Sitting of 3 August 1885

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report— Admiralty (Expenditure and Liabilities) [No. 311].
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Considered as amended — Third Reading—Edinburgh Extension and Sewerage,* and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Infants [157].
Report of Select Committee— Earldom of Mar Restitution * [256].
Committee— Secretary for Scotland [242]—R. P
Committee—Report— Criminal Law Amendment [159–257]; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Public Works Loans [254]; East India (Army Pensions Deficiency)* [225]; Labourers (Ireland) (No. 2) [68].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Ecclesiastical Commissioners (No. 2) * [253], and passed.
Report—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* [233].

QUESTIONS.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— KINGSTOWN PIER.
  MR. MAURICE BROOKSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that, in certain conditions of the wind, considerable avoidable inconvenience is caused to the Irish travelling public, including numerous Members of Parliament, by the lack of protection and shelter from rain and storm when shipping and landing as passengers between Kingstown and Holyhead; whether he is aware that the contractors for the carriage of Her Majesty's Mails between Holyhead and Kingstown have repeatedly applied for works to be carried out at the Carlisle Pier, Kingstown, and the Royal Mail Packet Jetty, Holyhead, which they state to be necessary for the protection of the Mail Packets, and for the shelter and convenient landing and shipping of Mails and passengers; and, whether he can state what steps he proposes to take to meet the wants complained of?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): Sir, no complaints have been made, except by the Packet Company, of the lack of protection to passengers at this harbour; and, so far as I am aware, there is no obligation upon the Government, either by their contracts or otherwise, to provide improved accommodation for passengers there. As regards the second part of the Question, I answered a similar one a week ago relating to Holyhead. In the case of Kingstown, the Packet Company, if they think there is any risk, should apply to the Board of Works in Dublin, in whom the harbour is vested, and who would, no doubt, ascertain whether the present state of things affords reasonable security to the mail packets.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE CIRCUIT ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. WARTONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the following observations of Mr. Justice Grove, made on Saturday the 25th July, during the trial of the case of the Triumph Steamship Company (Limited) v. the Dartmouth Harbour Commissioners, viz.:—
  "It was hardly possible to exaggerate the inconvenience of the present system. He had just learned that on Monday he had to sit in banco, on Tuesday he could go on with this case, which, however, would probably not finish on that day. On Wednesday he believed he should have to sit at the Old Bailey, and how long he would be detained there he had no idea. All he could therefore say was, that the further hearing must stand over until Tuesday;"
  and, whether he will consider the propriety of recommending such an increase in the number of Judges as will permit of the continuance de die in diem of trials in the Queen's Bench Division? The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the following observations of Mr. Baron Huddleston, made on the 29th July at Chelmsford, viz.:—
  "He was sorry that the new system under which the Assizes were held proved so inconvenient, and that, owing to the amount of business he had to go through at Norwich and other towns, he had been obliged to alter the dates for holding the Assizes at Chelmsford, Hertford, and Lewes; and even now, if he could not obtain the assistance of a Commissioner to whom he had made application for help, he was afraid he must again alter his present arrangements, for the two remaining Judges were obliged to stay in London, one taking work at Chambers, and the other being engaged with criminal business at the Old Bailey. He also referred to the great expense that the special jurors, petty jurors, and witnesses were put to at having to remain in the town for so long a time, owing to one judge having to take both civil and criminal business;"
  and, whether he will consider the propriety of recommending such an increase in the number of Judges as will permit of the business at the Assizes being conducted with a due regard to the convenience of suitors, jurors, and witnesses?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER),in reply, said, that these Questions should have been addressed to his right hon. Friend the
  818
  Secretary of State for the Home Department; but, after communicating with the right hon. Gentleman, he (the Attorney General) might say that the arrangements for the business of the Circuits, and also for the sittings in London, lay with the Judges themselves, who would now, as in the past, consider the interests of suitors and all concerned. The question of increasing the number of Judges, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman who put the Question referred, was one involving numerous and serious considerations, and could only be done by legislation.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS-PLEURO-PNEUMONIA (IRELAND).
  MR. CLARE READasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the number of cases of pleuro-pneumonia in cattle reported in the three Dublin Unions during the first six months of the present year; the number reported in the rest of Ireland; and also the number in Great Britain during that period; and, if the special means taken by Lord Spencer to eradicate the disease from Dublin have been attended with any success, and if the stringent inspection of cow houses in that city will be continued?
  THE CHIEF SECRETAEY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Sir, the number of cases in the Unions of the county of Dublin was 877; in the rest of Ireland 24; and in Great Britain 657. There is no intention of relaxing the special measures adopted by Lord Spencer to eradicate the disease from the Dublin district, as they could not be dispensed with without inconvenience and danger. It is believed that the result will be most satisfactory; but it is hardly time yet to judge of the full effect.

  REGISTRY OF DEEDS (IRELAND) ACT, 1883.
  MR. FINDLATERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that the operation of the Registry of Deeds (Ireland) Holidays Act of 1883 has been practically defeated by the action of the Treasury in deducting from the ordinary leave of

  819
  the clerks a number of days equal to the number of holidays conferred by the Act; and, whether he will undertake that in future the clerks shall enjoy not only the holidays created by the Act of Parliament, but also the same amount of annual leave as they were entitled to prior to the passing of the said Act?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The hon. Member put a similar Question on March 31, 1884, and the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) then answered that the object of the Act referred to was to enable this office to be closed on the same days as other offices. The staff now get legally altogether 36 week days' leave in the year, which, in the opinion of the Registrar, and also that of the Treasury, is quite sufficient, and as much as is allowed in analogous positions.

  ARMY—THE ROYAL IRISH FUSILIERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, The number of days the Adjutant of the Fusiliers was absent with and without leave from the termination of the training of 1884 to the commencement of the training of 1885, and by whom were the Regimental duties performed during his absence; and, if an immense saving to the Military expenditure of the Country could be effected by dispensing with the services of those Adjutants attached to Regiments where the head quarters are apart from the Regimental depôts?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Sir, the officer referred to has had, since the training of 1884, his ordinary annual leave, and, in addition, has been absent by permission of his commanding officer on certain occasions from Saturday to Monday. There is no record of any absence without leave. During the Adjutant's absence the Quartermaster performed his duties. The Adjutants of detached Militia regiments act as recruiting officers, and for that and other reasons could not be dispensed with without serious inconvenience.

  POST OFFICE CLERKS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, Whether clerks who have been obliged to serve from ten to fifteen years
  820
  in provincial offices, and are transferred to the larger offices through the reduction of the clerical staff of the office to which they were attached, or from any other cause, are placed at great disadvantages in may respects in the offices to which they have been transferred, by being made to rank as junior to other clerks with several years less service, but who have been attached to those offices from the date of their appointment; will he state what steps he is prepared to take to assure, as in other branches of the Civil Service, to clerks or others who are transferred from one office to another at the instance of the Post Office Department, or at their own request, a due recognition of their service by granting to them all those rights to which by seniority they are entitled; and, whether it is part of the system to subject members of the lower grades of the Service to loss of revenue on transfer from one office to another without granting them compensation?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): As a general rule, I may say that clerks transferred from one office to another enter their new office below those who are already there; but, even so, a transfer is, as a rule, to their advantage, because in the larger offices there are prospects which the smaller ones do not afford. In no case does an officer, by reason of his transfer, sustain loss of income.

  ALKALI, &c. WORKS REGULATION ACTS—GAS WORKS.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the provisions of the Alkali Act can be extended to gas-works, so that the preventible nuisances arising from gas manufacture may be stopped; and, whether his attention has been directed to the gasworks at Tunbridge Wells, in which the annual production of 600 tons of foul lime and oxide of iron has been abolished?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): When the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia is carried on in connection with gas works, that process is under inspection under the Alkali, &c. Works Regulation Act. As regards gas works generally, of which there are about 2,000, the nuisance which occasionally occurs is one that can be dealt with by the local Inspector of

  821
  Nuisances, and it is not at present considered necessary to extend to them the provisions of the Act referred to. We are aware that at the gas works at Tunbridge Wells the process which is known as the "Cooper Lime Process" has been adopted, this process, like certain others, being intended to assist in the purification of gas.

  ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  MR. BERESFORDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he would have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the names of the Medical Officers of the Army who have returned from Foreign service within the last three years, with, the dates of their proceeding on Foreign service again; and, to state the length of Home service of each Medical Officer?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am not prepared to lay on the Table the Return asked for. It is obviously impossible to convey to the House, in the form of a Return, all the circumstances attending an officer's service abroad, or of the emergency that may in certain cases necessitate the curtailment of his service at home. I may add that, as Secretary of State for War, I hold myself responsible generally that the roster and system of relief are fairly worked.

