the Office of Works. He has not, therefore, been paid for watching out of the public funds. I believe the public like to see the rabbits running about the park.
  MR. LABOUCHEREobserved that the public would also like to shoot those rabbits; but he would like to know from what source the Chief Commissioner derived his information that the carter was not paid out of public money?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was informed that the carter was doing this work out of his ordinary working hours, and, therefore, was not paid out of public money.

  ARMY—EXAMINATIONS FOR PROMOTION.
  EARL PERCYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can now inform the House what steps he proposes to take with regard to the system of examination of officers for promotion in the Army; and, whether he can afford any relief to those who have suffered from the present regulations?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: After carefully looking into the subject, I have come to the conclusion that the aggregate of marks required—namely, 55, is too high, and that it should be reduced to the former standard— namely, ·5. The aggregate was, I understand, increased to compensate for a reduction which was simultaneously made in the minimum of each subject; but, on the whole, I think that the old aggregate standard was sufficiently high. I have also carefully considered the circumstances of the last examination in which so many officers failed to qualify. I find that in one of the examination papers there was, unfortunately, a typographical error which, though not of great importance, undoubtedly did prejudicially affect the papers of several of those who failed to qualify; and I have, therefore, decided that the record of that examination, so far as it regards the unsuccessful candidates, shall be cancelled, and that they shall be allowed another trial at the examination in July.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND)—THE RATE COLLECTOR OF THE BLACKROCK: TOWNSHIP COMMISSION.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any, and, if so, what steps have been actually taken by the Local Government Board to investigate the charges of defalcations in the funds of the Blackrock Township made against Rate-Collector Elliott?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The alleged defalcations are being investigated by a Special Committee of the Blackrock Township Commissioners, and not by the Local Government Board. The business of the Local Government Board has been to ascertain that the inquiry is being carried out with promptitude. They are keeping a very close eye to it.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Are not the Government going to insist that this man shall be prosecuted the same as any other common criminal?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is quite obvious that inquiry as to defalcations in one particular must be conducted by that Department before a Department in which no allegation of a defalcation is made can take notice of the matter.
  MR. GRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this investigation is being conducted in private; and will he inform the House by what means it is intended to procure for the Local Government Board information as to the proceedings, so that they may be able to act on them?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I shall take every means to ascertain whether this gentleman is a proper person to continue in a position over which the Local Government Board have authority.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, or has it been brought under the notice of the Local Government Board, that the Commissioners who are conducting this inquiry are the persons who allowed Mr. Elliott £420 from arrears of poundage on money which he had appropriated; and, if that be so, does the Local Government Board regard such Commissioners as fit and proper persons to be intrusted with an inquiry into this matter?
  [No reply. 1.]

  DOMINION OF CANADA—STATE-AIDED EMIGRANTS AT TORONTO.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any of the State-aided emigrants from Ireland, who were in a state of distress in Toronto in February last, are still in the same state; and, if so, whether the Government will take measures for their relief, and enable them to return to Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No Report as to any distress among State-aided emigrants at Toronto has reached the Irish Government later than that which related to the month of February last. I have desired that the Colonial Office be asked to make inquiry on the subject,
  MR. SEXTON: When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to receive a Report on the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I do not know yet. I wrote about it immediately that the hon. Member for Waterford put his Question the first time.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have yet taken any steps, and, if so, what steps, to secure the safety of General Gordon?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I answered this Question yesterday, and I can only repeat the answer which I then gave—namely, that explanations may be made upon the subject, but that those explanations are much more suited to an unrestrained statement in debate than to an answer to a Question; and that in no case could those explanations be extended so as to constitute a full answer to a Question which, among other things, evidently contemplates military contingencies.
  SIR HENEY TYLER: The right hon. Gentleman has not given a simple answer to a simple Question—whether the Government had taken any steps whatever to secure the safety of General Gordon? [Cries of "Order, order!"]
  [No reply.]

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask a Question with reference to the course of Business next week.

  1853
  The Government have placed Monday at the disposal of my right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who is to bring forward a Motion with regard to General Gordon. I am anxious, and all my Friends are anxious, that hon. Members should compress their speeches as much as possible; but it will be absolutely impossible to conclude the debate in one night, and I wish to know whether the Government can in any way assist us? I have also to ask hon. Members who have Notices down for Tuesday to allow us to continue the debate on that day. The Government are going to give precedence to the Motion of my right hon. Friend at the Tuesday Morning Sitting. I presume it will be impossible, or very inconvenient, to rescind the Order that has been made with regard to Tuesday Morning Sittings. Undoubtedly, however, it would be well if we could meet at 4 on Tuesday; but if that cannot be, we shall debate the Motion from 2 till 7, and then we shall resume at 9 o'clock. Now, there are 12 Notices of Motion and eight Orders of the Day on the Paper for Tuesday evening. The Notices of Motion are not as formidable as they appear to be at first sight, for many of them hang together. If it would be possible for those hon. Members in whose names the Notices stand to signify their willingness to allow their Motions to be set aside, we could make some arrangement with reference to the Bills set down as Orders of the Day, and the debate could be finished at the Evening Sitting. It would, of course, be more convenient to take a 4 o'clock Sitting.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I can only answer the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman so far as I am myself concerned. It would be of no advantage to entertain the proposal to rescind for Tuesday the resolution to which we have come— for this reason, among others, that if we were to rescind it, the effect would be that the Government would lose all power of giving any facility to the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends for their Motion on Tuesday. If we were to agree to meet at 4 on that day, the same application to hon. Gentlemen who have Notices on the Paper would still have to be made which has now to be made with regard to the Evening Sitting. We have, therefore, I think, done all that lies in our power. But
  1854
  considering the inconvenience of a fixed term for the closing of the debate, I shall be glad to support any application which the right hon. Gentleman may make to Members to waive their privileges at 9 o'clock on Tuesday evening; and likewise, with respect to the Orders of the Day, I think that it will be desirable to postpone all the Motions and Orders until after the debate with respect to General Gordon.

  EGYPT-THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE,
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to put two Questions to the Prime Minister. The first was, whether the proposed Conference on the subject of the finances of Egypt was to be held in London or Constantinople? The second Question arose out of an answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday, when he declined to give a pledge that other matters besides the Law of Liquidation would not be considered by the Conference. He wished to know whether the basis of the Conference and the limits of the questions to be discussed had been fixed; and whether the Prime Minister would communicate them to the House before the meeting of the Conference?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the first Question of the hon. and gallant Member, I do not think that the place of meeting has yet been absolutely settled. With regard to the second Question, I have to say that the basis of the Conference is really settled by the indication sent out by Lord Granville, which has been laid on the Table of the House. What I have already said amounts to this—that a discretionary power remains to raise any other question than that proposed by the Government; but no other question is within the actual range of the Conference, and if any other question should be raised it would be a new question, and it would be like calling a new Conference. We cannot undertake that the Conference shall forego the opportunity of raising a new question at a given time.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. T. A. DICKSON: I would ask the Chief Secretary if there is any foundation for the statement which appears in several of the Irish papers,

  1855
  that the Government have decided to postpone the Purchase Clauses Bill until the 11th of June; and if it is intended to introduce the Bill before the adjournment for the Whitsun holidays?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There is no foundation whatever for the report, which only reached my eyes through an allusion to it in a leading article in The Daily Express.I have every reason to believe that the Bill shall be introduced before the Whitsuntide holidays; and as far as the preparation of the Bill is concerned, that can be no obstacle at all.

  THE PUBLIC OFFICES — THE NEW ADMIRALTY BUILDINGS.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to take this opportunity of explaining and apologizing for a mistake into which I fell in answering a Question put to me in Committee this morning by my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir John Hay) in reference to the new Admiralty buildings. He asked me whether the Estimates for them would contain provisions for a house for the First Lord? I then said it was a question which ought rather to have been addressed to my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, and I have now to pay the penalty of having undertaken to answer for another Department. When I last saw the proposals they did contain a provision for such a house. Since then they have been more fully considered, and now it is not intended to include a house for the First Lord in the new building.
  SIR JOHN HAY: I will only say that while my hon. Friend makes this announcement I hope he still adheres to the excellent reason which he gave as to whether the First Lord should have a house—namely, that it was absolutely necessary in time of war.

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

    [BILL. 3.] SECOND READING.
    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. WARTON, in moving that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months, contended that, taking into consideration the grave and heavy penalties that were enacted last year by the Act having reference to Parliamentary elections, time, at any rate, should be given to ascertain how that experiment would work before the same principle was extended to municipal elections. As a rule, when penalties were too heavy they were found to defeat themselves, and it was his impression that they would do so in the Act of last year; and therefore he thought that time ought to be given to see whether the heavy penalties imposed by that Act would defeat their own objects or not. But surely it was unreasonable to apply to elections for Poor Law Guardians and members of school boards the same penalties that were provided with regard to Parliamentary elections. Where the present Bill departed from the Act of last Session the change was for the worse—namely, the omission of the excellent principle of a maximum expenditure, which he considered would be much more effectual than heavy penalties in preventing corrupt practices. It was his opinion that no men would be found to offer themselves as candidates for the petty offices to be obtained at municipal elections if they had to run the risk of all the heavy penalties which men who were desirous of becoming Members of Parliament had to run. For these reasons he begged to move the rejection of the Bill.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he seconded the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, though he disagreed very much from a part of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport's speech relating to public-houses. He himself held very firmly the opinion that the part of the Bill which prohibited the holding of election meetings in public-houses was most valuable, and if its other provisions were equally valuable, he should not oppose the measure. Such meetings could do no good to anyone except the publican. They demoralized the supporters of the candidate in whose supposed interest they were convened, and they increased the election expenses very substantially. There were other parts of the Bill to

