Sitting of 15 May 1884

MINUTES.
— NEW MEMBER SWORN—Hon. John Stewart Gathorne Hardy, for Kent County (Mid Division).
WAYS AND MEANS—Resolutions considered in Committee.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—School, &c. Buildings (Ireland) * [45]—R.P.
Third Reading—Bankruptcy Frauds and Disabilities (Scotland) * [179], and passed.

PARLIAMENT—STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, AND COURTS OF JUSTICE, AND LEGAL PROCEDURE.
Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure have leave to print and circulate with the Votes the Minutes of their Proceedings and amended Clauses of the Bills referred to them.—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE—TELEPHONE EX CHANGE LICENCES—THE TELEPHONE COMPANY OF IRELAND.
  MR. DEASY (for Mr. PARNELL)asked the Postmaster General, Whether he has refused to the Telephone Company of Ireland a licence for an Exchange at Cork, on the same terms as that granted for Dublin; and, whether he has insisted upon a condition which he has been assured by the Company it is absolutely out of their power to accept, viz., that they should sell to the Postmaster General instruments which they do not themselves own, and of which they have only the user?
  MR. FAWCETT: I have explained, in reply to a similar Question, that about two years ago it was decided, under certain conditions, to give telephone licences to all applicants. These conditions it was thought necessary to impose in the public interest; and the particular condition to which the hon. Member refers is one that has been inserted in all telephone licences which have been granted since the period mentioned.
  MR. GRAYasked the Postmaster General, If he could state, for the information of the House, the number of Telephones (being patents the property of the United Telephone Company) in use by the Post Office for Exchange purposes in each of the years since the Department undertook Exchange business; the total number of such instruments acquired by the Post Office, whether in use for any purpose, in store, or otherwise; the further number of such instruments which the Department has the right to call upon the Company, under agreement, to supply to it; and, the number of such instruments sold by the Department, if any, with the price and conditions, if any, of sale?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the hon. Member, but without going into the question of patents, I have to state that 177 telephones were in use by the Post Office for exchange purposes on the 31st of March, 1882; 598 on the same date in 1883; and 954 on the same date in the present year. The total number of such instruments acquired by the Post Office is 5,251, and the Department has the right, under agreement, to call upon the United Telephone Company to supply about 15,000 more. Three hundred and thirty-two telephones have been sold by the Department, and the aggregate price received for them is £3,315. No conditions were imposed on the purchasers.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION—LYEFIELD SCHOOL BOARD—DEATH FROM OVER-PRESSURE.
  MR. SEVERNEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he will cause inquiry to be made from the Chairman of the Lyefield School Board, Charlton Kings, county Gloucester, or others, as to the death from alleged over - pressure of Lilly Wood, a pupil teacher, and state the result to the House?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The pupil teacher in question was transferred with the National School to the Lyefield School Board in December last. On the 1st of April it was reported to the board that she had broken a blood-vessel the previous evening on her way home from school. The medical certificate states the cause of death as acute phthisis; and the school board unanimously declare that there is not the least evidence that death was due to her school work.

  SCOTLAND—ALLEGED "BOYCOTTING" IN SOUTH UIST.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been, called to a letter which appeared recently in The Echo newspaper anent two cases of alleged boycotting in South Uist; whether it is true that a factor there warned four crofters who travelled twenty miles to an auction sale, not to purchase, as he (the factor) had a black mark against them, and whether the factor in question forbade the vendors to sell to the crofters; whether these four men have been served with notices of eviction for giving evidence before the Royal Commission, and for joining the Highland Land Law Reform Association; whether a tacksman in South Uist refused permission to a tenant to go to the fishing, that he might earn three pounds of rent arrear, for his having joined said Association; and, whether, if these charges be true, the Government will at once legislate for the suppression of such intimidation?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I have not seen the letter referred to; but since the Question was put upon the Paper I have made such inquiry as time permitted in regard to the matters set out in it. The result of that inquiry has been to negative all the three allegations or suggestions which it contains. It is true that notices of removal have been served upon three crofters in South Uist; but this was in consequence of their being largely in. arrear with their rents, and of their having boon guilty of various violent or menacing acts; and it is also the case that a similar notice was served upon a squatter in consequence of his having taken forcible possession of an island. None of these men had given evidence before the Royal Commission.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—EXECUTION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received from the Italian Government an invitation to take part in an International Conference on the subject of the Execution of Foreign Judgments, upon the basis of resolutions adopted by the Conference of the "Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations," held at Milan in September last; and, if so, whether they have accepted the invitation?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have received a communication from the Italian Government upon the subject to which the hon. Member alludes, and have acceded to a proposal that a preliminary study of the question on the bases of the Resolution adopted by the Association be intrusted to a Conference at Home of official delegates to be appointed by the several Governments.

  THE MAURITIUS —MR. NAPIER BROOME.
  MR. WHITLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. Is it true that Sir George Bowen, when Governor of Mauritius, authorized Mr. Napier Broome to receive a sum of 3,600 rupees over and above the salary which had been paid to him during the time he was acting as officer administering the government of the Colony of Mauritius, though there was a Colonial Ordinance clearly forbidding such additional salary to be paid; is it true that this sum was paid to Mr. Broome notwithstanding that Mr. C. de Joux, then acting Auditor General, had reported that such payment was illegal; and, has the amount been refunded to the Colonial Treasury?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: It is true that Sir George Bowen authorized the payment to Mr. Broome of the full salary of the Governorship for the period during which he administered the Government, although there is a Colonial Ordinance which specifies half the salary as the usual remuneration. Sir George Bowen was not aware of the irregularity of the proceeding when he made the order, and the Ordinance was not brought
  422
  to his notice by the acting Auditor General, Mr. Stewart. It is not clear whether, after the order was given and before payment was made, Mr. de Joux, who had meanwhile become acting Auditor General, did or did not bring the irregularity to the notice of the Governor. As Mr. Napier Broome administered the Government for an unusually long period, the Secretary of State has, after much consideration, recommended that he should not be required to refund the amount, but that the payment should be legalized by a vote of the Legislature. I may add that it has been, usual, when an officer has had to bear the expenses attendant on a long tenure of office, to allow him to receive the whole salary attached to it; and it is hoped, therefore, that the Legislature will legalize the over-payment.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DEATH FROM ALLEGED NEGLECT OF THE DIS PENSARY MEDICAL OFFICER, BALLY MACARRETT, BELFAST
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the attention of the Local Government Board had been drawn to the case of a poor person named Loughlin, who resided at 5, Memel Street, in the borough of Belfast, and who died without dispensary relief on the 26th March 1884; if it be true that a red line marked "urgent," and signed by Mr. John Reid, P.L.G. for the district, was delivered to Dr. Croker, the dispensary officer for Ballymacarrett district, on the evening of the 25th March 1884, to which no attention was paid; and, if any steps will be taken to inquire whether there was negligence in the case?
  MR. TREVELYAN: A complaint was addressed to the Local Government Board with regard to this case, and they made inquiry into it, and found that there was no blame to be attached to the medical officer; and they subsequently ascertained that the complaint had been made under an assumed name. The facts are that, at about 10 o'clock on the night of the 25th of March, the father of the patient left a visiting ticket with the doctor, asking him to visit his son, who was suffering from consumption, on the following day. He explained that he only left the ticket that night because he would be at work

  423
  in the morning. The patient, however, died suddenly at 5 o'clock in the morning.

  EXCISE—WEIGHT AND VALUE OF SMUGGLED TOBACCO, 1880–84.
  MR. JACKSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he can state the weight and value of the tobacco and cigars seized by the Custom House authorities between the 1st of January 1880, and the 1st of January 1884; and, how such tobacco and cigars were disposed of?
  MR. COURTNEY: In the four years 1880 to 1883 95,000 1bs. of tobacco and cigars were seized, valued at £27,000, including duty. The cigars were sold and the tobacco destroyed, except some 7,000 1bs. weight, which was sent to Kew and used for fumigating the plants.

  REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE (IRELAND).
  MR. GREERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury have not heretofore allowed the clerks in the Registry of Deeds. Ireland, thirty-six days annual leave; whether, although an Act, entitled "The Registry of Deeds (Ireland) Holidays Act," was passed last Session for the purpose of granting the officials four additional holidays, namely, Easter Monday, Whit Monday, and the two weekdays next after Christmas Day, the Registrar of Deeds has informed the staff that he has been directed to deduct these four statutory holidays from those thirty-six days; whether the late Sir Dominick Corrigan and the Royal Commissioners have reported on the unhealthiness of the Department; whether retirements from this cause have recently taken place; and, whether, in view of these circumstances, any steps will be taken to preserve to the clerks their full annual leave of thirty-six days in addition to the four days granted by Parliament?
  MR. COURTNEY: I need only add to my former answers on this matter that we have no reason to believe that any clerks in the Deeds Registry have had their health injured by the state of the building, the defects in which have long since been remedied. The other parts of the hon. Member's Question have been already answered.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— SERGEANT GALLAGHER.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Police Sergeant Gallagher, stationed at Granard, county Longford, who was accused of drunkenness, tried, on the 3rd of April, by a court composed of three inspectors, found guilty, and reduced to the rank and pay of constable; whether, in that case, there was a remarkable conflict of testimony, five Catholic policemen, who were present when the charge was made, deposing that Gallagher was sober, and two Protestant policemen deposing that he was drunk; whether Gallagher is a Catholic, and whether the three inspectors who tried the case are Protestants; whether, in the town of Granard, which has a population of nearly 2,000, of whom about forty are Protestants, there are a Protestant inspector of police, a Protestant headconstable, a Protestant sergeant, and four Protestant constables, the entire constabulary force consisting of thirteen men; and. whether he would direct a new inquiry to be held, before a court not exclusively Protestant?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sergeant Gallagher's case was carefully investigated by a Constabulary Court. There was some conflict of evidence; but the Court and the Inspector General considered the charge against him fully established. The religious profession of members of the Court, or of the witnesses, could not and did not in any way affect the conclusion arrived at. With regard to the rest of the Question, I am going to give an answer which I communicated to the hon. Member privately—that, in consequence of Questions which have been asked from more than one quarter of the House, the Irish Government have come to the conclusion that announcements in Parliament on the promotion and distribution of Roman Catholics and Protestants in the Constabulary tend to prejudice discipline and raise a feeling of religious animosity and jealousy in a force where it is most essential that it should not exist. The Government are confident that members of the force of all ranks honestly perform their duty without religious bias, and they have

  425
  confidence that those charged with the duty of selecting for promotion do not allow a constable's religion to interfere with his advancement. Under these circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that I must respectfully decline to answer Questions from any quarter of the House relating to the religion of the Constabulary in any particular town or district.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I will, on the first opportunity open to me, draw the attention of the House to the whole circumstances mentioned in the Question, and move a Resolution.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Might I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's decision has been in any manner influenced by late votes in this House?
  MR. HEALY: Twenty-eight.

  INDIA—THE BANDA AND KIRWEE PRIZE MONEY.
  MR. GREGORYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the proceeds of private debts (£11,915) due to the Ex-Princes of Kirwee (as well as the proceeds (£276,000) of their loan deposits) have been omitted from the Return No. 213, of Session 1876; and, whether those proceeds of private debts, as well as an allowance for interest on about £150,000 of admitted booty retained in specie by the Indian Government from 1858 till 1862, ought not to be included in a further Return, so as to fulfil the Order of the House dated 22nd July 1874?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: In the strict letter of the Order, the amount of the private debts recovered at Benares might have been included in the Return. But as this Return was called for with the object of showing the actual amount of the Banda and Kirwee Prize its inclusion must have been misleading, for the Lords of the Treasury had already decided that the sum was not prize. Full information on this point is contained in the Return 264 of the 18th of July, 1871. With respect to the interest there can be no question. The specie consisted of coin not current, and quite useless as money. No interest, therefore, accrued on it, and there was nothing to include under this head in a Return of the proceeds of property which passed into the hands of the authorities.

  THE MAURITIUS—THE FLOGGING LAWS.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has any objection to print, for, the use of Members, that portion of the speech of the Governor of Mauritius, on closing the Legislative Session of 1884, under the headings "Flogging," and "Amendment of the Flogging Laws?"
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The portions of the speech of Sir John Pope Hennessy referred to in the Question shall be given to the House together with other Papers necessary to explain the circumstances connected with its delivery.

  DEAN FOREST, &c. BILL.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Dean Forest and Hundred of Saint Briavel's Bill will be printed; and, if he will allow a sufficient time between the publication and the Second Reading for its consideration by the inhabitants of the district interested in it?
  MR. COURTNEY: I am sorry that I cannot name the day when this Bill will be printed; but I can readily undertake that ample time shall be given between its publication and the second reading to enable it to be fully considered. As my hon. and gallant Friend is probably aware, the object of the Bill is to effect a settlement of conflicting interests which now impede the working of deep seams of coal in the Forest; and the Bill, when presented, will be offered rather as a scheme embodying equitable principles of settlement than as one to be rigidly maintained in all its details.

  INDIA (MADRAS)—THE SALT LAWS.
  MR. BURTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Natives' complaints of the unusual stringency with which the Salt Preventive Establishment, Madras, has worked the Salt Laws during the past three years will be heard; whether it is true that 15,004 Natives were arrested in the official year ending 31st March 1883, for eating untaxed salt, and taken to distant courts for trial; and, whether, at this moment, the tax on salt in Madras is double what it was in the East India Company's day?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Any complaint which maybe received on the subject of

  427
  the hon. Member's Question will be carefully considered. During the year 1882–3 15,004 persons were accused of dealing in, or being in possession of, illicit salt to the extent of 10,000 tons. Of these persons, 48 per cent were dismissed by the Salt Department with a warning, and 7,836, or 52 per cent, were sent for trial before the nearest magistrate, of whom 93 per cent were convicted. To the last clause of the Question my answer is, Yes.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—TRIAL FOR INTIMIDA TION AT NEWTOWNBARRY, CO. WEXFORD.
  MR. J. E. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the trial, under the Crimes Act, of a number of young farmers at Newtownbarry, county Wexford, on a charge of intimidation; whether his attention has been drawn to the report that the presiding magistrate, Mr. M'Leod, R.M., in sentencing the prisoners, said, in reference to some ivy leaves worn by them, that —
  "They had come into that Court wearing bunches of green, in open defiance of Law and order. He would let them see the Law was too strong for them;"
  whether it is against any Law for Irishmen to wear green; and, whether the wearing of the green can be legally regarded as an aggravation of the offence committed by the prisoners?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have received a Report from the Resident Magistrate, from which it appears that a number of young men—very few of them farmers, as described in the Question—were convicted of intimidation, that their conduct and demeanour on the occasion of the trial were reprehensible, and that, before passing sentence, the magistrate told them so in words to the following effect:—It would have been more seemly if the defendants had expressed regret for their misconduct, and would have given a promise that in future there would be no repetition of the offence, when the Bench would be only too glad to make the sentence light; but instead of that, they had come into the town of Enniscorthy, and into that Court, with a display of laurel leaves as if they wished to set the law at defiance, and glorified in intimidating a poor, inoffensive old man.
  428
  He also said that they would find the law too strong for them.

  ARMY—RE-ERECTION OF LONGFORD BARRACKS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the Military authorities to rebuild the large block of stabling recently burnt down in Longford Barracks; and, whether, considering the central position and healthy situation of Longford, its Railway accommodation, and its cheap and excellent supply of forage, the Government will improve the barrack accommodation, and make the place again, as it was for many years, the head-quarters of a Cavalry Regiment?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, the question of how far the accommodation described should be replaced was at present under consideration. For military reasons, it was not desirable to make Longford the headquarters of a Cavalry regiment; but it was intended that detachments of Cavalry and Infantry, with the headquarters of a Militia regiment, should stay there.

  IRELAND — PALMERSTOWN RACES — GENTLEMEN RIDERS DRESSED AS FEMALES.
  MR. LEAHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a report in the Dublin papers of May 6th, under the heading "Palmerstown Races"—
  "The contest for the Bachelor's Plate, which took place in the first race, proved highly diverting, the gentlemen riding being, in accordance with the conditions laid down, all dressed in ladies attire. The appearance of the 'ladies' upon the scene was exceedingly ludicrous, and as they advanced together to the course their comic costumes, in nearly every case strikingly at variance with their gait, excited general amusement. The race was exceedingly comic, the fantastic appearance of the 'ladies,' some of whom rode side-saddle and some astride, causing the most intense amusement, which was greatly heightened by one or two mishaps in the way of falls which occurred during the competition;"
  if he is aware that the neighbouring Catholic Clergy felt called on to denounce, the Sunday before the races, this matter, and to warn their people against going to Palmerstown; and if several members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were on duty, gate keeping on said occasion, by whose authority and

  429
  at whose request they so attended, at whose expense the cars that conveyed them a long distance were paid for?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The races referred to included an event which was intended, I suppose, to be comic, in which riders were dressed as women. I believe it is the case that the Roman Catholic clergyman at Kill spoke about these races, and advised his people not to attend them. With regard to the presence of the Constabulary, it is usual to have police present at race meetings. They attended on this occasion by the authority of their superior officers, to whom application had been made by the promoters of the meeting. The cars on which they were conveyed were paid for out of private sources, and it is not the fact that they were employed as gatekeepers.
  MR. SEXTON: Is not the conduct described in the second paragraph an offence against the law?
  MR. GIBSON: No, no.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have not been advised that it does constitute an offence.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the following statements are correct:—There are in Ireland twenty-four certified Industrial Schools for Girls and four for Boys in connection with National Schools; these National Schools are inspected by the District Inspector of the National Board, who examine for results, but the result fees are withheld in respect of the Industrial School children; the teachers are not paid by the State as in Workhouses both in England and Ireland; the teachers in these schools are the only teachers deprived of result fees in respect of children taught by them; whether repeated representations have been made to the Government on these points by the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools; and, whether the Government propose to consider these representations?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The facts are as stated with regard to the connection of a number of industrial schools with the National Board and non-payment of the teachers of those schools by the Board.
  430
  The reason of such non-payment is that when industrial school pupils are admitted to national schools it is on the understanding that their education is paid for in the Government grant, administered by the Industrial School Department; in other words, their teachers are provided and remunerated by the industrial school managers. I am aware that Sir John Lentaigne has reported that some managers complain of this arrangement, and that he himself urges that, with the view of securing the benefits to education arising from periodical examinations, result fees should be paid in the case of these children. But the Government have not, up to the present, seen their way to comply with this recommendation, and I cannot undertake that they will do so.

  PRISONS BOARD (IRELAND)—THE REPORT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Report of the General Prisons Board will be presented?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The General Prisons Board inform me that they expect that Report will be ready for presentation some time in July. This will not be later than the usual time of presentation.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—VOLUN TEER CAMPS.
  MR. FORESTERasked the Secretary of State for War, How, if only 80 per cent of each Regiment of Volunteers are to be allowed to go into camp, and to draw camp allowance, the remaining 20 per cent are to make the battalion drills necessary for efficiency, seeing that, under Vol. Reg. par. 916, no travelling allowance may be claimed for them, and how the expectation mentioned in the same paragraph can be possibly fulfilled under existing circumstances?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Under Article 917 of the same Regulations, Volunteers unable to attend camp may be authorized to substitute company drill for a battalion drill.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COM MISSIONERS)—MR. WILLIAM GRAY.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. William Gray,

  431
  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 Griffith's valuation of a farm be twenty shillings per acre, and the taxes, say, three shillings, then eight shillings and sixpence would be a fair rent. 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 be an exorbitant rent;"
  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 Claus.… … 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; "
  and, if, on inquiry, he finds that Mr. William Gray, who is reported to have made these observations, be a Sub-Commissioner, he is prepared to consider whether he possesses the qualifications which would comply with the rules laid down by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as guiding him in making such appointments, as expressed in a Letter to a reverend gentleman, dated 11th January 1883?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Gray made the platform speeches alluded to before he was appointed as a Sub-Commissioner, and the words he used were not known to the Lord Lieutenant when he appointed him. His Excellency selected Mr. Gray, feeling confidence in the recommendations of men like Lord Yarmouth, Sir Richard Wallace, and Mr. Stannus. Having regard to these circumstances and to the fact that the Land Commissioners have good reports of the way in which he does his work, Lord Spencer does not intend to take any action. It is only fair to Mr. Gray to say that he explained that he used the illustration of Griffith's valuation merely to repudiate any valuation as a standard of rent, and also that the political cries alluded to as having been
  432
  made use of at meetings which he attended were used in opposition to him.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCE: Upon what authority does the right hon. Gentleman suppose Mr. Gray was recommended by Lord Yarmouth and Sir Richard Wallace?
  MR. TREVELYAN: On the authority of Lord Spencer, and I have had in my hands letters from Lord Yarmouth and Sir Richard Wallace which, so far as my recollection serves me, bear out my statement.
  MR. GIBSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman obtained any explanation from this gentleman of the following words—
  "If Griffith's valuation of a farm be twenty shillings per acre and the taxes, say, three shillings, then eight and sixpence would be a fair rent?"
  Does the right hon. Gentleman think he can expect the landlords of Ireland to acquiesce in this decision?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I gave the explanation supplied to me by Mr. Gray as to its being an illustration of the doctrine that no valuation rent was possible.
  MR. GIBSON: I shall put a further Question on Monday.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — POLITI CAL EMBLEMS IN NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether the National Schools at Roth-well, Northamptonshire, are decorated with various political mottoes of a party character, including a portrait of Lord Beaconsfield surmounted with the words "Peace with Honour," "Success to the Rothwell Conservative Association," &c.; and, whether such exhibitions are permissible in public elementary schools supported by State grants?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I received, a short time since, a complaint from ratepayers of Rothwell, embodying statements similar to those in the hon. Member's Question. I have communicated with the manager of the National Schools, and the Vicar has written to me the following letter:—
  "The use of the room was granted to the committee of the Rothwell Conservative Association for the purpose of holding their annual dinner. Among the decorations and mottoes

  433
  placed upon the walls by the committee were those you have enclosed in Mr. Broadhurst's question, and also the portrait of the late Earl of Beaconsfield, which was lent for the occasion by a member of the association. All the mottoes bearing any allusion to politics were removed before 9 o'clock on the following morning. The only ones remaining in the room are the following, bearing on agriculture, as lessons are being given in the winter months—'Success to Agriculture,' 'Unity is Strength,' 'God Speed the Plough.'"
  On receipt of this letter I felt it my duty to ask the complainants on what evidence they had made these allegations, and I have received the following reply—
  "Rothwell, Kettering, May 14, 1884,
  "Sir,—In reply to your letter of yesterday, May 13, asking on what authority the statement 'that the walls of the church schools here are decorated with the portrait of Lord Beacons-field and his famous motto "Peace with Honour" was made, I beg to say that they have been seen on several occasions during the past 12 months by Mr. Barlow, secretary of the Rothwell Gas Company, who signed the letter; and by Mr. C. Palmer, collector of taxes, to either of whom reference may be made, as well as to many other persons, both old and young, if necessary. I have just been informed, on reliable authority, that the portrait and the motto were removed from the school walls between 12 and 2 o'clock this day, May 14th.
  "I remain, Sir, yours respectfully,
  "D. B. CHAMBERLAIN."
  Under these circumstances, there being a conflict of testimony, I consider it necessary that further inquiries should be made. The use of public elementary schools, out of school hours, for political purposes is very common. I believe it is a practice common to all Parties. But it would, undoubtedly, be undesirable that during school hours there should be any display of Party mottoes.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—VOTE OF THANKS TO OFFICERS AND MEN OF H.M. SEA AND LAND FORCES.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the precedents that the Thanks of Parliament were voted on the 28th March 1811 to Lieutenant General Thomas Graham (an officer on the Staff of the Army in the Peninsula) and those serving under his orders, being a force of 4,200 officers and men for the victory of Barossa; and, on the 12th February 1844 to Major General Charles Napier (an officer on the Staff of the Army of Bombay) and those serving under his
  434
  orders for victories gained at Meeanee with 2,400 men, and at Hyderabad with 5,000 men, it is the intention of Ministers to propose to Parliament to vote its Thanks to Rear Admiral Sir William Hewett, the Commander in Chief of Her Majesty's Seamen and Marines, and to Major General Sir Gerald Graham (an officer on the Staff of the Army in Egypt), and those under their orders for their distinguished services at the battles of El Teb and Tamanieb?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The precedents quoted by the right hon. and gallant Member are as he states them, and, no doubt, possess some points of similarity to the present case; but in arriving at the decision which I communicated to the House in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Guild-ford (Mr. Onslow), Her Majesty's Government relied on the more recent precedents of modern times, which they considered, and still consider, should guide them in the case of the actions in which Her Majesty's troops have been recently engaged.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that on Tuesday, June 10, he proposed to give the House an opportunity of expressing its gratitude to the troops by moving a Vote of Thanks to them.
  Subsequently,
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked whether the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Member would come on as a question of Privilege at half-past 4, or whether it would have to take its chance like an ordinary Motion?
  MR. SPEAKER: Precedence would not be accorded to a Motion of the kind made by a private Member.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—THE NATIVES IN THE CONGO TERRITORY.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have received any information bearing on the news brought by the Royal Mail Steamer Benguela, which arrived in the Mersey on Saturday last—namely, that the excitement caused among the Natives in the Congo territory by the proposal to hand them over to the Portuguese was increasing, and had already spread beyond the district proposed to be ceded?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No information of the nature alluded to

  435
  has been received by Her Majesty's Government.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Are the Government going to take any steps to ascertain the feeling of the Natives?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No doubt a Report will be made upon the subject by Her Majesty's Consul.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Is the noble Lord aware that this is the second Royal Mail steamer that has arrived at Liverpool bearing this information; and does he not think the news of sufficient importance to justify his making inquiries?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Whether the news is important or not is naturally a question of opinion; and anybody, including Her Majesty's Government, can form their own opinion.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Have the Government received any Report from Her Majesty's Consul on the subject?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In Mr. Cohen's last Report there was no information bearing upon this particular point.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Has the noble Lord, whose replies are exceedingly brief, caused any inquiry to be made as to the state of native feeling?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have already answered that. ["No!"] With regard to the question of Native feeling, there have been several Questions put in this House, and the attention of the Government has naturally been drawn to the subject throughout the negotiations.
  MR. GIBSON: Have the Government lost any of their sympathy for Native races since Tuesday last?