  POST OFFICE—INSURANCE OF PARCELS.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to undertake the insurance of parcels and packages when in transit through the Post Office, even if these packages include articles of commercial importance, such as bonds, securities, and diamonds; and, if so, on what conditions, and on payment of what premiums, these insurances will be effected; and, whether the same ad valorem Stamp Duty, as is paid in respect of insurances of such packages at the present time when forwarded to the Continent, Channel Islands, or Ireland, will be paid by the Postmaster General to Her Majesty's Treasury?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): In answer to my right hon. Friend I have to state that, although the principle of the in-
  822
  surance of parcels has been settled, the details are still under consideration. Some articles will probably be excepted from the proposed arrangement, the general conditions of which will be that the Postmaster General, who is now legally exempt from liability for loss or damage, will accept such liability without specific payment up to 20 s. a parcel, for the payment of 1d. up to £5, and for 2d. up to £10 a parcel. It is not proposed to pay an ad valorem Stamp Duty to the Treasury; but all fees collected for insurance will be paid in as revenue to the Exchequer, and come under Treasury control in the usual way.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH (FINES AND PENALTIES OFFICE)—MR. O'BRIEN, M.P.
  MR. M'COANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the duty of the Dublin Metropolitan Police to make returns to the registrar of the Irish Court of Queen's Bench respecting all warrants lodged in their hands by the Court; whether it is also the duty of the registrar to make half-yearly returns to the Fines and Penalties Office of all fines imposed by the Court; whether the Fines and Penalties Office is subject to the Chief Secretary; and, whether any such return has been made, either by the police or the registrar, in respect of a warrant of the Court dated July 1st 1884, ordering the levy of a fine of £500 on the goods of Mr. O'Brien, M.P., or, failing such goods, his arrest and imprisonment for twelve months; and, if not, whether he will inquire into the reason of the default, and take the necessary steps to insure obedience to the law in the matter of the said warrant?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I believe the practice is substantially as described in the Question. I have already stated that I know nothing of the history of this particular case, and I am advised that I am under no obligation, after a lapse of 14 months, to take action in regard to it. How far the enforcement of such a penalty would ordinarily devolve on the Executive is a point on which I have not particularly informed myself; but if the hon. Member wishes for information I would suggest that he should ad-

  823
  dress himself to some Member of the late Government, who were in Office at the time, and who, no doubt, were advised as to the legality of their position.
  MR. M'COAN: Arising out of the answer to this Question, and two previous replies on the same subject, I desire to ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, upon a point of Order, if it be not even of Privilege. I desire to know whether it is not the right of Members of this House to put Questions to Ministers; and whether, in replying to such Questions, it is consistent with his responsibility, or respectful to the House, for the Minister so interrogated either to refuse to answer, unless he be precluded from doing so in the public interest, or to give vague and evasive replies, containing none of the information asked for, although it is within his knowledge or readily in his power to obtain?
  MR. SPEAKER: No question of Order can arise in connection with the point put by the hon. Member. Of course, the hon. Member is entitled to put a Question to a Minister of the Crown; but it is entirely within the discretion of the Minister to give it any answer which he thinks right. It is for him to judge what answer should be given to any Question.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON DEPRESSION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY—NAMES OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether be can now state the names of the Commissioners in the Royal Commission on Trade Depression; and, whether the Memorandum, to which he referred on Thursday, will be communicated to the House before the end of the Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he was afraid, for reasons he gave the other day, that he was not in a position to communicate to the House the names of the Royal Commissioners. The Memorandum to which he previously referred would have to be laid before the Royal Commission before it could be communicated to the House.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that he promised the Memorandum should be laid before Parliament? Does he mean the next Parliament?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I said it should be laid before Parliament. It is impossible that a Memorandum addressed to the Royal Commissioners should be made public before the Royal Commissioners themselves have received it.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has reconsidered his decision with reference to the appointment of a Royal Commission for inquiring into the causes of the decline of the industries of Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must abide by the answer which I have already given in regard to this matter. It is a matter which is entirely separate from the subject of the Royal Commission that is to be appointed to inquire into the depression of trade.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked, whether any stops had been taken to secure a proper representation on the Commission of the main industries of the country both as to employers and employed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, Sir, such steps have been taken and are being taken.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND) — IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS—ASSISTANT TEACHERS.
  MR. KENNYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the event of his Government being in office next Session, he will consider the necessity of removing, with as little delay as possible, the anomaly in the system of payment of Irish National Teachers, by which assistant teachers are deprived of a considerable part of the salaries to which their classes entitle them, and of maintaining a system under which no assistant in an ordinary National School can receive more than a third-class salary though he may have actually attained to the grade of first-class?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that no doubt this Question referred to a matter of importance. It was, however, a matter of detail in the arrangements of the Board of National Education in Ireland, with which it was not his province to interfere. If, however, any proposal on the subject was brought under his notice by the Board, he should be glad to consider it.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—CASE OF MR. TEMPLEMAN, AGENT TO MR, S. C. ARMSTRONG.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, If it is true that, in November 1882, Mr. C. C. Templeman, agent to Mr. S. C. Armstrong, of 39, Brighton Square, Rathgar, Dublin, did make a joint application and a joint affidavit with John Cullen for the discharge of certain arrears of rent under the Arrears Act, due by Cullen out of a farm held by him in the townland of Toughery, county Leitrim; is it true that the Commissioners sent to Cullen a statement that an order had been made for the discharge of said arrears; is it true that when Mr. Templeman found he was not getting the full amount of arrears, he wrote to the Arrears Court stating that no arrears were due by, Cullen, and that he joined in the application and affidavit by mistake; what was the purport of that letter, and did the Court defer making the order; if the landlord took instant action against Cullen for the recovery of the rent, and did the landlord swear he joined in the application by mistake, and on same occasion, when receipts were produced differing from the rent book, swore the difference was caused by a mistake of his in filing the receipts; is it true that, after he obtained a decree, he threatened to put it into the sheriff's hands for execution till Cullen was induced to sign a bill on the Ulster Bank for the full amount; is it true that when the Arrears Court investigated the case, they found the arrears were due, and made an order for the payment of a certain sum in lieu of said arrears; is it true that money is still lying in the Court in the landlord's name, and that he or his agent will not draw it: and, if the above is true, will the Government allow the money to Cullen, and what action will the Government take with Templeman?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): I know nothing of this Question, and must refer the hon. Member to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he thought he could answer the Question. A joint affidavit was made, and at first an order was made to discharge the
  826
  arrears. Afterwards it was discovered that the joint application had been made under a misunderstanding, and this order was rescinded. He knew nothing of the other matters referred to in the Question. It seemed to him that there was I no reason for taking any action against Mr. Templeman.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—WATERFORD FREE FORCE.
  MR. P. J. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the number of police county Waterford is entitled to as a Free Force; how many of that Force are at present stationed in the county; what is the number of extra police at present quartered in the county; what is the cost of the same for the current half-year; on what grounds is it thought necessary to employ these extra police; have the local magistrates been consulted; and, is it a fact that the number of cases returned for trial to quarter sessions and assizes for the last half-year has been small?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE),in reply, said, the Free Force of Waterford was 219, of which number 213 were at present stationed in the county. The number of extra, men was 64, and the cost for the last half-year for which the account was made up—namely, to 31st March last—was £1,097. The number of cases returned for trial at the last Sessions and Assizes was small; but it was still considered necessary to give protection to several persons in the county. The subject was brought before the Grand Jury at the last Assizes, and they were satisfied that the extra Force was still required. He should add that the extra Force in that county had been reduced by 40 men since December, 1883.
  MR. P. J. POWERasked whether the Grand Jury paid anything of the money required; and, also, why the Government could not rely upon the ordinary number of constables, as was done in England?
  [No reply.]

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) —REVISION SESSIONS—KILMAC-THOMAS UNION.
  MR. P. J. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-

  827
  land, Whether, owing to the difficulty people from the Kilmacthomas Union find in attending revision sessions held in Waterford or Dungarvan, it is intended to hold revision sessions at Kilmacthomas, in compliance with the wishes of the people of that union?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Yes, Sir; Kilmacthomas has been established as a place for holding a Revision Court.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) SUPPLEMENTAL LISTS, ARMAGH CO.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that one of the persons entrusted with the printing of the Supplemental Lists for the county of Armagh is Secretary of the Grand Orange Lodge of the county of Armagh; is the paper, of which he is one of the proprietors, and in which the lists for North Armagh and Richhill polling district in Mid-Armagh were printed, the local Orange organ; is the manager of that paper an Orangeman and Conservative Registration Agent, who acted in that capacity at the last Revision Court held in Armagh; is it true that the Supplemental Lists for the polling place of Loughgall were at least four days before 20th July exhibited publicly on the counter of the shop in which they were printed; did a notice appear in the same paper last Saturday that claims would be filled at that office for Loyalists and Conservatives; were the Supplemental Lists for the Charlemont and other polling districts in Mid-Armagh exhibited by Conservative agents and others in these districts at least two days prior to the 20th of July; is it a fact that there are no ordinary printers to the Grand Jury, and that the work is done by contract, the lowest tender being accepted; was a notice issued by the Secretary to the Grand Jury inviting tenders for so much of the Supplemental Lists as the Grand Jury had control of; were tenders received or a contract entered into publicly; was it illegal for the Secretary to the Grand Jury and the Clerk of the Crown and Peace to enter into a private arrangement for disposing of the work; if so, will a prosecution be instituted; and, will there be any further inquiry into the irregularities above referred to before the printing of the
  828
  Claimants' Lists is entrusted to the same printers?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I cannot undertake to inquire whether persons are Orangemen or not; but if the hon. Member will name the person he refers to in the first part of his Question I may be able to answer as to known matters of fact. Some of the lists for North Armagh were printed in the office of The Ulster Gazette, which is a Conservative paper. The Clerk of the Crown and Peace informs me that the lists for Loughgall and other districts were issued on the 17th ultimo, and were largely circulated; but he has no means of knowing where they were exhibited after they left his office. The printing for the Grand Jury is done by contract after application approved at Presentment Sessions. I have already explained that no such application could be made beforehand in this case, but that the account for the printing must come before a future Sessions, when the Justices and cesspayers will have full power to allow, disallow, or modify the accounts. The Clerk of the Crown and Peace was bound to have the work executed.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not inform him that they were not Orangemen? He would now ask him whether one of these printers was not Grand Secretary to the Orange Lodge of the county?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY: I am not supposed to make that inquiry.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman on what authority he undertook to say that the printers were not Orangemen?
  [No reply.]

  COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS— A REPORT.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the importance of the Twenty-eighth Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and especially to the valuable historical retrospect and tables of accounts therein contained, he will be good enough to obtain, from the Commissioners of Customs, a generally similar restrospective history and set of tables, in order that full details of both these great branches

  829
  of revenue may, as nearly as possible, be simultaneously laid before the public?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I have been in communication with the Commissioners of Customs with regard to my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I hope it may be found possible to prepare some kind of Report on the lines of the recent Inland Revenue Report. But it will, of course, take some considerable time to prepare.

  SLIGO HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS— CHARGES FOR MOORING—LOAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the increase of the dues on merchandise agreed to and put in force by the Sligo Harbour Commissioners, in compliance with the desire of the Treasury, and the new bye-law adopted by the Board enabling them to increase the charge on vessels using the new moorings from 1½d. to 3d. per ton, by which changes it is estimated the revenue of the port will be increased by £600 per annum, the Treasury will grant, on the security thus improved, the further loan applied for by the Commissioners in their memorial of the 25th ult., and so enable them to continue without intermission, and complete, in the course of a year, the improvement of the harbour, which will otherwise have to be suspended for a time, and then proceeded with only as accumulation of revenue may allow?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): Sir, the application for a further loan in this case came as a surprise upon the Government, having only been introduced by the Harbour Commissioners at the last stage of the correspondence. The Harbour Commissioners have not furnished the Board of Works with the usual statement as to the security they have to offer; but an opportunity will be afforded them to rectify this omission. On their present information, the Treasury are advised that the security is not sufficient to warrant a further loan to the desired amount. The repayment of the instalments upon the principal they have postponed for five years, and that concession should give the Board an immediate surplus of funds.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) ACT, 1880—LOANS—CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the Extraordinary Presentment Sessions held in Letter-kenny, under "The Relief of Distress Act, 1880," the inspecting officer of the Board of Works cautioned the court as to the extent to which they might approve of public relief works for the parish of Raymunterdoney, inasmuch as a loan of £800 had been approved of to Mr. Wybrant Olpherts for the purpose of giving employment to the distressed people under the one per cent land improvement loan, and whether the sessions did not therefore limit the public works approved of in that locality; whether it is a fact that such a loan of £800 was only issued to the extent of £320, so that the contemplated employment was not given, although it was on the faith of the inspecting officer's statement that it was to be given that the public works were curtailed; whether it is a fact that even the £320 issued was not expended in giving the promised employment, and that no such drainage works, subsoiling, stone wall building, or fencing was carried out in the manner approved of, but that only a small portion of the sum issued was so expended, and very little of the employment promised to the poor given; whether it is true that the Land Improvement Inspector for the district, Mr. Edmund Murphy, was or is now the agent to the adjoining Ards estate, upon which the other loan specified in Parliamentary Return 263 was approved, and whether his son, an inexperienced young man with no special qualifications as a surveyor, was or is sub-agent upon the said Ards estate, and was also, or is, a Land Improvement inspector under the Board of Works; whether they are both magistrates of the same Petty Sessions district as Mr. Olpherts; whether either or both, father or son, have certified the approval or expenditure of all or any of the loans specified in said Return; and, if so, for what expenditure; whether Mr. Wybrant Olpherts had paid up to the date Return 263 was called for the amount then due upon the said one per cent loan; whether he will have an independent survey made, and an inquiry upon oath instituted as to the expendi-

  831
  ture under these loans; and, can he state what became of the difference between the sums issued and the sums expended?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)(who replied) said: I will do my best to answer the numerous points raised in this Question, so far as they are known to the Department which I represent. I have no information as to the action of the Extraordinary Presentment Sessions, or as to the statements made to them. Only £320 was issued to Mr. Olpherts out of the sanctioned loan of £800, the reason being that the time allowed under the Act for execution of the works expired before a further instalment was applied for. Out of this smaller amount £285 was formally certified to have been expended, and the Board of Works are satisfied that the whole of the balance and more was expended on drainage and other works employing labour. But, as doubts have been thrown upon the correctness of this view, an officer of the Board will visit the place at an early date, and will form an independent judgment upon the facts. Mr. E. Murphy and Mr. J. F. Murphy were temporary Inspectors under the Relief of Distress Acts, but I believe are no longer in the service of the Board of Works. The former certified to the expenditure under the loans to Lord Leitrim and Mr. Olpherts; but I have no information as to other occupations of either gentleman. Mr. Olpherts has paid the rent-charge on account of his loan to the last gale day.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Will the calculated date of the visit of the Board of Works representative be made known, so that the ratepayers may be able to be represented on the occasion of the inquiry.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir; Notice shall be given.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—SUNDAY MAIL TO ACHILL ISLAND.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, What reply has been given to the Memorial praying for a Sunday mail to Achill Island; and, whether, as the convenience asked for would serve a district extending over thirty miles, and convenience a population of 20,000 people, the facilities demanded can be granted?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): The Memorial for a Sunday post to Achill Island was refused on the ground that the weekday service was only maintained at a cost considerably greater than the correspondence, according to the usual rule, would warrant, and that there was no surplus revenue available to cover the cost of a Sunday service. I regret that, the circumstances remaining unaltered, I am not prepared to depart from the conclusion arrived at.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)— SORTERS IN IRISH MAIL TRAINS.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether the sorters employed in the Irish Mail trains are in receipt of eight pence per hour promised by the late Postmaster General; whether it is a fact that he promised that this allowance would be made without any deductions for Sundays; and, whether this promise is being observed at the present time?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): The hon. Member's Question, if I understand it aright, refers to Sunday duty in the travelling post offices in Ireland. The travelling sorters in Ireland, excepting those between Dublin and Cork, are paid, under certain limits, for all work done on Sunday at the rate of 8d. for every hour in excess of eight hours in a month of four Sundays. The sorters between Dublin and Cork are excluded from this arrangement, because their rates of remuneration are already exceptionally high.
  MR. O'BRIENasked, whether the promise made by the late Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had been carried out?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERALsaid, he know nothing of that.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he would remind the noble Lord that this was a portion of the Question on the Paper.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL: I will inquire into that particular point.

  ARMY—ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH—MEAL HOURS OF CADETS.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will kindly inquire whether any steps

  833
  have been taken to alter the times for meals of the gentlemen cadets of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, especially in regard to the interval of six hours and twenty minutes between breakfast and luncheon, from 7.55 a.m. to 2.15 p.m.?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In reply to this Question I will make a quotation from the Report of the Board of Visitors, which I have this day presented to the House—
  "The Board were much gratified to notice that they (the cadets) did not display to any extent the pale and jaded appearance they showed last year. On the contrary, they looked smart, and presented generally a bright and healthy look. The improvement may, to some extent, have been caused by the entire change which has taken place in their dietary. A complete alteration has been made in this respect; and in place of breakfast at 7 A.M., early lunch at 11.30, and dinner at 2.15, a cold meat luncheon at 1.15, and a very good late dinner at 7.15, are provided for the cadets, the breakfast hour being now at 7.30 A.M."

  EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—THE SUAKIN-BERBER RAILWAY.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government have yet considered the question of completing the Suakin-Berber Railway, and the communication by steamers between Berber and Khartoum, with a view to opening out the commerce of and conferring the blessings of civilization upon Central Africa; and, whether they will be prepared at proper times and seasons to proceed with and carry out that policy?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): There is no immediate intention of proceeding with the railway towards Berber; indeed, I may remind the hon. Member that a considerable part of both plant and material have been brought back to this country at great expense. The remainder of the Question has reference to a subject of far greater magnitude than could be dealt with in any ordinary answer to a Question.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will advise the Auditor General to charge the Members of the late Administration with the expenses of this foolish fiasco?
  [No reply.]

  EGYPT—THE MILITARY EXPEDITION —THE TROOPS AT SUAKIN.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the following extract from a Letter, dated 8th July, received from a young officer stationed at Suakin, and published in the newspapers:—
  "Behold the average temperature of the last fortnight in a mess hut, with double roof and sides: maximum, 110 39° Fahr.; minimum, 91 46° Fahr. We have a death every day nearly from sunstroke, heat, apoplexy, or typhoid. I am very well but for a feeling of general limpness, which we all experience. Heaven prevent us from an autumn campaign. The last straw—one ice ship disabled, the other ordered off—no more ice from to-morrow. Sick percentage—European, 20 per cent.; Indian, 16 per cent. The place is not fit for a dog to live in;"
  whether there is any truth in the principal statements contained in this extract; and, whether the Government are now prepared to consider the advisability of withdrawing from Suakin without further delay the remainder of the British troops still stationed there?
  MR. R. PRESTON BRUCE (for Mr. FRANCIS BUXTON)also asked, What number of British Troops, Egyptian Troops, or Indian Troops, still remain at Suakin; whether it is intended by the Government that they shall remain there permanently, or when they will be withdrawn; what is the state of health of the garrison now at Suakin; and, what policy Her Majesty's Government intends to pursue with regard to that place?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The recorded temperature at Graham's Point, Suakin, from the 4th to the 10th of July inclusive, averaged 97 8 degrees at 9 A.M. and 102 4 degrees at 3 P.M. AS regards sickness among European troops, the percentage for the week ending July 3 was 12 4, and for the following week 16 7, which included invalids sent home. During the same weeks the deaths were 12—namely, six from enteric fever and six from sunstroke. There were no Returns received here as to the Indian troops. I have received a telegram showing how matters stood on the 23rd of July. The British strength was 930, of whom 133 were sick, showing 14 3 per cent; health indifferent; prevailing

  835
  diseases, fever and nervous exhaustion from heat; enteric fever much less; weather cooler during last few days, health consequently improved, but varies with temperature. Native troops—Strength, 2,405; sick, 161, giving 6 7 per cent; health fair. Steps are now being taken for the immediate relief of the European troops, and no more will be retained at Suakin than are indispensable for the defence of the place.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked as to the steps being taken to relieve the Bengal troops, who were suffering great hardships?
  THE SECRETART OF STATE,in reply, said, steps were being taken to relieve the Indian troops in the month of October. The Sikh Regiment would certainly be relieved then; but he could not then say whether the 1st Battalion of the Shropshire Regiment would leave Suakin altogether, or whether part of it would be sent to Cyprus, and then go back to Suakin.