    1857
    which he took exception, more especially for the reason that they were uncalled for in Ireland. Scotland was exempted, and why Ireland should be included he did not know. He had had some experience of elections in Ireland, and such a thing as bribery of any sort in municipal or Poor Law elections did not enter into the mind of anyone. Intimidation and undue influence were, no doubt, practised at Poor Law elections by the landlords, and the Government avoided taking notice of these proceedings. Very stringent punishment was proposed by this Bill if anyone was held by the Judges to have committed bribery or corruption. He did not expect to be mixed up with any municipal or Poor Law election in Ireland; but if he happened to be in any town during the holding of a municipal election, he might have some innocent conversation with a person interested in that election, and he might be held by the Judge to have done something which was illegal. The result would be that not only would he be disqualified from holding a seat in that House, but he would be prevented from taking part in public affairs for all future time. This punishment was too severe. Another provision was against payment for music and banners. Music and banners at Irish municipal elections were never thought of. One of the principal objects of the Bill was the great lessening of expenses. As a rule, Irish municipal elections were conducted very cheaply, and payment for canvassers was not made upon a large scale. Volunteers did most of the canvassing for the dominant party, and instead of discouraging persons from making personal sacrifices at election times for their party by enacting, as this Bill proposed, that only one canvasser should be allowed for each ward, he thought the Government ought to encourage the employment of an increased number of canvassers. In Belfast, if the municipal franchise were made as extensive as in England, it would be impossible to obtain an adequate expression of opinion in one of the wards unless a larger expense was allowed than this Bill sanctioned. Means were found for evading these enactments; but a Bill should not be so drawn that it was impossible for parties to act honestly or in accordance with its provisions, and at the same time to conduct their election satisfactorily.
    1858
    The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General took care that the costs in any legal proceedings under the Bill should be on the highest scale. That part of the Bill might be left out. The scale of costs should not be higher than that adopted by the County Courts. Having counsel and other paraphernalia in some obscure borough was perfectly absurd. For these reasons, believing the Bill to be uncalled for by the circumstances existing in Ireland, he should vote against its second reading.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he felt some reluctance in being compelled to speak against the second reading of this Bill, as he approved the measure very much, having regard to most of its provisions. Unfortunately, however, the Attorney General had announced his desire to have the Bill referred to a Grand Committee; whereas, if it had come before a Committee of the Whole House, he should have confined himself to moving certain Amendments in it. At the time of the passing of the Act of last year he had said that he thought the penalties provided would be too severe, and he had seen no reason to alter his views since. The great fault of the present measure was the absence of any provision for the limitation of expenses. When a provision was inserted in the Act of last year for that purpose, he thought it was likely to form a very useful piece of legislation, because it appeared to him to go the root of all the mischief. He could not help thinking that the Attorney General, in passing a Bill without such a provision, would go a great way to undo the good he did last year. One of the most ordinary forms of bribery was to bribe at a municipal election with the view to being successful at the next Parliamentary contest; and, as this Bill stood, it seemed to him that it would turn the whole flood of corruption into the municipal contests. Enormous sums of money would be spent in municipal elections which would, in truth and in substance, defeat the purposes and effect of the Corrupt Practices Act of last year. He

    1859
    did not see the smallest practical difficulty in the way of a Schedule limiting the expenses of elections in particular wards in the same way that expenses were now limited in particular constituencies. He would, therefore, ask the Attorney General whether he would undertake to engraft upon this Bill the most valuable feature of the previous enactment? If something were not done in this direction, he feared that the flood of corruption at municipal elections would be very largely increased.
    MR. MONKsaid, he thought the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman well deserved the attention of the Attorney General. There was another matter which he desired to bring to the notice of his hon. and learned Friend, and that had reference to the presentation of Petitions. There ought to be some official, say the Director of Public Prosecutions or his substitute, who should not only attend the trial of these Petitions, but be required to aid in the presentation of them in cases where there were grounds for believing that corrupt and illegal practices had largely prevailed. Very few Petitions would be presented if the matter were left to the electors; and he would, therefore, suggest that the Public Prosecutor should be authorized to present a Petition whenever his attention had been called to the prevalence of corrupt practices, and he had satisfied himself by a preliminary investigation that there was a foundation for the charge. That was a subject, however, which could be dealt with in Committee on the Bill.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he was all in favour of securing purity of election, either at Parliamentary or municipal contests; but the reason he objected to the principles of this Bill was because of its application to Ireland. He thought it was not fair to apply the same rigorous restrictions to a country the conditions of whose municipal life were entirely different to those of this country. The provisions of the Bill were exceedingly severe, and if they were applied to the small constituencies of Ireland they would practically annihilate Irish municipal constituencies altogether. After pointing out the unequal and limited character of the municipal franchise in Ireland, and the rigorous manner in which the provisions of the Bill, if carried out, would work in connection with the punishment
    1860
    of electors, the hon. Member asked the House to consider the nature of the Courts in Ireland with their political bias. When this was considered, he thought the measure was a dangerous one to bring forward in the present narrow condition of the Irish franchise. In England there was a household municipal franchise, which even admitted women; in every town in Ireland, except Dublin, the qualification was £10, which meant in the towns of Ireland a rental equivalent to £25 or £30, Then, they had a system of registration which prevailed in that country by which the landlords were returned instead of the occupiers—a state of things which was inimical to the rights of the people. The City of Limerick had nearly 40,000 people within the municipal boundary; yet, owing to the restrictions and the high qualifications, the number of municipal electors was only about 400. This extraordinary condition of things—high qualifications in a city of small wealth— led to a result which he would relate. There was one ward in Limerick where only 30 burgesses in a population of 8,000 or 10,000 people were on the list. Out of these, when the election came some had died and some were absent, and there were not available the 16 persons required by law to sign the nomination paper. They were often told how violent and unconstitutional were the people of Limerick and of Ireland. But could it be otherwise when they were thus deprived of the means of exercising political influence? In Dublin a law was passed which, although the Preamble promised everything, gave nothing. With a view of equalizing the Dublin franchise to that of England, household suffrage for municipal elections was declared; but a rider was added that, before a person could exercise this suffrage, he must have resided there for three years, which was taking away with one hand what the other gave. The result was that Dublin, with a population of 300,000, had only 6,000 or 7,000 municipal electors, while the same population in an English city would produce about 50,000 or 60,000 electors. Therefore, to apply this Bill to Ireland under the circumstances he had mentioned, and to bring Petitions before Courts which were, unfortunately, animated by political hostility to the bulk of the Irish people, was to sanction the

    1861
    passing of a facile machinery by which the small remnants of municipal life existing in the country would be wiped out.
    MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he had listened with attention to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), and he was quite at a loss to know why he should vote against the second reading of the Bill. He understood the hon. and learned Member to say that, unless some maximum amount of expenses was stated, the want of a limitation would be made a sort of auxiliary step to the corruption which would go on in an indirect way in Parliamentary elections. He concurred in that opinion. He believed the real advantage of this Bill was to be found in the fact that it would prevent, to a great extent, that mode of corruption which had been practised in Parliamentary elections through the medium of corruption prevailing in municipal boroughs. He could not see, however, why the question of expenses should not be dealt with separately in a Schedule containing a scale of maximum expenses, and which might be inserted in Committee. It seemed to him that the whole argument of the hon. and learned Member was really an inducement to the House to read the Bill a second time, and to amend it as far as possible in Committee. A great deal of difficulty had been felt by hon. Members in consequence of the Motion by the Attorney General to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee instead of the Committee of the Whole House. So far as this Bill went, his own impression was that it was a measure which might very easily be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. That, of course, depended altogether on the nature of its clauses; but they had also to consider the state of Business in the House. They must consider the character of the measures pending before the House, and when this was done hon. Members would see that the number of Bills at present before Parliament were likely to occupy all the time which the House could devote to them. Having in view, therefore, the state of Public Business, he was in favour of sending this measure to the Standing Committee.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that there was a specific Motion dealing with this subject on the Paper, and that the hon.
    1862
    and learned Member was not in Order in. anticipating the discussion.
    MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he begged to submit to the ruling of the Chair. With reference to the tribunal appointed to try these corrupt practices at municipal elections, he thought the penalties imposed by this Act were as severe as those imposed under the Parliamentary elections. It was well known that the tribunal which tried corrupt practices at Parliamentary elections consisted now of two Judges, although originally there was only one. No doubt the House was also aware that under the Municipal Corporation Act corrupt practices at municipal elections were not tried before a Judge, but before a barrister, who was appointed Commissioner for that purpose. He tried the cases alone and without a jury. It was, he thought, worthy the consideration of the House whether it would not be desirable to appoint two barristers instead of one to try these petitions in reference to municipal elections. This was a subject which could be attended to in Committee on the Bill, and at present he intended to vote for the second reading.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he thought that most of the objections which had been taken to the Bill were not objections to its principle, but to its details, which could be best dealt with in Committee. He could not agree with the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) that because the position of a Town Councillor or a Guardian of the Poor was not so high as that of a Member of Parliament, therefore they should have a free hand to do whatever they pleased at those elections.
    MR. WARTONexplained that what he meant to say was that, considering that the post of a Town Councillor or a Guardian was of less importance, the penalties ought not to be equal.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he could not agree with that argument; but even if sound, it only went to support a reduction of the penalties, which was a matter for the Committee. He thought the speeches which had been made by two Members from Ireland were worthy of attention; but as Ireland was about to have an enlarged Parliamentary franchise, so, he hoped, she would soon also have—in fact, she must and would have—an enlarged

    1863
    municipal franchise; and if that was the case, he thought there would be no objection to the Bill being extended to that country. The penalties contained in the measure might, perhaps, be too severe; but that was not a point that touched its principle, which was the prevention of corrupt practices. Considering the present state of Public Business in the House, he was inclined to support the Attorney General in wishing to have the Bill referred, after its second reading, to a Standing Committee, where it might be dealt with speedily and in a practical manner.
    MR. GRAYsaid, the question was whether, without any case at all having been made, and on the bare possibility which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Simon) thought might arise of corruption hereafter existing in Irish municipalities, this House ought to be called upon to pass a very stringent and severe Corrupt Practices Code for Ireland. He did not think that was a principle upon which this House had been accustomed to act. Some kind of case was usually made by those who proposed important changes in the law such as this. He did not profess to know much about the way in which English municipal elections were manipulated; but he relied upon the assurances which had been given by the English Members on both sides of the House that corruption existed to an enormous degree in certain English municipalities, and that it was exceedingly difficult to prevent bribery. If that were really the character of English municipalities, he should be happy to assist English Members to pass the necessary Code for the prevention and punishment of those abuses. When hon. Members proposed to pass a similar Bill for Ireland, he said— "Show me some reason for it. Give me cases of corruption in Irish municipalities such as have been quoted from England, where hundreds of electors were bought for a pot of beer per head;" and then, even though the franchise was restricted, he should join in seeking to put an end to such abuses. But if no such things could be shown, if it were granted, as was the fact, that Irish municipal elections were pure, then there was no reason for extending this Bill to Ireland. Why should the Bill be extended to Ireland, and not to Scotland? They all
    1864
    knew that their Scotch friends were pure in everything. He observed the hon. and learned Attorney General taking notes. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL dissented.] He begged the Attorney General's pardon—he meant the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. He had not any intention of accusing the hon. and learned Attorney General of knowing anything about Irish affairs. The Solicitor General for Ireland, if he should speak on this subject, would admit there was no such thing as corruption in Irish municipal elections. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND assented.] The hon. and learned Gentleman signified his assent; and if that were so, it was not right that a Bill of this kind should be extended to Ireland until some cause had been shown. They had no confidence in the administration of the law in Ireland. They did not believe that those who would have the administration of this Bill, when passed into law, would be impartial. If they thought differently, and if they believed it would not be used by those administering it for political purposes, he would have no objection to it being passed, though it were only for the purpose of meeting the hypothetical case of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken; but, in view of the arguments he and his Friends had urged, he believed a strong case had been made out for the exclusion of Ireland from the Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped that the House would shortly be allowed to go to a Division. The necessity for that Bill had been admitted, and the question of its form had been much discussed. The principal criticisms passed upon it had reference to the absence of the maximum Schedule which appeared in the Act of last Session relating to Parliamentary elections. That Schedule was his own creation, and he would not have omitted it from the present Bill without good reason; but, having sought assistance from those who, quite irrespective of Party motives, had had practical knowledge and experience of municipal matters both in large and small boroughs, he found that there was a great concurrence of opinion against the introduction of that maximum Schedule into the present Bill, and on that account he had not introduced it. What