  INLAND REVENUE OFFICE— GRIEVANCES OF THE OFFICIALS.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has had under consideration questions in relation to the position and duties of certain classes of Inland Be-venue officials which have been brought under his notice in a petition signed by upwards of 85 per cent, of the entire body affected; and, whether he proposes to direct any changes in the regulations with a view of the remedy of the grievances complained of?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDEES): The Petition to
  436
  which I presume the hon. Member refers is included in the Papers laid upon the Table last year. The views of the Treasury are also given in those Papers. Since then the position of the Inland Revenue officials has been further considered, and early in this year changes were introduced into the organization of the Service which, it is believed, will, with the changes already made, materially improve the conditions and prospects of its members. No representations respecting them have since been officially brought under my notice.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay upon the Table of the House a Paper showing what changes have been made, and containing the reply to the answer of the Treasury to the statements of the officials?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I will see what I can do in the matter.

  THE CITY LIVERY COMPANIES—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having reference to his reply on the same subject last Session, The cause of the delay in presenting the Report of the Royal Livery Commission; whether he will take steps to prevent further delay in its presentation, considering that on 12th July 1883 the Report was formulated, and that the sittings of the Commission were deferred for something like nine months, and that only a few meetings have been held this year; and, if he would explain to the House the reasons for this delay?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: My hon. Friend asks me whether I will take steps to prevent further delay in the presentation of this Report; but I would point out that when the Queen appoints a Royal Commission I have no control over them. Therefore, all I can do is to inquire how they are getting on. I have so inquired, and I am informed that the Report is one of great complexity, and the evidence is very voluminous, so that the compilation of the document must necessarily be a work of time. The sittings have been delayed by the absence of one or two eminent Members; but the main Report is already complete, and a separate Report is now being drawn up.

  WAYS AND MEANS—INLAND REVENUE —GUN LICENCES.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER (for Lord BURGHLEY)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the cases of William Rawson and John Pratt, who were awarded imprisonment, with hard labour, in default of payment of fines amounting to £5 12 s. 3d. at Thrapston, on March 4th, for carrying a gun without a licence; and, whether it is true that they were discharged by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on March 17th, the penalties not having been paid, without communication with the committing magistrates, though there were over 20 previous convictions against Pratt, and three, including one of felony, against Rawson?
  MR. COURTNEY: It is true that the Inland Revenue Board, in exercise of their statutory powers, released these men after a fortnight's imprisonment, considering that term sufficient for the offence of not taking out a 10 s. gun licence. The Board were unaware of any circumstance which rendered it incumbent upon them to communicate with the committing magistrates in a matter entirely within their own authority.

  NAVY—THE BRITISH AND FRENCH NAVIES.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in The Times, in which Sir Thomas Symonds "publicly defies" him to prove a statement made by him in this House, in contradiction of some figures published by Sir T. Symonds in reference to the relative strength of the British and French Navies; and, whether he could, for the satisfaction of the House, make any further statement to make clear the true relation of the facts on which the comparison between the two Navies has been founded?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, my attention has been called to the letter to which my hon. Friend refers. The remarks which I made in Committee of Supply last week did not relate to a comparison of the relative strength of the British and French Navies. I alluded to a statement made by Sir Thomas Symonds regarding the amount to be spent in the two countries in one
  438
  year upon the building of armoured ships, which was in these words:—"The French thus vote £906,905 more per annum than we do in building 15 new armoured ships to our 12." This is the definite assertion the inaccuracy of which I thought it right to indicate to the House; and I stated that the amount of the error was about £1,300,000. As I have been defied to prove my statement, I must with regret trespass upon the patience of the House while I explain it as briefly as I can. The most important errors in Sir Thomas Symonds's calculations are two. In the first place, he included for the French ships the cost of materials as well as of labour; in the case of the English ships the cost of labour only. This may be estimated to cause a difference of nearly £500,000. In the second place, he correctly quoted from a summary in the French Estimates £1,025,360 as the total amount to be spent in France upon the construction of armoured ships, and then added to it the amount of the contract Vote—£794,000—apparently unaware that a great part of that Vote had no connection whatever with ironclads, and that, so far as it did relate to ironclads, the amount was already included, and had been placed to the account of the several ships in the summary from which he had quoted.
  MR. GORST: I rise to Order, Sir. The Navy Estimates are not yet concluded, and the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of entering into this matter upon them. I ask your opinion, Sir, as to whether the hon. Gentleman is not now entering into a matter of debate?
  MR. RYLANDS: In asking the Question, Sir, I understood that my hon. Friend would state facts, and not enter into matter of debate.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have not yet seen any cause to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. This is a reply to a Question.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It may, perhaps, relieve my hon. and learned Friend's mind to know that I have just done. This amount of £794,000, together with the £500,000 for materials already mentioned, makes up the sum of £1,300,000.

  PORTUGAL—THE CONGO TREATY.
  MR. HOULDSWORTHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  439
  Affairs, If the communication from the Manchester Cotton Spinners' Association to the Foreign Office, on the Congo Treaty, recently referred to by Lord Granville, contained any intimation of the fact that, at the meeting when the resolution was adopted, only six members were present; and, whether, under those circumstances, he will endeavour to obtain an expression of the deliberate opinions of the cotton spinners of Lancashire?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The letter referred to was signed by the Secretary, "in pursuance of instructions of my (his) Committee," and said nothing as to the number of members present at the meeting. The resolution was said to have been passed unanimously. In reply to the second part of the Question, I may say that the Foreign Office has had communications from the different Chambers of Commerce.

  THE FIJI ISLANDS—MR. PATTERSON.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Mr. Peter Patterson was dispossessed of certain lands and property in the Fiji Islands after the annexation of those islands by Her Majesty's Government; whether Mr. Patterson, on making a claim for compensation, was informed that the question could only be reopened by the Colonial Office in London; whether Mr. Patterson has come to London for the purpose of seeking an interview with the authorities of the Colonial Office; and, whether such interview will be granted to him?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No, Sir; Mr. Patterson was not dispossessed of any lands or property. His claim was under a deed from the late Chief Thakombau granting the cocoanuts over a very large district. Thakombau asserted that all he intended to convey was his own exclusive right during his lifetime as Chief to buy from the Natives of the district; but by no means an exclusive right to the nuts themselves, over which he admitted he had no control. Mr. Patterson's claim was fully considered by the tribunal appointed to investigate land claims, and was disallowed as entirely preposterous; and, further, that there was no case for compensation. By a local Ordinance the decision of this land tribunal is final. I, therefore,
  440
  cannot believe that any question of the matter being reopened by the Colonial Office could have been suggested to Mr. Patterson. He has sought an interview; but as it would only be misleading if such an interview was granted, as encouraging the idea that the matter could be reopened, he has been informed that such interview would be of no use.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—EM PLOYMENT OF INDIAN TROOPS.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Secretary of State for War, If his intention has been called to a letter from Sir Samuel Baker that appears in yesterday's Times, which contains a strong recommendation for the immediate despatch of three thousand Indian troops to Suakin; whether there are at least half a dozen steamers in Bombay at the present moment which, if despatched before the change of monsoon, which invariably occurs early in June, could make the passage to Suakin in about a week; and, if Her Majesty's Government, in the absence of direct intelligence from General Gordon, would yield to the appeal of Sir Samuel Baker and despatch Indian troops while the monsoon is still favourable and it is not yet too late?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: My attention has been called to the letter of Sir Samuel, to which the hon. Member refers; and I notice that Sir Samuel Baker makes a great number of recommendations besides that alluded to in the Question. It must be obvious that the question of the despatch of 3,000 or any number of Indian troops to the Soudan involves many other considerations besides that of transport; and I am afraid that on this subject I cannot make any addition to the statements made by Members of Her Majesty's Government in the recent debates.

  THE IRISH GLEBE, &c. PURCHASERS' ASSOCIATION.
  MR. BERESFORDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has yet received the reply from the Lords of the Treasury in relation to the representations made to him by the Irish Glebe and Church Lands Purchasers' Association, which, at the end of last month, was expected in a few days?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The reply of the Treasury has been received, and I have no doubt that the Lord Lieutenant will very shortly communicate with the Association on the subject.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—PENSIONS OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS.
  MR. SYKESasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, To which class of pensioners the schoolmasters belong who were engaged before 1846, but did not obtain a certificate until after 1851, but before 1861, and are enabled to establish that they were appointed and gave satisfaction to the school managers until they obtained a certificate?
  MR. MUNDELLA: A Minute embodying the terms on which the addition to the pensions of elementary teachers is to be made is now under consideration, and will shortly be laid upon the Table of the House. Until this is done, I would prefer not to make any partial statement upon the subject.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—DIS QUALIFICATION OF DISPENSARY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  DR. LYONSasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table a Copy of any Rule made by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland by which the medical officers of dispensaries in Ireland are precluded from being placed on the Commission of the Peace; and, if he can inform the House whether any similar disability exists with regard to members of the profession of medicine in England?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The rule has not been formulated in precise terms, and I therefore cannot undertake to lay a copy of it on the Table. I have already more than once stated its substance to the House. It amounts simply to this—that the Lord Chancellor does not consider a dispensary doctor to be eligible for appointment to the Commission of the Peace in his own county, as he believes that the respective duties of the two positions are likely to clash. The rule was made in 1872 between the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor, at that time Lord O'Hagan. I am not aware that such a rule exists in England. Probably no occasion to consider its desirability has arisen.
  DR. LYONS: I beg to give Notice that, in consequence of the answer o the right hon. Gentleman, I will, at the earliest opportunity, call attention to this subject.
  MR. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, in case of a stipendiary magistrate, who is paid by the Government, and whose son practices as doctor in the same district over which the father has jurisdiction, the same imputation would not exist which he now makes on the general body of the practitioners in Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is really not fair to say that I cast any imputation on the Medical Profession of Ireland, because I gave the opinion of the Lord Chancellor that the duty of the two positions referred to would clash. The clashing of duty refers to the fact that a dispensary doctor may be called by any person who obtains a red ticket at any hour of the night or day, in which case the duty would most undoubtedly clash. If the hon. Member gives Notice of a Question I will answer it; but the fact that a rule such as this was made in 1872, and was acted upon ever since by successive Governments, in no sense conveys an imputation on the medical practitioners of Ireland.
  MR. GRAY: As the right hon. Gentleman is President of the Irish Local Government Board, and as he says the duty of a magistrate is inconsistent with the duty of a dispensary doctor, does he intend to recommend the Lord Chancellor to remove from the list of magistrates names of the medical officers who now hold the Commission of the Peace?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is a very different thing appointing a man afresh and removing from the Bench one who has already been appointed.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—INSTRUC TIONS TO SCHOOL INSPECTORS.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, When he can lay upon the Table the Instructions to Her Majesty's Inspectors, of which he spoke in a Debate in this House before Easter; and, whether he can now name a time at which he hopes to move the Education Estimates?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Before settling the revised instructions to Inspectors it is necessary that the Department should be in possession of the recommendations

  443
  made by the divisional conferences of Her Majesty's Inspectors. The recommendations of almost all the divisions are now in the hands of the Department, and the instructions referred to, which require very careful consideration, will be published as soon as possible. I am hoping to bring on the Education Estimates somewhat earlier than, usual this year. I expect to get a day soon after the Whitsun Holidays.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—ARREST OF MR. P. N. FITZGERALD.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. P. N. Fitzgerald, now detained in prison at Sligo, is deprived of money which was taken from him at the time of his arrest; and, if so, whether directions will be given to the police to restore to him his money?
  MR. TREVELYAN: When Fitzgerald was arrested £1 3s. in coin and halves of two £5 notes were found with him. The coin has been returned, and he has been told that if he will say where the other halves of the notes are, or if he will write for them, the sum of £10 shall on their arrival be given to him.
  MR. O'BRIEN: May I ask the Solicitor General for Ireland what is the charge preferred against Mr. Fitzgerald? If he cannot answer now— ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: This is an entirely different Question, and Notice should be put on the Paper.
  Subsequently,
  MR. O'BRIEN: Perhaps the Solicitor General for Ireland could now state what is the charge against Mr. Fitzgerald at Tubbercurry?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): I am quite unable to answer the Question without Notice.

  EMIGRATION—IRISH PAUPER EMI GRANTS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by the Philadelphia correspondent of The Times, in. a letter dated May 13th, to the effect that several steerage passengers on the
  444
  steamer City of Rome, pauper emigrants from the workhouses in Kerry, have been detained at Now York, in order that they may be sent back to Ireland; and, whether he will take any steps to discourage the deportation of paupers from Irish workhouses?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have soon the statement referred to by the hon. Member; but it is not the fact that any workhouse inmates have been sent out this year from the county of Kerry as State-aided emigrants. All the State-aided emigrants who went out in the City of Rome were persons carefully selected, who were going to their relations or friends, having produced letters of encouragement from them, and whose journeys were paid for to the towns or places where their friends lived.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE — COMMER CIAL TREATIES — GREAT BRITAIN AND SPAIN.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the following statement, which appears in The British Trade Journal—namely—
  "By the Commercial Treaty recently concluded between Spain and the United States, the latter Country has obtained the removal of the differential Duties levied on cargoes conveyed to the Spanish, West Indies in vessels flying flags other than those of Spain or her Colonies. These Duties are still in force against British vessels, and the Spanish Government has skilfully avoided the request for similar treatment for British vessels, by politely asking what concessions Her Majesty would confer on Spain in return for this advantage;"
  and, whether, if the circumstances are as described, Her Majesty's Government intend taking such steps as may be necessary for the protection of British interests?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The hon. Member will learn from the Parliamentary Papers numbered "Commercial, 10 and 23, 1884," the present position of commercial negotiations between Great Britain and Spain. The latter Paper was distributed yesterday.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— RELIEF OF GENERAL GORDON.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether General Gordon was informed of the intended withdrawal of General Graham's force from Suakin to Cairo, and his opinion asked as to its

  445
  expediency; and, if so, what answer General Gordon returned; and, whether General Graham was asked if an expedition to Berber was feasible in March; and, if so, what was his reply?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Papers laid before Parliament, as I have repeatedly informed the hon. Member, contain a full statement of the communications with General Gordon, and there is nothing to add to them. The latter Question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In reply to the second of the hon. Member's Questions, I have to say that I think he will find in the Egyptian Papers, No. 12, that General Stephenson telegraphed on the 5th of March that he was not prepared to recommend General Graham's force marching to Berber, owing to the scarcity of water on the route. I referred to this subject generally in the observations I made on Tuesday last; and I explained, that, notwithstanding the opinion of General Stephenson, which I have quoted, operations were undertaken, from time to time, after the battle of Tamai, with the object of opening, if possible, the road to Berber; and I pointed out that the experience acquired in those operations satisfied us that we should not be justified in running what had been described by Sir Evelyn Baring, Sir Evelyn Wood, and General Stephenson the extraordinary military risk of sending a small force without any support from its base.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that the noble Lord had not answered the Question on the Paper, which was whether General Graham was asked if an expedition to Berber was feasible, and if so, what was his reply? He wished also to ask whether it was not the fact that Sir Evelyn Baring, on the 18th and 24th March, telegraphed home that both General Stephenson and General Wood were of opinion that such a march was feasible?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes; and that despatch was frequently referred to in the debate on both sides of the House. I can only remind the hon. Member that in stating their opinion that such an expedition was possible, they also spoke, at the same time, of the extraordinary military risk by which it would be accompanied. Under the circumstances which I have already
  446
  explained in my answer to the hon. Member, and more at length on previous occasions, we did not think we should be justified in asking General Graham his opinion upon the feasibility of an expedition which we did not consider that we should be warranted in sanctioning.
  SIR EDMUND LECHMEREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, looking to the fact that the prompt announcement of an expedition to the Soudan at the earliest practicable opportunity might tend to ensure the safety of General Gordon, Her Majesty's Government will at once commence the required preparations, more especially by providing for the necessary steam transport on the Nile, so that it may be in readiness for the conveyance of troops and stores not later than July next?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to this Question I cannot do better or more than refer the hon. Member to the speech delivered the day before yesterday by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, in which he fully stated the intentions of the Government with respect to the various matters touched upon in the Question, and stated that it was not desirable to make any announcement on the matter.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART—SIR FRANCIS CHANTREY'S FUND.
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to the manner in which the President and Council of the Royal Academy are applying the fund bequeathed by Sir Francis Chantrey "for the purchase of works of fine art," in the words of the sculptor's bequest, "of the highest merit;" and, whether steps cannot be taken for giving effect, in the interest of English art, to the express wishes of the founder?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Since my right hon. Friend put this Question on the Paper, and since I gave a provisional answer to it, I have had a communication from the President of the Royal Academy, from which I find that the trust to the Royal Academy in relation to Sir Francis Chantrey's works is of an absolute character, and does not allow of any interference whatever from without, other than what may belong to the general provisions of law. Consequently Her Majesty's Government have no

  447
  power whatever in respect to the matter. I have no doubt my right hon. Friend has made inquiries into the matter; but I am bound to say that nothing has come to my knowledge which would lead the Government to believe that there has been any abuse or any neglect in the administration of this fund.
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked where the pictures were that had been purchased by this trust?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not able to say. Having no power to interfere in the matter, I am not able to give an answer.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Is it not the fact that the pictures are now on view at the South Kensington Museum?
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would grant an unopposed Return, for which he proposed to move, relating to this subject?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government could assent to the issue of a Return; but he was afraid they had no power to make an answer to such a Return.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT — COINAGE AND CONVERSION OF STOCK BILLS.
  MR. HICKSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, seeing that the National Debt (Conversion of Stock) Bill and the Coinage Bill, though mentioned in his Financial Statement of April twenty-fourth have not yet been printed, he will postpone the Notice of the Second Reading of these Bills until such a date as will ensure honourable Members a full opportunity of considering them?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have to say that full Notice will be given of the Second Reading of the Coinage and Conversion of Stock Bills. I must express my regret that the Conversion Bill is not yet in the hands of Members. I had hoped that it would have been circulated last Monday; but at the last moment difficult questions have arisen in connection of holdings of Three per Cent Stock by trustees, and it has been necessary to revise carefully the clauses relating to them. I have every hope that the Bill will be circulated either tomorrow afternoon or on Saturday morning. The other Bill will follow.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked whether it would be in Order to discuss in Committee of Ways and Means the proposals of the Government relating to the coinage and to the conversion of Debt, having regard to the fact that two Bills dealing with those subjects were before the House?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it would not be in Order.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, for the convenience of Irish. Members, he will fix a day for the Second Reading of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill before the House adjourns for the Whitsuntide holidays?
  MR. O'SULLIVAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I would ask him if he is aware that the only Petitions presented in favour of the Bill during this Session was one from a society called the Rechabites of Belfast, and another from the Aldermen of the Royal Burgh of Montrose in Scotland; and if he considers those Petitions valuable Irish opinion?
  MR. M. BROOKS: May I also ask, whether he is aware that the Corporation of the City of Dublin have presented a Petition against the Bill, which has been presented at the Bar of the House by the Lord Mayor?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid, Sir, owing to the distractions of other Business, that my attention has not been particularly drawn to those points, which are, no doubt, suitable matters for comment in debate. It is intended to place the Merchant Shipping Bill as the first Order for Monday, and the Irish Sunday Closing Bill as the second Order. As the hon. Member's Question includes a reference to the Whitsuntide holidays, I may as well say that what we should propose, as being probably the best for the convenience of the House relative to the necessities of Business, is that the House should adjourn on Tuesday week until Thursday of the following week.

  EGYPT—THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE.
  MR. M'COAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or, if he cannot answer the Question now, I will give Notice of it for to-morrow.

  449
  Whether there is any truth in the statement telegraphed from Paris, from two independent sources, that the French Government insist upon the scope of the proposed Conference being extended so as to include the whole Egyptian Question, and not merely the financial difficulty to which the Prime Minister said it was to be confined?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I certainly cannot undertake to answer that Question now; but I will endeavour to give an answer to-morrow.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Prime Minister whether he accepted the words which had been ascribed to him by the hon. Member for Wicklow—namely, that he had stated that the Conference would be strictly limited to the consideration of the Law of Liquidation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My words are on record, and the hon. Member can refer to them.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to state generally to the House what is to be the order of Business next week?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Business for to-morrow is understood. On Monday we propose to take the Merchant Shipping Bill as the first Order and the Irish Sunday Closing Bill as the second Order. On Tuesday morning we propose to proceed with the Franchise Bill; and to-morrow I shall state what we propose to do on Thursday. Either Thursday or Monday will be devoted to Civil Service Estimates; but I will state the course we propose to take positively to-morrow.
  MR. MAC IVER: I beg to give Notice that on the second reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill I shall move its rejection.
  MR. GIBSON: The Chief Secretary has announced that he would make an important statement before Whitsuntide with respect to the Purchase Clauses of the Irish Land Act. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give the right hon. Gentleman sufficient time to make his statement before a full House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.
  MR. T. A. DICKSON: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, whether the debate on the Merchant Shipping Bill will be adjourned in time to permit the Irish Sunday Closing Bill being proceeded with?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Merchant Shipping Bill will be the first Order on Monday, and I cannot undertake to break it off.

  EGYPT AND THE SOUDAN (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—THE LOSS OF LIFE.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can give the House any idea of the extent of the loss of life consequent upon Military operations in Egypt and the Soudan, since, and including, the bombardment of Alexandria?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe the hon. Member put a similar Question to this to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, and if he was not satisfied with the answer he then got I am afraid I cannot add anything to it. Of course, we can make a Return of the loss of British life from the Papers we have, and the information is at the command of the House; but as regards the general loss of life, that is a matter of estimate. We know it was extensive in the actions in the Soudan, and we greatly deplore it; but we have no power to make a Return of the general loss that would be of any trustworthiness to the House.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— RELIEF OF GENERAL GORDON.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: I beg to give Notice that on Monday I shall ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate taking any step for the safety of General Gordon or for the relief of the garrisons in the Soudan?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I shall take the opportunity of answering the Question now, and also with reference to the Question of the hon. Baronet below the Gangway, by saying that my noble Friend stated the day before yesterday, on the part of the Government, that we should not make any announcement on that subject at present; and also the reason why. That determination of ours will not be changed before Monday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  WAYS AND MEANS.