  TREATY OF BERLIN, ARTICLE LXI.— REFORMS IN ARMENIA.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's present Government has taken, or intend to take, any steps to induce the Porte to carry out the reforms in Armenia which were made obligatory upon it by Article 61 of the Treaty of Berlin; and, whether, since the conclusion of that Treaty, the Powers have, as stipulated, received any communication from the Porte respecting the application of those reforms; and, if not, whether any instruction on the subject will be given to the Right honourable Member for Portsmouth on the occasion of his intended mission to Constantinople and Cairo?
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have taken, or propose shortly to take, any steps to recall the attention of the Ottoman Porte to the engagements it contracted by the sixty-first article of the Treaty of Berlin, to introduce various reforms into the condition of Armenia, and to press upon it the importance of fulfilling those engagements; and, when further Papers relating to Armenia and Asiatic Turkey, in continuation of Turkey, No. 6, 1881, will be presented to the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan), I have to say that Her Majesty's Government have not had time to examine the position of this question sufficiently to enable them to take any action in the matter at present. Correspondence has taken place between the British Government and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople as regards the latter part of the Question of the hon. Member. The matter is one which will not be lost sight of by Her Majesty's Government; but it is not in the interests of the Public Service to state now whether the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) will receive instructions upon the subject or not. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), I have to say that Her Majesty's Government have had no favourable opportunity since their accession to Office of bringing the question before the Porte; and it must be borne in mind that there are other Articles in the Treaty of Berlin, besides the 61st, securing benefits to Turkey which have remained in abeyance. With respect to further Papers, Her Majesty's Government have not had an opportunity of examining the Correspondence with sufficient care to enable them to state whether or not they will be presented at present.

  WAYS AND MEANS—INLAND REVENUE —GROCERS' LICENCES (IRELAND).
  COLONEL NOLANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been drawn to the fact that in Ireland a large number of those who deal in spirits and beer deal also in groceries and soft goods, and that often but a fraction of the space of the shop is used for the sale of liquor; if, in such cases, the licensed victuallers, instead of being rated for Licence Duty in proportion only to that part of the premises devoted to the sale of liquor, Duty is often assessed as if the whole shop were devoted to the sale of liquor; and, if he would give directions that the licences should, in mixed shops, be proportioned to the value of that part only which is used for the sale of liquor?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he believed that, as a fact, it was not uncommon for

  837
  grocers' shops in Ireland to be used in the manner described in the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but he thought it was very doubtful whether it was desirable to do anything that would tend to increase that practice. He might state it was the rule, not only in Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom, that the Licence Duty was fixed with reference to the annual value of the whole of the premises, and there would be a practical difficulty in adopting the change suggested in the Question.

  POST OFFICE—MAILS TO THE WESTERN ISLANDS.
  LORD COLIN CAMPBELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether any, and, if any, what arrangement has been made to accelerate the Mails to the Western Islands?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS),in reply, said, that the subject was now under the consideration of the Treasury.

  GENERAL GORDON—DESIGN FOR A STATUE.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there is to be a public competition for the design of the contemplated statue to the late General Gordon, or a restricted competition amongst a carefully selected list of sculptors; or, on the other hand, whether the work is to be given by the Government to some one sculptor on its own responsibility?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The question of the best way of obtaining designs is still under consideration, and if the hon. Member will favour me with his views on the subject, I shall be very glad to confer with him. Whatever plan is ultimately adopted must, of course, be so entirely on the responsibility of the Government.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that no definitive steps should be taken for the erection of the statue until the next Parliament had met?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER: I certainly will not give any such pledge.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) ACT—CO. ANTRIM.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  838
  Whether the Irish Government are aware that in North Antrim, and in other parts of Ireland, claimants and other persons interested in the registering of Parliamentary voters find it impossible to obtain from clerks of the peace and clerks of unions the information and facilities directed by the Irish Registration Act of the present Session to be afforded; and, whether, considering the urgent pressure of time, the Irish Government will immediately direct the attention of the officials concerned to the duties cast upon them by the Statute with regard to supplying forms, and to the inspection and sale of lists, and will warn them of the penalties of fine and dismissal attending violation or neglect of duty? The hon. Member said, further, that he washed to put a further Question on the subject, which was one which concerned not only Antrim, but all other parts of Ireland. The Notices which should have been supplied on the 22nd of last month had not yet been produced; and he wished to ask, firstly, whether penalties of fine and dismissal would not be imposed upon the defaulting officials; and, secondly, whether the claims of the voters would not thereby be invalidated? He would ask also, whether, under the circumstances which he had mentioned, the period for inspection would not be extended beyond the statutory period?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): In answer to the hon. Member, so far as I know, no complaints on this subject have reached the Government, and I believe the officials are fully aware of the duties incumbent upon them under the Statute. The latter part of the Question of the hon. Member clearly has reference to matters of fact, and no such facts have yet been brought before me.
  MR. SEXTON: As this is a matter of extreme importance, I must put a Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. Has he any communication to make as to why the lists were not published on the 22nd of last month; and, will the Irish Government take any steps to hold the officials responsible for that fault? I will also ask whether the specified time for establishing a claim will not be extended until the 4th of August—to-morrow?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES),in reply, said, that he would be prepared to reply to-morrow.

  EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—BATTLE OF ABU KLEA.
  SIR WALTER B.BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any Despatch was received from Sir Herbert Stewart, after the Battle of Abu Klea, giving an account of the behaviour of the Troops under his command; and, if such Despatch was sent and received, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The hon. and gallant Baronet will find the despatch in the Egyptian Papers, No. 9, at page 4.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MR. F. FALKINER, Q.C., RECORDER OF DUBLIN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Irish Government, or of the Irish Judiciary, has been drawn to the fact that Mr. Frederick Falkiner, Q.C., Recorder of Dublin, in sentencing a grocers' assistant, said—
  "He believed there was an idea existing among grocers' assistants that they could keep to themselves their employers' money;"
  and, whether the Irish Government, or the Lord Chancellor, will make any representation to the Recorder of Dublin on the impropriety of such remark?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HABT DYKE): I do not know whether this quotation is correct or not. The Recorder is a Judge of independent position, and the Executive Government and the Lord Chancellor have no power or right to question or impugn the language in which a Judge conveys his decisions.

  ARMY—LINE BATTALIONS ON FOREIGN SERVICE—THE ROYAL IRISH AND THE EAST SURREY.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has observed the very long periods for which certain line battalions have been kept on foreign service, especially the 1st battalion Royal Irish and the 2nd battalion East Surrey, each of which regiments has now two battalions abroad;
  840
  and, if he will direct that arrangements be made for their early relief?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The two battalions referred to will be among the first to come home whenever the garrison of Egypt can be reduced.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—RELEASE OF BRIGGS, A CONVICT.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that Briggs was tried at Leicester Assizes last November, convicted of starving his wife to death, and sentenced to twenty years' penal servitude; whether the medical evidence given at the trial was found on further inquiry to be erroneous and misleading; and, whether Her Majesty was advised to pardon the unfortunate man, as innocent?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS),in reply, said, that he believed Briggs had not been pardoned, but was released on licence.

  EGYPT (INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION) —USE OF THE KOURBASH AND FORCED LABOUR.
  MR. VILLIERS STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that, in the more remote provinces of Egypt, the arbitrary and capricious use of the kourbash still continues; that no progress has yet been made in reforming the system of forced labour; that the peasantry are still compelled under the lash to excavate canals with their fingers; that neither tools nor food nor shelter are provided for them; that no steps have been taken to deal with the evils of village usury, or to emancipate the peasantry from its baneful consequences; that these and other reforms necessary for the development and prosperity of the Country have remained in abeyance owing to the bankrupt condition of the Egyptian Treasury; and, whether, now that the financial difficulties have been surmounted, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to press forward all urgently needed reforms, and to win thereby the good-will of the Egyptian people?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE),after thanking the hon.