    1865
    had been put to him—and he thought it had great force—was, that it was desired to make it easy for men to enter local councils, to throw no obstacles in the way, and to get a better class of men if they could into those councils. The enforcement of a maximum Schedule for municipal elections would involve the adoption of the complicated and expensive machinery of the Parliamentary Act; and he was told that if this were done all the better class of residents would be deterred from having anything to do with municipal elections. If certain things, such as the payment of messengers, agents, and canvassers, the hiring of rooms, and the conveyance of voters, were forbidden, there was no opportunity for lavish expenditure, as the bribery at municipal elections was of an indirect rather than a direct character. If anyone would attempt to draw a Schedule equally applicable to a ward containing many thousand voters, and a ward containing only 100 or 200, he would find the difficulty of laying down a maximum of any kind that would be reasonable in both cases.
    MR. ONSLOWasked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman conld name any of the small boroughs that had been consulted?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had had a mass of correspondence and many interviews; and, while he could not specify any particular boroughs, he should be glad to satisfy the hon. Member privately. He had included Ireland in the Bill so as to obviate any objection that there was not to be equal law for the two countries. With regard to the Amendment which had been placed upon the Paper by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and also the expressed opinion which had fallen from the hon. Member for Carlow upon the phase of the question relating to Ireland——
    MR. GRAY: I merely stated that I did not desire to suggest anything to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), continuing, said, that on the subject of Ireland he was about to state that some of the hon. Member's views upon the Bill were presented very strongly. It was quite true there had been no petition for corrupt practices at municipal elections in Ireland. He would, however, ask, was the hon. Mem-
    1866
    ber aware that the Act of 1872, which controlled municipal elections, was still in force, and applied to Ireland, and if this Bill was not passed would still apply with full force? The hon. Member for the County Carlow had dwelt strongly upon the subject, and had, no doubt, put his case very clearly. However, he would ask the Irish Members to consider that if this Bill, did not become law, the objectionable portions of the former Act would still remain the same. What had been objectionable in those parts of the former Act which applied to municipal elections were by this Bill given a new definition. If, however, this Bill were not passed into law, the old definitions under the Act of 1872 would still be enforced. If, after the Irish Members had considered the effect of that Act, they still thought that Ireland should not be included in the present Bill, and if the majority of the House were of the same opinion, the Government would have the greatest desire to do what was right. By mistake the Bill had not been extended to Scotland; but that would be amended in Committee. He desired to repeat that the inclusion of Ireland was a question upon which the opinion and votes of the Irish Members would have the fullest and most extreme weight.
    MR. LEWISsaid, the first part of the speech of the Attorney General furnished sufficient grounds for voting against the Bill, for it was a forcible statement of the objections which he (Mr. Lewis) took last year on the principal Bill. A painful picture had been drawn of the incomprehensible difficulties in which a respectable citizen of a small country borough would be placed by this Bill. All the miserable definitions of new crimes which were set forth last year were repeated. The hon. and learned Gentleman might have stated that candidates must not spend more than £500 upon an election, and have left out all those wretched and frivolous details. The candidate was now to be directed how he should conduct himself night and morning. They were told they must not have a blue ribbon; they might eat one thing, but not another; they might meet in one sort of club-room, but not in another. All these and other tyrannical inventions were the outcome of the modern Liberalism of the 19th century. For a long time he had been unable to discover

    1867
    the object of the Bill; but at last lie had found that its object was to find work for the Grand Committee on Law, which had such ill-success last year with the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. They could not make that stalking-horse serve their purpose any longer, for that wretched creaking old mare, the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, had ultimately broken down. The Government said to themselves that corruption was out of favour; they were fond of so-called purity, and so they would have a new purity Bill. Having done all they could to make Parliamentary candidates miserable, the Government had turned their attention to municipal elections, and proposed to worry the country grocers and drapers. They had even proposed to apply this Bill to ladies who submitted themselves as candidates at School Board elections; but whoever heard of Mrs. Fenwick Miller, Mrs. Westlake, or Miss Hill being guilty of corrupt practices, or resorting to little wheedlements, caresses, or embraces in order to secure votes? Where was the corruption suggested by the Attorney General in connection with School Board elections? Did he, before he took an affectionate leave of Taunton, mean to suggest that corruption existed in connection with the election of the School Board there?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there was no School Board at Taunton.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he was delighted to find that the Liberal Party had not succeeded in visiting Taunton with that infliction. He had never before heard it suggested that School Board elections were corrupt. This was just the sort of legislation which, in the good Radical time to come, they should have repeated over and over again. The Bill might be inscribed with the motto, parodying the words in a famous novel—"Here is an election; let's have a petition," so needless and irritating were the majority of its provisions. How could the Government say that they trusted the people, when they would not allow a School Board election to take place without providing that a barrister might be sent down to institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the election in order to ascertain whether corrupt practices had existed? The Bill applied to Poor Law Guardians, School Boards, and Town Commis-
    1868
    sioners, and in every case where there was an election the people might indulge in the prospect of a petition. They had heard that if in a Parliamentary election general corrupt practices existed, a candidate, even if he knew nothing about those corrupt practices, might be unseated. That doctrine, which was said to rest upon Common Law, was to be introduced for the first time by the 16th clause of this Bill into elections for Town Councils, Boards of Guardians, Town Commissioners, and School Boards. That clause showed that the Bill had been entered upon by the Government without due consideration.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)explained that the 16th clause did not refer to corrupt practices, but only applied to illegal practices.
    MR. LEWISsaid, that that made his objection all the stronger. The fact was the Bill contained nothing to recommend it to the consideration of the House. The Attorney General, in his Bill of last year, had two modes of annoyance—he limited the aggregate expenditure, and directed the mode of its application. For the former some excuse could be made; but that was the part now abandoned by the Attorney General, while he retained the latter and more objectionable detail. The objections of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who sat below the Gangway were of a very peculiar character. If some evil was to be done to England which it was not proposed to inflict upon Ireland, they complained that the two countries were not dealt with on an equal footing. He thought it was quite clear that there was as much ground for the suggestion that impurity existed in connection with Irish municipal elections as there was for the statement that corrupt practices existed in municipal elections in England. Ireland was no better than England and no worse. The Bill, on the whole, was contemptible and worthless; it was the mere breaking of the fly on the wheel; and a specimen of the Radical legislation they were to have in the good coming times.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that the mind of the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House appeared to be in a very confused condition as to the relative cases which England and Ireland presented upon the present question. Where the circumstances of the two

    1869
    countries were similar they should be equally judged by the same laws. No such case had, however, been made out by the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced the Bill. The most corrupt and insidious forms of bribery had been practised upon the burgesses in England; but no such thing was known in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman had himself said that no cases of bribery were known in Ireland. Municipal and Parliamentary elections in Ireland were conducted upon entirely different lines to those in England; and therefore the circumstances of the case of Ireland did not call for the provisions of this Bill, which would be superfluous. So far as he could see at present, he would be disposed to say that Ireland should be struck out of the Bill. They had a struggle last year to procure a clearer and safer definition of the offence of undue influence, as they feared that in certain cases in Ireland the Courts might be inclined to deal harshly with the clergy. He recognized the spirit shown by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill when he stated that if it was the opinion of the Irish Members that Ireland should not be included he was ready to strike the clause out. The Irish Members, during the interval which would elapse between the present stage of the Bill and the Committee stage, would look more closely into the matter, and ascertain what public opinion in Ireland was upon the subject. The Irish Members would, therefore, now cease from discussing the Bill; but reserve for the present giving their opinion as to the advisability of retaining or striking the clause out.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he would not detain the House any longer than to say he disagreed with the hon. Member for Sligo. He felt bound to enter his protest against the statement that no improper influence was used in municipal and Poor Law elections in Ireland. The clergy in elections in Ireland extensively used improper influence. He regarded it as most important that this Bill, if it passed at all in that House, should pass for Ireland as well as England.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he rose to ask the ruling of the Speaker on a matter
    1870
    which affected the powers, privileges, and rights of the House. In ordinary Bills they always had opportunity for discussion on the second reading and also upon the stage of going into Committee; but this Bill was to be referred to a Standing Committee, and would thereby be taken out of the cognizance of the House. The point of Order was this—whether, seeing that the Attorney General was now seeking to take two stages of the Bill, the House should not have a full, free, and fair discussion on the Motion for referring it to a Grand Committee?
    MR. SPEAKER: On the question of Order, I have to say that the point raised by the hon. and learned Member was raised in April of last year, and was emphatically decided by my Predecessor in the Chair. His ruling was to this effect—that after the second reading, on the Motion to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee, there was not the same latitude of discussion allowed as upon the question that the Bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House. It is not competent—that was the effect of the ruling—to discuss the whole merits and principle of a Bill upon the Motion that it be referred to a Standing Committee. But it will be for the House to take into account the specific considerations which point, on the one hand, to a reference to a Standing Committee, and on the other to a reference to a Committee of the Whole House as the preferable tribunal. There is an express provision that the Standing Order for the consideration of a Bill as amended does not apply to a Bill which, has come back to this House from a Standing Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he rose to propose, as an Amendment, that the Bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House. He would frankly say that he was not himself in favour of Grand Committees, and he believed that all the Members who served on them last year had come to the conclusion that where there was no great principle to be discussed those Committees might possibly work; but that where prin-