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

    EXCISE —IMPORT DUTIES UPON TOBACCO.—RESOLUTION.
    MR. MACFARLANE, in rising to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, a revision of the Import Duties upon Tobacco is expedient and necessary; that the system upon which Duty is now levied upon unmanufactured and upon manufactured Tobacco is beneficial to home manufacturers only, and is detrimental to the interests of the consumers in the United Kingdom,"
    said, the method of levying duties on tobacco was very inequitable. It was a subject which affected almost exclusively the working classes in this country, because the duties were imposed chiefly on the kind of tobacco consumed principally by the working classes. The present system was one of enormous protection—a protection in favour of a few English manufacturers. He had been informed that protection as now accorded to the British manufacturer of tobacco was granted practically to 12 men who were large manufacturers in the United Kingdom. When this system was first proposed it might not have been intended that it should be in fact a protective duty. It might have been only intended to meet what would be the supposed loss in the manufacture of dry-leaf tobacco on which duty was placed. He would show, however, that there was no foundation for this belief, and that it had come to be an enormous protection. If they took 100 1bs. of ordinary tobacco of commerce, as sold in this country and consumed by the working classes, it would contain about 65 1bs. of dry-leaf tobacco, on which duty had been placed. The remainder would be water, and the duty upon that 65 1bs. would amount to £11 7s. 6d. If 100 1bs. of the same material were taken, manufactured outside the United Kingdom and brought into the Custom House, it would be charged not only upon the increased weight due to the moisture used in the manufacture, but
    452
    it would be charged 1s. 4d. per 1b. more. The result was that 100 1bs. of foreign manufactured tobacco would pay a duty of £24 3s. 4d. as against £11 7s. 6d., the actual duty paid by the English manufacturer for the production of the same quantity of commercial tobacco for sale to the working classes of this country. Tobacco as consumed by our working classes was sold wholesale at 3s. 2d. per 1b. or thereabouts. The duty on that tobacco was 3s. 6d.; the cost of the tobacco he took at the low figure of 6d. as it left the manufacturer, making up a total cost of 4s. per 1b. How, then, were the English manufacturers able to sell at an apparent loss of 10 d. per 1b.? Where was the profit to come from? The profit came from the pump; the tobacco was soaked in water and saturated with moisture of every description; and for that reason they were able to sell at 10 d. less than the cost. Now, the manufacturers themselves were not satisfied with this system, and at their meeting on the 2nd of February, the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Wills) said that the addition of 4d. in thepound to the duty by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) meant the adding of more water to the tobacco. Now, Cope's work, The Tobacco Plant, stated that there was nothing worse for tobacco than water; that it destroyed and deteriorated it. Therefore, the present system in inducing adulteration was bad. But it was even worse in the case of foreign manufactured tobacco. Suppose that a tobacco manufacturer in India proposed to import tobacco into England, when he brought it to London or Liverpool he was charged 4s. 10 d. instead of 3s. 6d and adding 8d. as the prime cost of the tobacco at the docks or bonded warehouse that made up 5s. 6d. per 1b.; and that Indian manufacturer was expected to compete with the English manufacturer, who made a profit by selling at 3s. 2d. per 1b. That was because the English manufacturer was protected by the differential duty and also by the enormous adulteration in the shape of liquid. Great injustice was done to India by the present system. Taking 100 1bs. of tobacco as it arrived from India, and assuming that there was the same percentage of dry tobacco in it as in the case of 100 1bs. manufactured

    453
    here, the Chancellor of the Exchequer under that system, instead of levying 8s. 6d. on that dry tobacco, levied a duty of about 7s. 6d. per 1b. The effect of that had been to prevent importation. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer when tobacco was being re-exported from this country give a drawback on the water contained in it? By no means. He only charged for water; he did not pay for it. Now, his Motion would not interfere with the Revenue. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a small return to India for the £1,000,000 which she was obliged to give up on the demand of the Lancashire cotton manufacturers. India had levied a tax of 5 per cent on Lancashire goods; and what was the ground on which that tax was abolished? Not that its abolition would be an advantage to the manufacturers of Lancashire, but that it would be a great benefit to the people of India themselves. He did not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer now to deal with the question of Indian tobacco on the same principle as was applied to Lancashire goods imported into India. He asked for nothing more than absolute equality between the English and the Indian manufacturers of tobacco. This was a question of policy as well as of justice. Was it a wise thing to treat India in this way—India that could give them a splendid and unlimited supply of the best tobacco, not like the stuff which the working men were now compelled to smoke? He thought that it was worth the while of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to encourage that country, especially as it would not affect his pocket. If this country was going to be a Protectionist country, let the fact be announced; but if we were to have Free Trade, then he wished to see it carried out with regard to India as well as to other countries. The system of Excise in America was a satisfactory one and worked well, tobacco being sold under a Government stamp. He did not wish to obtain any special favour; but he claimed that India should be allowed to manufacture tobacco and sell it to the working classes in this country without being handicapped by the system now in force, which, he believed, only existed because this question had never really been brought before the notice of the country. He had discussed the question
    454
    with a good many Members of the House, and it was the universal opinion that the present system was indefensible. It was obviously desirable that the working man should have a really first-class tobacco instead of the rubbish which he was at present condemned to smoke. He was sure, if the facts of the case were known to the public, pressure would be brought to bear upon the Government, in order to bring about a change so desirable. He did not think that the argument would be made stronger by unduly prolonging it; but he desired to say that, under the present system, a premium was put upon smuggling. The extent to which this system was carried on around their coasts was enormous. Every day they had prosecutions; but still he did not believe that more than one case in every 10,000 was detected. Under the present system the temptations were great, and the amount lost to the Revenue was impossible to calculate. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to introducing a fair taxation upon tobacco when in a state fit for consumption. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution, which stood in his name.
    MR. WARTONseconded the Motion.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, a revision of the Import Duties upon Tobacco is expedient and necessary; that the system upon which Duty is now levied upon unmanufactured and manufactured Tobacco is beneficial to home manufacturers only, and is detrimental to the interests of the consumers in the United Kingdom,"— (Mr. Macfarlane,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he hoped that the House would not consider it necessary to go into the whole question of the tobacco duties. The hon. Member had referred to the question of smuggling; but he thought the question of whether the tobacco duties as a whole were excessive or not was outside the present question, and he hoped that House would not discuss it; but he would say a few words on the actual Motion before them. The figures quoted

    455
    by the hon. Member were accurate so far as he was aware. The hon. Member appeared to think that in the adjustment of duties on tobacco, as between tobacco manufactured at home and that manufactured abroad, especially in India, there was some unfair incidence of taxation, and that the tobacco manufactured out of this country paid more than it ought to do according to the principles of Free Trade. On this question he would remind the House of what the history was of the adjustment of the duties on tobacco. The former duties on tobacco, before the year 1863, were 3s. per 1b. on unmanufactured tobacco, and 9s. per 1b. on manufactured, including cavendish, with an addition in each case of 5 per cent. In 1862, the whole question of the tobacco duties was raised upon the representation of influential importers, not from India, but from Europe; and the Board of Customs undertook an exhaustive inquiry as to what would be a fair rate of duty to impose according to the principles of Free Trade. As the result of that inquiry, the following decision had been arrived at:—In the first place, there was an increase made of 4d. per 1b. with respect to artificially-dried, unmanufactured tobacco coming from abroad. At the same time, the duty on manufactured tobacco brought from abroad was reduced to 4s. 6d., or 4s. if manufactured in bond. So the duties remained until, a few years ago, the late Government increased the duties by 4d. per 1b. or thereabouts, making the rates on unmanufactured tobacco 3s. 6d. and 3s. 10 d., and on manufactured 4s. 4d. and 4s. 10 d. So far as could be ascertained from the Returns of the manufactured tobacco at home and the imports, the system had worked very fairly; and until the Notice of the hon. Member's Motion was put upon the Paper he was not aware that any considerable number of people disputed its justice. The hon. Member appeared to think they should deal specially with tobacco imported from India, because of its especial character; but, speaking generally, foreign manufacturers of tobacco were perfectly satisfied with the present duties, which were adjusted some time ago upon their own representations. When they established duties on imported articles as compared with duties on articles of the same character manufactured at home, they must
    456
    do so upon general principles; and he could not consent to an alteration of the general duty on imported manufactured tobacco, with the simple object of giving India an opportunity of sending us more tobacco, to the detriment both of the foreign and home trades. They could not differentiate the duties on articles manufactured in other countries, so as to enable each to send us articles here at a profit. He quite admitted it was impossible for tobacoo from some countries to come in at a profit; but it had never been the theory of our fiscal system that duties could be so regulated as between different countries that their produce could be imported alike at a profit. That was the fault of the circumstances of the country and its produce, not of the incidence of the duty. He could only say that he was not prepared to reduce the duty on imported tobacco; and with much regret he must oppose the Motion of the hon. Member.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, by declining to take the question of the tobacco duties into consideration, refused to avail himself of a method of increasing the Revenue. In the year 1864 the duties were reduced by an Act which was passed in the previous year. The revenue from tobacco in 1863 was £5,774,000, and in 1864, with a reduction of duty, it rose to £5,984,000. In 1878 the duties produced £8,000,000; in 1879, £8,500,000; and this year, £8,892,000, or not £1,000,000 more than in 1878. This slightly increased revenue, however, was raised upon a much lower amount, and, consequently, the consumer suffered. When the late Government raised the duty in 1878, the retailers found that the consumer would not pay the additional farthing per ounce, and the manufacturers thereupon added 10 per cent of water to the tobacco. The poor man, therefore, continued to pay 3d. per ounce for his tobacco, but he got 20 per cent instead of 10 per cent of moisture. This was really a poor man's question. As the case now stood, the rich man paid a comparatively small duty. A decent cigar might be had at the cheapest for 40 s. the 100, the duty being 5s. 6d. But the poor man, whose tobacco was only worth 6d. per 1b., paid 3s. 6d. per 1b. duty. The latter, accordingly, paid many

    457
    hundred per cent of the value he received, whereas the rich man paid a trifling duty. Last year a Paper vas laid upon the Table, which showed that between 1881 and 1883 the value of the smuggled tobacco seized was £14,373; the penalties imposed, £22,000; the persons arrested, 3,000; and the quantity seized, 43,984 1bs. But these were merely the cases which had been found out, and which were but a small per centage of the whole. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should look into this question. The Government were going to lower the franchise, and they might depend upon it that the 2,000,000 voters they were going to add to the constituencies would look into the matter for themselves. Tobacco was the only luxury of the poor man, and his most innocent enjoyment. He could not conceive how Government after Government, with all their professions of Free Trade, and of their desire to promote the happiness of the lower classes, should fear to deal with a duty yielding, he believed, £9,000,000. If they reduced the duty, they would not reduce the revenue. That was proved by what had taken place in 1864, when the reduction of the duty increased both the consumption and the revenue. The effect of reducing the duty would be that the poor man would get a better and wholesomer article instead of the dear and adulterated weed which he now smoked. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to debase the gold coinage; why should he not rather lower the rates on tobacco? Representing a constituency where this question was much discussed, and which was given to smoking, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he dealt with the matter he would add much to the happiness of the working people.
    MR. WILLSsaid, that every year the Revenue sustained a considerable loss through the smuggling of tobacco; but he was not in a position to suggest how the difficulties of the case could be dealt with. He was afraid that his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) was not as successful in obtaining correct information as he might have been before he brought this question before the House of Commons. As a practical man, he (Mr. Wills) entirely agreed with everything which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he be-
    458
    lieved that very few beyond the Mover of the Resolution had any doubt that the duties which were fixed in 1862 were arranged on a fair and equitable basis. Those who adjusted them, and worked them out had no pecuniary interest in the matter. Under no circumstances short of a preferential duty could Indian tobacco have any chance of consumption. On account of its inferior quality, it would never find a ready sale in the English market.
    MR. JOHN HOLLONDsaid, he would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make some provision for facilitating the sale of cigars and tobacco in railway carriages. He thought some Revenue might be derived from issuing licences for this purpose.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, at a time when tobacco was an absolute necessity to the comfort of a large majority of the human race there should be a revision, of the enormous duty upon it. They at present charged 3s. 6d. per 1b. duty on the commonest tobacco, while the article itself was sold at a lesser figure through being adulterated with water and certain deleterious compounds. The Scotch people, although they smoked more than, the English, consumed less tobacco, because the intelligent Scotch people after they had smoked a pipe took out the small portion of tobacco which remained at the bottom and placed it on the top of the next pipefull and resmoked it. The English people, however, had not arrived at that pitch of economy, and not only had they to pay 3s. 6d. for what was not worth more than 6d., but they had to throw away a considerable portion of what they put into their pipes. On the commonest tobacco the duty was 700 per cent, while only 10 per cent was paid on fairly good cigars. Therefore, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer paid only 10 per cent duty on the cigars he smoked, the poor man paid 700 per cent duty on the tobacco he smoked. If the Exchequer would insist on these obnoxious indirect taxes, to which he (Mr. Labouchere) was entirely opposed, there ought at least to be equality between rich and poor. Personally, he thought that the rich man ought to pay higher taxes than the poor man.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, this debate had raised a much larger question than that of the duty on tobacco; it raised the whole subject of the incidence

    459
    of taxation in this country. It seemed to him that in seeking uniformity we had sacrificed justice. Her Majesty's Government had set up the principle that duties must be uniform, whether the articles were tea, tobacco, or any other. It was a monstrous injustice to charge several hundred per cent on the tobacco of the poor man, while they charged a very moderate percentage on the cigars of the rich man. If it was possible to charge ad valorem duties in other countries it ought to be possible in this, and much easier, on account of the greater simplicity of our system and the very much fewer articles that we taxed. From his experience, he could say that the principle of an ad valorem duty worked without any practical difficulty in India; and where there was a will there was a way. He hoped the day might come when they would be able to produce a superior tobacco in India. As it was, they had not got to that point; they had quantity but not quality. The result was that under the system, by which cheap and dear tobaccos were charged at the same rate, the Indian tobacco was practically shut out, and injustice was done to our Indian subjects. This was undesirable and unfair at a time when they had abolished all import duties on articles sent from this country to India. He thought his hon. Friend had done very good service by bringing this matter forward.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that the consequence of the existing state of things was that the trade of India with this country in tobacco was crushed out.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he agreed with the hardships that were inflicted on the working class by the present incidence of the tobacco duty; but he did not understand that was the question raised in the Resolution of the hon. Member for Carlow. The question now raised was solely with regard to the differential duty on manufactured and unmanufactured tobacco in this country, and as an adjustment of the duty had been made, not only in 1862, but much more recently, he could not support his hon. Friend if he went to a Division.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he sympathized with much that had been said during the discussion; but he could not see his way to any alteration of the duty on tobacco in the direction in-
    460
    dicated by his hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution. He also fully sympathized with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond) relative to the sale of tobacco in railway carriages; but he feared it would raise the much more serious one of the sale of liquor in dining-cars. This, he confessed, he should be sorry to have to face.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.

  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE— DUTIES ON GOLD AND SILVER PLATE.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. SLAGGsaid, he rose to call attention to the following Motion, which he was unable to move by the Forms of the House:—
    "That, in view of the Report of the Select Committee on Hall Marking of Gold and Silver Wares (1879), which, inter alia, recommended that 'the Duty upon Silver Plato, Customs and Excise, be abolished as soon as the state of the Revenue may admit,' and with special reference to the facts and circumstances disclosed in Parliamentary Paper No. 347, East India, Gold and Silver Plate (1884), this House is of opinion that the Duties upon Gold and Silver Plate, and the system of compulsory Hall-marking, should be abolished forthwith."
    He thought he was perfectly justified in characterizing the laws and regulations which related to the trade in the precious metals as barbarous, and as affecting the trade and industry in a very injurious manner. They were especially injurious in stifling a trade which was now largely increasing in rival countries. They also had the effect of stunting the artistic design of this country, and of imposing a grievous and unjust burden on our Indian Dependency. He looked in vain for any compensating advantages arising out of the enactments relating to Hall-marking. It was, of course, alleged that they protected the purchaser and gave a guarantee of quality. If so, there would perhaps be some excuse for them; but he thought he could show the House that they failed in doing anything of the sort. It was some six centuries ago since those restrictions were first imposed. They belonged, in fact, to an era in the history of our commerce when restrictions and regulations were placed not only upon the quality, but also upon the price

    461
    of nearly every article; but we had outgrown all these restrictions, except in the case of gold and silver. The public was, no doubt, compelled, in regard to the quality of every commodity it purchased, to take such precautions to safeguard itself as might be necessary; but, as he had said, these laws were no safeguard. Our Colonies, America, and other countries had got rid of enactments of this sort, as it had been found that they were no longer necessary in the interest of commerce. In this country the trade in the precious metals was languishing under the influence of these laws, while in America the trade was rapidly increasing; and, what was a still more serious consideration, our best workmen were going there because their abilities could find no scope in this country. It was not possible, for want of time, to go into these laws in any detail; but he might state that they imposed, generally speaking, the following conditions:— That all gold and silver, with the exception of certain articles manufactured in the United Kingdom, should be assayed and stamped, the cost of the stamp being 17 s. an ounce for gold and 1s. 6d. an ounce for silver. There were five legal standards for gold—namely, 22, 18, 15, 12, and 9 carats, and for silver two—namely, 10 ozs. 12 dwts., and 11 ozs. 2 dwts. If manufactured articles were found not to be up to the legal standard, it was allowable to the authorities to break them up. As a matter of practice, silver goods were sent in a rough state to be Hallmarked, and then taken back to be manufactured. The next question was, what was the advantage accruing to the Revenue from all this tremendous machinery? It was but a trifling amount, and he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would hardly assure the House that it was worth retaining at the cost and burden it imposed upon the country. The duty was gradually but surely effecting the extinction of the silver trade from England, though it might be said that the decline was to some extent due to the large increase in electro-plated articles. That might be so; but he could not think it was wholly accounted for in that way. In a rich country like this they might expect that the trade in articles of luxury would increase instead of diminishing. Besides, the extension, of the electro-plate trade
    462
    in America had not produced a diminution in the silver industry, which, on the contrary, was rapidly increasing there. The Americans now produced articles of exquisite beauty which put to shame the silver productions of this country. As to the guarantee to the buyer, he knew it was commonly supposed that in buying Hall-marked silver the purchaser obtained a valuable security for the quality of the article. But that was not the case as a matter of fact. Imitations were made with very great skill, and with so much ingenuity as almost to defy the detection of competent experts. If that were so, surely the last vestige of argument in favour of these laws disappeared. He now came to a branch of the question of the greatest importance—namely, its relation to the trade of India and the people of that country. The injustice done to the extensive artistic silver manufacture of that country was most grievous. The rupee was the most easily available, and in many cases the only form of silver in India for manufacturing purposes, and because the rupee was below our English silver standard, we practically refused to receive the silver productions of that country. When Indian silver articles were presented at our Custom-houses, if not up to the required standard of Goldsmiths' Hall, the articles were liable to be smashed up, and this right was sometimes exercised. At best the articles were refused admission, and had to be re-exported. This was a crying injustice. We had made India drop its duties on imported cotton goods from this country, and we ought to take steps to give them a free market for their silver goods. Although he did not think the two questions were quite on the same footing, he maintained that our treatment of their productions was extremely shabby, and he thought we ought to take steps at the earliest possible moment to remedy the injustice. The revenue derivable from this source was really very small. The duty paid in 1853 was on 837,000 ounces of silver, and in 1883 on 644,000 ounces. The amount of duty now paid was only about £80,000; and he dared to say that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to this Motion, it would not be difficult to find some means by which the loss of that sum could be made up. He was aware of the difficulty in regard to the

    463
    drawback; but surely the resources of our financiers could furnish, a remedy. He believed the way had lately been made easier, because he had been informed that for a sum of £100,000, or possibly less, the trade would be glad to make an arrangement with the Treasury by which the allotment of that sum might be spread over existing claims during a limited time, and thus the whole question of drawbacks be disposed of for a trifling sum. It was absurd to say that an important industry should be extinguished because a certain number of gentlemen interested in the trade would not allow the duty to be removed on account of their claims. He would rather ignore those claims altogether. All the authorities on the subject were on his side. Every sound economist was heartily in favour of abolishing the duty at the earliest possible moment. He was glad to say that both Lord Kimberley and the Under Secretary for India were not only heartily in favour of his Motion, but would, if official reasons did not prevent, give him a good word in Parliament in support of it. Certain correspondence had recently taken place in which the Under Secretary urged the Treasury to take early steps for the abolition of the duty on Indian silver. He was sure it would be gratifying to the Under Secretary and to all who took an intelligent interest in the subject, and above all to their fellow-subjects in India, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would to-night hold out some hopes of dealing favourably with the subject. He did not desire to prevent purchasers who wanted to have goods Hall-marked as a guarantee from getting them so stamped, but he objected to the Hall-mark being made compulsory. By the maintenance of this system they were inflicting a serious injustice on the trade, and perpetuating an economic heresy which was discreditable to a country professing Free Trade principles.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to bring a little friendly pressure to bear upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this subject. He believed that it was admitted on all hands that this tax ought to be abolished. The Government themselves had, in three successive years, proposed to abolish it. The only reason that it existed appeared to be the difficulty of dealing with the question
    464
    of drawback. If, as the hon. Gentleman stated, £100,000 could settle this matter, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, he thought, be delighted to settle it on those terms. But whether that sum would or would not be sufficient, he thought that if sufficient pressure in that House was only brought to bear on the Government they would find some way of getting rid of the drawback. It was most important to encourage as far as possible such manufactures as now existed in the country, and it was greatly to the advantage of the people of India that every stimulus should be given to all the manufacturing industries which now existed. In India there was a remarkable industry in the manufacture of Indian silver articles, and it was highly desirable that the trade should receive as much encouragement as possible. No doubt, if it were not for the Hall-mark an enormous trade might be done in this country of the silver articles manufactured in India. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a special law could not be passed for the assay of Indian silver articles, so as to prevent the shameful incident mentioned by the hon. Member for Manchester with respect to the articles bought in this country made of rupee silver, and which were smashed up and destroyed? That was a matter which might be dealt with without the abolition of the duty, and without the Chancellor of the Exchequer incurring any fiscal loss whatever. He hoped hon. Members of the House would press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the extreme importance of this matter, especially from the Indian point of view, and that they would not have to wait long before justice was done to India.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR, who had the following Motion on the Paper, which he was precluded by the Forms of the House from moving:—
    "That, considering the unexampled liberality of the Government of India in freeing the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom landed on the extensive coasts of India, from all Import Duties, whereby the Home trade and industries have been largely benefited; also, looking at the assurances, and promises given, during the last three Budgets that all Silver Plate manufactured in India would he admitted into the United Kingdom, it is now expedient that, all Silver Plate manufactured within the Indian territories should he admitted into the United Kingdom, without any liability to either Customs or Excise duties; and in so resolving,

    465
    this House desire to record their wish to show respect to the claims and representations so strongly urged by the Government in India, and by the Indian Government at Home, to act justly and fairly in regard to the admission into England of Indian Silver manufactures,"
    said, the House was indebted to the hon. Member for Manchester for having brought forward a question of very great importance to India. When he recollected that for two years India had removed all import duties, and that goods to the value of £35,000,000 had been freed from duty, he had said enough to show the importance of the sacrifice which India had made. He thought the example which India had set in this matter was one which put England to shame, especially when they considered that this country had taken pride in hitherto being foremost in advancing the principles of Free Trade. He wished, however, to do justice to the Prime Minister and to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1881–2 the present Prime Minister in his Budget Speech strongly advocated the abolition of the duties on silver brought to this country, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech of 1883 had also advocated the same course. The objections which had been raised by both right hon. Gentlemen were on account of the large sum which it would be necessary to pay with respect to the drawback. The Prime Minister had stated that the drawback would amount to £160,000 or probably more; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that a sum ranging between £120,000 and £200,000 might be the sum demanded. But he desired to point out that they were not now fighting for the abolition of the duty, because it had been admitted that this relief should be given, but only in regard to the amount of drawback which it was necessary to pay. By a comparison of figures he could show that this would not be so large as had been paid in the case of other duties which had been repealed, such, for instance, as the duties on glass, bricks and tiles, soap, and paper. In the case of soap there had been no drawback at all, and in the case of other articles the drawback paid had amounted to but a fraction of the annual duty upon each of this class of goods. He thought that £120,000 would cover all the claims that would be made on
    466
    account of drawback. In the case of a country which had been so liberal in admitting English manufactured goods free of import duty, he thought he was justified in making an urgent appeal on behalf of a similar favour being extended to Indian manufactured silver articles. The important point was that probably in the history of the world they had never had such an example as that which had been set by India; and they had also had the Government in India and successive Secretaries of State for India all strongly appealing to the Treasury to abolish the duties on silver plate—a measure which would be but a fair and just return for the great benefits conferred on the industries of the United Kingdom by the repeal of the import duties on our produce and manufactures entering India. The justice of that demand had been over and over again admitted, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to do any good in the matter it was to be hoped that he would now speak out plainly. It would be unworthy of a Liberal Government which had hitherto professed Free Trade principles not to deal fairly and justly by India on that subject.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, that at present the question of the withdrawal of licences was not before the House; but, no doubt, before long that would be asked for from, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the meantime, it was only the abolition of the duty that was asked for. The hon. and gallant General (Sir George Balfour) suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give £120,000 to settle the drawback. He objected entirely to the Chancellor of the Exchequer giving any such sum. He did not think it was justified in any way. That the duty operated most injuriously upon the trade has been shown by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg). It was a diminishing trade. One American house, he was told, made as much as the whole British trade did. That in itself was a fact that could not be accounted for very easily on any other ground than the prejudicial effect of the duties. The American house to which he referred not only did this enormous trade, but it came over here and took away all our best workmen, and our trade was starved in workmanship as well as in other ways by the Americans getting ahead of us so much. In

    467
    his opinion there should be no drawback, for several reasons. Since 1881, when it was first proposed to take off the duty, the making trade had been starved. Naturally the makers would not go on manufacturing anything they had not absolute orders for. They would not go on making for stock. Even the public would not buy anything more than they greatly wanted to buy; and, accordingly, even if the amount of duty-paid stocks on hand in 1881 was very large, the amount on hand now must be a very great deal smaller than it was then. That was one reason why no drawback should be paid. But there was another reason, which was much more conclusive. It was this. The duty was 1s. 6d. per oz., but from that there was the rebate of 3d. per oz.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, that at the time when the unsuccessful interruption took place, he was explaining that there was a rebate from the duty of 1s. 6d. of 3d. per oz., on the ground that the plate was sent into the Hall in an unfinished state, and that there was a certain loss of weight in finishing. The result of that rebate was that the makers contrived to send in their plate so nearly finished, that there was much less loss in finishing than the amount of the rebate they received. He was told that on plain goods, such as spoons and forks, the makers could actually make a profit of 2d. out of the rebate of 3d., and that in one case a large manufacturer made a profit of £1,000 a-year out of the rebate. Of course, the manufacturer asked if the duty was done away with where was he to get this £1,000 of profit? But he did not think that was a ground for refusing the abolition of the duty. It was, however, a very good ground for refusing the drawback, because they could say to these gentlemen —"You have been making an unfair profit out of the Government tax, and if you add that up you will probably find that the last half-dozen years of it comes to nearly, if not quite, as much as any amount yon could fairly claim for drawback on unsold goods at the present day." Apart from that, there could be no doubt that the sudden expansion of the trade immediately on the abolition of the duty
    468
    would in a very short time recoup the makers for any loss by not getting drawback. That the trade would take a sudden bound he had not the slightest doubt. The mere fact of the trade being emancipated would tend to give it a new start. The House was, he thought, bound to consider India in that matter; and he entirely agreed in the appeal which the hon. and gallant Member (Sir George Balfour) had made on behalf of that great Dependency; but he did not think it would be necessary merely for that end to abolish compulsory Hall-marking, though in the case of India it would be necessary to give thorn a special Hall-marking suitable to the rupee silver, because that was the quality in which the bulk of their manufacture was made. It was only reasonable that the public should continue to have, while they wanted it, such guarantee of the genuineness of the goods which they bought as Hall-marking gave; but it should be voluntary, not compulsory. There was practically no Hallmarking of gold now except wedding-rings and snuff-boxes, and not much of it in the case of snuff-boxes, except, perhaps, the presentation snuff-boxes to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) for blocking Bills in that House. But he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer made much revenue out of them. As to wedding-rings, they were constantly sold at prices which did not admit of paying the duty; and it was probable that many of them came from abroad fictitiously Hallmarked. He had not advocated greatly the abolition of the duty, because he considered the Chancellor of the Exchequer was already committed to that, and as to the drawback he did not think, as he had shown, that the circumstances of the trade warranted it. The drawback having been the sole difficulty in the way of abolishing the duty, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should throw that question overboard altogether—should simply abolish the duty, and tell the makers of silver plate that they must make the best of it.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, that it seemed to him a remarkable thing that all the speeches which had been made on the subject were appeals for justice to India, regardless that it involved injustice to Clerkenwell and