  841
  Member for sending him communications containing information on the subject, and also reminding him of some answers which were given by the late Government with regard to this subject, said, he could find no record at all in the Foreign Office which corroborated in any way the statements in the Question of the hon. Member.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA—THE EVIDENCE.
  MR. ATKINSONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, If he will lay upon the Table Copy of any Communications which may have been received at the Board of Trade, from Shipping or other Associations, protesting against the proposed issue of evidence given on behalf of the Board of Trade before the Royal Commission on Loss of Life at Sea, until the evidence on the other side of the question be also fully taken?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): In answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that communications have been received from the General Shipowners' Society and the Hull Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping, protesting—
  "Against the publication of the ad interim Report of Evidence taken before the Royal Commission on Shipping, on the ground of its ex parte character, the Board of Trade case having been presented and but a small portion of the Shipowners' reply having been as yet heard."
  The Central Executive of Shipowners of the United Kingdom have forwarded to the Board of Trade copies of two letters which they have addressed to the Chairman of the Royal Commission on the subject. Without expressing an opinion as to the expediency of such partial publication, I would point out to the hon. Member that the matter rests entirely with the Commission, and that the Board of Trade have no power whatever to prevent or postpone the publication of the Report, or of any portion of it. I have no objection to lay on the Table copies of the two letters referred to in the first part of my answer.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND)—THE MODEL SCHOOL, KILKENNY.
  MR. MARUMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Infant Department of the
  842
  Model School of the district of Kilkenny has not been amalgamated with the Female Department; whether the Model School Farm of the same district has not been surrendered, and agricultural training and teaching has not ceased; and, why the Model School appears upon the face of the Estimates for Public Education this year in its normal aspect?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): In answer to the hon. Member, I have to say that the Kilkenny Model School only appears on the face of the Estimate for the amount required for the boys' school, and the amalgamated girls' and infants' school; no charge, therefore, appears in the Estimate for the model school farm which has ceased to exist.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) —LISTS OF VOTERS—DERRY.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the case that a high hoarding has been erected around the dispensary house in William Street, Derry, in such a manner as to obstruct the public view of the lists there exhibited of persons returned as entitled to be registered under the Representation of the People Act; and, whether measures will be taken to have the obstruction removed or the lists better displayed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I have made inquiries and cannot find that there is any foundation for this statement. On the contrary, I am assured that there is not, and has not been, any such obstruction as that indicated.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—COLLEGE OF ABERYSTWITH.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true, as stated in a local paper, that the Government have made up their minds to give an additional grant to the College of Aberystwith; and, whether they have made provision for giving the increased grant in the present year?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. E. STANHOPE),in reply, said, that the subject referred to in the Question was under the consideration of the Government, and he was not yet in a position to announce the decision at which they had arrived.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I desire to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can inform the House what Business will be taken to-morrow?
  THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think the principal Business to-morrow, if we finish the Committee on the Criminal Law Amendment Bill this evening, as I hope we may, and take a stage of the Secretary for Scotland Bill, would be the Irish Land Purchase Bill, and the Federal Council of Australasia Bill.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked when the Criminal Law Amendment Bill would be taken on Report?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I should hope on Wednesday.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked whether the Government intended to take any other Business on Wednesday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Wednesday is now a Government day.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE NEW COMMISSIONERS.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked, If the Government intended to give the names of the two new Commissioners to be appointed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he could not give any undertaking on the subject yet.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE JEFFREYS' CASE— MR. EDLIN (ASSISTANT JUDGE).
  MR. CALLANsaid, that, seeing the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) in his place, he wished to put a Question to him with reference to his statement on Friday night, that he knew nothing of the prosecution of the Jeffreys' case, that it was not conducted by the police, but by the local authorities. He (Mr. Callan) wished to ask, Whether it was not the fact that the local authorities— namely, the Chelsea Vestry—took no part in that prosecution any more than the Home Office? He also asked, Whether a representative from the Home Office did not attend on the third occasion at the Police Court; whether he did not make a report to his
  844
  superiors; and, if so, what was its nature; why did the late Home Secretary not direct the Public Prosecutor to intervene in that scandalous and abominable case; whether the right hon. Gentleman still adhered to his statement that Inspector Minahan was dismissed for insubordination; and whether he had seen the letter in The Pall Mall Gazette, in which Inspector Minahan stated that he was dismissed for describing Mrs. Jeffreys's house as a "brothel for the nobility?"
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, it was impossible to carry all these Questions in one's head; but he should answer, as far as he could. He answered the points very fully the other night when they were raised in the debate. He did not state that the prosecution in the Jeffreys' case had been conducted by the Local Authorities. On the contrary, he specifically stated that it was conducted by a Society with which Mr. B. Scott, the City Chamberlain, was connected, being one of its leading members, and that they were responsible for the conduct of the prosecution, which the hon. Member described as disgracefully conducted.
  MR. CALLAN,interposing, denied that he had so described the prosecution. He had asked why the Public Prosecutor had not intervened in such a scandalous and abominable case? He cast no reflection on the prosecution.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he saw no reason to interfere. The prosecution was conducted by persons who had a right to do so, and he saw no reason to interfere. An attack had been made on the police in this matter by Mr. Minahan, who stated generally that they were in connivance with the owners of these houses. He should read to the House a paragraph from the Report of the Chelsea Vestry at exactly the same period of 1883–4. It was headed, "The disorderly houses at Chelsea," and was as follows:—
  "The committee are unable to estimate too highly the services which the police have continued to render them in their investigations. The ready attention, the discriminate action, the painstaking observation, and the thorough reports with which the committee have been favoured by the Commissioners and the local officers have enabled them to continue the administration of a wholesome, and, indeed, valuable check to a nefarious trade, which, but a few years since, endangered the moral tone and reputation of the parish."

  845
  He thought the House would receive that as against the statement of Mr. Minahan. It was not accurate to say that Mr. Minahan was dismissed. He was reproved for insubordination, and his rank was reduced and upon that he resigned. The insubordination did not consist in the charge with reference to the Jeffreys' case; it was only one of 15 instances in which he charged his superior officers with misconduct. All these charges were examined into and were found to be baseless. His resignation was one and a-half years before the Jeffreys' case arose; and it was entirely untrue that that case was the main or prominent part in Minahan's charges. He brought many charges against the police, and the only part which the Home Office had in the matter was to inquire into the foundation for the charges brought aginst persons of all ranks in the police by Minahan. It was his duty to see that they were inquired into, and he did so; and it was because the Home Office had reason to believe that these charges would be made against the police on the evidence, that it was represented at the hearing. The charges against the police made by Minahan had been carefully investigated. Objection had been taken to the fact that the Commissioners of Police undertook that investigation; but if they were not the proper persons, who were? If he (Sir William Harcourt) had considered that the Commissioners were unfit to conduct such an inquiry, it would have been his duty to remove them. The conclusions to which they arrived were that the charges made by Minahan against his superiors were unfounded. In that conclusion he agreed, and it had, therefore, been his duty to support in this House the Commissioners of Police in action which was necessary for the discipline of the Force.
  MR. CALLANgave Notice on the Appropriation Bill to call attention to the conduct of the late Home Secretary with reference to the Jeffreys' case and other cases.

  POST OFFICE—SIXPENNY TELEGRAMS.
  In reply to Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE,
  THE POSTMASTER GENEEAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS)said, it was hoped that the Act reducing the price of telegrams would come into operation on the 1st of October.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.
  MR. COURTNEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the strong opposition on the Royal Commission itself to the proposal as to the prison sites, the Government will persevere with the clauses on that subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that was a Question for his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who had charge of the Bill. He would, however, remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill was the Bill of the Royal Commission rather than of the Government.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would then ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the clauses of the Bill relating to the sale of prison sites, Whether he is aware that that particular recommendation of the Royal Commission was dissented from by a strong section, headed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen); and, whether, in that case, the Government will continue to persevere with those clauses, which will inevitably lead to prolonged discussion?
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the Bill was now blocked by a very active Member of the Royal Commission.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): When the hon. Member who has just spoken rose I thought he was about to ask a Question with reference to Clause 13 of the Bill, in which I know he takes a great interest. I have to say that that clause will be considerably modified. As to the Question of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), it seems to me that the clauses relating to the prison sites, although they appear hard to some people, are really one of the greatest benefits that could be conferred upon the people of London, and I, individually, should be very sorry to see them struck out.

  EGYPT—THE INTERNATIONAL GUARANTEED LOAN — THE CORRESPONDENCE.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked, with reference to the statement that the negotiations with regard to the Egyptian