    1871
    ciples were to be raised and there was to be serious opposition, there were grave doubts whether the Standing Committees would do the work for which they were appointed. The Standing Order with reference to the subject said that two Standing Committees be appointed, one dealing with Bills relating to law and Courts of Justice, and the other with Bills relating to trade and manufacture. He had never understood what was there meant by "law." Such a Bill as that upon the Paper relating to the Law of Evidence and the Bill of last year relating to legal procedure might be referred to the Standing Committee on Law. But here was a Bill which might subject members of Town Councils, for instance, to deprivation of their privileges for a long time; and he did not think it was one of the Bills contemplated by the Standing Order to which he had referred. At all events, it was for the House to consider whether this was the sort of Bill to be referred to a Standing Committee. The Prime Minister agreed to the insertion of words proposed by him to the effect that it was for the House to decide in each case whether a Bill was to be sent to a Standing Committee or not. It was, therefore, for the House to consider whether this was not a Bill which would be better considered in Committee of the Whole House. There was another important question. When the Corrupt Practices Bill of last year was introduced it was stated by the Attorney General that there should be a maximum of expenditure, which was a vital principle of the Bill. In this Bill there was nothing of the kind, and that was a question which ought to be discussed by the House itself; for it should be recollected that the very same people who would be employed at municipal elections would be employed at Parliamentary elections. He begged to move that the Bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "referred to," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Committee of the whole House,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,) —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. TOMLINSONcontended that the House, by its action last year in reference to the Corrupt Practices Bill, was precluded from referring the present Bill to the Grand Committee on Law. The Bill was one which could not adequately be considered but by the House itself
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, Her Majesty's Government would labour under a very serious misapprehension and a very great delusion if they thought the House of Commons was prepared to surrender its functions to any body, Grand Committee, Standing Committee, or otherwise. With regard to these so-called and miscalled Grand Committees, they were told by the Prime Minister not long ago that by their machinery nothing less than a revolution would be effected in the mode of conducting Public Business, and that the capacity of the House of Commons to discharge the functions of a Senate would be largely increased. But now the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to admit that his new methods of procedure were a failure. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Not at all.] The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also prophesied great results from the institution of Grand Committees, saying that the House would be like a giant working with many hands. Now, however, Grand Committees as means for enabling the House to discharge important legislative duties, had practically been given up by the Government; for this Session no Bill of even third-rate importance was to be referred to a Grand Committee. The Government had realized that the House was determined not to allow Bills of first, second, or even third rank to be withdrawn from its cognizance. Every Member of the House had a duty to discharge towards his constituents and the country, and his responsibility was not diminished in the least by the reference of a Bill to a so-called Grand Committee. That being so, Members must narrowly criticize Bills referred to such Committees at the stage of Report. He objected altogether to the delegation or devolution of Parliamentary responsibility. The Prime Minister had called these Grand Committees a great experiment. How long did the right hon. Gentleman intend to make this House a chopping-block for experiments in legislation of this kind? If the experiment of last Session, would

    1873
    not convince the Government of the failure of these so-called Grand Committees he was at a loss to know what would. Of all subjects, matters of law were least suited to be dealt with by a Grand Committee, for those Members who had the advantage or disadvantage of a legal training were unable, owing to the pressure of their other duties, to attend such Committees. The Members who commanded the greatest weight were the most absent. This scheme of Grand Committees had been a signal, and, he might add, a well-merited failure; and he hoped the Government would withdraw the Motion to refer this Bill to a Grand Committee.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I shall not reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, because, were I to do so, I should be grossly abusing my privileges as a Member of this House. [Colonel MAKINS: Oh, oh !] The hon. and gallant Member for South Essex interrupts me with exclamations.
    COLONEL MAKINS: No; I did not.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Member denies he interrupted me?
    COLONEL MAKINS: I had no intention of interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. I merely expressed my disapproval of what the right hon. Gentleman said.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Well, perhaps he will allow me to say why I used the expression; and then let the hon. and gallant Member, if he likes, renew his exclamation. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman, from beginning to end, was a speech on the question whether there ought to be Grand Committees at all; and inasmuch as that question has long ago been settled, and it was perfectly well understood among us at the time of the discussion that on a Motion for the reference of a Bill to a Grand Committee the only question to be debated should be whether that Bill was a suitable Bill to be referred, therefore I say that a speech on the general question of Grand Committees on this occasion is an abuse of the privileges of a Member of the House. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was in marked contrast to that of the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire, for although the right hon. Gentleman very frankly ad-
    1874
    mitted his objections to Grand Committees as a whole, the bulk of what he said was as to the fitness of the present Bill to be referred. What were the allegations of the right hon. Gentleman? He urged that this Bill could be better discussed in Committee of the Whole House. I am free to say that if it were a question of a state of things where we had a perfect capacity of discussing all measures in Committee of the Whole House, I should think it better that they should be so discussed. But this is an expedient to enable the House to do its duty, and to meet a state of things under which that duty cannot be done. Then the right hon. Gentleman said there were certain points in the Bill that were points of principle and not fit to be raised in a Grand Committee. So far as that is concerned, I freely admitted at the time that any such points of principle might be excluded from the reference, or might be considered again when the Bill came back. The right hon. Gentleman says that the question of whether there should be a maximum placed on the expenditure at municipal elections is a question of principle that ought not to be referred. I must say that I do not see that that proposal is of such importance and of such sweeping character as to render it incompetent for the Committee to decide upon it. I do not see why it cannot be rediscussed, if necessary, in this House, if Members are not satisfied with the way in which the Committee may deal with it. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not understand how this could be considered a question of law. He said that all Bills were Bills of law in a certain sense. But in the most restricted sense no Bill is one of law. This Bill mainly deals with penalties for certain offences, and is therefore, I think, eminently associated with the class of Law Bills. The right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that we gave Notice at the beginning of the Session that it was intended to refer this Bill to a Grand Committee, and the present proposal is only in pursuance of that arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman has not shown any case why this Bill should not be so referred; and while I regret the necessity under which the House of Commons now suffers of devolving some of its duties on any subordinate body, yet the House has de-

    1875
    liberately and advisedly adopted the principle of Grand Committees, and nothing that has been said has shown that this Bill is not perfectly well suited, in every practical point of view, for reference to a Grand Committee.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, the Prime Minister had commenced his remarks with a somewhat savage attack on the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther); and when he (Colonel Makins) ventured to interject the monosyllablic remark "Oh!" the Prime Minister left off worrying his right hon. Friend, and turned with equal savageness upon him. He heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire, and it dealt with two points — the question of Grand Committees generally, and the desirability of referring this particular Bill to a Grand Committee. With regard to the first portion of the speech, no doubt there was some justification for the warmth of the Prime Minister; but, with regard to the speech as a whole, the Prime Minister was not justified in the attack which he made. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman's remarks had had the good effect of drawing a speech from the Prime Minister, and thus preventing what would have been a public scandal. The late Home Secretary made a Motion, and there was no reply from the opposite Benches, except the cry of "Divide !" from the Attorney General.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I beg pardon. I never made such a remark at all.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that, at any rate, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not reply, nor did any other Member on the Government Bench; and had it not been that his right hon. Friend rose, the debate would have terminated. Therefore, he thought the right hon. Gentleman's speech had had a good effect. Speaking for himself, he would not be deterred from expressing his disapproval of anything he objected to; and he protested against the uncalled-for attack which the Prime Minister had made upon him.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the House had, unfortunately, become recently only too familiar with these attempts on the part of the Prime Minister to interfere with the course of debate, and to consider any expression of opinion distasteful to him-
    1876
    self as being an abuse of the Privileges of the House. What had occurred was entirely due to the unwillingness of the Government to justify the proposal which he had submitted to the House. It was, however, to be hoped that there would not be an exhibition of the same sort for some time to come. The question of penalties to be imposed in respect of acts connected with the performance of public duty was one that ought to be discussed in the House; there was hardly a question upon which it was more important to preserve the Constitutional rights of Her Majesty's subjects; and if the Bill was referred to a Grand Committee he would reserve the Amendments which he intended moving, and bring them forward on the Report stage, when they could be adequately discussed. He was inclined to think that the difficulties of the Bill in the Standing Committee might, perhaps, lead to a proposal to have it re-committed in the whole House when it returned. He protested against the attempt of the Government to coerce the House into a renunciation of its Privileges of debate.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 206; Noes 149: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 90.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill referred to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure.

  LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.— [BILL 4.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.— [BILL 4.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read, and discharged.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had not given some reason for sending this Bill to the Standing Committee. It was not a Bill of any great length; it contained very few clauses; but it made a change in the Law of Evidence which was of the greatest im-

    1877
    portance. Hitherto the House had been dealing with a Bill of a technical character, containing a considerable number of clauses relating to a subject which, so far as Parliamentary elections were concerned, had been dealt with by Parliament at a recent date. No doubt, there was something to be said in favour of sending the measure dealing with corrupt practices at municipal elections to the Standing Committee. He did not believe that the reference would be successful, because it was clear that questions of great importance would be raised after that Bill had left the Standing Committee and come back to the House. He feared, therefore, the time of the Standing Committee on that measure would be wasted, as it had been wasted last year. But if the Attorney General wished this Bill to become law, he would put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether, instead of placing it behind the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, in its reference to the Committee, he had not better give some reasonable opportunity for the discussion of such a Bill in the House itself, by passing it through Committee there? He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was not really consulting either the interests of this measure, or the fair discussion of the great principle which was involved, by referring such a measure to the Standing Committee.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he had no objection to see this Bill referred to the Standing Committee; but he thought the House had not had a fair opportunity of discussing the principle of the Bill in the House itself. The change proposed by the Bill—whether right or wrong he did not say—was of the greatest importance, and involved considerations of a serious nature. He hoped the Attorney General would give the House an opportunity, at a subsequent stage, to discuss the principle of the Bill. He had not given Notice of opposition to the second reading, because he took it for granted that an opportunity would be given for discussion of the advisability of the proposed change; but no such opportunity had been given.
    MR. WARTONasked the House to consider the position in which it had been placed by the conduct of the Government. The Government had deprived
    1878
    the House of any opportunity whatever of expressing fully its opinion on a subject which was fraught with revolution to the Law of Evidence. On a question of change amounting to a revolution in the law, he did think that the Attorney General might have had some appreciation of its immense importance, and might have condescended to explain the object of the Bill to the House. In that belief he had refrained from putting down a Notice of opposition to the second reading of the Bill. The way in which the Government treated the House was extraordinary. He used the word "extraordinary" advisedly, because the Attorney General, in bringing forward this Bill for second reading had done so by merely raising his hat at 2 o'clock in the morning, and now, again, that evening, by a single phrase; and this, too, in connection with a measure which made a greater change in the Law of Evidence than had taken place for five centuries.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must request the hon. and learned Member to confine his remarks to the Question before the House.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the manner in which the House had been treated by the Government, and the "conspiracy of silence," which prevailed on the Treasury Bench with regard to this as well as other matters——
    MR. SPEAKER: I have already requested the hon. and learned Member to confine himself to the Motion of the Attorney General, which is that the Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Law. The hon. and learned Member does not appear to have paid any attention to my ruling.
    MR. WARTONsaid, in justification of his conduct in not confining his observations strictly to the subject under discussion, that he had lost his temper at the manner in which the House had been treated. It was perfectly scandalous that the House had had no opportunity of discussing the principle of the Bill, because, unless it was explained, the House was unable to form a judgment upon it. It would be useless for the Attorney General to attempt to counteract "blocking" by crushing discussion.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDwished to say a word as a matter of justice to the Attorney General, because he himself