    469
    the silver manufacturers of this country. He did not attribute the falling off in the trade to the operation of the duty, but rather to the altered taste of the public and to the circumstances of the time. People moved about now more than they used to do, and for that reason were more unwilling to have the risk and trouble involved in having a large amount of silver in their houses, which would have to be sent to their bankers every time they moved. They had been told of the debt which England owed to India; but he could not see how that justified a proposal that India should be repaid by the silver plate manufacturers of London and other places in this country who owed nothing to India. He thought that such a proposal was wanting in common honesty. If the duty were repealed, the English manufacturers would still have to pay their licence duties, and he claimed justice for those who had paid their money on the face of the present law. All through the debate the English manufacturers had been lost sight of. He was not asking for any protection, but he asked that there should not be spoliation. If the duty was to be taken off, the plain, simple, honest, straightforward way was to pay back the duty that had been received for articles still remaining unsold. As to the question of the American manufacturers, the real reason of their being able to do such a large amount of business was the existence of considerable protective duties.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, they had been told that the trade in gold and silver plate was declining, and that that decline was due to these duties. He was not at all sure that it was due to the duties; he thought that there were other causes. Under the present duties trade had increased for a considerable period, until the time when electro-plating came into use. Another reason which affected the trade was the change in taste which had taken place. But, whatever the cause, the Government had more than once expressed a desire of getting rid of these duties, which undoubtedly operated to the prejudice of trade between India and this country. He might say that the Government desired to abolish the duties as soon as possible; but it was not an easy matter when the amount to be taken away was considered. There was also the great difficulty of the drawback, and
    470
    he was afraid, although supported by stronger reasons than had been advanced by his hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson), it would not be easy to say they would not allow it. They had always, when abolishing duties, allowed drawbacks to some extent on stocks held on hand. They could scarcely say to a man who had a quantity of plate on which he had paid 1s. 3d. per oz. was fairly treated if they said to him he had a profit out of the 3d. of rebate, and that he must place that against the 1s. 3d. when the duty was abolished. He would reply, and justly, that whatever advantage he might have derived from the rebate was an incident in his past trade, and had been taken into account in the competition regulating the profits of the trade, and could not now be reckoned against loss on abolition of duties. The question must stand over, for the present at least. He would, however, recommend his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester not to treat the question as one to be disregarded or to be dealt with in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Glasgow, and to see if he could not come to some understanding with the big dealers in gold and silver plate as to the terms on which their claims for drawback could reasonably be met. With reference to the Hall-marking of Indian plate, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had spoken of the law as it stood up to a recent date. The breaking up of plate falling behind the standard was happily not now necessary. That barbarous rule had been abolished, and the Government were not unwilling to consider whether something more could be done for India. It was said that a great deal of Indian work was so delicate and fragile that the application of the Hall-mark was likely to interfere with the design of such work. That was a matter worthy of consideration, because they might decline to enforce the application of the Hall-mark without taking away the liability to pay Customs duty. Should a proposal of that kind be made by the hon. Member for Manchester, he did not think the Government would have any difficulty in acceding to it. The suggestion to have a separate Hall-marking for plate of an inferior standard was a matter which had been considered by a Select Committee, and they decided against it. In conclusion, he must again

    471
    assure his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester that the temper of the Government with respect to his proposals was as friendly as ever, and they would not be deterred from carrying out the policy of which they had more than once approved; but if they could see a way to the removal of the practical difficulty of the money charge involved in an allowance for drawback and also the loss of revenue, they would be as ready in the future as in the past to consider the abolition of these duties.
    MR. MUNTZdesired to say a very few words, because the subject was one of great interest to his constituents. There had been some very strange speeches—one from the right hon. Gentleman who represented the City of London, which reminded him very much of the gentleman who suddenly discovered he had been speaking prose all his life; and there had been a speech from the Secretary to the Treasury, which meant everything and nothing—a sort of speech to which he had been used for many years; and when he considered that it was five years since the Committee sat, and when he remembered that they worked hard and reported unanimously in favour of the change now proposed, he could not help regretting that nothing had been done. If a Committee was to sit and Report unanimously and nothing was to be done upon that Report, he could not see any use in the appointment of a Committee. There had been speeches about protection and about honest dealing, which he liked as much as onyone; but he did not find that when a duty of 25 to 30 per cent was suddenly taken off, even with the Crown duties, on other articles of commerce, there was any idea of compensation or drawback being allowed. It was always the trade like that represented by the City Alderman which was to be indemnified for what they would or might have lost. Really, the matter was becoming very serious. It was easy for the Secretary to the Treasury to pass it over, saying when he had money he would do something; but meantime the trade was going. He had heard with pity the reason assigned for the increase of American manufactures—the heavy duties put upon the import of such goods. They had a duty and they would keep it too; but it was not merely in America that we were superseded, it
    472
    was in Australia, in New Zealand, in India, and everywhere where our goods used to be exported to or from this country. The next reason why in the last 25 years there had been such a great increase in American manufacture was that by degrees they had learned to manufacture everything. Under their system of Protection, they were now taking our best workmen away from our silver trade to the United States to supply our Colonies with goods we used to make ourselves. He did not think many hon. Members were aware of the enormous amount of the tax. It amounted to 1s. 6d. on 4s. 2d. Why, scarcely a tax in the United States or France equalled that. Taking the Indian point of view, we had bullied India like a stepmother into withdrawing her duty on cotton goods. We said—"Take the 5 per cent off cotton goods and we shall see what you shall see." And what had we seen? We taxed them 1,000 per cent on salt, and we still continued the 40 per cent on silver imports. He was very much obliged for the kind speeches and goodwill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he wanted more; he wanted to stop the decline of a trade, and to put an end to the anomaly that with Free Trade we had the heaviest internal trade tax in the world. He had no wish to abolish Hall-marking. The recommendation of the Committee was a sensible one—to abolish compulsory Hall-marking, leaving the marking "for those who liked to adopt it." He sincerely hoped that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the means of doing so, he would make use of his funds in the direction advocated.
    MR. SALTsaid, he had, as probably others had done, considered this matter in the view of his own convenience. He had personally no interest in maintaining the tax upon plate. Then with regard to the Hail-marking, which was not quite so easy a matter, he would be quite content with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), that the public would be very well treated if they had the option to purchase plate with or without the Hall-mark. In such case, however, a very severe penalty should be inflicted upon anyone who fabricated the Hall-mark. India had been most prominently mentioned in the discussion. That was a country in which, no

    473
    doubt, this country had more interest than any other, and India objected to the present system, both on the ground that it hindered the importation of plate manufatured in India, and also on the ground of the inconvenience occasioned by the Hall-marking of plate of the very fine workmanship produced in that country. He had the very warmest sympathy for India, more especially so because he thought that all the parts of the Empire ought, as far as possible, to be treated as one. Finally, there was the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be considered. He had three difficulties to contend with. There was the question of the Hall-mark, the question whether he could afford to part with the tax, and also the question: of the drawback. With regard to the portion of the trade which advocated this change, he believed it to be by no means suing in formâ pauperis, and, therefore, there were no grounds for the change on that score. After all, this was a matter which, in his opinion, was not to be settled by a discussion in the House at large, but by the calm and quiet consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the officials of his Department; and if the right hon. Gentleman could arrive at any decision which would be to the advantage of the public in this country and in India, he would have his warmest sympathy. He trusted that this question would, either next year or the year after, be completely and satisfactorily dealt with.

    CUSTOMS—DUTIES ON FOREIGN IM PORTS.—OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he believed he was in Order, at that stage of the proceedings, in raising the matter which was embodied in the Resolution which stood in his name. The Resolution was—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, Customs Duties should be replaced upon those Foreign importations which, contributing nothing to our National Revenue, come into unfair competition with our National industries; also, that; Spanish and French Wines and other Foreign alcoholic drinks should be made to contribute more largely, and that the moneys thus obtained should go in reduction of the taxation which is proposed by the Budget Resolutions."
    It seemed to him that the question that they had been discussing was part of a larger one, a question which deserved larger consideration than it was likely to get in the present state of the House.
    474
    [There were not more than a dozen Members present.] Let him, before he passed to the specific subject, express his sympathy with what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and the hon. Member who had just spoken as to our duty towards India with regard to the silver trade. He wished, in general terms, to express his concurrence in their objections to the proposals of Her Majesty's Government in the Budget, and he would proceed to speak, as briefly as he could, on the particular proposals he had expressed in his Resolution. It seemed to him that those questions in the present stage were questions for the country, rather than for the House of Commons; and he thought they had some reason to complain that those who directed the fortunes of the Conservative Party did not keep their eyes open as to the necessity of treating these trading questions in the way he thought they ought to do. They followed too much the error which applied to the Front Benches on both sides of the House, and thought too much of Party politics, and too little of the great questions with which the bulk of our population were concerned. As regarded the franchise, he remembered well a speech of the late Lord Beaconsfield, when he was defending himself, and how that great man said that, for himself, he could always trust the common sense of the people of this country. Like him, he (Mr. Mac Iver) felt that the common sense of the people might be trusted fully when the franchise was extended; and they would find the common sense of the people calling out for more attention to questions where their trade, their wages, and even their welfare and happiness were concerned. It seemed to him that, in the question of manufacturing industries, there was nothing of greater or more direct interest than the unfair competition of foreign manufacturers, and there was no part of Her Majesty's Dominions which had a greater complaint to make in the matter than the little Island across the Channel (Ireland); for when it suited us to be Protectionists, we destroyed her trade; and we destroyed her manufactures when it suited us to be Free Traders. He would have no case at all in support of his Resolution, if he could not show that the foreign importations which contributed nothing to our National Revenue was very large. It was

    475
    said constantly that our importations were so trifling that it was useless to tax them. That, however, was not the case. The figures were very succintly set forth in a statement prepared by Mr. Slier-look, of Liverpool, whom he knew well. Taking only seven articles, which everyone would admit were manufactures, and which came in competition with our home industries, they got at once figures which completely disproved the case set up against him. The articles he proposed to take were silks, woollens, cottons, gloves, manufactures of tanned leather, clocks and watches, and manufactures in iron and steel. Looking back for the last 10 years, and simply adding up the figures of the Board of Trade Returns, what was the value of the importation of these seven articles? They might be insignificant, but he found that they amounted to more than £355,000,000 sterling. Those who maintained that it was useless to tax such articles had only to figure it out, and they would find that a duty of 10 per cent upon these seven manufactured articles alone would have produced in the 10 years £35,937,887 sterling, or something very closely approaching half the entire Revenue which it was proposed by Her Majesty's Government to raise by the present Budget. He went further, and said that there was not one of those articles which was ever purchased by the working classes of this country. They were the luxuries of the rich; they were not the necessaries of the poor. They were things which might well be taxed, and which, if taxed, would produce a large revenue, and which in turn would enable the Government to remit a large amount of taxation, and do a great deal to render unnecessary many of the proposals in the Budget, which generally he intended to oppose. It might be that the case which he sought to present to the House would receive very little attention or sympathy from politicians in the House of Commons; but he could assure hon. Members that he had had within the last year or two addressed working-class audiences in Bradford, Sheffield, Birmingham, Manchester, Ashton, Liverpool, Birkenhead, and elsewhere, and he had addressed audiences, not specially Conservative audiences, on this question, and wherever he had spoken he had found entire sympathy from the working men,
    476
    who were perfectly able to appreciate the reality of foreign competition, which was taking their employment from them and reducing their opportunity for earning wages. Take, for instance, the present position of our trade with France. They heard a great deal of the advantages of cultivating the trade with France; but it was not everyone who had carefully looked into the statistics of that trade, and there were comparatively few who knew what the trade really was. Without wishing to weary them, he wished to point out this—that the importations from France of farm and garden produce alone, amounted in value to something like £15,600,000 sterling annually. That was to say, those things alone, without any question of foreign-manufactured goods, were worth more than the whole of everything which this country was able to send to France. He was, therefore, surprised that hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies did not join him in asking that Customs duties should be imposed on the products of foreign countries. France would not take our manufactured goods; but we took from France every year manufactured goods to the value of upwards of £25,000,000 sterling, and the whole of these goods came into competition with the industries of Great Britain and Ireland. Take those articles of ladies' dress, which if they did not come from France, would come from Ireland. It seemed to him to be a monstrous injustice that we should continue to receive these things from France and other foreign countries, and that they should contribute nothing to the relief of our National Revenue. Those who manufactured similar articles in this country contributed to the National Revenue. It was only the foreign manufacturers which did not; and if our home manufacturers were able to make a profit—he was afraid that of late profit upon home manufactures had been very small—they were required to pay Income Tax upon that profit. One Member of Her Majesty's Government, and more than one hon. Gentleman he saw sitting opposite to him, invested their money in manufactories in Germany and elsewhere on the Continent of Europe, and it did not follow at all that they paid Income Tax on any of the profits that they received from the imports they introduced from those countries. His authority for the statement, if it were true, was Mr.

    477
    Giffen, who enjoyed a dual capacity—a gentleman who, at the same time, was at the head of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, who was a Radical in politics and was one of the staff of The Times newspaper—who argued that there were large sums of British money invested abroad. The return from Income Tax on those foreign investments ought to correspond with the value of the shipments, if those shipments represented, as Mr. Giffen declared they did, the profits on our foreign investments. That gentleman argued against a case which some friends of his (Mr. Mac Iver) were endeavouring to show—the case of excessive importation of foreign-manufactured goods to this country. He told them they were wrong about the balance of trade being against this country—that this balance against us was really profit—and that any other idea was an old and exploded fallacy. Well, that was true in a way, but it was only true half-way. What was also true, was that, for the last few years, when this country had been depressed, we had a balance of trade not only against us, but much more against us than before. ["No, no!"] Mr. Giffen argued that such an excessive balance of trade against us was caused chiefly by foreign countries paying us for our shipments to them. It was very difficult to confute that statement, until they came to this—by considering the question of Income Tax generally; because if it was true, as Mr. Giffen said, that there were large sums of money invested abroad, the returns for Income Tax for those moneys ought, in some measure, to correspond with the value of the profits represented by shipment of goods to this country. Nothing of the kind, however, took place, because there was a large missing balance, and, therefore, he thought it was perfectly clear that the investments abroad, or many of them, altogether escaped the payment of Income Tax. Then, again, with respect to our commercial relations with Spain, he thought the Government were rather unwilling, at this time, that those relations should be spoken about. It was very difficult to get anything out of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and he sometimes doubted whether it was because he was unwilling, or because he did not know. This much, however, we had been able to glean—that when the Government
    478
    entered into negotiations with Spain, they properly asked to be put on the same footing with Spain. They were obliged to say, however—"We cannot give anything, because we have nothing to give;" and Spain declined to give us anything because we had nothing to give. Lord Beaconsfield pointed out how hopeless was the position of this country in sending to bargain with other countries, because we had no duties in hand, and nothing to give. The position he understood Lord Beaconsfield to take up was this—that it it was not for him to, or the Party which he led, to move in the question unless the country asked them to do so, but that we had a right to do what he (Mr. Mac Iver) asked the House to do that night—replace duties on the goods of foreign countries who would not meet us in a fair spirit, and then we should have something to give in return when we wanted anything to be done.

  TAXATION AND EXPENDITURE.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he fully supported the views of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Mac Iver). He had been expecting both this and last Session that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have gone further than he had yet done, and that he would have made a bold and liberal effort to wipe off those miserable and petty duties which pressed so heavily on the working classes throughout the United Kingdom—namely, the duties on tea, coffee, cocoa, dried fruits, and similar articles. The total sum yielded by those imposts was only £4,500,000 a-year. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) understood it cost nearly £500,000 to collect them, and the remaining £4,000,000 might be replaced by an additional 2d. on that popular tax—theIncome Tax; and when he said popular tax, it was proved in 1874 that the tax was popular with the electors of the country, because when the present Prime Minister offered, in that year, to abolish the Income Tax if returned to Office, the reply of the electors was to send him back in a minority, and put those in Office who would continue the tax. An Income Tax, properly adjusted, was one of the fairest of taxes, because the pauper and the working man escaped it altogether; but he thought the impost might be made lighter on precarious than on

    479
    permanent incomes, and he hoped that the day was not fur off when some Government would be courageous enough to place it on a fairer basis. There was a description of property which ought to be one of the first subjects of taxation, but which was now, in his opinion, most unfairly exempted. He meant ground rents of houses, which accumulated, not by any exertion or outlay of capital on the part of the owner, but by the industry and thrift of the working classes, who built houses which were, perhaps, 50 years afterwards confiscated by a succeeding owner of the ground rents. It was calculated the ground rents of this country amounted to about £20,000,000 a-year. A tax of 10 per cent on that sum would produce £2,000,000 of Revenue, or about half the amount required to take off the potty taxes now pressing on the working-classes to which he had referred. Indirect taxation was very unequal in its incidence on the poor and the rich. For example, common. London gin, of which 19–20ths were, unfortunately, consumed by the poor and working classes, was worth only from 20 s. to 24 s. per dozen, duty paid; and on that duty was 15 s. per dozen; while champagne, that was worth from £3 to £5 per dozen, was only charged 2s. duty per dozen. Again, Madeira, old-crusted port, and sherry paid only 5s. duty per dozen; whereas whisky, which was worth 30 s. per dozen, paid 18 s. duty per dozen. The poor man's tobacco was also taxed far more heavily than the rich man's finest cigars. He reckoned that the working man paid 10 per cent of his income in taxation, while the man with £10,000 a-year did not pay 5 per cont. The tendency of all the laws of England showed that they were made by the rich simply to tax the poor; and so long as that state of things existed it was a disgrace to England. He could see no reason why Clubs should not be taxed, as they were made use of by the rich for the purpose of luxury, or in some instances as a means of evading the law. They sold ad libitum duty-paid articles without a licence; while the unfortunate trader was compelled to pay a licence tax for everything that he sold. The result was, that they had considerably increased; and he therefore asked why should not Clubs be taxed? As an instance of the abuse of Clubs, he would mention the case of one in Dundee—the
    480
    Artizans' Club—which did not consist of more than 100 members, whore it was proved in Court that, on Sunday, the 13th of April, there were sold in the Club-house no fewer than 290 glasses of whiskey, 1,200 bottles of porter, and 18 gallons of draught beer. He should have thought it impossible that, in a Club of 100 members, so much liquor could be consumed in one day. He did not bring this instance forward as a point against Scotchmen; but he mentioned it simply to show how Clubs, which had not to take out licences, and which were petted by the Government, abused their privileges. ["No, no!"] At any rate, it was clear that a tax upon such institutions would help considerably to swell the balance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. Another matter to which he wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the great reduction of expense which would be brought about by the amalgamation of the Customs and Inland Revenue into one, and so reducing the expense of collection.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he wished to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a rather curious class of his constituents who desired to be taxed; and he thought it would be the first instance that evening in which they had men themselves coming boldly forward and pleading to be taxed. It appeared that, according to the Scottish law, dwelling-houses might be let on verbal leases, and that such verbal leases were binding. It was desirable to have some record of these agreements, and it was the usual custom of the landlord or house-factor to write and ask whether the tenant meant to continue in occupation. That communication and the reply of the tenant in the affirmative, were held as proof of the verbal agreement. It had, however, been held that these written memoranda of verbal agreements were equivalent to leases, and consequently subject to a tax of 10 s. per cent. The tax was the same for yearly letting as for a lease of 30 years; and the consequence was that this heavy tax discouraged the keeping of written memoranda of agreements of house-letting. The house-factors of Scotland, therefore, came down to the House in his (Dr. Cameron's) person, and begged the Chancellor of the Exche-

    481
    quer to impose a small tax upon these written agreements. They suggested that he should sanction a 1d missive stamp as legalizing an agreement for the letting of a house under £10 a-year rent, and they pointed out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make money by the transaction. In Glasgow, at the present moment, the right hon. Gentleman did not receive £15 of duty, because 95 per cent of the agreements were simply verbal, and consequently paid no tax whatever. They stated that if a 1d. missive stamp was imposed it would be universally used, and would yield £132, or a clear gain in Glasgow alone of £117. The amount was not much; but, in those days of small surpluses, it might be of some advantage. The house-factors of Edinburgh endorsed the view of the Glasgow house-factors, and they put forward the statement, for example, that of 4,274 houses let at rents under £10, there were only 20 cases where stamps were employed. Had 1d. stamps been employed, instead of the £2 now accruing to the Revenue, the amount would be £17. The same story was told throughout Scotland, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to oblige them by imposing this tax.

    LOCAL TAXATION—RESOLUTION OF MARCH 28.—OBSERVATION.
    MR. PELLsaid, that he had had a Motion on the Paper—
    "That this House regrets to learn that no provision has been made in the Financial proposals of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to the Resolution of the House of Friday, March 28 (on the subject of Local Taxation);"
    but he thought that this was hardly a fitting opportunity to bring it forward. He would therefore propose to reserve his remarks until an occasion arose on which he could take the sense of the House upon it.

  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that he had early in the Session put a Question as to the carrying out of the Resolution which had been passed last year advocating the reduction of the National Expenditure. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that Question had been that, in con-
    482
    junction with some gentlemen of the Treasury, he had been engaged in a very careful examination of different branches of expenditure, and that, in consequence of this investigation, he believed he was on the way to secure a considerable economy, without interfering with efficiency. For his (Mr. Rylands's) own part, however, from the Estimates laid on the Table, he was bound to say that down to the present time he saw no very great evidence of any remarkable economy on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The present Government had made large promises to secure economy in administration, and to relieve the country of much of the burden of taxation; but, so far from doing that, in some cases the burdens were increased. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that throughout the country, and especially in the manufacturing centres, there was great dissatisfaction as to the expenditure incurred and justified by Her Majesty's Government. He thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his very decided separation between what he called taxation and income not in the nature of taxation, was somewhat misleading the House and the country. Take, for example, the postage and telegraph stamps. There were several millions of profit left; and he thought that the moment they got a profit, then they were bound to consider that that profit was a portion of the Revenue of the country that was imposed on the taxpayer. He was not so unreasonable as to suppose that reductions in expenditure could take place without some delay; but he believed that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of adopting so ambitious a scheme in regard to the reduction of the National Debt, which gave no general satisfaction to the taxpayers of the country, had given a certain portion of the money which would then have been at his disposal to the relief of the taxpayer and to the loosening of the springs of industry, that would have been a far more popular and far more advantageous thing to the country. He did not say that it was not prudent to discharge national obligations; but what he complained of was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, at a time when the trade of the country was suffering from foreign competition, raised money which

    483
    would benefit people who in future years might be able to bear burdens better than the taxpayers who were now living. At the present time, also, the people were paying for local advantages which ought to have been provided by their predecessors, and establishing permanent institutions which would benefit future generations. These local burdens amounted to many millions. He could understand the argument in favour of a large payment to the National Debt if the Government had made a considerable reduction in the expenditure of the country; but he was bound to say he had seen no evidence of that economy which he had reason to hope would have been displayed by Ministers. What he had looked forward to, and what he desired, was the Government proposing the appointment of Committees of that House to inquire into the condition of the great spending Departments. He had too much confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer to unduly press his views in that respect upon him during the present Session; but he hoped that when they came to examine the expenditure of the country during next Session, in accordance with the expectation held out by the right hon. Gentleman, the Committees would consist of Members of that House, and not of Gentlemen who were permanent servants of the Crown. The Heads of the great Departments of the State deserved the highest possible honour and respect. They were, however, Gentlemen who, by the very nature of their position and by the conditions of the society in which they moved, were always awake to their own interests. When the people were asleep, they were awake. He hoped the Government would tell the House what course they proposed to take to reduce the evergrowing expenditure; and he should be very glad indeed if the right hon. Gentleman could give the House and the country some definite assurance with regard to its reduction. Next Session he hoped, at least, that the Government would appoint Select Committees carefully to investigate the main branches of the National Expenditure.