  847
  Loan were suspended when the change of Government took place, When the Correspondence would be distributed?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BOURKE),in reply, said, the intervention of Saturday—a short day with printers—Sunday, and the Bank Holiday, might cause delay; but he hoped the Papers would be in the hands of Members by Wednesday morning.
  MR. VILLIERS STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he was to understand from a previous answer that Her Majesty's present Government did not see their way to press forward the reforms in Egypt, which they were led to expect would follow when the finances of Egypt were restored to a proper condition?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE)said, he did not say anything about that. He was asked about the kourbash, and other Questions of that kind, and he did not mean to lead the House to understand that the reforms which the late Government thought necessary would not be pressed on the Egyptian Government by Her Majesty's present Government.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, it was not quite clear from a previous answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he had definitely fixed Wednesday for the Report of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that he could not make a definite promise. He could only say he hoped it might be taken on Wednesday.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether the third reading of the Appropriation Bill would be put down for Thursday?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether, seeing the important Business before the House, the final stage of the Bill could not be postponed for a few days?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope it will not be necessary to do that. I remember the promise I gave the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and I shall be careful not to take the third reading until the
  848
  Egyptian Papers are circulated. If circulated to-morrow, as I hope, we may ask the House to take it to-morrow.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, they had been circulated that morning.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not been aware of that fact. He could not say whether the Bill would be taken to-morrow or Wednesday; but, at any rate, it would be taken at a convenient hour.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—POLICE ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  MR. COLERIDGE KENNARDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he would give facilities for proceeding with this Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I cannot see my way to give a favourable answer at present; but I am aware that the Bill is favourably regarded by hon. Members in all quarters of the House.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. GRAY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the lateness of the Session and the importance of the subject, he will take the Labourers (Ireland) Bill to-night, even at this late hour?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think the time will be fully occupied by the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. I would like to be able to take the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, as I think it an important matter.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the Government when they intend to proceed with the Labourers (Ireland) Bill. It has been on the Paper of the House since the beginning of the Session. Also with regard to the Lords' Amendments to the Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) Bill—the Amendment containing the proxy vote, and allowing the ex officio members to retain half the seats at the Boards—I wish to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, what action does the Government intend to take? If those Amendments are agreed to, the Bill may as well be dropped.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)asked for Notice of the Question.
  MR. SEXTON: In the meantime, can the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer say anything about the Labourers Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I cannot say more than I have already said.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: In consequence of the great anxiety that exists in all parts of Ireland and amongst the Irish Members with regard to the Bill, I would like to put one Question more to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, first premising, if I may be allowed to do so, that there was no action of the new Government which gave so much satisfaction in Ireland as their announcement of their intention to take up the Bill. The Question I wish to ask is, Whether, as Irish Members of all Parties for the most part remain here till the hour at which the House rises, there would be any practical inconvenience in taking the Bill at any hour, as there will always be Representatives here of all sections of the Irish people?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot answer that Question without previous communication with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the subject. I may, however, say that I have no intention of dropping the Bill.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give Notice that I shall resist further progress with the Appropriation Bill until the Labourers (Ireland) Bill has passed through the House.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE —SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that in view of the assurance formerly given, that they would receive proper time for the discussion of the Secretary for Scotland Bill, he would ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer after what hour he would not take that Bill that night?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid that is a Question I can hardly answer.

  EAST INDIA (REVENUE ACCOUNTS).
  Ordered, That the several Accounts and Papers which have been presented to the House in this Session of Parliament, relating to the Revenues of India, be referred to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House."
  Resolved, That this House will, upon Thursday, resolve itself into the said Committee.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  [Lords.]—[BILL 159.]
  (Secretary Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 31st July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    New Clause:—
    (Power of Search.)
    "If it appears to any justice of the peace, on information made before him on oath by any parent, relative, or guardian of any woman or girl, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that such woman or girl is unlawfully detained for immoral purposes by any person in any place within the jurisdiction of such justice, such justice may issue a warrant authorising any person named therein to search for, and, when found, to take to and detain in a place of safety such woman or girl until she can be brought before a justice of the peace; and the justice of the peace, before whom such woman or girl is brought, may cause her to be delivered up to her parents or guardians, or otherwise dealt with as circumstances may require.
    "The justice of the peace issuing such warrant may, by the same or any other warrant, cause any person accused of so unlawfully detaining such woman or girl to be apprehended and brought before a justice, and proceedings to be taken for punishing such person according to law.
    "A woman or girl shall be deemed to be unlawfully detained for immoral purposes if she is so detained for the purpose of being unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether any particular man or generally, and—

    (a.) Either is under the age of sixteen years; or

    (b.) If of or over the age of sixteen, and under the age of eighteen years, is so detained against her will, or against the will of her father or mother or of any other person having the lawful care or charge of her; or

    (c.) If or above the age of eighteen years she is so detained against her will:

    Any person authorised by warrant under this section to search for any woman or girl so detained as aforesaid may enter (if need be by force) any house, building, or other place specified in such warrant, and may remove such woman or girl therefrom,"—(Sir S. Assheton Cross,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE TOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that after the clause was read a second time, of course, Amendments might be moved upon it. This was the clause which was under discussion the other day when it was objected to take it at so late an hour of the night.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he was quite prepared to support the clause as far as it went.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    MR. JAMES STUART MR. JAMES STUART moved, as an Amendment, to insert, after the word "girl," the following words:—
    "Or any other person who, in the opinion of the justice, is bonâ fide acting in the interest of any woman or girl."
    The hon. Member said, he had given Notice of that Amendment the day after the clause of the Home Secretary was put upon the Paper, and it had remained upon the Notice Paper immediately after the clause of the right hon. Gentleman until to-day. He saw that it had now disappeared from the Notice Paper, and he presumed that that was in consequence of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman having been introduced as a new clause. He had anticipated, however, that his Amendment would have been printed on the Notice Paper among the other Amendments, and he did not know why that had not been the case. At any rate, he proposed now to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice. The effect of the Amendment would be to increase the power under the section, or, rather, to increase the number of persons who could make use of it. At present, a search warrant could be obtained upon application by a parent or guardian, provided that the clause became law; but it could not be obtained by any other person. He was glad that the Home Secretary had introduced the clause in this form, because he thought that it was a considerable improvement upon the clause as it stood originally in the Bill; and he would make an urgent appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to insert in the clause the words which he proposed, and which appeared to have dropped out of the clause, seeing that they existed in it when the Bill was introduced by the late Government. He proposed their re-insertion on this
    852
    ground—that the clause, in many important cases, would be practically inoperative unless some such words were introduced. He regarded this clause as one of the most important in the whole Bill, and it was, therefore, necessary to trace its history. As the Bill was introduced into the House of Lords, a Search Clause was inserted; but that Search Clause, in his opinion, was absolutely bad. It gave power of search to the police, and to the police only, and it only gave them an indefinite power of search. The clause, as it now stood, was a much better clause. A search warrant was given on the application of an interested party, and it was given for a specific object, and, therefore, it did not possess the objections which the original clause did. Why was it that he wanted to add these words? For this purpose, principally—that the poor children whom they had to get out of these houses, where they might be confined for immoral purposes, had, in many cases, neither parent nor guardian. They were poor children who, as a rule, never possessed a guardian; and, whether they had parents or guardians or not, they had generally been removed from the locality where the parents or guardians lived to a distant locality. He would ask the Committee to imagine the case of a child whose parent or guardian was either out of London—it might be in Bradford, or Dublin, or Edinburgh—or in some distant part of London. That child was known to be in an immoral house, detained for immoral purposes. The parent or guardian, being far away, might have telegraphed to a clergyman or some other person who knew the child in order that he might take proper steps for rescuing it; but in that case the law would be perfectly inoperative, because the whole essence of the matter was time. It must be remembered that it would be fatal if they were required to wait for any length of time. Then, again, take another instance. Those who were well qualified to speak upon the subject knew that the parents not unfrequently sold their children, and, therefore, they would not be anxious to take them out of the miserable position in which they were placed. He thought that, in such circumstances, when a child was deserted by its father and mother, the State