    1879
    was responsible to some extent for the authorship of the Bill. The obloquy which had been cast on his hon. and learned Friend because of this attempted change in the law ought not to rest upon him alone. This proposed change formed originally part of the Code which treated of this matter, and this branch of the subject was peculiarly under his own jurisdiction. But, having said that, it could not be denied that the change was a very serious revolution in the law. It had been one of the cardinal principles of the administration of the Criminal Law that no person who was himself accused should be a witness; and it seemed to him that referring this Bill to a Grand Committee in these circumstances was not altogether desirable. The question of principle—although he himself held a strong view in favour of the proposed alteration—was one on which there was among the Legal Profession and the public very considerable division of opinion. Under those circumstances, if that Bill was referred to a Grand Committee, ingenious Members would be found to devise Amendments which would raise the question of principle in a direct form, and the effect of which would be not to reduce the Bill to a satisfactory shape, but to defeat it in some way or other. The result would be that the labours of the Grand Committee would be absolutely thrown away. From the very constitution of a Grand Committee the sending of such a Bill as that before it would not facilitate the passing of the measure afterwards, because those who had been defeated in the expedients to which he had alluded would inevitably raise those questions of principle in the House when the Bill came back from the Committee. He, therefore, deprecated the sending of that Bill to a Grand Committee. The House had had no substantial opportunity of discussing that matter. He, for one, should have been glad to have had an opportunity of discussing at full length the questions of principle which lay at the root of the measure, and to show that the alteration it proposed was a just and proper one; but he knew, after what the Speaker had said, that that was not a fit occasion for doing so. Therefore they had had the Bill read a second time at a late hour of the night without discussion, and then they were asked to send it to a Grand Committee.
    MR. INDERWICKremarked, that the principle embodied in that Bill had been already affirmed on three separate occasions by the House of Commons. In the first place, the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had carried a Bill that was substantially the same in principle as the present Bill; then, under the late Government, the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) introduced a Bill which was read a second time, containing the same provision, and the present Attorney General had also introduced it. He agreed very strongly with the substantial provision of the Bill that accused persons should be allowed to give evidence; and as that principle had been adopted over and over again in that House he did not think there would be any difficulty in the Grand Committee accepting it, and dealing with the details of the measure. At the same time, he must say that he, for one, should be glad that such a proposal should be discussed before the whole House, that he might have an opportunity of expressing his views. If, however, the Bill were sent before a Grand Committee, in his opinion, the only substantial questions to be discussed would be the details of the principle to be adopted; and he felt confident that afterwards every opportunity of discussing the matter would be afforded them in the House.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that whilst a good many gentlemen connected with the Incorporated Law Society, to which he had the honour to belong, did not look with disfavour on the principle of this Bill in regard to prisoners giving evidence on their trial, he unfortunately differed from them; and he certainly thought that Members of the House should have more opportunity than had hitherto been afforded them of discussing the measure. So far as they had admitted the principle of it hitherto, it had been comparatively limited in its extent. It had never been attempted on the large scale now suggested; and whether the Bill was going to a Grand Committee or to the Whole House, what he wished to see was whether they could not make some provision against what he thought was the tendency of the Bill —namely, of forcing or compelling every prisoner into the witness-box. There would, in ease of the Bill becoming law as it stood, be such a prejudice of feeling

    1881
    against a man who did not tender himself in evidence, that he thought it must inevitably lead to his conviction. How that obstacle was to be met he did not propose to discuss at that stage of the Bill; but he thought it was a point worthy the attention of the Committee, and that in respect of it, as far as possible, the prisoner ought to be protected.
    SIR JOHN HAYasked the Solicitor General for Scotland whether it was intended that the Bill should apply to that country? The Scottish Members and the Scottish people had had no opportunity of discussing the matter. He hoped the old system of examining Scottish prisoners was not going to be re-established. His own belief was that the process of examining the prisoner was not desired by the people of Scotland. He was in favour of devolution as far as the principle was concerned, but not in the middle of the Session. If Bills were to be sent to Grand Committees, it should be done at the beginning of the Session.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)said, that the Lord Advocate and he were of opinion that that Bill ought to be applied to Scotland; and, consequently, they proposed to move the Amendments in the Grand Committee which were necessary to make the Bill applicable to Scotland. He thought there was nothing in the Scottish system which should make the principle of the Bill, if it was a sound principle, inapplicable to Scotland.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that the proposal was not new to the House or to the country. For many years it had been the subject of discussion both in and out of Parliament; and during the last Parliament a Bill was introduced by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), and it was read a second time after a full discussion. The objection to the present Bill seemed to him related rather to its details than to its principles; and those, he thought, were better fitted for consideration by a Grand Committee than by Committee of the Whole House. But he hoped that some opportunity would be afforded to the House for its discussion at a future stage.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he held that this Bill was about the last one
    1882
    which ought to go to a Standing Committee. There was in it no detail at all. It altered the law in a most material particular affecting life and liberty, and made a change to which the House ought not to assent without full discussion.
    MR. WESTsaid, he hoped the Government would reconsider the matter. The House ought to have the opportunity of discussing the principle of the Bill.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, that the real reason why the Bill should not be referred to a Grand Committee was that both the principles and the details ought to be brought prominently before the public, as they would be by being discussed in the House rather than in the Grand Committee.
    MR. THOMAS COLLINSsaid, that he approved of the principle of the Bill, but he did not think it was carried far enough; and the House was the proper tribunal to discuss the question whether the principle should be carried further by making a prisoner compellable as well as competent to give evidence.
    MR. BULWERsaid, that all were agreed that the principle of the Bill was one on which the sense of the House ought to be expressed; and if it was to be discussed, after leaving the Grand Committee, the labours of that Committee would be wasted. As there was no procedure in the Bill, but only a simple, though very important, question of principle, it was not proper to refer such a Bill to a Grand Committee.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he hoped the Government would consider what had been urged upon their own side of the House. It was quite clear that there existed differences of opinion as to the application of the principle; and the discussion of the subject ought to reach the public, which it could not do through the medium of a Grand Committee, whose proceedings were practically not reported.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONthought that the principle of the Bill ought to be decided in that House. In the interests of the Bill itself, he would urge the Government not to send it to the Grand Committee. If they adhered to their decision much time would be wasted, and the Bill might not reach the House again before August.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he did not believe that the course which

    1883
    the Government had adopted would tend to pass the Bill into law this Session. He was anxious to see it passed; and, believing there was an overwhelming majority in the House in favour of the Bill, he regretted that anything should be done to impede its progress. No doubt, the Attorney General was taking the course which seemed to him the best; but if the Bill reached the Standing Committee it might not be dealt with until a late period of the Session. He was of opinion that when once the House had affirmed the principle of the Bill, the consideration of the Amendments would not take more than a few hours. If the Attorney General still desired that the Bill should go to the Standing Committee, he would support him with his vote; but the responsibility would rest with him.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he hoped that the Government, after the appeals which had been made to them, would reconsider their decision. He entertained a very strong objection to the proposals
    1884
    made in the Bill; but whether he was right or wrong in his view, he considered it most important that the principle should be discussed fully and clearly before the public. In his opinion, the Government would save time by declining to send the Bill to a Grand Committee.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 179; Noes 135: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 91.)
    The House suspended its Sitting at twenty minutes to Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Gas Provisional Orders * (81); Land Drainage Provisional Orders * (82).
Second Reading—Cruelty to Animals Acts Amendment (74), negatived.
Third Reading—Public Health (Confirmation of Bye-Laws) * (76), and passed.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Balfour.)
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 74.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD BALFOUR, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its main object was to put an end to the cruel pastime of shooting birds from traps. The circumstances under which it had been brought before the House, and which he should like to recall, were these. Last year a similar Bill was introduced in "another place," and its second reading was carried by 195 to 40. It was late in the Session,

  1815
  when that Bill was brought up to their Lordships' House, and its second reading was put down for a day far on in the month of August. There were not many of their Lordships present when it came on, and after a short discussion, upon a small Division being taken, it was rejected by a majority of 30 to 17. That was hardly a judgment of their Lordships' House which the supporters of the Bill could be expected to regard as final; and, therefore, the Bill had been brought in again, in the sanguine hope—in which he heartily joined—that their Lordships would reverse their decision of last year, and pass the present Bill by a considerable majority. With the view of meeting some of the objections that had been urged to the Bill of last year, he had modified it in some respects; but its essential features were the same as those of the Bill of last year, and its object, briefly described, was to suppress the practice of pigeon-shooting, which, certainly, under no circumstances could be legitimately described as sport. He knew that that character was sometimes claimed for it; but he would like some of its defenders to get up arid state the grounds on which they put forward that claim. He was not going to venture on an attempt to define what was, and what was not, sport; but sport, to be legitimate, ought to provide healthy recreation for the mind and body, and, in some respects, test the strength and ability of men, and, it might be, also, of trained dogs, against the instincts of animals more or less in their native haunts. If that was to be the canon by which to decide what was, and what was not, sport, it would be very difficult for the advocates of pigeon-shooting to bring it within that definition. He did not think he went too far, when he said that pigeon-shooting had its origin, and owed its continuance, to the fact that it was a medium for gambling for bets and stakes subscribed by the competitors. He did not ask their Lordships to condemn betting and gambling. He did not think the Legislature could properly be asked to do that; but something could be done for the purpose of checking, as at present practised, this essentially revolting practice, in which animals were put to death for the main, if not the only, purpose of affording a means for amusement and gambling. He would like those who
  1816
  advocated the practice to face the question whether or not it was frequently attended with serious cruelties? As regarded himself, he had no doubt upon the subject. He divided the cruelties into two classes—firstly, those which were wilful injuries, such as where it had been proved, as it bad in many cases, that birds had been mutilated, or otherwise cruelly injured, by having their bills twisted, their bodies bruised, and their feathers plucked out by the attendants, before they had been put in the trap, for the purpose of giving one competitor an advantage over another; the other class of cruelties was one that, he contended, was almost inseparable from the continuance of the practice—namely, the sufferings which the birds underwent on their way to the place where they were to be shot. It was said in a Paper, which he held in his hand, and which had been extensively circulated amongst their Lordships, that the practice was not attended with cruelty. That Paper purported to give reasons against the second reading of the Bill, and apparently had been distributed by some of its opponents. It said that—
  "Not a single case of cruelty had occurred in connection with pigeon-shooting; and that if it did occur the law, as it stood at present, would be quite able to deal with the offenders."
  He ventured to say that was not the case. He (Lord Balfour) would admit that pigeon-shooting might not be accompanied with cruelty in well-regulated clubs; but the Secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals informed him that that Body had obtained convictions in 25 cases; and he added the significant sentence that many more could be obtained, but for the fact that the officers of the Society could not gain admission to private grounds. By private grounds, he meant public-house grounds and other similar places. When the officers of the Society became known, on their attempting to enter these places, they were warned off, and not allowed to get near enough to see what was going on. To bring the law into operation it was necessary—and very properly necessary—to prove a specific act of cruelty committed by a specific person, on a specific bird, at a specific hour, on a specific day. To get all these facts with sufficient exactness, they must have every facility for proper observation; and the difficulty of securing an entry into