  PRIVATE BREWING LICENCES.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he wished to refer to a subject which affected a large number
    484
    of the labourers in the Eastern Counties—namely, licences to private persons for permission to brew. Since the alteration of the Malt Tax in 1880—an alteration made avowedly for the purpose of benefiting the agricultural interest—the labourers had been charged 6s. for these licences to brew. But the average quantity of malt brewed by these men did not, he believed, exceed three bushels; in many cases he did not suppose it exceeded two; and the charge of 6s. for a licence was therefore some few pence more than the duty under the old Act, which, for two bushels of malt, would have been about 5s. 8d. The average assessment of agricultural houses in the country did not exceed £3, and this licence for being permitted to brew was accordingly equal to an Income Tax of 2s. in the pound upon the houses occupied by these labourers. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to see his way to reduce the cost of the licence, although he was perfectly well aware of the impossibility of doing away with it altogether. Without licence or registration, no doubt there would be a good deal of evasion of the law and fraudulent brewing; but he could see no reason why the 6s. licence should not be reduced to 1s., or, at any rate, to considerably less than the figure at which it stood at present. This suggestion he earnestly commended to the serious attention of the right hon. Gentleman in the hope that, at some future time, he would afford the desired relief.
    MR. CLARE READsaid, he hoped that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not acquiesce in the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hicks), he would, at least, say whether it was not in his power to order that this tax of 6s. upon brewing might not be collected, say, in two half-yearly instalments of 3s. each, instead of in one lump sum for the twelvemonth; or whether a man might not be permitted to take out a licence for six months instead of for twelve. On the Budget night he ventured to place before the right hon. Gentleman an idea of the extreme hardships inflicted on the agricultural labourers who had to pay 6s. before they could brew a drop of beer. Although the total amount might appear to some to be comparatively small, still, at the same time, it came to be a very

    485
    considerable amount to the labourer to find, when they came to consider that, in addition to the tax on brewing, he had also to find his materials wherewith to brew, and which would amount to 12 s. or 13 s. He might instance a parallel case in which the right hon. Gentleman, as he had himself admitted, had attained considerable success, and that was with regard to the 14 days' game licence for £1. No doubt it was an extremely useful privilege for a lawyer to be able to have the great pleasure of shooting a grouse or a partridge during the early days of August and September during the Long Vacation. It was also equally pleasant for a boy come home for the Christmas holidays to have a shot at a cock pheasant. But he submitted that the relaxation for which, he asked was of much greater practical benefit; and he certainly thought that, considering the advantage it would be to the labouring man, the suggestion was one which ought to commend itself to the serious consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. During the Budget debate, the right hon. Gentleman said there were some people who would prefer paying the 6s. in one sum; and, of course, he (Mr. Clare Read) was not prepared to assert that everyone would take half-yearly licences. If people wanted to pay the whole of the money at once, by all means let them do so; but he fully believed the right hon. Gentleman would not find a cottager in the United Kingdom that would not prefer half-yearly payments. In fact, he was almost certain it would be found that many cottagers would be glad and only too willing to pay the half-yearly instalment of the tax, who could not pay that for the 12 months. The transfer of the tax from malt to beer had been most profitable to the Revenue, for whereas the duty upon the malt had been 5s. 1½d. per barrel upon the beer, now the duty was upon the manufactured article it paid 6s. 3d.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that he was much obliged to hon. Members who had given him such valuable suggestions for a fancy Budget. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) had made an interesting speech in favour of protective duties, and had enumerated seven articles which might be so taxed as to produce a revenue of £3,500,000. He (the
    486
    Chancellor of the Exchequer) was, however, afraid that that was not the time to re-introduce the policy of Protection into this country. He, therefore, could not accept the hon. Member's suggestions. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) had spoken of additional revenue to be derived from what he was pleased to term that popular tax, the Income Tax. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had never heard it called a popular tax before; but the hon. Member had judiciously explained that it was popular with those who had not to pay it. The hon. Gentleman had proposed to raise £2,000,000 a-year by taxing ground rents; but he did not seem to be aware that, although ground rents were not subject to local rates, they were already subject to the Income Tax; so that they would have to be subject to a special rate of Income Tax, if more was to be got from them in this way. The hon. Member thought that the duty on gin ought to be reduced, and that the tax on certain wines, such as Champagne and Madeira, might be increased. But it would be difficult to make much out of that proposal, as the duties on spirits amounted to£l8,000,000or £20,000,000, while those on wines brought less than £2,000,000. It was not easy, therefore, to see how any sensible relief could be afforded in that way to spirits; for the increase of revenue from wine would be far from, meeting the decrease from spirits. With respect to the taxation of clubs, he did not think that much could be made out of them. He would admit that there were in the country many spurious clubs; but the police had, during the past year, brought prosecutions against several of them with considerable success. While, therefore, he was anxious to do all he could to deal sharply with sham clubs, he should be very reluctant to discourage real working men's clubs by taxing them, and it was undesirable to do so. For his part, he was not prepared to say that the working men's genuine club, of which there were many, should be subject to taxation any more than the clubs of those who were in a better position in life. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had made a suggestion which, he imagined, could not but be palatable to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), inasmuch as he proposed a new tax on people who were ready to

    487
    pay. But when he detailed his plan, it turned out to be only a proposal to tax agreements for letting houses in Scotland 1d., instead of the much higher rate to which they were now liable, but which was sometimes evaded. He was not prepared to do this. He desired to treat the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) with great respect. The hon. Member had been for a long time past a consistent advocate of the reduction of Public Expenditure, and the Motion he had made last year had not been unproductive. The question of economy in connection with the permanent officials of Departments had not escaped his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) attention, as he had shown in his Budget speech, and good results had already been achieved, and better were hoped for in the future. The hon. Member for Burnley had said he could not see, on the face of the Estimates, where economies had been effected. But, in dealing with the expenditure of a large number of Public Departments, whose expenditure ramified in many directions, and was under the direction of many persons, they could not, without great patience and a considerable interval of time, largely reduce establishments. The process must be gradual, and the result of the most careful deliberation. At the same time, with the assistance of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and of the permanent Heads of the Departments, he had initiated and carried out an exhaustive examination of a portion of the Estimates submitted to the House. When the Votes were taken, his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) would be able to show what improvements had been effected, and also what prospective economies it had been decided to carry out. In the speech he had referred to, he had stated the general effect of what the Government was doing and what they proposed to do; and he could only say he should not shrink, so long as he continued in his present Office, from going on in the course he had taken during the past year of pressing on and enforcing economies in this, as in other matters, gradually where opportunity presented itself, and where it could be done without detriment to the Public Service. He did not wish to overrate the amount they
    488
    had done; but, comparing the present with the Estimates for 1873–4, he had already shown that, excluding the Post Office, the grants-in-aid of the local taxpayer, and education, great economies had been effected. But the real offender was the House of Commons. For one proposal to reduce expenditure, there were 20 or 30 to increase it. This tendency was not limited to the Army and Navy; there was hardly any Department with respect to which the Treasury had not to meet proposals for additional charges. For instance, he had been asked that day to approve a great additional charge for the Inland Revenue Department, which he did not think necessary; and he would, therefore, ask his hon. Friend and those who thought with him to join in assisting the Government in resisting the pressure for increased expenditure in that House, which was far stronger and far more difficult to meet than any pressure on the part of public servants. With regard to what fell from the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) on the subject of brewing licences, he must admit that it was by no means an easy question; it was one, moreover, which concerned not only the small brewers to whom he had referred, but those who contributed much larger sums to the Revenue. He believed he had answered all the questions which had been put to him, and he trusted he had satisfied hon. Members. He hoped the House would now resolve itself into Committee.

  PARLIAMENT—AMENDMENTS ON MO TION FOR GOING INTO COMMITTEE— RULINGS OF MR. SPEAKER.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. HEALY: I wish, Sir, to submit to you, as a point of Order, whether, on the Motion for leaving the Chair, I cannot call attention to your ruling and conduct in the Chair on a recent occasion? There has been some question whether any Motions raised on going into Committee of Ways and Means must not be relative to the Budget; but I have looked into the authorities on that subject, and I find that Sir Thomas Erskine May, in his Parliamentary Practice, ninth edition, lays it down that the ancient Constitutional doctrine of redress of grievances before Supply is now represented by the practice of permitting every kind of Amendment to be moved

    489
    on the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair. I therefore wish to ask you, Sir, if I am not entitled to submit to the consideration of the House certain rulings of yours on a former occasion?
    MR. GLADSTONE—MR. GLADSTONE—
    MR. HEALY: I submit this as a point of Order.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I rose to speak to that point of Order. The hon. Member has raised, very fairly and distinctly, the particular point which he wishes to submit to the decision of the Chair. He desires to know whether he is right in thinking that the question he proposes to raise respecting certain rulings from the Chair cannot be properly debated before going into Committee of Ways and Means, although it does not relate distinctly to the matter of Ways and Means. I also wish to submit to you, Sir, as the hon. Member has kindly stated the purpose with which he raises this question, certain other considerations that appear to me to bear upon the point of Order. The hon. Member, as I understand, desires to question certain rulings of yours. He desires to question your conduct in the Chair in the discharge of your duties as Speaker of this House. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the hon. Member is right in saying that the mere want of relation between the subject he wishes to introduce and Ways and Means is no impediment, it appears to me that there are other impediments. They are these. In the first place, I observe that no Notice has been given of the hon. Member's intention to question your conduct in the Chair in the discharge of your duties. He gave a Notice this evening—though I did not hear the precise terms of it; but I believe I am correct in saying that a verbal Notice in the strict sense is, in this House, no Notice at all, and that a Notice must be put upon the Paper in a distinct and definite form.
    MR. HEALY: That is where Notice is required.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am not attempting to lay down any general dictum as to where Notice is necessary and where it is not. I am only observing that in this case there is no Notice before the House of the hon. Member's intention. Secondly, I observe that as the Motion before the House is "That the Speaker leave the Chair," and as
    490
    the hon. Member does not intend to make a Motion, but merely to call attention to the Speaker's conduct, that is a course which I think the House will not permit. I apprehend that if anyone were to attempt to call into question my own conduct or that of any other Member of this House days or weeks ago, he would not be permitted except under these two conditions—first, that he must give Notice; and, secondly, that he must submit a distinct Motion to the House. My belief is that that is a protection which would be extended to every Member of this House. If that be so, I do not enter into the question whether the Speaker ought to have greater protection than any other Member, or how much that protection ought to be; but I put it to you, Sir, for your consideration, that the protection afforded to the chief officer of the House in regard to matters connected with the discharge of his duties ought not to be less than that afforded to any other Member; and that the House should not allow his conduct to be called in question without the two safeguards of Notice and of a definite Motion. It is with some regret that I have to call on you to give a decision in a matter in which you are supposed to be yourself concerned; but I am sure that a sense of public duty will prevent you from allowing any indisposition on that score to interfere with your free and impartial judgment.
    MR. HEALY: Before the Speaker gives his decision I would like to refer him to a precedent that will, I think, be found to govern the present case. On August 4, 1881, a question was raised by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in regard to Mr. O'Kelly's suspension; and the question was raised when, the Motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair having been negatived, no Division could be taken on the hon. Member's Motion. On that occasion the Prime Minister said—
    "Though you may be bound to accept the ruling at the moment, there is nothing to prevent your impeaching that ruling at a future time. If I am cast by what I deem to be an unjust verdict, I must submit to it for the time, though afterwards I may condemn it."—(3 Hansard, [264] 869–70.)
    The right hon. Gentleman also said—
    "I admit fully that every Member of the House is entitled to impugn and pronounce censure upon the conduct of the Speaker on grave and sufficient grounds."—(Ibid. 866.)

    491
    It is not from any want of courtesy to the Speaker that no Notice of this matter has been given on the present occasion. I had intended making the Motion on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply on Tuesday, and giving Notice in due course; but if I had adopted that course, I would, I knew, be counted out. I have, therefore, resolved to bring the matter forward on the Motion to take effective Supply. If I gave Notice, I might lose many excellent opportunities of bringing it forward. Three weeks ago I gave verbal Notice of my intention to call attention to this matter, and I have again given Notice to-day. I therefore disclaim any idea of being discourteous to the Speaker by not giving him Notice. Whatever the ruling of the Speaker may be I will accept it, altogether apart from the question that it is the Speaker's own conduct that I wish to bring under the consideration of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: In replying to the points of Order which have been raised by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and by the Prime Minister, I have to say that I hope in deciding upon them I shall dismiss all personal considerations. I have to thank the hon. Member for Monaghan for the courteous manner in which he has referred to these personal considerations. I am bound to consider the matter as a question of Order and precedent. I can assure the House that I have had no Notice whatever of the point to be raised by the hon. Member for Monaghan, and until this evening I had no idea that any Motion was going to be made on the subject of my conduct. Immediately after the Easter Recess the hon. Member for Monaghan stated that he should at some future time take an opportunity of calling the attention, of the House to my conduct in giving a certain ruling in the course of an event that occurred on the preceding Friday. Prom that day to the present nothing has occurred that could make me suppose that any Notice was going to be given of my conduct in the Chair. No Notice having been given, it appears to me that I am bound to hold that the rule which I should lay down in the case of any other Member of this House I cannot depart from in my own case. It would be establishing a very difficult and dangerous precedent if the action of a Member of this House were
    492
    to be called in question without any Notice to that Member, and without the House generally being aware of the course about to be taken, and without the House being in a position to come to a decision on the matter. The House at large was not at all aware that the hon. Member for Monaghan was going to question any ruling of mine; and I should wish respectfully to submit that any question affecting my conduct in the Chair, or any ruling given by me, should come before the House in such a way that the whole House should be able to decide upon it either for or against myself. Under these circumstances, although it is certainly against my own personal feeling that the matter should not now come on, I am bound by precedents, and cannot depart from them for any advantage to myself. I must, therefore, rule that the proper course for the hon. Member for Monaghan to adopt is to give Notice, and put his Motion in a specific form before the House, so that the House at large may be able to pronounce an opinion upon it.
    MR. HEALY: I accept your ruling, Sir; but I desire to ask one question. Is that ruling based on the fact that no Notice has been given, or on the fact that the Motion has been brought forward when there could be no Division upon it?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This is such a very grave question, that I hope, Sir, you will be able to give a definite decision upon it. I should have thought, in accordance with the views expressed by the Prime Minister, that a review of the conduct of the Speaker could not properly be proceeded with without allowing the House to pronounce an opinion on the matter. Any other course would be one which would entirely destroy the authority of the Chair.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I think, Sir, there can be no question whatever that, for the convenience of the House, and in support of the authority of the high personage who presides over its debates, it is most essential that any Motion calling in question the conduct of the Speaker should be raised in such a manner that the House should have full knowledge that it was coming on, and also that the House should be able to pronounce an opinion upon it.

    493
    Nothing can be more important than that the delicate relations between the House and the Speaker should be maintained in all their integrity. We have the greatest confidence in our Speaker; but it is, of course, possible for anyone to go wrong, and it is right that there should be an opportunity of questioning his conduct. But for the maintenance of the proper proceedings of this House it is necessary that full and ample Notice should be given; and that there should be a proper opportunity of discussing and deciding upon any Motion impugning the conduct of the Speaker.
    MR. HEALY: I wish, as a point of Order, to call your attention, Sir, to a precedent which occurred in the case of your Predecessor in the Chair—namely, that of August 4th, 1881; and I ask that no decision should be come to on this point that has arisen until you have had an opportunity of seeing the Motion before you, and also of considering the point raised on the last occasion, when the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), after the other Motions on the Paper had been decided, proceeded to call attention to the suspension of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly). I may also mention that the hon. Member for the City of Cork stated that he would not have an opportunity of dividing the House, and that the speech of the Prime Minister was directed to taking objection to the hon. Member bringing the subject forward on such an occasion. I should like to read two or three passages from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister upon that occasion. He said—
    "I should have thought it was a well-known principle of our system in this House—and I am astonished that a man with one-tenth part of the discernment of the hon. Member should not have perceived it, and had the hon. Member been guided by a right sense of his duty to the House he would have perceived it—that the judgment of the House stands between himself and the Chair, and protects the Chair from the charges that he has brought against it."— (3 Hansard, [264] 867.)
    There are other passages which I cannot find at the moment; but the whole argument of the Prime Minister during the debate was founded on the fact that the judgment of the House could not be taken on the occasion; and therefore I submit, as a point of Order, that until you, Mr. Speaker, have had an opportu-
    494
    nity of examining the Records of August 4, 1881, when Mr. Speaker Brand was in the Chair, it would be inconvenient to decide this matter at the moment.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I do not wish to anticipate the decision of the Chair; but I am not quite certain that I have understood the contention of the hon. Gentleman. I have the impression that these references may have been in a case where the question was immediate.
    MR. HEALY: No, no!
    MR. GLADSTONE: Oh, then it was retrospective?
    MR. HEALY: Yes.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Then, if that is so, I admit that it is possible I may be wrong.
    [Mr. HEALY handed to the Prime Minister the volume of Hansard from which he had been reading.]
    MR. SPEAKER: On a matter so gravely affecting the interests of the House, I am clearly of opinion that not only, as has been stated, is it necessary that due Notice should be given of a Motion of this kind; but that the House ought to be in a position to give a final verdict upon the question proposed to be challenged; and that a challenge of the Speaker's ruling should not consist of mere fault-finding, but should be submitted to the judgment of the House.
    MR. BIGGAR: Mr. Speaker— [Cries of "Order!")
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman rise for the purpose of raising a point of Order?
    MR. BIGGAR: Yes, Sir; I rise to a point of Order, and the point of Order is this—whether or not, in the circumstances, the Government cannot set up Supply in order to give an opportunity for discussing the matter, and a decision being arrived at—[Cries of "No!"]
    MR. HEALY: I beg to give Notice that on Tuesday next I shall put down, a Motion on this subject, and I shall see whether the Government will keep a House for the purpose of considering the question.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL PROPOSALS.—COMMITTEE.
    WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs now charged on Tea shall continue to he levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five, on importation into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say): on

    £

    s.

    d.

    Tea.

    the lb.

    0

    0

    6."

    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he believed the time had now arrived for the Committee to consider the proposals which were laid before the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Financial Statement. He thought it was somewhat unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have adopted a course which practically precluded the Committee from considering the important points of interest raised in that speech—namely, the conversion of certain Stock and alteration in our gold currency. It was, he believed, quite unintentional on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he took a course which precluded such a discussion; but, at the same time, it was obvious that the course that had been taken was an inconvenient one when the Bills which the Government proposed to put forward on this subject were not prepared, and when, therefore, the Government could not be put in fall possession of the views of that House on those two important matters. There were one or two points in connection with the Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he thought worthy the attention of the Committee. Perhaps he might first be permitted to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the lucidity of his statement, and the clearness with which he had marshalled his figures. But the result, or the estimated result, of the expenditure in the present year was, in his (Lord George Hamilton's) humble judgment, very unsatisfactory. There was an estimated surplus, according to the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of £241,000. Now, he had ventured to call the attention of the House twice earlier in the Session to the
    496
    fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was transferring from the Estimates of this year certain payments which ought to be met out of the income of this year; and the result was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to omit the payment of £250,000, which ought to have been paid to India towards defraying the charge which some four years ago the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreed should be annually paid, which charge was £500,000. If this sum of £250,000 had been paid, as it ought to have been, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have found himself with an absolute deficiency amounting to £9,000; because, as the right hon. Gentleman was aware, if they deducted from the surplus of £241,000 the £250,000 that ought to have been paid, there would have been, instead of a surplus, a deficiency.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: The money has been paid.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, there was still a sum due to India. The arrangement was that every year's Estimate should be charged with £500,000; but this year's Estimate was only charged with £250,000; but if the whole sum arranged by the Prime Minister had been charged this year, as he had said, there would have been an absolute deficiency amounting to £9,000. It was the first time during the 16 years that he had been in Parliament that he had ever known the Chancellor of the Exchequer having a deficiency in time of peace; and although, undoubtedly, during the time the late Government were in Office there were deficiencies at the end of the year, those deficiencies had always arisen from circumstances which were unforeseen at the commencement of the year, and in every single instance, at the commencement of the year, there was a considerable margin between income and expenditure. Would any hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House get up and say that their foreign relations were so satisfactory and so free from danger and menace in every part of the world that they were not likely to be called upon to make exceptional expenditure before the end of the financial year? If they were called upon to make exceptional expenditure during the year, where were the Ways and Means? The most remarkable feature of this year's

    497
    Budget was that although the Government came into Office pledged to enonomy and to alter the extravagant procedure of their Predecessors, yet after four years of Office and of peace Estimates they could only, by a hocus pocus, produce what he maintained was a false Budget. What was the cause of their great difficulty in balancing income and expenditure now? It was certainly not due to the Government being in possession of a less income than their Predecessors. The figures were a little startling. He had taken the trouble to estimate what was the sum received during the last four years of the Administration of the late Government and the sum received during the last four years of the present Government; and he had found that the income of the present Government had been £25,000,000 in excess of the income of the late Government; and, therefore, each year, on the average, Her Majesty's present Government had been in receipt of an income of more than £6,000,000 in excess of that which their Predecessors had secured. Then, he said, how came it to pass, in these four years of the tenure of Office of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they had been in receipt of such a largely increased income, that they had been barely able to meet their expenditure? The reason was very simple; it was owing to the very steady and continuous growth of their expenditure. How much greater that expenditure now was than it was three or four years ago would, he thought, startle anyone who looked at the figures. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made two alterations in the accounts which, however they might improve the account, made comparisons between the present and preceding year somewhat difficult. But the extra receipts for the Army and Navy were struck out on each side of the account, and this year, therefore, was struck out the extra receipts in relation to India. If they wanted to compare the expenditure of the Government with the expenditure of their Predecessors, they must include both these items, which during the present year had been excluded; and by including those items, and comparing them with the last Estimate the late Government left on the Table of the House, hon. Members would be able to see exactly how great was the increase of expenditure. The
    498
    Estimate of expenditure this year was £85,291,825. To that had to be added extra receipts for the Navy, £270,235, and for the Army, £595,635, amounting in the aggregate to £866,167. Adding that sum to the £85,291,825, they had a total of £86,677,992. To that must be further added the receipts for Indian charges, which he took at the figures of last year—namely, £1,045,000, and that brought up the total estimated expenditure for this year to £87,152,992. What was the Estimate of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister four years ago? Why, in 1880–81 he estimated the Expenditure at £82,075,922, so that in four years the expenditure of an economical Liberal Government had increased by £5,087,000, or an annual increase of £1,275,000. The expenditure was increasing, to borrow an expression of the Prime Minister, by "leaps and bounds;" but the income was more or less stationary. What was the cause of this great increase of expenditure? There was a popular delusion cherished by certain Gentlemen, especially those below the Gangway, that this increase was due to the paying off by the present Government of debts incurred by their Predecessors. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; hon. Gentlemen opposite were still under that delusion. If hon. Members would be kind enough to look at the charges put on the Consolidated Fund in relation to the service of the Debt in the year 1880–81 and in the present year they would find that the Consolidated Fund charges in 1880–81 were £31,346,978, while for the present year they were £31,103,673. Thus there were actually £243,000 less charged on the Consolidated Fund for the present year than there was four years ago; and it was a curious fact that the only extra charge that the Government had had to incur in the present year was a charge in relation to a payment to India on behalf of the Afghan War, which amounted to £250,000, and which almost exactly balanced the £243,000 just referred to as the amount less than that paid four years ago in relation to the service of the debt. Therefore, they must look elsewhere. This increase of expenditure was due to the Supply Services costing far more than they did four years ago. The Army now cost £1,000,000 more than it cost four years ago; the Navy, £500,000 more; the Civil Service,

    499
    £3,000,000; making a total of £5,100,000. That was the increase of expenditure which, during the last four years, had taken, place under an economical Liberal Government. Now, he thought that the Prime Minister had a financial conscience. He had always been consistent in reference to finance; and he (Lord George Hamilton) thought the right hon. Gentleman would recollect that, amongst other attacks which the Opposition had thought unjust that he had made on the late Government, he had particularly attacked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) for his management of the Civil Service Estimates. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had been unwise enough to make use of the expression in relation to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon of a "chicken-hearted Chancellor of the Exchequer."
    MR. GLADSTONE: Not in reference to the expenditure.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: If it was not in reference to the expenditure, what was it in relation to? The right hon. Gentleman had found fault with their Estimates; and he (Lord George Hamilton) had shown that the right hon. Gentleman's own Estimates had increased £5,100,000 in four years—an increase that was absolutely unprecedented, and far greater than anything that had occurred during the tenure of Office of his Predecessors. The right hon. Gentleman must feel that the strictures he had cast on the financial management of his Predecessors were unjust. He (Lord George Hamilton) was quite ready to give all credit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury for their exertions during the past year; because the attention of the House had been called to the enormous increase in the Civil Service Estimates, and, in consequence, a Resolution had been almost unanimously passed—indeed, he thought without a Division—that economies in regard to this branch of the Service were necessary. He thought it had been, therefore, to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that they had this year presented Civil Service Estimates which he believed he was correct in stating were less than those of last year. There
    500
    was the automatic increase in relation to education and local subsidies; and therefore he admitted that the result of the exertions of these Gentlemen had been most creditable to them, as, in spite of their increase, the total expenditure was less than last year. There was one part of the Civil Service Expenditure which he thought deserved the careful attention of the House—namely, the Post Office expenditure, which had enormously increased. The Post Office was pushing its operations into all sorts of new spheres. As far as he could make out, it was rather difficult to be correct in investigating the exact results of the accounts. Although the expenditure on the Post Office was far larger now than it was two or three years ago, and though the capital sums expended in that Department were annually increasing, yet the net income from the Post Office was less than it was some years ago.
    MR. FAWCETTwas here understood to intimate some dissent.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the net income was £200,000 less than it was four years ago. They were all ready to admit that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General discharged his duties very satisfactorily; but the point to which he was especially calling the attention of the Committee was whether it was expedient or not that the State should so develop its operations, and should, through the Post Office, undertake a number of fresh duties, because it seemed to him a question that could be considered from two points of view. In the first place, it undoubtedly involved greater expenditure; and, in the second place, it led to a large increase in the number of Government employés. Considering, that there was a Franchise Bill before the House, and that the tendency was to increase the franchise, he doubted whether it was expedient to largely increase the number of persons depending for their daily bread on the Government. Unquestionably, there always was, and always would be, a disposition on the part of Ministers to favour the claims of certain gentlemen. Pressure was brought to bear upon the Government by Members of their Party, which it was difficult for them to resist. As he had stated, the surplus was only £240,000, and there seemed to him to be two charges which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was