    853
    should be at liberty to step in, and that the whole nation should be regarded as the guardian of the poor child, in order to prevent her from undergoing the horrible fate which awaited her. He was glad to see an Amendment upon the Paper in the name of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hereford (M. E. T. Reid), by which his hon. and learned Friend proposed to provide that a girl under 21 might be made a ward in Chancery, even although no property belonged to her or had been settled upon her. It would be highly advantageous if such a clause could be utilized for the purpose of getting a child out of the custody of those who detained her for immoral purposes. It was stated that the Amendment which he proposed would open the door for the action of Societies. He was prepared to welcome the action of Societies in the matter, and he wished to open the door to them. His objection to the Bill was the difficulty of putting it in operation; and he believed that the action of societies in respect of the Bill would, in that respect, be most valuable. He had no wish to see the action of societies generally in connection with the Criminal Law; but he submitted to the Committee that, in regard to the particular state of circumstances with which the clause dealt, the action of societies might fairly and properly be allowed, and the aid of societies was one of the advantages which he hoped would accrue from the adoption of the clause. He believed that there were many excellent societies which would carry out such work as this; and if they only succeeded in getting these little children out of these houses, they would strike an important blow against the abomination they were desirous of putting down, and which led to the seduction and ruin and prostitution of little children. It was upon such grounds that he was anxious to see some of the benevolent societies which existed in this country acting in the matter, and it was most important to introduce words into the clause which would enable them to act. He had no doubt that there were benevolent societies and benevolent individuals, who were very well known to the general public, who, if telegraphed to under pressing and terrible circumstances, would at once take upon themselves the duties of parent and guardian;
    854
    and what he desired was to give them the right of acting in that manner. He, therefore, begged to move the addition of the words he had read, and he appealed to the Government to agree to their insertion, knowing, as he did, that the Home Secretary and the Government were really anxious to make the Bill operative, and believing that they had introduced this clause with that bonâ fide object; and having had a long acquaintance with the subject, he was perfectly sure that the clause would be practically inoperative in really serious cases, where little children were confined against their will, unless these words were added. It was to make the clause operative that he begged to move their insertion.
    Amendment proposed,
    In new Clause, in line 2, after the word "girl," to insert the words "or any other person who, in the opinion of the justice, is bonâ fide acting in the interest of any woman or girl."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON GROSS)said, he thought there was very great force in the remarks which the hon. Member had just made. It must, unfortunately, be admitted that in many cases the parents of a child were its worst guardians. He should have no objection to the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member, if they could be guarded in such a way as not to give a roving commission to anyone who desired a search warrant. He was quite willing to extend the clause to others who were not the parent and guardian; and the wording of the clause ought to give a bonâ fide guarantee against any person interfering who had no right to interfere. That object would be accomplished by requiring him to prove to the Justice that he had a bonâ fide interest in the girl. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had included these words in the original Bill, and, as they stood in the Amendment, he thought they would provide that the person applying for the warrant must satisfy the magistrate of his bonâ fide interest in the girl whom he alleged to be detained; and with that security he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was prepared to accept the Amendment.
    MR. HOPWOODwished to give a word of warning to the Committee in regard to this clause. It was the first departure, as far as he was aware, from the law by which the liberty of a girl up to 16 years of age was placed in the hands of somebody other than her parent or guardian. There was nothing in the Bill which, if this clause and the Amendment were adopted, would prevent persons who were not the parents or guardians from obtaining absolute power over the personal liberty of a child up to the age of 16. He wished to point out to the Committee that this was a very remarkable and exceptional power. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was of opinion that it would be guarded by the words "having a bonâ fide interest in the girl," whatever those words might mean. He (Mr. Hopwood) thought, on the contrary, that it might lead to monstrous mischief. What was to be done after the search warrant had been executed? Was the person who asserted that be had a bonâ fide interest to have possession of the child? There were no means of giving that power except to the extent of removing the child to some industrial institution. Did the Home Secretary intend to follow the Amendment up by a further Amendment which would meet that difficulty? He knew very well what the answer would be—that it was a matter with which the Government could not deal; and the consequence would be that, in the case of children over 12 years of age, there was a possibility of their returning to the same places unless there happened to be someone who could exercise the power and control of a parent over them. In the case of industrial schools, there was power even to take a child away from its mother, and it was repeatedly done upon no other plea than that the mother was a prostitute. Upon that ground the child was taken away from her and sent to a school, where she could never see it. The mother and child were separated by force, no doubt with the best intentions on the part of benevolent people; but there were no persons who could be as cruel as benevolent people. Very often the existence of a child was the only tie between Heaven and earth which these unfortunate women possessed. In many instances there was a beloved and tender child, treated with
    856
    the utmost care, kept in total ignorance of the mother's life, and yet down came some benevolent lady, who had never felt the springs of maternity within her, who took possession of the child, and, obtaining an order from the magistrates, ruthlessly carried her away without the slightest regard for the maternal feelings of the mother. He asked the Committee to judge what sufferings might be produced in a heedless manner by acts that were set on foot at the dictates of benevolent persons, and by these fussy voluntary Organizations which imagined they could govern the world better than Providence did. He admitted that much might be done by voluntary effort, but not in the shape of legislation.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped that the Committee would consent to this Amendment, and pointed out that the Factory Acts recognized that a girl below 18 years of age could not protect herself. How could his hon. and learned Friend, or anybody else, suppose that these poor creatures under 16 could have the slightest power of protecting themselves? It was not a question of putting stringent clauses in an Act of Parliament, but a question of protecting those who might be exposed to the greatest misery and the greatest outrage which could possibly be brought upon them. They knew very well what the facts were. Children were inveigled into these houses, it might be even with their own consent; but he maintained that they were unable to give consent, and he was sorry to say that in many cases children were entirely neglected by their parents, or the parents themselves became accessories to their being placed in this wretched condition. The question, however, was whether the State was to assist in exposing young children to this criminality. If ever there was a case for the interference of the Legislature it was a case of this kind, and unless they gave full powers of search by means of which they might rescue the poor creatures who were detained in these immoral houses they would do very little good. Surely it was a very fair thing that there should be a somewhat quick and speedy means of getting a child out of such danger.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he took no exception to anything that had fallen from the right hon. Member for Brad-

    857
    ford (Mr. Forster) in regard to the clause; but his objection to it had reference to the mode in which it was drawn, and the enormous width of the cases it embraced. He would give an illustration of a case which would come within this section. If a wife were to fly away from her husband, and take refuge from him in a friend's house, and the place where she was staying came to the knowledge of the husband, he would have nothing to do but to go before a magistrate and swear that she was kept there against her consent, and the very object of the woman's flying away, in order to seek refuge in a place of safety until she could receive the full protection of the law, would be frustrated. It might be said that he knew that the husband would have to swear an affidavit, and that if he made any false statement he would be guilty of perjury. But how was he to be indicted, and how could perjury be assigned against him? This clause was one of the serious consequences of hasty legislation. The Committee were now about to adopt a clause which he ventured to say would do quite as much harm as good.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he hoped the Committee would consent to the clause as it had been proposed by the Home Secretary, and also that they would accept the Amendment. He would take a case in point. The Home Secretary had very justly stated that in some instances the parent might be the worst guardian a child could have, and that he was often a consenting party to the offence. He would take the case of domestic service where a mistress inveigled young maid servants into her house, and appeared to take great interest in them, when her only object was to make use of them for immoral purposes. Surely in such a case any person who was acquainted with a girl under such circumstances should be able to take steps for going before a magistrate to express his or her belief that the girl was detained for immoral purposes? He hoped that the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) that a husband might make some affidavit affecting a wife who had taken refuge in a friend's house, which had really no bearing on the matter at all, would not prevent the Committee from taking the necessary
    858
    steps for protecting these children. He believed that this was the only way of making the clause effectual, and that unless they gave power to some other person besides the guardian or parent to step in, the clause, in numerous instances, would remain practically in-operative.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that whatever his opinion might be with regard to the clause he was not going to stake it against that of the main body of the Committee; but he appealed to the Home Secretary and the Attorney General whether the words proposed by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Stuart) would carry out the object aimed at? The words were—
    "Or any other person who, in the opinion ef the justice, is bonâ fide acting in the interest of any woman or girl."
    In his opinion, the words ought to be "such woman or girl."
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he rose to a point of Order. He wished to point out that the words he proposed to insert were accurately drafted, and the words "such woman or girl" occurred afterwards.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the hon. Member was quite mistaken; the clause would read in this way—
    "If it appears to any justice of the peace, on information made before him on oath by any parent, relative, or guardian of any woman or girl, or any other person who, in the opinion of the justice, is bonâ fide acting in the interest of any woman or girl, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that such woman or girl is unlawfully detained for immoral purposes," &c.
    He maintained that the first words "any woman or girl" should be "such woman or girl."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, it might be some comfort to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) to tell him that they were now only discussing the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Stuart). After they had agreed upon the insertion of these words, it would be quite open to amend the clause by substituting the word "such" for "any."
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he thought the difficulty might be met by omitting the words—
    "On oath by any parent, relative, or guardian of any woman or girl."

    859
    The clause would then read—
    "If it appears to any justice of the peace, on information made before him, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that any woman or girl is unlawfully detained for immoral purposes," &c.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he did not think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would meet the difficulty he had pointed out.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he could not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, because his contention was that the governing words of the clause should be that the application was made by the parent or guardian or by some persons acting bonâ fide in the interest of the girl.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the clause, in line 2, referred to "any woman or girl," and if they added the words—
    "Referring to any person who, in the opinion of the magistrate, was interested in such woman or girl,"
    it would be left just as wide as it was now by the words which appeared in the clause. The words to which it was proposed to attach the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Stuart) were general, and would cover the case of "any woman or girl;" and if they added the words "referring to any such woman or girl," the word "such" would be of no use as qualifying the clause in this particular. He wished to point out that circumstance to the hon. and learned Attorney General. He did not know whether it occurred to the hon. and learned Gentleman; but it appeared to him that the word "such" would not carry out the intention with which it was suggested, and that the word "such" would, in this respect, have no value or meaning whatever.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the best way of meeting the objection would be to put in words to say "any woman or girl in respect of whom the information was granted." He trusted that as the Committee seemed inclined to accept the Amendment, it would be accepted without further debate, and the verbiage of the clause could be easily altered when they came to discuss the clause as a whole.
    MR. M'COANwished to call attention to a defect in the clause. Even if it was amended as proposed, it would give to the parent or guardian or anyone
    860
    possessing a bonâ fide interest in the girl the right of laying an information before a magistrate to search for any woman or girl who was suspected to be detained for unlawful purposes, and when found there would be authority to detain her in a place of safety until she could be brought before a Justice of the Peace, who might order her to be delivered to her parents or guardians, or otherwise dealt with "as the circumstances might require;" but once out of the hands of the law there was no provision made as to the subsequent condition of the girl. He thought that was a defect which ought to be remedied, for it appeared to him that the moment the girl or woman was outside the door of the place where she had been unlawfully detained, her rescuer would have no power over her whatever.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the clause gave power to the Justice of the Peace to deal with the case in such manner "as the circumstances might require," and to deliver her up to her parents or guardians.
    MR. M'COANsaid, there might be cases in which the girl had neither parents nor guardians, and there ought to be some provision to say what was to be done under such circumstances, because, so far as the law was concerned, the person who had succeeded in getting her out of the place where she was unlawfully detained for immoral purposes would have no power whatever over the girl afterwards.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, it appeared to him that the words were entirely governed by subsequent words—namely, that it should be—
    "A woman or girl whom there was reasonable cause to suspect to be unlawfully detained for immoral purposes."
    He was glad that the Government had accepted the Amendment. He was connected with an institution—the Foundling Hospital—which had given him some little experience in cases of this kind. He had found that in numerous instances a girl whose parents were dead, and who had no guardians, was placed out in domestic service, and it very often turned out that the person into whose service she went, or a District Visitor, or some person of that description, was the only person who took any interest in her, or showed her