  1817
  these private grounds prevented many prosecutions which would otherwise be instituted. So much for that form of cruelty. There was another, and an analogous, kind to which he wished to call attention, and it referred not only to pigeon-shooting, but also to the shooting of starlings and sparrows out of traps. The existing law was hopelessly insufficient to deal with cases of that kind, inasmuch as it only applied to domestic animals, which those birds were not. Not many days ago, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals prosecuted a man for having cruelly treated pigeons on their way to a shooting ground; but it was only through accidental circumstances that it was discovered that the pigeons were domestic, and that, therefore, the Act applied. But there was another case on the 19th April, in which the same Society applied for a conviction. It was a case of some sparrows. The Society prosecuted a publican and several other persons under the Wild Birds Act. It appeared that there were 12 dozen sparrows packed in boxes on the top of one another. Many of these birds were so much injured by the manner in which they had been packed, that they were unable to fly. Stones were thrown at them, and if they still refused to fly, they were kicked to death. These birds, however, having been recently caught, were not domestic animals, and the Justices refused to give a conviction. That fact, in itself, was sufficient to show that the existing law did not give sufficient power. Before he left that document which had been issued by the opponents of the Bill he would like to make one or two other comments. In the sentence before the one he had referred to, there was a statement that this Bill would also put down partridge-shooting, a statement which most certainly was not correct. Then the document gave, as a reason for the rejection of the Bill by their Lordships, that the pigeons used at shooting clubs were the source of considerable profit to farmers and dealers, and in support of that they gave the price of the pigeons that were used. He (Lord Balfour) was obliged to them for doing so, because he thought it furnished him with a complete answer to one of their arguments. The lowest price, he found, was 16 s. per dozen, the highest, 30 s. That, he thought,
  1818
  disposed of the argument that was often used—namely, that they were interfering with the poor man's sport, for he ventured to say there was no man who could properly be described as ''poor" that could afford to pay from 16 s. to 30 s. a-dozen for targets to shoot at. With regard to the amount of profit gained by those who reared pigeons, these figures could not be held to represent anything like the amount, because pigeons, like other animals, must be fed; and if they were not fed by the owner, they were allowed to travel over the country and feed at other people's expense. Therefore, the figures in. question were no proof of the largeness of the sums made by rearing pigeons. There were other objections to the Bill. Last year it was said that it would be wrong for the Legislature to pass this Bill, because, for the first time, it was making the act of shooting at a bird an offence on account of cruelty, and that it was no more cruelty in shooting at a bird sprung out of a trap than in shooting at one sprung in a turnip-field or a cover. In order to meet this objection, he had made the 2nd clause of the Bill provide that a penalty should be incurred by keeping or using any ground for the purpose of pigeon-shooting; while those who engaged or assisted in such shooting should also be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5. They could not wholly exempt those for whose amusement and edification the whole performance was got up. That, he thought, would be manifestly unjust. The offence which was made punishable was not the shooting at a bird, but the shooting of a bird out of a trap or other contrivance. That was the object of the promoters of the Bill, and he was afraid, if the practice was to be put down, that was the only way to do it. If, however, another and a better one could be suggested, by which the end desired could be attained, he would gladly adopt it. There was this curious feature about the opposition to this measure—that while many noble Lords had told him that they could not support the Bill, on the ground that it partook of the nature of paternal legislation, they always added that they did not wish to be numbered among those who approved pigeon-shooting, which they admitted was a most reprehensible practice. He frankly admitted that the Bill might be open to

  1819
  the charge that it partook of the nature of paternal legislation; and he expected that it would be warmly opposed, on that ground, by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, who was always most anxious to prevent the Legislature from passing measures that were open to that charge. If, however, Parliament were compelled to choose between paternal legislation and the evils of pigeon-shooting, he would venture to say that he should infinitely prefer the former, for the evils of pigeon-shooting were greater than the evils of paternal legislation. It had also been remarked that the Bill would open the door to the prohibition of shooting and of field sports altogether, and that they might as well make the Bill apply to the shooting of pheasants and partridges, for pigeon-shooting was no more cruel than partridge or pheasant-shooting. There was, however, a marked difference between confining a bird in a trap, for the purpose of shooting at it, and seeking it in a wild state. He did not know whether the admission would help, or would hurt, his chance of passing this measure; but he avowed that, if any kind of shooting or of field sport were so conducted as to outrage public feeling, as pigeon-shooting did, then he believed that such shooting or sport would be sent where he now asked their Lordships to send pigeon-shooting by passing this Bill. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." — (The Lord Balfour.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that, as he had done last Session, he should oppose the Bill, on the ground that it came before the House asking for something under false pretences. He denied altogether that his noble Friend (Lord Balfour) had shown, there was necessarily any cruelty in pigeon-shooting. He (the Earl of Redesdale) contended that there was no cruelty in shooting at a bird for the purpose of killing it, and that the noble Lord had failed to show that there was necessarily more cruelty in letting a bird out of a trap and shooting at it than there was in partridge or pheasant-shooting. What was cruelty? The noble Lord had not ventured to determine the question in this matter. Was it shooting at birds with intent to kill? If this was the meaning of the word, then everyone
  1820
  practised it who went into a turnip-field to shoot partridges, or into a cover to shoot pheasants. The noble Lord said the Bill was for the purpose of putting down, pigeon-shooting. Then, why was it not so called? He (the Earl of Redesdale) would tell their Lordships why it was not, and that was because the noble Lord had not the courage to call it so; and, also, because he knew very well that he would be much more likely to get support from their Lordships for the measure by calling it "Cruelty to Animals Acts Amendment Bill." The Bill, however, had nothing whatever to do with cruelty to animals. It was somewhat remarkable that it should have taken some 30 or 40 years to find out that pigeon-shooting was cruelty. If the noble Lord, for the Society he represented, required further powers to detect cruelty if it was perpetrated, let a Bill be introduced for the purpose. Such a measure, however, should be called by its proper name, as he (the Earl of Redesdale) objected altogether to a Bill being called by a name which could not properly belong to it. There was nothing objectionable in a man showing his skill in the use of a gun or any other instrument, and the shooting at a bird with the intent to kill it was necessary to test skill in the use of a fowling-piece as was shooting at a target with a rifle or long-bow There was a class of persons in this country who objected to all kinds of field sports, and who regarded hunting or shooting of any kind as cruelty. He (the Earl of Redesdale), however, called shooting sport, and legitimate sport. He thought there was no ground for the Bill, and, therefore, he moved its rejection.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Redesdale.)
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that he should give the Bill his best support, on the same ground that he objected to bull-baiting and cock-fighting—because those particular forms of sport tended to brutalize the people. There were thousands of places throughout the country where pigeon and other forms of trap-shooting were carried on amid circumstances of revolting cruelty, as those who had to administer justice well knew. All who had anything to do with the

  1821
  prosecution of these cruelty cases were aware of the difficulties in the way of bringing the offences homo to the offenders. He might instance, as one description of cruelty, the very long periods which some of those birds were confined. When Martin's Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Horses and Asses was brought forward in 1821, it was met by the objection that, if once this line of legislation were allowed to be commenced, there was no knowing where it would stop; and that, perhaps, measures would be brought forward to prevent cruelty to dogs; and, it was added, amid roars of laughter, perhaps even to cats. He was sure the great mass of the public did not object to sport engaged in for the purpose of exercise, which meant roaming through woods and fields, and required a considerable knowledge of the habits and instincts of animals; but, in the present case, the so-called sport was of an inferior, a poor and contemptible character: it did nothing to develop the qualities of strength and activity in the persons who engaged in it and was, moreover, subject to the very grossest abuses on a large scale. Therefore it was that he said pigeon-shooting had a brutalizing tendency. The sufferings of pigeons were very great, and all the practices resorted to at pigeon matches should be put a stop to. Abuses were inevitably connected with this sport, which was not worth protecting. There were other amusements which were subject to abuse—as, for instance, the theatre and the racecourse; but he should be sorry to see either of those amusements put an end to because there were abuses connected with them, because they had redeeming features which could not be claimed for the so-called sport of pigeon-shooting-. Should the Bill pass this stage, it was his intention in Committee to move an Amendment to extend the operation of the Bill from places specially set aside for pigeon-shooting to places occasionally used for that purpose.
  EARL COWPERsaid, he should oppose the Bill, much against his inclination in many respects; because, in the first place, he thought it might be unfortunate that a Bill which had passed by such a large majority in "another place" should be thrown out by their Lordships; and, in the second, there were people who
  1822
  would say that their Lordships, many of whom were fond of shooting, were afraid of their own arrangements being interfered with. But their Lordships ought to be above such considerations, and to let their votes be guided by considerations of public policy. Like the noble Earl who had moved its rejection (the Earl of Redesdale), he thought there was a great deal of false pretence about the Bill. He maintained that in pigeon-shooting the cruelty at the moment was very little indeed, and not more than that of any other shooting, or any other mode of putting animals to death, and the alleged incidental had not been proved. Speaking for himself, he had given up pigeon-shooting, because he did not like the associations connected with it; but, so far as he could remember, there was less cruelty connected with pigeon-shooting than almost any other kind of sport. On those grounds he must oppose the Bill, because he could not admit that their Lordships had before them sufficient evidence as to the alleged abuses to justify them in passing such a piece of restrictive, exceptional, and highly objectionable legislation as was involved in the present Bill. He thought it his duty, as a Member of that House, to vote straight forwardly against the Bill.
  EARL FORTESCUE, in opposing the Bill, said, he never remembered a more remarkable speech made by an ex-Cabinet Minister—indeed, an ex-Home Secretary—than the one which had just been delivered, carefully informing the roughs of what cruelties they could now perpetrate with impunity. He (Earl Fortescue) objected to the Bill, although he had no sympathy whatever in this so-called sport. It was a matter of opinion, certainly, how far the practice partook of the character of sport; but if this Bill was to pass, he would like to know where this proposed legislation to restrict cruelty to animals was to stop? A good deal had been said in reference to the cruelty of conveying pigeons from the places where they were bred to those where they were to be shot at; but the same noble Lords who made this objection, supported the carriage of animals from foreign countries at the cost of immense suffering to them, in order that they might be killed for food in this country, instead of beieg imported in the shape of dead meat. What that suffering must be might be judged from the fact