    501
    almost certain to have to meet during the present year. There was the charge in reference to the serious alteration proposed in the coinage. That, of course, he was not at liberty to discuss, at the present moment; but he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the large receipts which he estimated the Mint would receive this year — namely, £120,000, had any connection with the proposed alteration in the gold coinage?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): No.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Estimate was exceptionally large; and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been a little premature in taking credit for a certain amount from the proceeds in the alteration that he proposed, before the sanction of the House had been given to his claim. If, then, they dismissed any charge that might be imposed on the Revenue in reference to the alteration of the coinage, they must remember that they might still be called upon to meet a large charge in consequence of the menacing state of affairs in Egypt and elsewhere. If they were called upon to meet an increased charge in regard to these matters, where, he asked, were the Ways and Means to be found? The Prime Minister had made an attack upon the late Government from the hustings because they had a deficiency, which deficiency had been caused, in almost every instance that had occurred, by circumstances arising after the beginning of the financial year which they could not foresee. In 1879–80, for instance, there was an estimated surplus of £1,900,000, which was insufficient to meet the war expenditure which it had been subsequently found necessary to incur. It was tolerably clear, he thought, to every Member of the House that after the discussion that had taken place on Monday and Tuesday last, it was almost certain that they would, in some shape or other, have to incur an additional expenditure during the present year; because, without referring to the late debate, or debates, it would be undoubtedly necessary to do something to rescue General Gordon from Khartoum. If it was found necessary to put a stop to the insurrection going on around General Gordon, how was the expense to be
    502
    met? Egypt was practically insolvent. Therefore, he wished to raise his voice very respectfully to warn the House that these Estimates, though they seemed satisfactory, were yet most unquestionably quite insufficient, when they took into consideration all the exceptional conditions and emergencies that were almost certain to occur before the financial year closed.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that he did not propose to follow the noble Lord who had just sat down through the whole of his remarks; but while he agreed with him that it was undesirable for Her Majesty's Government to follow the example set by the other side of the House in regard to their financial arrangements, and to end the year with a deficit, he must say that so long as they had a surplus of something like £240,000 he thought it would be very inconvenient to impose taxes for an emergency which they must all hope would never arise. He had no doubt that, if emergencies did arise, the Government would then impose additional taxation, in order that they might have a surplus at the end of the year. There was no doubt that the surplus was small, as the noble Lord had pointed out, and that the expenditure was large; but, to a great extent, the increase was nominal. Fortunately the question lay in a nutshell; because, while the increase of expenditure was between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 more than it was four years ago, if they looked into the details they found that £1,000,000 was not expenditure in any real sense, but was spent in the repayment of the Debt.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No; there is less paid for the decrease of the Debt.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKbegged the noble Lord's pardon, and thought he was quite right in the statement he had made. Then there was an additional amount in the grant in aid of local expenditure of £1,000,000. The Post Office stood for nearly £2,000,000. He, for his part, did not wish to see the Government undertaking mercantile affairs; but still, wisely or unwisely, additional operations had been decided on, and they must not look at the increased expenditure as being an increase in the ordinary sense. The £1,000,000 paid, as an increased amount for grants in aid of local expenditure, was simply a pay-

    503
    ment made in following out a policy which he knew was advocated by the noble Lord himself and his Friends; but whether such expenditure was wise or unwise, the payment could not be looked upon as an increase of expenditure. Then, lastly, there was the increased amount paid for education, which was nearly £1,000,000, and that was not objected to by hon. Members on the other side of the House, and certainly not by hon. Members on the Ministerial side. In this way, therefore, they accounted for nearly the whole of the additional expenditure; and when they bore in mind the exceptional state of things in Ireland, the continually increasing population of the country, and the demands which were constantly made upon the Government for new services, he thought they could hardly wonder at this increase of expenditure having taken place. At the same time, there could be no doubt that it did throw on the Government the duty of endeavouring to do something to keep down the expenditure; and he thoroughly believed that they were alive to the fact, and that they were trying as much as they could to keep it down. He was sorry that they were precluded from discussing several most interesting points on the present occasion, such as the proposed alterations in the coinage, and the question of the interest on the National Debt. He was afraid that if he went into these the Chairman would be most likely to call him to Order. He thought that when they came to discuss the former question it would be easy to show that many of the fears with reference to it were chimerical. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the progress he was making in the reduction of the National Debt.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the hon. Baronet had endeavoured to explain away some of the extra expenditure by the Education Votes; but he omitted to make any reference to what had been referred to by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) — namely, the increase, amounting to £1,500,000, which had taken place in the Naval and Military Expenditure. He was not one of those to find fault with a just expenditure upon these Services, nor would the country grudge it, if any valuable re-
    504
    sults had been achieved thereby; but when they found deplorable consequences always following their excursions in Egypt and elsewhere, it was not to be expected that the country would rest satisfied. They had been told that the strength of the Fleet, as compared with the Fleets of other Powers, was decreasing, instead of increasing; and therefore he thought they were justified in complaining of the increased expenditure. The broad fact to which the noble Lord had referred was that the Government claimed to be a Government of economy—a Government which came in, above all things, with a policy of retrenchment. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The Prime Minister denied that statement; but he would mention that, as an hon. Friend of his boasted he had done, for some years he had carried about with him a copy of the orations of the right hon. Gentleman delivered North of the Tweed; and he could only say that the right hon. Gentleman's recollection of them was less accurate than his own, if he thought that large portions of those orations were not directed to the subject of expenditure. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Will the hon. Gentleman read?] By an unfortunate accident he had not a copy of the orations with him. He did not know what edition of them the right hon. Gentleman had in his hand; but, still, the copy which he possessed did, undoubtedly, contain many references to economy, and promises on the part of the Liberal Party that if they were returned to Office they would at once reduce expenditure and introduce a new régime. ["No, no !"] This was a part of the question which he could hardly treat seriously, because he was so confident that references to the subject of economy were to be found on almost every page of the right hon. Gentleman's orations. If the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him, he would at a future Morning Sitting, provided the Government did not consume the whole of the time, give the House what he was sure they would consider a very great treat —namely, a large number of quotations from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman in favour of economy and retrenchment. This interesting interlude had drawn him aside, however, from the point stated with so much force by the noble Lord the Member for

    505
    Middlesex—namely, that the expenditure of the country had increased by £5,000,000 during the time the present Government had been in Office. He would ask what could Liberal supporters of the Government think of their professions in the face of that fact? The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London had made a passing allusion to the difficulties in Ireland as accounting for a portion of the increase of expenditure; but that was a most unfortunate allusion, for the Government themselves had created, and were responsible for, the difficulties in Ireland. He would not enter into that subject now; but if they took the increased expenditure in connection with Ireland, it would be found that no benefit had resulted. The increased Naval and Military Expenditure had been without the slightest benefit to the country. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) had drawn, the attention of the Vice President of Council on Education to the fact that certain mottoes, amongst others "Peace with Honour," had been exposed in a national school. This was justly considered a Party motto, and the hon. Member for Stoke was indignant that it should be exhibited in a public school. But things had very much changed since that phrase was first used; for instead of having, as then, peace with honour, they now had war with dishonour, and that, too, with an increased charge of £1,500,000 in the Army and Navy Estimates. In the face of those facts, he thought the strictures of the noble Lord on the policy of the Government were justified; and that if the Government were to recover any small shred of character for economy they must set to work at once greatly to reduce their expenditure.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the criticisms of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex had related to two questions. In the first place, he said that the Government would have had a deficit this year had it not been that the charge for the Afghan War was to be £250,000, instead of the average charge of £500,000. Had he postponed the payment of the charge the criticism of the noble Lord would have had some force. All that had been done, however, was to anticipate and pay last year what was due this year; and as to next year's
    506
    £500,000, to pay half of it this year. That, he contended, was a good, and not a reprehensible policy. Moreover, it was based upon the noble Lord's own advice, contained in one of his speeches, which he quoted in the debate on the Vote; and, having taken that advice, he thought it very hard that the Government should be attacked by the noble Lord for adopting his own plan. The other statement made by the noble Lord was that the Estimate of expenditure which the Government placed this year before Parliament, after making a number of adjustments, was £5,000,000 or so more than the Estimate of four years ago. So far as the Naval and Military Expenditure was concerned, the increase had been fully justified; and he need not refer to the debates on the subject, which showed conclusively that it did not lie with Members of the late Government to blame it. But the noble Lord said the Civil Service Expenditure would be £3,500,000 more than it was estimated at four years ago. But the increase came under three heads—namely, the Post Office Service, the Education Vote, and the expenditure in connection with local subventions, which amounted altogether to more than the sum named. He could not, therefore, agree with the statement of the noble Lord; because, omitting these three heads, the Civil Service Expenditure was less than it had been four years ago, although, he admitted, only by a small sum. Consequently, they were justified in taking the Estimate for this year as fairly representing the expenditure of the year. As to the Army and Navy charge, last year he gave the House, with great care, the details of the increase of expenditure; and there was, of course, an additional cause of expense this year, because they were keeping a larger Army in Egypt, and because the contribution from Egypt, although it fairly met the direct charges, did not meet the additional indirect charges. Speaking from memory, he thought that the addition to the original Estimates of last year amounted to something like £500,000. He had already explained, in his two Financial Statements, the causes of the increase, part of which was automatic. But they had done their best to economize in various directions, and had thus, to some extent, made up that portion of the increase. But, on the other hand,

    507
    from year to year the deferred pay of the Army was increasing, and they had not yet reached the maximum of the old pensions, for which ultimately it would be a partial substitute; but when it was reached, there would be an annual decrease, instead of an increase as at present. But there was another and more important cause of increased expenditure. When the present Government came into Office they found that not more than half the number of iron-clads which had been deemed necessary were being built; and they also had to incur a large expenditure in connection with guns of a new type, which, although their Predecessors considered them necessary, had not been contributed to by them to the extent of one farthing. As he had given the figures accurately last year he need not repeat them, but would conclude by expressing the hope that he had fully answered the statements of the noble Lord.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I think there are some advantages and some disadvantages in the manner in which we conduct our debates with regard to the economy of one Government as compared with the economy of another. It is extremely well that the people of the country should have brought before them in these discussions across the Table the fact that there are two sides to the shield. When the Conservative Party are in Office we are attacked as a most extravagant Government; and anything we can say, by way of explanation or mitigation of the charge, is almost always received by the country at large with scepticism, and a belief that we are merely making excuses. On the other hand, when the Liberal Party are in Office any increase of expenditure that may take place is very fully accounted for, and is proved to be a matter which the Ministry ought rather to be proud of than otherwise. The truth is that, to a very great extent, these controversies arise out of the nature of the case; and the Party which, when in Office, finds it necessary to increase expenditure, finds it convenient to criticize such expenditure when they happen to be in Opposition. There are, I say, advantages in these discussions, because they open the eyes of the public upon, questions of considerable importance; but, at the same time, I think there are some disadvantages attending
    508
    them, because while they tend rather to dwell upon the comparative merits and demerits of one Administration or another, too little attention is paid to the real facts and merits of the case. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be desirable to have, in addition to discussions of this kind, something more in the nature of a formal inquiry. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) brought this matter forward in a very proper spirit last Session, and we certainly understood that there was to be something in the nature of a Royal Commission. I think it would be very much to the advantage of the public, and very conducive to economy and proper financial management, that there should be an independent and impartial inquiry into the progress of our expenditure within a certain sufficient period of time, so that we might see how far the advances have been unavoidable, how far they are laudable, and how far they are open to objection. If it were possible to have a Committee who should go into this matter impartially, without the view of obtaining a particular result, and without reference to Party questions, I believe that great advantages would be derived from such an appointment. With regard to the particular questions raised, my noble Friend has made a remark which, I think, is justifiable, and to which I have heard no sufficient answer—namely, that we are provided, according to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a very narrow surplus, and under circumstances which certainly do not altogether justify us in expecting that we shall be able to keep within our estimated expenditure. I do not know that we have any right to complain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in not asking us to come forward to submit to additional taxation; only I think we ought to bear in mind that we were rather severely taken to task ourselves when, at the beginning of one year, we did not produce a definite Estimate of the expense which we thought might arise from a war which was then imminent, if not begun, in South Africa. And although I had provided a margin of something like £2,000,000 over the actual expenditure on the war, I was called to account b; the right hon. Gentleman the Prime

    509
    Minister for not having given a more definite statement. I suppose, however, that if we ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a definite statement of the expenditure likely to result from the Egyptian policy of Her Majesty's Government, of which it seems that the battles that have been fought are to be regarded only as a mere incident, we should be taken to task, and told we had no right to ask impertinent questions of the sort, and that when the money was wanted Parliament would be asked for it. Without complaining of that, I say that there is some difference between the spirit in which we were treated when we were in Office and that which the Government expects us to extend to them now. Even in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although I admit it was generally very free from references of a Party character, there was an allusion to a very favourite topic amongst Liberal critics on expenditure and finance. We have been told again, as we have been told often before, that the present Government have been paying the debts of their Predecessors. Now, I want to know in what sense those terms are used? In what way have the present Government paid the debts of their Predecessors? Undoubtedly, a certain amount of expenditure was incurred in the last two or three years of the Conservative Administration, which was not immediately provided for, but was allowed to stand over until the whole matter from which it sprang had been concluded; and with regard to the residue of which we made certain arrangements which would lead to the whole expenditure being cancelled within a certain number of years. That was the state of things when we left Office; and it appears that a considerable portion of that expenditure has since been defrayed by carrying out that arrangement. But because that has been done the right hon. Gentleman has no right to say that he has been paying off our debts. He has not added a single tax, and he has not reduced his expenditure for the purpose of paying off that debt. Had he done that, something might have been said; but the right hon. Gentleman has done neither one thing nor the other, and all he has proved is that the arrangement that we made at the conclusion of our term of Office was
    510
    a perfectly good and sound one. The point on which we have always insisted is this—that when expenditure had to be incurred for services of an important and exceptional character, as in war, the whole burden of the charge should not be thrown upon the one particular year in which that service was undertaken, but charged upon a certain number of years. That was the proposal which we made, and that is the proposal which has been carried out. But the right hon. Gentleman talks as if he and his Government were doing something very exceptional in thus paying off the debts of their Predecessors, as if they had left the matter in a state of absolute confusion, and no provision had been made for the payment of those debts. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think this a very amusing view of the case; but it appears to me that the country is very much misled by the expression that the present Government are paying the debts of their Predecessors. We deny it, except in the sense that every Government may be said to be paying the debts of its Predecessors in all charges upon the nation. The question is, whether it was or was not right to revive a certain proportion of the charges incurred during the earlier term, by a re-arrangement of the period, instead of paying all at once. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he himself has given a precedent for that in what he did in regard to the fortifications and other matters of that kind. When he was in Office he chose—that was all right, of course, the Government being a Liberal Government; but it was the same thing—to arrange for a sum of money for fortifications, which was spread over six or seven years, and we had to go on paying the debts of our Predecessors in respect to fortifications. No objection was taken to that. My noble Friend has commented on the arrangement with respect to the payment of the Indian money, a large proportion of which was paid last year, in order to diminish the amount to be paid this year. It was not necessary that it should be paid then—it might have been dealt with in some other manner; but it was paid then, because that was the most convenient arrangement that could be made. I do not deny that it may be a right thing that you should take an opportunity of making

    511
    a payment so that it may come in conveniently with the general course of your finance; but it, of course, disturbs the arrangements into which, you enter. But, to a great extent, that was the principle we acted upon in the two or three years during which we were said to have accumulated these deficiencies. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what was the nature and cause of the deficiency in the two or three years which he has referred to, and with respect to which he has so often taunted us? It arose from the manner in which the large expenditure originally made for the purpose of a Vote of Credit, when there was some expectation of a European War, was provided for. If this had been provided for by laying down certain Annuities to be paid for in a certain number of years probably we should have heard very little of the manner in which we provided for it; and, at all events, it would only have appeared in one year when there would have been a deficit. That would have been a matter arising once for all, and there would have been a deficit that year; but the accounts would have been regulated by the creation of Annuities, and by provision to pay off the money borrowed. But we were so anxious, as far as possible, to apply the surplus of the years that were favourable to reducing this debt before making any settlement of this kind, that we kept it alive from year to year, and always reckoned the deficiency arising out of the necessity for making good the deficiency of previous years. In that way we were able to make the final arrangements. That was why it appeared year after year that there were deficits, when, in point of fact, there were not deficits on the year, but from the unpaid portion of the expenditure incurred in the first instance with respect to the £6,000,000. There were also some special causes which we need not go into now; but I think it is well that some of these things should be remembered in illustration of the measure meted out to us, and the measure which the Government claim to mete out to themselves. Before sitting down, I should like to say, in the first place, that we are discussing, to a certain extent, the Budget of the Government; but we are precluded from entering into the main points and features of interest in his financial statement—namely, the
    512
    National Debt proposal and the matter of the coinage. I think that is a great pity; but I hope it will not be very long before we have those measures produced and brought before us. It does not seem to me very intelligible why there has been so much delay. These are not matters that have sprung on the Government suddenly. One can understand that if a sudden revelation had been made to them a month or two before the Budget was presented that it was necessary to make provision for coinage, or for dealing with the National Debt, they might not be able, on the spur of the moment, to produce measures in time; but what they have done they have had under notice for 12 months. They might have considered these matters for the last two or three years; and I think we have a right to complain that with regard to such important matters connected with the Budget, which otherwise has no particular features to notice, we should be shut out from their consideration. It is not necessary to express a hope that these measures will be brought forward at such a time that the House will have a full opportunity of considering them, because I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take care that that is done; but I think it is deserving of observation that they have been delayed so long. The other remark is only in the nature of a preposition to what I said at the commencement, that I hope Are shall not lose sight of the suggestion made last year on the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and shall have something in the nature of an impartial inquiry into the facts and causes of the increase of expenditure.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am obliged to follow the right hon. Gentleman, because of the reference he has made to what he thinks the unfair manner in which financial matters have been treated on this side, and by myself in particular. It is not a satisfactory post-midnight arrangement to enter fully into the wide field of discussion raised by the financial operations of the present or of the late Governments. But the right hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity of defending certain parts of his financial system. I will not attempt to take away from him any advantage he may derive from these explanations; but they do not satisfy me that I have ever brought

    513
    unfair charges in this House or elsewhere against the finance of the late Government. I adhere to them; and if I find a suitable opportunity, and it seems to be required by the public interest, I shall not hesitate to repeat them. It is much better to dispose of that in this way than to make partial and incomplete comments. No one would desire to enter upon the subject in that way if he could help it. I shall confine myself to a single point. The right hon. Gentleman observes that I was inclined to smile. I admit the charge that I smiled when he made remarks upon the injustice of our alleging that we had been called upon to pay the debts of our Predecessors. The position was so irresistibly comic that I could not avoid giving that indication which every comic exhibition ought to produce so long as human nature remains what it is. He admits that he incurred a very large expenditure; he admits that he did not pay it. He had incurred it; he passed an Act of Parliament to provide prospectively for payment in the course of five or six years; then he disappeared from Office, having paid, I think, one quota. [Mr. COURTNEY: No; none.] I thought he had paid one. Then he handed the whole of it over to us. He said—"I did not leave it loose." No, Sir, he left it very tight indeed. There was an Act of Parliament passed; we were obliged to meet and to satisfy charges which he had incurred. That is the process we were compelled to go through. He thinks that if you incur any amount of debt, and pass an Act of Parliament at the mere cost of paper and printing, that it shall be paid off in a series of successive years, that that is really making provision for the payment. It is astonishing that the right hon. Gentleman should have entertained such a delusion. One cannot argue with a person who puts the matter in that shape, and evidently with the most perfect good faith; the effect of it is most intensely comic. Let me put a hypothetical case. Suppose we had occasion, in connection with a Conference, to ask the House for a credit of £6,000,000, and suppose that, in the course of the next six or 12 months, the lamentable event of our downfall were to arrive; suppose that in the meantime we had provided that it should be paid off in the next three years at £2,000,000 a-year, I think the
    514
    right hon. Gentleman and his Friends when they came to find themselves burdened with this £2,000,000 a-year would say that they were paying the debts of their Predecessors. We should have passed our Act of Parliament, which the right hon. Gentleman mistakes for the solid provision of the money. Upon this point I am reminded of a character in a modern novelist who, having accepted a bill for a debt, exclaimed—"Thank God, that's settled!" That is the kind of operation which the right hon. Gentleman applies to the finance of the country. With respect to fortifications, the right hon. Gentleman should have borne in mind that at the time when that charge was incurred very heavy charges were laid upon the country to meet the expenditure of the year. Undoubtedly, in some circumstances, it might become necessary to hand over some portion of the charge to future years, however anxious we may be that each year should pay its way. But we complain that the late Government, whenever they had a heavy expenditure to meet, thrust it over to future years.
    SIR STAFFOED NORTHCOTE: I distinctly deny that.
    MR. GLADSTONE: It is easy to deny, and I admit that it is not very difficult to make the assertion. My assertion was drawn forth by an observation of the right hon. Gentleman's Colleague (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and it was not a gratuitous remark. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was under an entire mistake as to the language I used during the late Election. The hon. Gentleman said that the Election mainly turned upon great promises of retrenchment made by me.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I said it was one of the most prominent items in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I join issue with the hon. Gentleman on that point, and advise him. to read through the whole of the Mid Lothian speeches from one end to the other. That, I think, will be abundant punishment for several political offences. I am quite certain that when the hon. Gentleman comes to the end of those speeches he will find that he is mistaken. He will find a great deal of animadversion upon the finance of the late Government; but he will not find any sanguine opinion on my

    515
    part that retrenchment would take place. For the best part of my life I have fought battles of economy, and I have no longer the pith and material required for that kind of work. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has spoken of the non-production of two important measures to which my right hon. Friend referred in connection with his Budget Statement. My right hon. Friend is even more eager than the right hon. Gentleman opposite could be to push forward, with all possible celerity, the measure for the conversion of the Three per Cents. The delay is purely a drafting delay, caused by accidental circumstances, in the Department. I hope, if there is a general desire on the part of the House to press the measure forward, that the right hon. Gentleman will be disposed to proceed with it expeditiously.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I said it must be examined.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have no mistrust of the right hon. Gentleman. I believe he may look at it fairly. With regard to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, that we are proud of our increasing expenditure, I may say that we are in no way proud of it. We regret it very much. But, undoubtedly, that increasing expenditure which is made a subject of reproach to-night is made the subject of attack on other nights from the same quarter, from the same Bench, and by the same Party. It is all done by a change in the caste of the Party. On nights when economy is to be recommended there comes down the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer; on nights when an extension of Estimates is to be recommended there comes down the late First Lord of the Admiralty and the late Secretary of State for War; and by these changes in the caste the same Party obtain the credit of showing how the greatness of the country requires a progressive extension of the Establishments, and also how guilty the Liberal Government are for their gross expenditure. I have to express my entire concurrence in what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the great propriety and utility of a searching inquiry into the expenditure of the country by a powerful Committee of the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    516
    has proceeded on this principle; and what he has been doing was never regarded but as a preparatory process. We have never questioned the utility of such an inquiry. It is entirely conformable with precedence. It is a function which lies deep in the nature of the House of Commons; and I am extremely glad to have learnt that the course proposed has the high sanction of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. SALTsaid, he thought these questions of finance should be discussed quite apart from any element of Party feeling, and that criticisms on financial proposals were valuable from whatever part of the House they proceeded. With regard to the Budget, it was a Budget of great simplicity, except in regard to the two questions which were deferred. He had no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the House ample opportunity of considering those measures, because they would involve not only questions of principle, but a good many points of detail and of great difficulty and importance, and concerning which he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would receive the assistance of all Parties. He was perfectly certain that however those propositions might be considered from one point of view or another they would receive the fairest consideration on all sides. They were proposals of very great importance; and if they could not be accepted in consequence of certain principles they involved, he was sure the thanks of the House and of the country would be due to the right hon. Gentleman for dealing with matters of such great interest and importance. With regard to the simpler part of the Budget he had little to say; but he wished to put one or two points before the Committee—but not in any hostile spirit. He was very much afraid they would not see any diminution of expenditure, whatever Government might be in Office. If they took, say, a past decennial or a shorter period they would find that there had been a steady increase in expenditure whatever Government was in power; and he was satisfied, from the necessities of the country, from the increase of population, from the increased desires and wants of the country, and from other causes, that they must look for an increase of expenditure in the future. In one particular respect he hoped that that ex-