  1823
  that in one year over 14,000 had died of the passage, most of thorn thrown overboard, the rest landed dying and useless. He regretted those sufferings, and he equally objected to the recently-revived cruel fashion, now prevalent, of docking horses' tails'; but he was not prepared to give effect by prohibitory legislation to his opinions on those points. There was a risk of too much legislation on questions of that kind. Were they in future to do nothing without appealing to Parliament? He felt jealous of the honour of the British Parliament, and he hoped— though he was afraid that was past praying for—its high character and position would be maintained. The reputation of that Parliament, which, with all its imperfections had been for centuries the envy and admiration of all lovers of liberty abroad, was now being lowered in the eyes of foreign nations both by what was done and what was not done in it. There were important measures which the time of Parliament might be usefully employed upon; but he protested against the time and labour of the Legislature being wasted upon a proposal of this kind. Nero fiddled while Home was burning, and they were legislating for pigeons when affairs at home and abroad were calling urgently for attention.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he should support the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, because he considered it was a duty they owed to the lower animals, when killing them, to see that they had at least a fair chance. All birds should be placed upon an equality; but no pigeon let loose from a trap had an equal chance of his life with a partridge put up in a turnip-field, or as birds sought for in the high hills or on the Rocky Mountains.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY, in opposing the second reading, said, that for some time he had been engaged in the practice of pigeon-shooting: but he had not done so for many years, because he did not think it a sporting operation, and because it was an expensive one. He did not give it up because he considered the sport was cruel. He was not an admirer of the large battues that took place; and he thought if they were to stop the shooting of pigeons from traps, those ought also to be stopped, for there was nothing more cruel in pigeon-shooting than in destroying
  1824
  pheasants, where they were driven huddled up into a corner, and shot by hundreds. Last year, he read that out of six guns, in one week of six days, those six guns had killed 8,358 head of game, which gave an average of 230 to 240 for each gun each day. He should not have mentioned this, did he not think it came very ill from the noble Lord, who, it might surprise their Lordships to hear, was one of this party of sis guns, to come forward and move the second reading of this Bill. The Bill was introduced under false pretences, for no serious attempt had been made to prove that pigeon-shooting was attended with unnecessary cruelty.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he considered he should be wanting in proper regard for the duties of his Office if he did not say one word in support of the Bill, and he could not admit that the measure had come into the House under false pretences. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill (Lord Balfour) did not impute any cruelty to the skilled pigeon-shooter, but he wished to put down a great mass of cruelty connected with the shooting. As the noble Lord had said, he was quite willing to accept any other means of putting down this cruelty, if it could be done; but he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) did not believe that it could be done by any other means. This did not belong to that class of sport which was so dear to Englishmen, but it was one which was passing out of usage— that old class of so-called sport which preyed on the sufferings of confined animals. This was not a case where a man delivered a shot, and the bird's life was taken in a moment. It was that old system of inflicting punishment on confined creatures to which he objected. There could be no doubt about the fact that acts of cruelty were committed. He had been informed by persons living in the neighbourhood of these grounds, that they constantly picked up injured birds, which lived a considerable time, some of them with one eye gouged out, some with beaks twisted across, and otherwise mutilated in a shocking manner, in order to make them fly in a particular direction. These things, of course, were not to be attributed to the shooters, but were done in the interests of the large number of depraved persons who assembled in these places to gamble.

  1825
  It had been suggested by his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) that such legislation was unworthy of the dignity of that House; but he could not agree that anything was unworthy of their Lordships' dignity which in any way tended to remove one pang of suffering; and if there was any doubt as to the suffering that was caused, it could easily be set at rest by inquiry. But the acts of cruelty, it was urged, were the work of a brutalized mob. No doubt the mob that collected on these occasions was a brutalized one; but he thought they were being helped to be further brutalized by the sanction of such proceedings as these. They were, in fact, a source of terror and annoyance—he did not like the word danger—to the neighbourhood. As regarded them, he would not call them "dangerous classes," for he thought there were very few who could be so described; but he thought none were more dangerous than the utterly unemployed class of loafers who went about all day with a gun in their hand ready to shoot or to pick up birds wherever they fell, totally regardless of boundaries, fences, and all rights of property. He thought it a great argument in favour of the Bill that it met with help from those who maintained true sport. He cordially supported the second reading, and trusted the House would not sanction a system which brutalized the population. If sport ever were to be attacked as sport, it would be because some of its votaries upheld as sport a practice which wholly tended to brutalize so many, as well as to inflict incredible suffering on thousands of innocent creatures.
  On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion?"
  Their Lordships divided: — Contents 48; Not-Contents 78: Majority 30.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Kimberley, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Bedford, D.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Strafford, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Sydney, E.

  Northampton, M.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Belmore, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Powerscourt, V.

  De La Warr, E.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Derby, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Bangor, L Bp.

  Granville, E.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  1826

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Coleridge, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Greville, L.

  Aberdare, L. [Teller.]

  Hatherton, L.

  Balfour of Burley, L. [Teller.]

  Hothfield, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Carew, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Robartes, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Strafford, L. (V. En field.)

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Thurlow, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Truro, L.

  Waveney, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Portland, D.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Churston, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Colchester, L.

  Westminster, D.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Dacre, L.

  Abergavenny, M.

  de Clifford, L.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Caledon, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Clonmell, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Harewood, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Howe, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Jersey, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. kintore.)

  Lucan, E.

  Leconfield, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Meldrum, L. (Mr. Huntley.)

  Milltown, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Monson, L.

  Ravensworth, E.

  North, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Penzance, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Zetland, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Bolingbroke and st. John, V.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Gough, V.

  Sandys, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Sherborne, L.

  Hood, V.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longfond.)

  Alcester, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Amherst, L. (V. Holmsdale.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) [Teller.]

  Ashfor'd, L. (V. Bury)

  Auckland, L.

  Borthwick, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

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

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Camoys, L,

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Westbury, L. [Teller.]

  Resolved in the negative.
  Bill to be read 2a this day six month.

PORTUGAL—THE CONGO TREATY.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, in rising to move—
  "That the Petition of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce against the ratification of the Congo Treaty be printed and circulated with the minutes,"
  after remarking that lie must substitute the Birmingham Petition for that from Manchester, which he had named in his Notice, but which could not be found, said, he must acknowledge that his Motion was a somewhat unusual one; but it was one, he believed, justified by the facts of the case. He did not intend to discuss it in any Party spirit, but purely as a commercial question of great importance. A deep interest was taken in the Congo Treaty in Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Glasgow, and all the great commercial centres of the Kingdom; and the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs must be aware that considerable objections to the ratification of the Treaty were felt, not merely amongst Members of the Conservative Party, but also amongst those of that Party to which the noble Earl himself belonged. He did not intend, on that occasion, to ask their Lordships to pass a Resolution against the ratification of the Treaty, or to act in any way prematurely in the matter. Such a course would be very inconvenient, because, when this subject had come up last year in the House of Commons, upon a Motion of Mr. Jacob Bright, the Prime Minister had given a pledge that the Treaty should not be ratified until the House of Commons had had an opportunity of considering the matter; and he saw by the report in The Times that that pledge had been renewed as lately as yesterday by Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, who had said also, that Her Majesty's Government had re-opened their correspondence with Portugal on the subject of the Treaty. But what he did wish was, that the fullest consideration should be given to the matter. He would remind them of a few facts regarding the history of the Congo. The River Congo had been discovered by Portugal, or, at all events, by a Portuguese subject in the year 1491; and Portugal, therefore, claimed the sovereignty over the district. But in 1853 Lord Clarendon, in a despatch of the 26th of November, said
  1828
  it was manifest that the rights of Portugal had long since lapsed; and in 1860 Lord John Russell had used words to the same effect in a despatch to the Portuguese Minister. In 1876, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), when Minister for Foreign Affairs in Lord Beaconsfield's Cabinet, had used similar language. Lord Palmerston, moreover, some years before, in writing to Lord Howard de Walden, had stated that it could not be permitted that British vessels which might be seized by Portuguese cruisers in the region, of the Congo River, should be adjudicated on by a Portuguese Prize Court. It was clear, then, that the claims urged by Portugal with regard to the Congo and the adjacent coast had not been acquiesced in by the Government of this country in recent years. [The noble Earl here quoted from the Report of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce in 1883, which alluded to the fact that there was great apprehension of interference with the interests of British trade by Portugal; and from other similar documents.] In November, 1882, a deputation had waited upon Sir Charles W. Dilke on the subject; and a Memorial had been sent to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) representing the small claim which Portugal had upon that region. The exports and imports from and to this country, although more or less a matter of calculation, were, on good authority, £1,000,000 each way per annum, so that the question was by no means an insignificant one. Last year the Manchester Chamber of Commerce had addressed a letter to the noble Earl representing that the trade from Loando, north of the Congo, to Quinsembo, south of that river, was not carried oil by Portuguese, but by English and Dutch traders, and that that had been the case for some time. There had boon nine Treaties made by this country with the Native Chiefs on the Lower Congo, dating from June, 1854, to March, 1877, which might be reduced to seven, as two of them were merely additional articles to two of the other Treaties. The essence of all those Treaties was absolute Free Trade on payment of a sort of "accustomed duty" to the Chief before the ship began to unload; and in many of them there were stipulations against the Slave Trade and the atrocities which accompanied it. The

  1829
  noble Earl then quoted from a letter which Mr. Jacob Bright had addressed to The Daily News on the 18th of April, in which he said—
  "The present condition of things on the Lower Congo, this region which Portugal has long coveted, and her claim to which England has always stoutly resisted, is well described in a letter from Earl Granville to the Portuguese Minister, dated March 15,1883. 'On this coast many trading factories are established, of which a small minority only are Portuguese. They belong to British, French, German, and Dutch houses. They pay no dues or imposts, making only insignificant payments to Native Chiefs. Their vessels ply without hindrance in the rivers and along the coast. There is no obstacle to the free access of the traders to the interior. Missionaries also, irrespective of creed, are allowed perfect freedom in their work. It would be impossible, then, to agree to the imposition of burdens which do not now exist;… the freedom of trade and navigation of the River Congo should be absolute, involving exemption from all river dues or tolls; equality should be secured to missionaries of all creeds. After this statement will it be believed that Her Majesty's Government have made a Treaty with Portugal by which the contention of Lord Granville that the 'freedom of trade should be absolute' has been abandoned, and the' imposition of burdens which do not now exist' will take place?"
  Alluding to the Slave Trade, Mr. Bright says—
  "To give increased territory to Portugal in the interest of African freedom is a new doctrine in this country. A year has seldom passed by without the British Government rebuking the Portuguese Government for conniving at the Slave Trade. It has been, indeed, said that the Slave Trade is the only trade for which the Portuguese have shown a marked aptitude. Lord Mayo last year described to me his journey in the steamship Angola from Benguela to Lisbon, in company of a cargo of slaves. He said that between Angola and the Island of St. Thomas there is a regular traffic in slaves, and that official forms are made use of in order to conceal its character, and to enable the officers of the Government to reap some portion of the reward. Slaves are brought from the interior to Catumbella—they are called 'Colonials.' The price here is £7 a-head. They are then sent in lighters to the Portuguese steamship at Benguela, thence to Loanda, where official forms are gone through. They are assumed to have engaged themselves for five years' service. They are then shipped in the same steamer to the Island of St. Thomas. They are well treated on board and decently clothed. Price at St. Thomas from £10 to £15; a pretty girl sells for more. They can be re-engaged by the planters at the office of Santa Anna, the capital of the Island, and in this re-engagement they are not consulted. In the ship in which Lord Mayo sailed in February last year there were 82 of these 'Colonials' on board. They die early, and never see their own country again."
  The noble Earl then referred, in some
  1830
  detail, to the last Papers on the subject which had been laid before Parliament, and particularly to the Mozambique tariff which was scheduled to the Treaty now awaiting ratification, and which the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs appeared to consider a liberal one. That tariff imposed duties, however, ranging up to 10 per cent ad valorem. Quoting, again, from Mr. Jacob Bright, he (the Earl of Belmore) showed that the Portuguese Customs officials on the Mozambique coast were extremely unsatisfactory; that, in addition to the Customs duties, British merchants had to pay very heavy trade licences, whilst each of their employés were separately taxed. The result was that all the British merchants but one had been driven away from the Mozambique coast; and that one made a living by carrying on a trade of a peculiar character. It was feared that if the Lower Congo came under the Dominion of Portugal, British subjects would have to pay, in addition to the Customs tariff, Income Tax and Succession Duties such as were now imposed in their adjoining Possessions at Angola; and that the. settlement at Boma, a town near Nokki, which had been fixed on as the western limit, on the southern bank of the river, of Portuguese jurisdiction, would be ruined. Inland, no limits of jurisdiction were fixed by the Treaty. He (the Earl of Belmore) admitted that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs having pointed out that the Governor General of Mozambique had, of his own authority, attempted to increase the duties under the tariff, the Portuguese Government had repudiated the Governor General's action. He also admitted that the noble Earl had come to ail arrangement with the Portuguese Government that there should be no transit dues on goods passing up the river, to the Upper Congo; and, further, that a landing place which had been constructed a few miles lower down the river than Vivi (on the northern bank opposite to Nokki), and where the current was not so strong, for the Belgian station in connection with the Association under the control of the King of the Belgians, should be outside the limit of Portuguese territory. Two questions seemed to suggest themselves arising out of this Treaty. Why had it been concluded at all? And why with Portugal in particular? The noble Earl

  1831
  would probably refer him for an answer to the first question to the Treaty itself, which said that it was to put an end to all difficulties relative to rights of sovereignty; to provide for the complete extinction of the Slave Trade; and to promote commerce and civilization. Well, be it so; but was Portugal the best Power to carry out these objects? We might have taken one of three other courses. We might have either taken the Lower Congo under our own protection; or established a sort of international protectorate; or handed it over to one of the other Powers trading in the district. The noble Earl concluded by moving his Resolution.
  Moved, "That the petition of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce against the ratification of the Congo Treaty, presented to the House on the 22nd of April last, be printed."—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Belmore) has, in point of form, been somewhat irregular in moving that a course should be adopted which is never followed in this House, inasmuch as it is not the practice to print Petitions. He has supported his Motion in a long speech; but I am very reluctant to complain on that account, because it is impossible for him to have been more temperate and more moderate. He has read many extracts; but some of them tell as much on one side of the question as on the other. The noble Earl said that he did not intend to introduce any Party feeling, and I admit that he has most thoroughly carried out that good intention. I do not know whether it is the absence of Party feeling that accounts for the fact that the noble Earl had only one Peer on the seats behind him, increased to two after the conclusion of his speech; but I hope that absence of Party feeling will continue until this matter is finally and satisfactorily settled. With regard to the printing of the Petition, I have already said that it is contrary to the usage of your Lordships' House; and I regret that the less, because, in this case, it is entirely unnecessary, for the Petition is merely the repetition of certain statements and arguments contained in letters and other documents, addressed by the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester to the Foreign Office, and they are included in the Papers on the
  1832
  subject, which are shortly to be presented to your Lordships. I might have been disposed to postpone any discussion on the matter until a time when there are a few more Peers in the House, and when those Papers have been presented and considered, especially as we are now in communication with the Portuguese Government on a very important point— namely, the objection raised by some foreign Governments to the character of the Treaty; but I am glad to have an opportunity of making a few remarks, if even in very general terms, on the nature and objects of this Treaty. The noble Earl referred to the large commerce which was going on with the River Congo, and said—
  "Her Majesty's Government are not aware of that large commerce, and are doing something to destroy it."
  Why, the very object of this Treaty is exactly the reverse of destroying that commerce—it is to retain and to enlarge it. The noble Earl further said the Manchester Chamber of Commerce had declared against the Treaty, saying that it would ruin their trade; but the Cotton Spinners' Association of the same city— a most important institution in itself— say really the reverse, and they add what I believe is perfectly true—namely, that, while commerce is now a monopoly in the hands of a few strong firms of different nationalities, the result of this Treaty will be to throw it open to a much more extended commerce on the part of small traders on the Congo, who will be able to invest their capital with a sense of security now altogether absent. The noble Earl spoke of the necessity of reading extracts from the pamphlets of the Chamber of Commerce, some of which I am bound to say, are of great interest; others having little interest, and not indicating much knowledge of the matter. Much was also made by the noble Earl of the point that there had been a persistent repudiation of the Portuguese claims by different Secretaries of State. I admit that it is true that the Secretaries of State have not, up to this moment, recognized those claims. It happens that I received an appointment in the Foreign Office nearly 50 years ago. I have been connected with the Office four times since then, and may therefore claim to have some acquaintance with its traditions and documents; and from my experience,

  1833
  which I am sure will be backed up by that of the older permanent officials of the Department, and by the noble Earl behind me also, (the Earl of Derby), the real motive of that repudiation was exclusively the fear of encouraging, and not being able to deal with, the Slave Trade on the Congo, which is entirely stopped at this moment. That makes the whole difference between the former and the present state of the case. Her Majesty's Government are aware that different countries and different associations are all competing for the commerce of Africa, and especially in the region of the Congo. We have a state of things which is singularly illustrated by the long extract quoted by the noble Earl from a despatch of the English Consul, in which he describes every sort of outrage as going on—an attack on the Dutch factory, with retaliation and fighting, repudiation of the sovereignty of Portugal altogether in the first instance, and then, under the pressure of circumstances, an appeal to the Portuguese Government to settle matters. If the Portuguese Government had not intervened, and if the English Consul had not also used his influence, matters would have resulted in a very disgraceful state of things. I could give other and similar instances. I cannot conceive these considerations not making it important to have some settled Government. It is all very well for individual merchants or powerful firms to say that we are taking away the freedom of trade; but we think that there is freedom of trade in this Treaty, in the true sense of that term, which does not exclude the imposition of moderate duties. The 1st Article of the Treaty recognizes Portuguese Sovereignty in that portion of the territory to which the noble Earl has referred, and the next five Articles make a more complete and favourable arrangement for the perfect freedom of the navigation and commerce than can be found in any existing Treaty of the class at this time. The noble Earl used two arguments, in the first of which he said—" If you move at all, and if a Treaty were entered into, you ought to secure the object that you have in view." I think that this Treaty does secure our object. The noble Earl's next point was that if we entered into a Treaty at all, it should
  1834
  not be with the Portuguese. There have been innumerable deputations to the Foreign Office upon this subject, and I the greater number of the gentlemen who formed them have admitted that they could not find fault with the Treaty; but their real objection, like that of the noble Earl, was that we ought to have taken the Congo ourselves. But are we really to take possession of every navigable river all over the world and every avenue of commerce, for fear somebody else should 'take possession of it? The Portuguese have claimed this particular territory for nearly 400 years, and there is no reason why their claim should not be perfectly good, although we have hitherto refused to recognize it. Their claims have not been opposed by any other country, and the only reason why they are not now in. occupation is this—that we, acting in a high-handed manner, but one justified by the circumstances of the time with reference to our anti-Slavery opinions, gave them to understand that we would use force to prevent their occupation of the territory. And so matters stand at the present moment. It is rather too late to say that we should not enter into a Treaty with Portugal; for, as a matter of fact, the Government have already done so, and have agreed to negotiate a Treaty. After what has passed, a formal Resolution having been come to in the House of Commons, and no objection raised to it in the House of Lords, it appears to me to be too late to say we will not have this Treaty because it is made with a country like Portugal. We have laid down in the Treaty the strictest rules with respect to the freedom of commerce, bearing in mind the pledges given in Parliament by the Government. The noble Earl fears that the Portuguese will not mind those obligations; but if we have force sufficient to prevent them from doing that which they claim they have a right to, why should we fear that they will not adhere to the Articles of the Treaty to which they themselves willingly consented?
  THE EARL OF BELMORE: Are they to have power to levy any taxes under the Treaty beyond those levied for Customs?
  EARL GRANVILLE: With regard to the territory in question, if the noble Earl looked at the clause he would see

  1835
  that we not only have the advantage of the most favoured nation clause in the Treaty as regards other countries; but there can be no differential duties as between us and the Portuguese. This Treaty does not merely deal with the territory in dispute, which is not a very large one; but it goes beyond that, and deals with the Slave Trade which exists in the East of Africa. With regard to that question, we have obtained, for the first time, that which both the Foreign and Colonial Offices have been striving for for years—I mean a permission to use effectual means to put down the Slave Trade on the Zambesi and on the East Coast. It is also most important that we have secured the most favoured nation clause with respect to the rest of the African Possessions of Portugal. The noble Earl referred to certain evils connected with the labour traffic, and there are, without doubt, evils connected with it. With regard to the labour traffic there, which amounts to slavery, Mr. Johnstone, who has written a most interesting book on the subject, says that, on the Congo, nearly all the firms, with, possibly, the exception of English firms, employ slave labour. The noble Earl knows better than I do what has been done with regard to the labour traffic in the Fiji Islands, and the extreme difficulty there has been in dealing with it. Portugal, France, Germany, and ourselves are all occupied in trying to deal with this important question. With I regard to the slave traffic, we deal with it in a manner I have described; but we do not attempt in this particular Treaty to deal with the labour traffic specifically, and I think there are very good reasons for that course. I put it to your Lordships, if this Treaty does not take effect, what our position will be. I do not mean to say that the noble Earl wishes to fetter the liberty of action of Her Majesty's Government in taking any course that may seem most wise; but the course suggested by him would involve us in the possibility of war. Mr. Jacob Bright is a strong advocate for peace, and I should like to ask whether he would advocate the threatening of Portugal with a war after she has in this Treaty agreed to all the conditions which Her Majesty' s Government thought necessary in order to obtain absolute freedom for commerce and trade, and
  1836
  absolute liberty for the conduct of missionary work, and with regard to the suppression of the Slave Trade, within their African territory.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he would like to ask the noble Earl when the Papers would be laid on the Table?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not state absolutely; but he hoped in the course of a few days.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, after the objection taken to his Motion on the ground of Order, he should ask the permission of the House to withdraw it.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.