    517
    penditure would not be avoided—indeed he hoped that every care would be taken for expenditure in that direction, combined with proper control by Parliament—and that was the expenditure upon the Navy. Looking at all the circumstances, he felt that there never had been a moment in the history of this country when the House would have received the approval of the country more readily than now for a large and generous expenditure on the Navy. The general expenditure had increased, and permanently increased. If the present expenditure was required, as it seemed to be required, by the necessities of the country, he hoped there would not be any less control and vigilance and economy in the different Departments of the State. They must spend what was requisite in this great country; but let them take care that for every pound spent they got a pound's worth; let them take care that every pound, nay every shilling, of their expenditure was well and properly spent. He made these observations, because he was afraid that when expenditure increased there was a tendency to be lavish. People were apt to say—"We are spending £500,000 or £1,000,000 in a very good cause." That, of course, sounded very nice and very pleasant. But then someone else wanted another £100,000 for a good cause, and it was difficult to refuse it. And so the expenditure went on increasing, and increasing without any check or control. It was a good thing to spend £10,000, or £100,000, or £1,000,000 in a good cause; but care must be taken that, however good be the cause—if it be education, for instance—a rigid control be kept upon every item expended.
    COLONEL NOLANdesired, in the few observations he had to make, to keep himself to the practical question before the Committee, which he believed to be that a duty of 6d. should be imposed upon every pound of tea. Granting he was right in that supposition, although, up to the present, not a word of the debate had related to the question, he proposed to reduce the duty by 3d. per lb.; in other words, that there should only be a duty of 3d. per lb. upon tea instead of 6d. In doing this, he was only half acting up to his principles, because he considered that the Tea Duty should be entirely abolished. As, how-
    518
    ever, he had no desire to disorganize the year's Budget, he would not ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take off all the duty at once. He was diffident to interfere in a great question of finance; but a move must be made by someone. He remembered that 12 years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), whose name had always been associated with a free breakfast-table, proposed a reduction of the Tea Duty. The right hon. Gentleman had done nothing of late years to obtain this much-needed remission; indeed, no man of position and standing in the House had bestirred himself in the direction of freeing tea from duty. It was, therefore, necessary that if the question was to be taken up at all it must be taken up by some ordinary Member like himself (Colonel Nolan). He had come to the conclusion that it was better to make a move than to wait for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take off the duty. He had no doubt some Members would say that the question had been introduced too suddenly, and that, therefore, they could not vote for the reduction; he knew that others would say they did not care to spoil the Budget of the Chancellor of he Exchequer; but, still, he (Colonel Nolan) always found that to make a move against a tax was very desirable. People outside would, in the end, say it was a step in the right direction, and would ask why it was not more largely supported? He was opposed, as much as possible, to poll taxes, and of such taxes that on tea was the greatest. There was a poll tax on alcohol, and on tobacco, and on tea. He would not take into consideration coffee, because he looked upon coffee as holding a very subsidiary position to tea. Perhaps he was hardly correct in saying that the taxes upon tobacco and alcohol were poll taxes, because everybody did not smoke or take alcohol. It was right, however, to assume that tea was drunk by everyone. The female population were particularly partial to it; indeed, its use was largely spreading. Milk, as a drink, was perhaps better than tea; but milk was very dear in towns, and even, in the country it was not always to be got. Water was not always a wholesome drink; indeed, it ought not to be drunk unless it was boiled, and

    519
    hot water was not drinkable unless it was mixed with tea. Gentlemen from his own country asserted that there was another form in which water could be taken; but whiskey-and-water, which cheered and sometimes inebriated, was not so healthy a drink as tea. Tea was really the healthiest beverage taken in this country, and it was a drink the use of which ought to be encouraged in every possible way. Could anything be more absurd than what the House of Commons was now doing? They spent about 10 per cent of their time in discussing Sunday Closing, yet they taxed the only real rival of alcohol. On the one hand, they taxed tea; and, on the other hand, they tried to shut up public-houses by force. He did not profess to be much acquainted with Chinese politics; but it was evident that a great change had taken place in China within the last week or 10 days. Now, if their Representatives out there could inform the people that the tax on tea had been reduced it might be a reason for the Chinese receiving some of our goods. He did not hesitate to say that the great mass of the population of this country considered that the time had arrived for a remission of the Tea Duty. He had long waited; he had wished that some influential Member of the House would move in this matter. He had often spoken upon the subject; but he had never ventured to make a Motion respecting it. He knew he should be defeated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer always did get a majority for his Budget; but no harm would be done by making a demonstration. He, therefore, begged to move that the duty upon tea be 3d. instead of 6d. upon each pound.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he was very glad to second the proposal which had just been made by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan). It seemed to be a perfectly reasonable and proper proposal; indeed, he regretted that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not see his way to propose a larger reduction. The words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman were words of sense; and though the House of Commons might not now be disposed to listen favourably to his proposal, the day was not far distant when the House of Commons would have to listen to a proposal not to reduce the Tea Duty, but to abolish
    520
    it entirely. It was no answer to the present proposal for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say he had not got the money. He could get the money very easily by doubling the duties upon foreign wines and spirits. If he did that he would not only get all the money which would be required, but he would get just three times as much. At that Inte hour of the evening (12.45) he would not weary the Committee with many figures. He would only point out that, in round figures, the present duties upon imported rum, brandy, and wine amounted to £5,750,000, while the duty upon tea collected last year was a little over £4,000,000. They had only, therefore, to double the duties upon imported wines and spirits, and they would have three times as much money as would be required if this proposal were adopted. He had much pleasure in seconding the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs now charged on Tea, shall continue to be levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five, on importation into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say): on

    £

    s.

    d.

    Tea.

    the lb.

    0

    0

    3."

    —(Colonel Nolan.)
    THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) had said it was no answer to say that there was not the money with which to carry out this proposal; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was sorry to say that was the answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer must give to a proposal of this kind. It was estimated that the present Tea Duty would produce this year about £4,400,000. If it were reduced by one-half there would be a deficit of somewhere about £2,000,000. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) who made this Motion, and the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, had suggested that the money required should be obtained by increasing the duty on spirits and wines. [An hon. MEMBER: On foreign wines.] On foreign wines, indeed! Why, to say nothing of other objections to raising the Wine Duties, no conceivable augmentation of them would produce a

    521
    fourth of this sum. Again, they might double and treble the duty upon imported spirits, and they would not necessarily get any more Revenue. Spirits and wines were not commodities on which they could rely for a large increase of Revenue; therefore, if their finance was to be based on some such proposal as had been made by the hon. Gentleman who had just preceded him, he was bound to tell the House that they would be landed in a very serious deficit. He did not know whether the Motion was seriously proposed; but if it was, such a considerable change in the system of fiscal legislation could not be entertained, and therefore he must oppose it.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he had great pleasure in supporting the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan). He was of opinion that some endeavour ought to be made to alter the system of direct taxation which now prevailed in the country. He maintained that three-fourths of the duty on tea was paid by the poor and working classes, and yet no effort was made by their financiers to abolish, or even to reduce, it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) had introduced the question of spirits. If he understood the hon. Gentleman aright, he did not allude to home-made spirits; what he desired to tax more heavily were foreign wines and spirits, wines particularly. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the Revenue would not necessarily be increased if the duty on wines was increased. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell the House that if the duty on champagne, for instance, were increased from 3s. to 10 s. a-dozen, less champagne would be consumed by the rich and wealthy classes?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I said it would not make up the deficit of £2,000,000.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he was fully persuaded that if the duty on wines were increased an increased Revenue would result. The present duty on champagne, madeira, port, and other landlord wines, was a standing disgrace to England. It was quite plain to everybody that the poor were taxed heavily to save the pockets of the rich; heavy duties were put upon tea, coffee, and other articles, which the poor man chiefly
    522
    used, while the luxuries which the rich could only have were allowed to pass with the very minimum of duty. He was glad his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway had determined to endeavour to put a stop to the unfair and unjust system of indirect taxation in this country, on tea, at all events.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he spoke only of foreign spirits and foreign wines. Last year the Customs Duties on foreign spirits and wines amounted, in round figures, to something like £6,000,000, while the Excise Duties on home-made spirits amounted to nearly £15,000,000. He wished to say in all good humour that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was decidedly incorrect when he said he had not got the money, because if he were to double the Customs Duties on wines and spirits of foreign production, he would receive more than three times the amount of money he would require were the Tea Duty reduced as now proposed.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mac Iver) did not understand him. When any article was heavily taxed already, and they added to the tax, they did not necessarily get more Revenue. Did the hon. Member think that because they got £5,000,000 from foreign wines and spirits now, they would get twice as much if the duty were doubled? They would get nothing of the kind.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, the money that was required to do what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) proposed was something over £2,000,000. If they doubled a duty which now yielded £6,000,000, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit that they would get at least another £2,000,000 in duty?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he would not admit anything of the kind. The duty on foreign spirits was now something above 10 s.; and he was bound to say that if they raised it to 20 s., he would not undertake that they would get any considerable increase of Revenue.
    MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTINsaid, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) amounted to nothing more or less than Protection in disguise.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that, according to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the duty on tea were reduced to 3d. per lb., only half the estimated amount would be received from this source. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman acted as all advocates did; he ignored what could be said on the other side. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman was rather evasive in his mode of arguing, because he drew special attention to the fact that 10 s. was the duty on foreign spirits, and told the Committee that if they doubled that duty they would not double the amount of Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman entirely ignored the fact that, although the duty on foreign spirits was high, the duty on foreign wines was light; and he took no notice, moreover, of the argument of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Sullivan), that the duty on champagne, which was used exclusively by the rich, was very low, and that an enormous profit was made by the people who retailed that wine. Now, if they trebled the duty on champagne, in all probability the price to the consumer would not be increased; certainly the amount consumed would not be decreased. Therefore, from champagne alone the sum required would be received. In their mode of acting he saw little difference between Liberals and Conservatives; the only difference was in the name. Hon. Gentleman on the Ministerial side of the House made great capital of their desire to benefit the working classes; but, at the same time, they were as anxious as the Tories to lay heavy taxes on the poor, and to let the rich off lightly. There was one Gentleman in the House—namely, the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson)—of whose assistance and benefit on such a question as the present they would be glad. Surely the hon. Baronet would like to see the consumers of wine pay their fair share of the burdens of the State, in order that the burdens of the poorer classes in the country might be decreased. Attention had been drawn to a very important part of this question — namely, as to whether it was not desirable to increase the trade with China and India, where tea was produced, in preference to encouraging trade with Continental countries. In his opinion, it would be more beneficial to England to increase the trade
    524
    with China and India than to make those private Treaties with Continental Powers, giving them advantages far greater than any advantage which this country received in return.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he was not able to gather from the answer to a Question which the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) gave earlier in the evening whether the hope was altogether abandoned of the commercial negotiations with Spain bearing some fruit during the present year. He supposed that the only mode in which a satisfactory arrangement with Spain could be brought about was by some alteration in the duties on wine; and he had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, by this time, have given them some reason to feel that there was a possibility of a satisfactory change in their commercial relations with Spain. He thought there was a great deal of force in what some hon. Members had said as to the taxation of wine like champagne. There was no doubt that they could put themselves on a better footing with Spain were they to increase the duty on French wines. The Spaniards, unquestionably, made a grievance of the present state of affairs.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he was not in a position to give any futher information as to the commercial negotiations with Spain. Did the hon. Member seriously contend that French wines ought to be more heavily taxed than they were now in order that Spanish wines might be let in?
    MR. TOMLINSONunderstood that the Spanish grievance was that the test line for duty on foreign wines was so drawn as to include all French light wines and exclude Spanish wines. He did not advocate taxing the wine of one nation more than that of another nation.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANconsidered that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the Tea Question had been scarcely proper. It went upon the assumption that by increasing the duty upon wine they would gain nothing, while by reducing the duty on tea they would lose half the amount now received. He granted the Chancellor of the Exchequer's contention, that to double the duty on a given article would not double the Revenue

    525
    from that article; but he believed they would gain something by increasing the duty on wines, and that they would not lose as much as was supposed by reducing the duty on tea. He should be inclined to strike a balance, and to say it was fair to calculate that by the two operations suggested there would be a loss of something like £1,000,000. That £1,000,000 might be very easily saved in the Military and Naval Services of the country, where money was simply squandered.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he was in favour of removing all taxes like that on tea; but he considered that the proposals made by hon. Gentlemen opposite had not been fully thought out. The alternative proposed was that there should be a very much larger duty than the present imposed on foreign wines and spirits.
    MR. O'SULLIVAN: No, not spirits.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that whether there was harmony in relation to any other question on the Tory and Irish Benches, it was evident the harmony was not complete upon this question. What would be the result of the adoption of the alternative proposal which had been made? Why, that an enormous protection would be given to the production of spirits and wines in this country. Whenever Parliament, in its wisdom, should see fit to reduce the expenditure on the Army and Navy, that would be the time to press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the removal of this burdensome tax. The late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had pleaded often and forcibly in favour of the removal of the duty on tea; and he (Mr. Illing-worth) hoped the time was not far distant when their financiers would see their way to remit the tax. He understood that on one class of tea, which was chiefly consumed by the humbler classes in the country, the duty amounted to as much as from 80 to 100 per cent. While sympathizing with the object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan), he could not support the proposal in its present form.
    COLONEL NOLANdesired to correct a statement which the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) had made, no doubt, unwittingly. The original proposition as made by him (Colonel Nolan) was simply to reduce the Tea
    526
    Duty. He did not at all associate it with any increased tax, either upon wines or spirits. He preferred to leave to the financial ability and ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the duty of making both ends meet, either by economy in expenditure, or possibly by substituting some other tax at a later period of the year. Those who voted for the proposed reduction were not in the slightest way bound to any increase of taxation, either upon wines or spirits. An increase of the duties on imported wines and spirits was suggested by certain hon. Gentlemen who made budgets of their own; but he (Colonel Nolan) had simply proposed to reduce the Tea Duty to 3d., leaving the rest of the subject to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    MR. HEALYsaid, it was perfectly in keeping with the British manufacturer that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) should have referred to the proposal to put an extra duty on wines and spirits as a protective tariff in favour of the home manufacturers. The hon. Gentleman knew very well that, as a matter of fact, it was not the English manufacturers who would be benefited by the increase of the duty on foreign spirits and wines, but Irish manufacturers. If the hon. Member for Bradford knew it was the case that the only staple trade of his country, or a staple trade of his country, was being ground down to powder by taxation, he would very soon see how the commercial prosperity of a country was affected when its only large trade was taxed heavily; if it was linen, or something of that kind—alpacca, he believed, was a commodity made in Bradford—which was heavily taxed, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Illingworth) would soon see the necessity of the case which had been made out. In Ireland the only staple trade was very heavily taxed, in order to swell the British Revenue. The Irish people very properly complained of the hardship experienced by the imposition of a very high tax upon Irish spirits, while only a very light tax was imposed upon foreign articles of an alcoholic description. Taxes upon tea and tobacco bore heavily upon the poor people. Why were taxes not put upon guns that were used for fowling purposes? The House had decided that pigeon-shooting was improper. Why

    527
    did they not put down pigeon-shooting by imposing a tax upon the birds shot at? Why did they not put a tax on race-horses, and upon a hundred other things, in which the pleasures of the rich were, to a large extent, involved? No; it was to be the poor man's drink that was to be taxed. He believed that if there was more tea drunk there would be less whiskey used. Certainly, if ever a working-man became Chancellor of the Exchequer—and it was quite possible when the Representation of the People Bill passed—he would look round at the pickings of the rich, and see how he could tax them, in order to relieve the poor man.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) had fallen into an error. The hon. Gentleman had said that if they placed an additional duty on foreign wines, it would prove a protection to the makers of wine in this country. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) was not aware that there were any wine manufacturers in England.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 70: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 94.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the Customs and Inland Revenue."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that "expedient to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue" seemed a little indefinite. It might mean anything. They had had no explanation from the Treasury Bench as to what was meant by it, although he doubted whether they would all understand any explanation that might be offered at that hour of the night (1.15). With no ex-Finance Minister in the House, with very few Members who had ever belonged to previous Administrations—if, indeed, there was one present—and in the absence, also, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard), who took a great interest in matters of this kind, it was scarcely a proper time to proceed with a matter of this description; and, therefore, he begged
    528
    to move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, this was a formal Resolution, which it was necessary to pass in order to set up the Bill. The only other proposal of any importance in the Bill which did not require to be set up by Resolution of the House was the reduction of the rate of duty on certain carriages.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) [COSTS].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, in the first instance, of any Costs incurred in defraying the Expenses of the Director of Public Prosecutions (including the remuneration of his representatives) which may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session, for the better prevention of Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Municipal and other Elections.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Settlement and Removal Law Amendment * (97); Hyde Park Comer (New Streets)* (98); Commons Regulation Provisional Order* (100).
Select Committee—Report—Greek Marriages.*
Committee — Criminal Law Amendment (45–99).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (The Labourers Act) (Carrick-on-Suir) * (54); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Naas, &c.) * (55); Colonial Attornies Relief Act Amendment* (78); Greek Marriages* (39–96).
Report—Married Women's Property Act (1882) Amendment* (60).
Third Reading—Electric Lighting Provisional Order* (75), and passed.

PRIVILEGE—HOUSE OF LORDS—THE COURT OF APPEAL—LORD DENMAN.
LORD DENMAN, for the third time, called attention to a case of Privilege. He had complained of his name not being on the rota of Peers, hearing the appeal by Mr. Bradlaugh, of not having seen the decisions of the Lord Chancellor, of Lords Blackburn, Watson, and FitzGrerald, although he had given his own judgment to the Lord Chancellor. If he had seen those opinions he might have referred to the case of Dunn qui tam against Hinchily, by which in Lord Raymond's Reports, second and third volumes, it was ruled, that a suitor for a penalty need not repeat, at the end of his declaration, that ne sued for himself as well as for the Lady the Queen; because as defendant had paid neither, he must pay 40 s. a-day to the informer. He (Lord Denman) further complained that his words—which he had handed up at the time to the reporter—were not included in the Law Report of cases in the House of Lords, for he had attended to every part of the argument; and having been for above 17 years at every cause at Nisi Prius before the first Lord Denman and the Judges who assisted him at Nisi Prius, and having heard all the eminent lawyers, from 1832 to 1849, he was competent to form an opinion as to which of any set of advocates or Judges was right. He also found that in the O'Connell appeal, not only the name of

395
Lord Wharncliffe, but also the names of three other noble Lords were inserted in the Law Report—namely, of the Earl of Stradbroke, of the Marquess of Clanricarde, and the Earl of Verulam, which with their reasons for not voting were given; and the only cause of their abstention from voting was, that they had not heard the whole of the appeal; and the Marquess of Clanricarde specially declared that he had the right to vote, if he should insist upon it.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 45.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENrose, in accordance with the Notice on the Paper, to present Petitions from Aberdeen and 41 other places in favour of the Bill.
  EARL CAIRNS, rising to Order, said, the Petitions should have been presented before their Lordships went into Committee.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he would present the Petitions on another occasion.
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

PART I.
Suppression of Prostitution.
Clause 2 (Procuring a woman to be a common prostitute or to enter a brothel).
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNmoved an Amendment so as to limit the penalties for procuring women to leave the United Kingdom for the purpose of leading an immoral life to the case of girls under 21 years of age, so as to assimilate that part of the clause to the former part, which related to the offence of procuring girls to lead an immoral life within the Kingdom. He could not see why protection should be afforded to women over 21.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 13, after ("girl") insert ("under twenty-one years of age.") — (The Earl of Milltown.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that the clause, as it stood, was framed upon the recommendation of the Committee which was appointed to consider the whole subject of the Bill, and he saw no reason for accepting the alteration proposed. The clause was in the same form as that in the Bill of last year as it passed the House. It was not the opinion of their Lordships' Committee that there was no occasion for extending the proposed protection to women over 21 years of age.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that false pretence was the essence of the offence; and, for that reason, it was deemed inexpedient to adopt any limitation of age. It was in evidence before the Committee that women were induced to go abroad under false pretences.
Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he proposed to amend the paragraph of the clause which gave the Court power to exclude the public on the hearing of a case by inserting instead of "the public" the words "all minors." He could not see why the community and the accused persons should be deprived of all the security derived from the attendance of the public.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 25, to leave out ("the public") and insert ("all minors.") — (The Earl of Milltown.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in opposing the Amendment, said, it was opposed to the recommendation of the Committee of their Lordships' House. He pointed out that the clause gave discretionary power to the Courts to exclude the public. Besides, how were magistrates or Judges to determine who were under 21 years of age?
LORD FITZGERALDsupported the Amendment. The carrying out of the Act would be in the hands of the police. They could trust to the discretion of Judges; but they could not trust to the discretion of all magistrates, to whom they proposed to give power to direct the exclusion of all persons from the Court. He considered there was great danger to the proper administration of justice if they allowed the introduction into the law of the power of excluding the public from Courts of Justice. As an instance, he would refer their Lordships to a case which occurred some years ago, in which a man was sentenced

397
to 10 years' penal servitude. All the auditors in Court were dissatisfied with, the verdict and the sentence; and such was the force of public opinion that the Secretary of State for the Home Department intervened, and the man was discharged. Was it intended that the proceedings were to be conducted entirely in camerâ and in secret? He protested against the clause, as admitting a principle which endangered the administration of justice, because it proposed to exclude the Press, whose presence and criticism constituted a valuable security that justice would be done. He would suggest that, in order to meet the view of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Dalhousie), the Amendment should run that such persons as appeared to the Court to be under 21 might be excluded.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, the question was, whether only minors should be excluded. The Courts had always assumed power to do that. No one was more sensible than himself that there should be full publicity given to the hearing of all cases in Courts of Justice, and of the great advantages resulting therefrom; for nothing had so great an influence upon those who had to administer the law, as the knowledge that what they said and did would be criticized, and criticized with uncommon sharpness on many occasions. Still, no benefit could accrue from the public being admitted to the hearing of those filthy and disgusting cases which sometimes came before Judges and juries. An exception in such cases as those might be fairly allowed without the slightest sacrifice of public good. While quite admitting the value of the principle of publicity, he could not see that the small sacrifice of it suggested by the clause in the Bill would do any harm.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he wished to point out to their Lordships that the Bill of last year passed through that House in a scramble, several Amendments having even been introduced after the third reading; and he thought that the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill (the Earl of Dalhousie) should not quote it as a precedent for their proceedings on this occasion.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he differed from the noble Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Longford). He contended that the Bill of last year was very much
398
discussed, and that the clause under consideration had been carefully considered by a very large Select Committee, and that the Members of that Committee were unanimously in favour of it. He agreed with what had been said by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) as to the value of publicity; but thought an exception should be made in disgusting cases.
LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he was opposed to the clause as it stood, and therefore cordially supported the Amendment. Without it, the clause would be an infringement of a fundamental principle of English law. Possibly, the Judges might be safely entrusted with the power of clearing their Courts, as they would doubtless act with discretion; but their Lordships must remember that the law would not be worked by Judges only, but by all the magistrates in the country; and the clause under notice would confer on every magistrate in England the power to hear cases in camerâ, and would thus take away the greatest safeguard of English justice. To that he strongly objected. What protection or guarantee would the public have of justice being properly administered, if they were all excluded from the Courts on these occasions? And how would public confidence in these Courts be affected?
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he was also in favour of the Amendment.
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?"
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 91; Not-Contents 58: Majority 33.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Archp.

Hardwicke, E.

Jersey, E.

Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Kimberley, E.

Morley, E.

Nelson, E.

Bedford, D.

Northbrook, E.

Westminster, D.

Powis, E.

Ravensworth, E.

Northampton, M.

Saint Germans, E.

Shaftesbury, E.

Belmore, E.

Stanhope, E.

Cairns, E.

Sydney, E.

Camperdown, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Derby, E.

Eversley, V.

Ducie, E.

Exmouth, V.

Granville, E.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Haddington, E.

399

Powerscourt, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Crewe, L.

Denman, L.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Gerard, L.

Carlisle, L. Bp.

Hammond, L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Hothfield, L.

Durham, L. Bp.

Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

Exeter, L. Bp.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Leigh, L.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Lovat, L.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

London, L. Bp.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Oxford, L. Bp.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Mount-Temple, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Norton, L.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

North, L.

St. David's, L. Bp.

Penrhyn, L.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Aberdare, L.

Alcester, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Balfour of Burley, L.

Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Bramwell, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

Stafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Sudeley, L.

Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

Carew, L.

Carlingford, L,

Thurlow, L.

Carrington, L. [Teller.]

Tollemache, L.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Truro, L.

Winmarleigh, L.

Clanwilliam, L.(E. Clanwilliam.)

Wrottesley, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Colchester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Grafton, D.

Calthorpe, L.

Rutland, D.

Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

Somerset, D.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Bristol, M.

Salisbury, M.

Cloncurry, L.

Colville of Culross, L.

Ashburnham, E.

de Ros, L.

Bathurst, E.

Dinevor, L.

Cowper, E.

Dorchester, L.

De La Warr, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Denbigh, E.

FitzGerald, L.

Fortescue, E.

Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

Houghton, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Lucan, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Kintore, L.(E. Kintore.)

Manvers, E.

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

Mar and Kellie, E.

Milltown, E. [Teller.]

Lyveden, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntley.)

Redesdale, E.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Gough, V.

Hardinge, V.

Poltimore, L.

Hawarden, V.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Hood, V.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Saltoun, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Sherbrooke, V.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Brabourne, L. [Teller.]

400

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Templemore, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Teynham, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Amendment disagreed to.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 (Procuring defilement of woman by fraud).
On the Motion of The Lord BRAMWELL, the following Amendment made:— In page 1, line 27, leave out from ("who") to end of page, and insert —
"(1.) By throats or intimidation procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl to hare unlawful connexion, either within or without the Queen's dominions, with any man;
"(2.) By false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means, procures any woman or girl to have unlawful carnal connexion, either within or without the Queen's dominions, with any man: Provided that this subsection shall not apply where such woman or girl knew such connexion to be unlawful;
"(3.)By false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means, endeavours to procure any woman or girl to hare unlawful connexion."
On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 32, insert the following subsection:—
"Or (4.) induces a girl under the age of twenty-one years, with intent that she shall have unlawful carnal connection with any man, to enter a brothel, she not knowing the same to be a brothel nor being a party to the intent."
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNmoved an Amendment, to provide that no persons should be convicted of offences under the Act on the uncorroborated evidence of any woman or girl bringing a charge against him. He pointed out that the girl would be particeps criminis; and it would be against the first principles of our law, and highly dangerous, that a man should be liable to a conviction on her unsupported testimony. The provision was similar to that which was enacted when the principals in an action for breach of promise of marriage were made capable witnesses.
Amendment moved,
In page 2, line 3, after ("labour") insert ("provided always that no person shall be convicted under the provisions of this section by the uncorroborated evidence of any such woman or girl.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he must oppose the Amendment, on the ground that discretion should be left to the Courts in the matter.
LORD BEAMWELLsaid, that convictions on uncorroborated evidence would very rarely take place in suck cases; and he thought it was undesirable to establish any absolute rule that more than one witness should be necessary. It would be an anomaly. The rule was the other way—perjury being the only exception.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENproposed the insertion of a new clause, making it a misdemeanour, punishable by imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years, to procure the defilement of any girl under 21 years of ago, whether there had been criminal knowledge or not.
Moved, after Clause 3, page l, line 31, insert as a new clause (3a.):—
"Any person who procures, or induces, or endeavours to procure or induce, any girl under the age of twenty-one years to be unlawfully and carnally known by any other person, whether such carnal knowledge takes place or not, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being-convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years."—(The Earl of Aberdeen.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, as he believed it was in advance of public opinion on the subject.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, that public opinion was growing very rapidly.
LORD TRUROsaid, he would suggest the appointment of protectresses of girls between 12 and 16 years, who should have power after sunfall to stop these girls in the streets, and to obtain the addresses of their parents.
New Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 4 (Defilement of girl under twelve years of age).
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNmoved an Amendment providing for the extension of the clause to those who aided in or attempted the committing of the offence. He said that the attempt to commit the misdemeanour in the following clause was dealt with in the same way as the offence itself; and there was no reason why this most horrible felony should not be dealt with in the same
402
way, the more so as it was extremely difficult to prove the full offence.
Amendment moved,
In page 2, line 11, after ("knows") insert | ("or attempts to have, or aids or abets any: other person in having or attempting to have, unlawful carnal knowledge of.") —(The Earl of Milltown.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, for the reason that it was entirely unnecessary, as the law now provided for such cases.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTERmoved an Amendment providing that a prisoner convicted of such an assault should be liable to flogging, in addition to a term of imprisonment. Such miscreants dreaded whipping more than any other punishment. As a proof of that, he would refer their Lordships to the salutary effect the punishment had exercised on garotters, and he anticipated a similar result in the present case.
Amendment moved,
In page 2, line 16, after ("labour") insert ("and the court before which such offender shall be tried and convicted may, in addition, adjudge such offender to be privately whipped, and the number of strokes and the instrument with which they shall be inflicted shall be specified in the sentence."—(The Lord Bishop of Rhochester.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that while he sympathized with the sentiments and with the object of the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate, and would be very glad to see it inserted in the Bill, he must oppose it, because he believed i that it would endanger the prospects of the measure in "another place," where a large proportion of Members objected to flogging. He thought it would be better that it should be inserted in the House of Commons than by their Lordships. He believed that the diminution of the crime of garotting was not so much due to flogging as to the heavy sentences inflicted by some of the Judges upon such criminals.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in supporting the Amendment, said, he could assure the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) that the contrary was the fact, and that the dread of receiving a flogging had exercised a strongly deterrent effect upon garotters, since the punishment in question had been applied to such crimes.
LORD ABERDAREsaid, that that, diminution, which he fully admitted, had taken place before the alteration in the law permitting flogging for garotting. For instance, the cases of garotting, which occasioned so much alarm, began in July, 1862, and in three months 95 cases occurred. He was appointed Under Secretary of State in the Home Office in November, 1862, and by that time the attacks had ceased, No more genuine cases of garotting occurred from that time up to the passing of the Act. The garotting had been put down by the police breaking up the; gang, and by severe sentences that had been passed on some of those who were convicted. In regard to garotting, the results that were attributed to the passing and operation of the Act had, in fact, been realized before the passing of the Act; and, for himself, having official knowledge of the facts at the time, he I believed there had not been one robbery with violence the less in consequence of the passing of the Act. He advocated flogging in cases in which it could be adopted as an alternative to imprisonment for young offenders; in that respect flogging might be carried much further; but, on this occasion, he opposed the adoption of the punishment.
LORD NORTONsaid that, in his belief, the punishment of flogging had had a deterrent effect in respect of other offences, such as shooting at the Queen and wanton injury to works of Art in; public buildings. Punishments must be suited to the motives of offences, and pain and disgrace were, therefore, the fittest cheeks to a morbid itch for notoriety, which was the usual motive for these offences; and similarly suited to check a vile brutality on little girls under 12 years of age.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in supporting the Amendment, said, they I had heard no good arguments adduced to show that it should not be adopted into the Bill; and he must be allowed to express his strong disapproval of the reason given by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) for not accepting it. He thought the punishment of flogging was of a character most likely to appeal to the feelings of those persons who were likely to commit these offences.
EARL NELSONsaid that, in his opinion, there was a very great probability of the Bill being characterized in the
404
other House as a flogging Bill; and, as one strongly interested in its passing, he desired to avoid doing anything that would prejudice it. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
LORD DENMANsaid, that it would be easy for the House of Commons to remove the clause; and if their Lordships might choose to re-insert it, as several of them had promised to remain from the 15th of July to the end of the Session, they might do so, and insist on its being part of the Bill. He protested against the timid course of withdrawing a clause only because it might be erased in "another place."
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he could assure their Lordships that it would affect very seriously the spirit in which the House of Commons set to work to consider the Bill if the provision for flogging were inserted.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he was so anxious to see the Bill pass, that he thought it would be better for the advocates of flogging to get someone to introduce a clause in the House of Commons.
THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTERsaid, that having regard to what had been urged by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, and in the interests of the measure itself, he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 (Defilement of girls between twelve and sixteen years of age).
LORD MOUNT TEMPLEsaid, girls ought not to be treated as responsible for consenting to seduction and ruin so as to exonerate their seducers from legal guilt. The age of 16 did not develop the faculties of discretion, will-force, and knowledge of the world, required to appreciate the dangers to which they were exposed, and the way of escape. Though girls sometimes married at 16, they could not legally do so against the consent of parents. Ought they to be legally entitled to become prostitutes without the consent of parents or guardians?
Amendment moved, in page 2, line 26, to leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("seventeen.") — (The Lord Mount Temple.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, the question had been already dis-

405
cussed, and a majority of their Lordships were in favour of the Bill as it stood. The Bill was of a tentative character, and the Government proposal to raise the present age from 13 to 16 was an experiment which it would be wise not to carry further. If the experiment answered, subsequent legislation might raise the age to 17. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed; as, in his opinion, the feeling of the public was scarcely ripe for an extension of the age.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid that, in his opinion, even 16 was too high, and he should strenuously oppose its being extended to 17. He would remind their Lordships that girls were occasionally married at 16. The Bill was not one against immorality generally, but against offences which were, in a sense, unnatural.
LORD TRUROsaid, he looked upon the suggestion embodied in the Amendment as not in accordance with the experience of undoubted authorities among the clergy, who were most familiar with the lowest and most criminal populations. They had assured him in hundreds of cases solicitation for an improper intercourse came from girls of even so tender an age as 12 years.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he failed to see what was the real object of the Amendment, and he hoped the clause would be allowed to stand as it left the Select Committee.
LORD BALFOURsaid, he agreed with the noble and learned Earl who last spoke. He thought the provision in the Bill was a fair compromise which had been arrived at.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that although, on a former occasion, a similar Amendment was carried, and he had voted for it, he hoped this proposal would not now be pressed, because the age of 16 had been restored by the Government after careful consideration; and, no doubt, they were better informed than their Lordships on the question.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLEsaid, he was willing that the Amendment should be negatived.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment moved,
In page 3, line 2, insert at end of clause ("Provided that when in case of any charge under this section any girl under the age of sixteen years appears to have solicited an offence under this section, such solicitation shall be
406
deemed to be an offence, and on conviction thereof, the court may require such girl to find securities for good behaviour or sentence her to be sent to a certified home as if she had been convicted in pursuance of section eight of this Act."—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
On the Motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 40, leave out from ("conducted ") to end of clause and insert—
("If any person is charged before a justice with any crime under this Act, no further proceeding shall be taken against such person without the consent of the Attorney General or by the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions, except such as the justice may think necessary, by remand or otherwise, to secure the safe custody of such person.")
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 (Householder, &c. permitting defilement of girl under sixteen on his premises guilty of misdemeanour).
On the Motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 13, insert after ("labour") as a separate paragraph:—
"A justice of the peace, if satisfied by information made before him on oath by any superintendent or inspector of police, or other officer of police of equal or superior rank, or any parent, relative, or guardian of any such girl, or any other person who in the opinion of the justice is bonâ fide acting in the interest of any such girl, that there is reasonable cause to suspect any offence under this section to have been committed in or upon any premises within the jurisdiction of such justice, may grant a warrant under his hand authorising a superintendent or inspector of police, or other officer of police of equal or superior rank, at any time or times within the period named in the warrant, but not exceeding one month from the date thereof, to enter, with such assistance as may be necessary, and if need be by force, and make search in or upon such premises and every part thereof, with a view to the discovery of any offence under this section; and any such superintendent, inspector, or other officer so authorised, may apprehend and bring before two justices, or a police or stipendiary magistrate, any person guilty of an offence under this Act whom, he may find upon such premises, and also any girl in respect of whom such offence is charged; and if the justices or magistrate so think fit, they or he may bind over any such girl to appear as a witness on the trial of any such person."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 (Abduction of girl under eighteen with intent to have carnal knowledge) agreed to.
LORD NORTONmoved the insertion of a new clause, to provide that the

407
guardian or master of a girl in domestic service or other employment who is guilty of an unlawful assault upon her should, on conviction, be liable to two years' imprisonment with or without hard labour, but that it should be a defence to a charge of the kind to show that the girl had been previously unchaste.
Amendment moved,
In page 3, line 33, insert as new clause:
"Any person who being the guardian of a girl under the ago of eighteen years, or being her master in domestic service or other employment, unlawfully and carnally knows, or attempts to have unlawful and carnal knowledge of such girl, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour; and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour:
"Provided that it shall be a defence to any charge under this section to show that such girl had been unchaste previously to the time of the offence charged."—(The Lord Norton.")
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was not opposed to accepting the clause if the words "or other employment" were omitted, and its operation were confined to cases of guardianship and domestic service, on condition that subsequently a provision against vexatious prosecutions was introduced.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would suggest that the proposal should be limited to guardians and no other.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he objected to the clause. It converted immorality into crime, and that was the weakness of the Bill. They never would be able to make mere immorality a crime by Act of Parliament.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONhoped the suggestion of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack would be adopted, confining the operation of the clause to guardians.
THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDasserted that there was no offence more frequent in London than the seduction of young servants by their masters, and he hoped the clause would be pressed.
LORD DENMANsaid, that masters were as responsible for their servants as guardians for their wards; and as to the defence of previous unchastity, a girl might have fallen, trusting to a promise of marriage; but if the master took advantage of her weakness he might entirely destroy her engagement with the man who had seduced her, and ruin her prospects in life.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would agree to accept the clause modified by the limitation that it should only apply to guardians.
LORD NORTONsaid, he would accept the suggestion of the noble and learned Earl.
Clause amended, by leaving out from ("girl") in line 2 to ("employment") in line 4; and all after ("labour") in line 8.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On the Motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following new clause, to follow the one just added to the Bill, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
"If upon the trial of any indictment for rape the jury shall be satisfied that the defendant is guilty of an indecent assault, but are not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the felony charged in such indictment, then and in every such case the jury may acquit the defendant of such felony and find him guilty of an indecent assault, and thereupon such defendant shall be liable to be punished in the same manner as if he had been convicted upon an indictment for the misdemeanour of indecent assault."
Clause 8 (Amendment of 2 & 3 Vict. c 47, s. 54, and 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, s. 28, as to prostitutes.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in moving an Amendment to substitute the offence of soliciting for loitering in the streets, said, that as the clause transferred the power now residing in the passer-by, but which was seldom exercised, to the police, and as it would give the police great opportunities, if so disposed, and some of them were so disposed, to levy black-mail, he proposed to make the offence more definite.
Amendment moved, in page 3, line 40, to leave out ("loiters") and insert ("solicits.")—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
EARL CAIRNSsaid he objected to "solicits" being substituted for "loiters;" and further he was of opinion that the police should have the power either in case of loitering, "or" of importuning. He would divide the Committee on the proposition of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was ready to agree to the retention of the words "and importunes."
On Question, that the word ("loiters") stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 26; Not-Contents 37: Majority 11.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Archp.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

St. David's, L. Bp.

Cairns, E. [Teller.]

Winchester, L. Bp.

Carnarvon, E.

Nelson, E.

Balfour of Burley, L. [Teller.]

Shaftesbury, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Denman, L.

Durham, L. Bp.

Mount-Temple, L.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Norton, L.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Saltersford, L.(E. Courtown.)

Lichfield, L. Bp.

London, L. Bp.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Oxford, L. Bp.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Strathnairn, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Grafton, D.

Hammond, L.

Howard de Walden, L.

Bristol, M.

Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Bathurst, E.

Leigh, L.

Camperdown, E.

Lovat, L.

Derby, E.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Granville, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Kimberley, E.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Lucan, E.

Milltown, E.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Morley, E.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Ribblesdale, L.

Redesdale, E.

Sandhurst, L.

Sydney, E.

Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

Aberdare, L.

Teynham, L.

Bramwell, L.

Ventry, L.

Carlingford, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Carrington, L. [Teller.]

Cloncurry, L.

Wrottesley, L.

FitzGerald, L.

Resolved in the negative.
Amendment agreed to; word substituted accordingly.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, unless the Government accepted the words "or importunes" in lieu of the words "and importunes" they would make the law a great deal weaker than it was at present, for it was now an offence to loiter. The chief difficulty in the way of conviction was the unwillingness of persons to come forward and say that they had been annoyed. Under the Bill, soliciting was not to be an offence unless it were combined with importuning. That was a retrogressive step. Under the pretence of correcting the existing abuses, he hoped the public would understand that the Government were going to make their streets much worse than they were at present.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, said, there was one thing the public would understand, and that was, that the remarks of the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) must be qualified by the explanation that, in future, the initiative would rest with the police, to whom great power was given with regard to the regulation of the streets in connection with this matter, and it was desirable that the power of the police should be defined as strictly as possible.
EARL NELSONsaid, he would suggest that the words following the Amendment just carried "and importunes" should be omitted from the clause.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Government would agree to leave out the words "and importunes" altogether.
Amendment agreed to; words omitted accordingly.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in rising to move the first of some Amendments to provide that the clause should be applied to every man who in any thoroughfare or public place habitually or persistently importuned or solicited any woman or girl for an immoral purpose, said, that the Amendments were identical with those which he proposed on the third reading of the Bill last year, and which then obtained 45 votes from the Members of their Lordships' House. Since that time he had seen and heard a great deal on the subject, and he was convinced that, unless the words he suggested were inserted in the clause, very heavy wrongs would be inflicted on poor girls. Their Lordships should consider the state of society and its industrial occupations. Hundreds—indeed, thousands—of women and girls were employed in the factories, workshops, and great houses of business far away from their homes. They returned home at all times of the night—some very late. Their Lordships should recollect that the many relaxations of the Workshops Act, granted by successive Secretaries of State, had greatly increased the mischief. Those employed at restaurants and railway refreshment rooms necessarily so. Their Lordships should hear the statements of these girls; they were beset on issuing from their places of work by vile and designing men, singly or collectively, who were on the watch for them, and who were there for

411
no other purpose than to work their destruction. Many employers stated the same, and added that they gave protection as far as they could. These defenceless girls were fairly safe so long as they could keep together; but when obliged to separate, they were exposed to the most serious annoyance. But now women were to be subjected to far more fearful trouble. The law defining solicitation was to be altered, and the offence was to be determined by the judgment of the police constable. If a woman were seen speaking to a man, or being spoken to by a man, a constable could at once arrest the woman. Thus, a poor, innocent girl — timid, ignorant, defenceless—might be brought into a Court of Justice and ruined for life. Men were perfectly safe and enjoyed absolute impunity. The offenders were numerous and were found in all parts of London, and many of them were well-known to the agencies with which he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was connected. He had it on the authority of officers of the London City Mission that they were known and designated as "night walkers," and, frequently, missionaries and others had interfered to save the girls from brutal assaults. His proposition was very simple and very just; it was no more than to place the men on an equality with the women, and to say that any man soliciting habitually or persistently should be subject to the same penalties as these wretched women. He should be met, no doubt, by the old argument that such a provision might be abused; possibly, it might be in some instances; but this evil would be far less than the terrible and frequent abuse of poor defenceless girls. He felt sure he had the sympathies of every woman in England. It must not be forgotten that a large discretion, together with very stringent powers, was given by the Act to the police. Now, he had great respect for that force, and he believed that, as a rule, they carried out their duties very well; but, however admirable a body the police might be, there must, in so large a number, be many who would abuse their power, and in this particular matter he was sorry to say they were sometimes the worst of all. Indeed, he had himself been informed by women that such abuse of power was by no means rare on the part of the
412
police. Unless adequate protection were afforded to women, the greatest abuses would arise, and there would soon be an outcry against the Bill. It was for the reasons he had stated he proposed these additions to the clause.
Amendment moved,
In page 3, line 41, after ("prostitution,") to insert ("and (2) every man who in any such thoroughfare or public place habitually or persistently importunes or solicits women or girls for immoral purposes.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was sorry the Government could not accept the Amendment of his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), though they recognized his high intentions in moving it. The eloquent and earnest manner in which he had stated the case had added to their difficulty in refusing it; but they were bound to do so; for, if agreed to, it would be liable to great abuse, for there was nothing to prevent "black-mail" being extensively levied.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsupported the Amendment. Inquiry into the matter would not fail to convince anyone who was unacquainted with the facts concerning it, of the absolute necessity of something being done to correct the evils against which it was directed. If the Government were not satisfied, they should make that inquiry. He would rather run the risk of the annoyance of the clause being abused than see it left out of the Bill.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he was sorry the Government could not accept the Amendment. He thought the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) had not advanced a single valid argument against its adoption. It was impossible, with any show of justice, to deny that protection to virtuous women which was afforded by the Amendment. They were just as much entitled to protection in the public street from men, as men were from women. The cases, in fact, were on "all fours." He hoped the Government would re-consider the Amendment before deciding finally to reject it.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he must deny the truth of the assertion of the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns). He (the Earl of Kimberley) thought it was quite impossible to say that men and women were in the same position. This was a clause dealing entirely with women who frequented

413
the streets for the sake of gain, and there was no class of men to correspond with that class. But, however that might be, he hoped the Bill would pass. Those who desired that it should not have the slightest chance of passing would vote for the Amendment.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLEsaid, were the women who solicited for gain of food and clothing worse than the men who solicited women for the selfish and cruel gratification of uncontrolled appetite? It might be difficult for a Parliament of men to appreciate the torture of pure women at being hunted through the streets by men who forced upon them infamous proposals. The young women required protection from importunities more than men; they suffered more, and were weaker in resistance.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was of opinion that, on its merits, the Amendment should be agreed to. If they wished to act justly as between men and women they were bound to insert it in the Bill.
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, he had presented a Petition in favour of the Amendment from the University of Cambridge, signed by Undergraduates of every College, including Cavendish College (the latter being for the education of young farmers) and praying their Lordships to consider that it would be impossible to put down vice unless they dealt with men in the same way as they dealt with women in regard to solicitation. He had also presented a Petition from more than 6,000 young women associated with the Girls' Friendly Society in his own diocese in favour of the change of the law proposed by the Amendment. As far as his own opinion went, he decidedly thought that most of the solicitations came from men. He thought in a Bill of this nature they should deal alike with men and women; and the measure of punishment meted out to the latter should be applied to members of the male sex who importuned or solicited females, be they women or girls, for immoral purposes.
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, there would be no real equality in the treatment of the two sexes under the words proposed. In the case of women one special and degraded class, or trade, capable of definition, was dealt with. In the case of men there was no such class, capable of
414
being defined, and they were to legislate against all men, with the vague limitation of such words as "habitually and persistently." He protested against such legislation.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he most strongly protested against the supposition of the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President), that the men described in the Amendment were not a degraded class, although they habitually and persistently tried to overthrow the morality and virtue of poor girls going home from their work at night. To his mind such men were the more degraded class of the two.
LORD ABERDARE, in supporting the Amendment, said, that women ought to be protected from molestation by men in the public streets.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he also entirely approved of an Amendment which would mark their Lordships' detestation of this offence on the part of debased men. In the opinion of ladies a law to punish women for these offences, but excluding men from its operation, would be most unfair and unjust.
LORD BALFOURsaid, that while he entirely approved of the principle of the Amendment, he would vote against it, on the ground that the Bill would have a better chance of passing if it contained as little debateable matter as possible.
LORD TRUROsaid, that he would point out to their Lordships that the Amendment was directed, not against isolated solicitations by men, but against the iniquitous practice of men habitually frequenting railway stations at all hours of the day for the purpose of making the acquaintance of young girls, and effecting their ruin.
On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 34; Not-Contents 20: Majority 14.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Archp.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Cairns, E. [Teller.]

Durham, L. Bp.

Camperdown, E.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Carnarvon, E.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Milltown, E.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

London, L. Bp.

Nelson, E.

Oxford, L. Bp.

Redesdale, E.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]

St. Albans, L. Bp.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

St. David's, L. Bp.

Winchester, L. Bp.

415

Aberdare, L.

Mount-Temple, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Saltersford, L.(E. Courtown.)

Denman, L.

Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

Leigh, L.

Truro, L.

Monteagle of Brandon. L.

Ventry, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Grafton, D.

Howard de Walden, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Derby, E.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Hardwicke, E.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Kimberley, E.

Morley, E.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Balfour of Burley, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Bramwell, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Carlingford, L.

Carrington, L. [Teller.]

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Cloncurry, L.

FitzGerald, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Amendment agreed to.
On the Motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, the following-Amendment made:— In page 4, line 6, after ("prostitutes") insert ("and (2) every man who in any such street habitually or persistently importunes or solicits women or girls for immoral purposes.")
On the Motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 5, sub-section (2), leave out ("loiters") and insert ("solicits"); and in page 4, lines 8 to 17, leave out sub-section (3).
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 (Certified homes for girls convicted of prostitution.)
On the Motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE, Clause left out.
Clause 10 (Prohibition of exclusion from trial, &c. of persons interested), agreed to.

PART II.
Suppression of Brothels.
Clause 11 (Summary proceedings against brothel keeper, &c.)
LORD BRAMWELLproposed to amend the clause by omitting a word which would make penal the ownership of premises which might be used for immoral purposes.
Amendment moved, in page 5, line 22 to leave out ("owner".)—(The Lord Bramwell.)
Amendment agreed to.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERproposed to insert a new paragraph inflicting penalties upon keepers of immoral houses who induced girls to resort thither.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 2, after ("aforesaid") insert as a new mragraph—
"If it shall be made to appear to the court that a person convicted under this section has induced or knowingly suffered any girl under the age of twenty-one years to resort to or be in or upon the brothel in respect whereof he is convicted, for an immoral purpose, such person shall in addition to the penalties aforesaid ba liable at the discretion of the court to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months, with or without hard labour."—(The Lord Bishop of Exeter.)
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
LORD MONTEAGLEmoved an Amendment, that proceedings should not be taken against any person under the section except by order of the local authority.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 5, after ("conviction") insert the following paragraphs:—
"Proceedings shall not be taken against any person under this section except by the order of the local authority.
"The local authority means the bodies of persons specified in the first schedule hereto.
"Any expenses incurred in respect of such proceedings by the local authority shall he paid out of the local rate.
"The local rate means the rate described in the third column of the first schedule hereto." —(The Lord Monteagle.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, as it would shut out the general public altogether. Under the section as it stood, public associations could set the law in motion, and he saw no reason why they should not have the power to do so.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, the existing law already gave power to associations to take action.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 (Future tenancies determinable for keeping brothel.)
On the Motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendments made: In page 6, line 16, leave out from ("and") to ("that"), in line 17, and insert ("his assigns"); leave out

417
from ("Building") in the same line to (" of ") in line 24, and insert—
"Nor any part thereof, demised by such lease, agreement, or contract of tenancy, or to be erected on any land so demised, shall be used as a brothel, with power for the landlord, and all persons claiming any estate or interest through or under him. in case of any breach of such covenant, to re-enter the house or building in which or in any part of which the said breach has been committed, and to avoid and put an end to the said lease, agreement, or contract of tenancy so far as respects such house or building, and in the event of such house or building being subject to an undivided rent in common with other houses or buildings, the rent shall be apportioned as circumstances require.
"(2.) The conviction, whether in pursuance of this Act or otherwise,"); line 25, leave out ("such"); and line 29, leave out ("of such lease, agreement, or tenancy") and insert—
"So far as respects such premises, of any lease, agreement for a lease, or other contract of tenancy whereby such promises are held by him."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 (Search warrant for detection of brothel).
On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, Clause struck out of the Bill.

PART II.

  PART III.
  Definitions and Miscellaneous.
  Clause 14 (Definitions).
  On the Motion of The Lord BRAMWELL, the following Amendment made:—In page 7, line 8, leave out from ("Act") to the first ("The") in line 13.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Repeal of enactments in Schedule) agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Application of Act to Scotland).
  On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendment made: —In page 8, after line 3, add as a separate paragraph—
  "The expression 'Court of General or Quarter Sessions' shall mean the High Court or a Circuit Court of Justiciary."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 99.)

  SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL LAW AMEND MENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law of settlement and removal—Was presented by The Earl of BELMORE; read 1a. (No. 97.)

  HYDE PARK CORNER (NEW STREETS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the maintenance of the new streets at Hyde Park Corner—Was presented by The Lord SUDELEY; read 1a. (No. 98.)
  House adjourned at half past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.