    861
    any kindness. It would be very proper to clothe these persons with some legal authority, if they were willing to accept the responsibility of it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. WARTON MR. WARTON moved, in line 4 of the proposed new clause, after the words "immoral purposes," to insert the words "as in this section denned." The clause would then read—
    "If it appears to any justice of the peaoe, on information made before him on oath by any parent, relative, or guardian of any woman or girl, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that such woman or girl is unlawfully detained for immoral purposes, as in this section defined."
    The clause as it stood used the term "immoral purposes," but at the same time did not define what those immoral purposes were, and it might be contended that an artist who made use of a model for the purpose of a sketch might be brought under the operation of the clause. He thought they ought to have "immoral purposes" clearly defined, because there might be other purposes which would be held to be immoral than those which were defined in this Act. There would be no use in passing a clause applying to immoral purposes without they defined what those immoral purposes were, and took precautions to see that the provisions of the the Bill were enforced.
    Amendment proposed,
    In proposed new Clause, line 4, after the words "immoral purposes," to add the words "as in this section defined."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he had no objection to the insertion of the words.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he now proposed an Amendment, in line 5, of which he had given Notice some days ago. It was to omit the word "may," in order to insert the words "shall forthwith." The clause as it now stood provided that—
    "On information being given in any place within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, such justice may issue a warrant authorising the person named therein to search for, and, when found, to take to and detain in a place of safety such woman or girl until she can be brought before a justice of the peace."
    862
    The effect of his proposal would be, instead of making it permissive for the issue of the warrant, to compel the Justice to issue it "forthwith." He conceived that the word "may" had been transferred into the clause, as it was now drafted, from the original clause, and upon that original clause he had given Notice of an Amendment when it first appeared. He thought it was undesirable to leave the matter within the discretion of any Justice of the Peace whether he should issue a warrant or not, after a sworn information was laid before him by any person properly authorized to make it under the Act. What he desired was that the Justice of the Peace should be obliged to issue the warrant just as he would be if the case were one of theft. In point of fact, the only effect of this Amendment would be to make a warrant in cases of this kind run on all fours with a search warrant for stolen property. He thought the necessity of a warrant being issued forthwith was quite manifest, because it was of absolute importance to obtain the power of search as speedily as possible, so as to guard against any wrong happening; and as he believed the whole of the provisions of this Bill would be brought under the Vexatious Indictments Act, there would be a remedy against any person who wrongfully applied for a warrant in the matter. He, therefore, begged to move the insertion of the words "shall forthwith," instead of the word "may."
    Amendment proposed,
    In new Clause, line 5, after the words "such justice," to omit the word "may," and insert the words "shall forthwith."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the new Clause."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he could not possibly accept the Amendment. The whole matter was left, in the clause, to the discretion of the magistrate, and it would be useless to make the proposed change, because there would be nobody who could be a judge in the matter except the Justice of the Peace before whom the information was laid.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was inclined to think that the Amendment would give greater effect to the clause. The clause at present read—

    863
    "That if it appeared to any justice of the peace, on information made before him on oath, that there was reasonable cause to suspect that a woman or child was unlawfully detained for immoral purposes by any person in any place within the jurisdiction of such justice, he might issue a warrant authorising the person named in it to search for and detain in a place of safety any such woman or girl until she could be brought before a justice of the peace."
    That, however, was simply permissive, and the object of the Amendment was to compel the Justice of the Peace to issue the warrant.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. WHITBREAD MR. WHITBREAD moved an Amendment, the object of which was to give the officer execting the warrant power to bring before the magistrate other persons found in the house whom he suspected to come within the operation of the Act. He wished to know what it was that his hon. Friend contemplated? The house which was to be so searched might probably be found to be one in which there were one or more girls detained who were not specified in the warrant. What, in such a case, was to happen if an officer went there with a search warrant, and, although he succeeded in finding the girl for whom he was in search, found other girls detained by the owner of the house with every reason to believe that they were unlawfully detained for immoral purposes? When the Bill came down from the House of Lords the only person who could execute the search warrant was a Superintendent or Inspector of Police, or some officer of that kind, and such Superintendent or Inspector of Police, or officer, would have power to apprehend and bring before the Justices any person who might be found on such premises, in regard to whom there might be reasonable ground for believing that she was detained for immoral purposes. This clause, as it had now been amended by the Home Secretary, seemed to have weakened the Bill as it originally came down to the House from the House of Lords, and he would, therefore, move to amend the clause, in line 14, by inserting the words—
    "That any person holding such warrant, if a superintendent or inspector, or other officer of police, shall apprehend and bring before a justice of the peace or stipendiary magistrate any person whom he may have reasonable grounds to suspect to be guilty of an offence
    864
    under this Act, and also any woman or girl in respect of whom such an offence is charged."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. INCEsaid, he had an Amendment which would come before the one proposed by the hon. Gentleman. In line 4 occurred the words "in any place within the jurisdiction of such justice." The effect of those words was to provide that the Justice of the Peace, who was to issue the search warrant, must be a Justice having jurisdiction in the place where the girl or woman was detained. He had been looking at the Larceny Act and some other Acts, including, among others, an old Act of George III., having regard to searches for marine stores belonging to the Crown, and in all those Acts the right of granting a warrant to search appeared to be general—that was to say, that any Justice of the Peace might issue a search warrant, and it was not at all material that the Justice of the Peace by whom the warrant was issued should have jurisdiction in the place to which the warrant applied. This was a somewhat important matter, because it might sometimes be difficult to define the exact limits of jurisdiction.
    MR. GREGORYrose to a point of Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman was raising a question upon line 4 of the new clause, whereas the Committee had already passed an Amendment in line 5.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that was so, and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman would, therefore, be out of Order.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he could not approve of the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). He had considered this point before, and whatever might be the actual scope of the words originally used in Clause 6 of the Bill, he did not think they were intended to have the operation which was evidently the desire of the hon. Member. There could be very little doubt that if the words proposed were inserted, anybody found on the premises in respect of which a charge was made would be liable to be brought before a Justice of the Peace. He did not think it was ever intended to give a roving commission to the police of that kind which

    865
    would enable them to bring before the magistrates almost any person whatever who was suspected of being guilty of an offence. Certainly, if that had been the intention of the present clause he should have asked the Committee not to adopt it. The clause as it now stood directly specified what the cases were in which the police should have the right of search, and who the persons were who were to be brought before the Justices; but the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member would give a general power which would be liable to be abused. If a police constable happened to see some girl in one of these houses, which he was entitled to search by virtue of a warrant, there would be very little difficulty in finding out whether it was a case which ought to be dealt with, and making it subject to another information; but he (the Attorney General) submitted that it would not be wise to give a power of this kind to the police, and he thought that the clause of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary went far enough.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, that if that was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown he would not press the Amendment; but he would point out to the Committee that in such a case as that which had been mentioned by the hon. and learned Attorney General the girl might be spirited away before a fresh warrant could be executed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMON MR. SERJEANT SIMON moved an Amendment, in line 27, giving the officer in possession of the search warrant power to enter, besides the original place—
    "Any other house, building, or place where there is reasonable ground to suspect that such girls may be found."
    His object was to deal with a case of this kind. A parent or guardian, or other person having a bonâ fide interest in the girl, might lay information and apply for a warrant; but, on endeavouring to execute it, it might be discovered that the girl had been spirited away to another house or place, and the effect of adopting this Amendment would be to enable the police constable, or any other person executing the warrant, to follow the girl. He thought some such words were necessary to give effect to the clause. The object of the Amend-
    866
    ment was so obvious that he did not think it necessary to discuss it at length.
    Amendment proposed,
    In new Clause, line 27, after the word "warrant," to insert the words "or any other house, building, or place, where there is reasonable ground to suspect that such girls may be found."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he could not accept the Amendment; and he would remind the Committee very briefly what the foundation for this now power was. It was an information before a magistrate stating that the parent, or guardian, or other person having a bonâ fide interest in the girl, had reason to suspect that she was unlawfully detained for an immoral purpose in a certain house or place specified. The word "place," of course, was an elastic one, which might apply to a house or street, or to more than one house; and if the magistrate had information before him he would issue a warrant in such a form as to justify the police officer in entering more than one house. It was, however, desirable to fix the special place to which the search warrant should apply; and if the police officer had reason to believe that the girl had been taken away to another place it would then become necessary to apply for a fresh warrant. He submitted to the Committee that it was not desirable, in giving a power of this kind to the police, to give what he had previously called a roving commission. He thought that the person who applied for the warrant ought to satisfy himself, in the first instance, as to the place which ought to be searched. He sympathized very much with the argument of his hon. and learned Friend; but he thought that by adopting the Amendment they would be going a step too far.
    MR. HOPWOODquite agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General. He thought it would be monstrous to confer upon the police these large powers, under which, for instance, they might be able to search Buckingham Palace or any other place. It would be most objectionable, in a Bill of this nature, to give powers of search beyond those already conferred in other cases by the Common Law either to a parent,

    867
    or guardian, or to any other person who might have a bonâ fide interest in a girl in regard to whom there was reason to believe that she was unlawfully detained for immoral purposes. If a constable had reason to believe that a felony had been committed, he would have the right to enter under a warrant so far as any question of felony or misdemeanour was concerned. Those powers existed at present, and, in reference to the particular cases dealt with by the Bill, it would be a felony if the girl were under 13, and a misdemeanour if she was under 16. His own opinion was that the law conferred ample powers already, and to give the police further powers, under this clause, would be to bring about the mischief which his hon. and learned Friend had shadowed forth.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he regretted that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General could not accept the Amendment, because he thought that it simply carried out the object of the clause itself. So far as entering a house in order to see whether a felony had been committed, what he wanted was that the police should have authority to enter it in order to prevent a felony from being committed. If it were found that the person for whom the police were searching had been removed, the Committee would see what loss of time might be involved. In the first place, it might not be possible to find a magistrate at once, and there would be considerable difficulty in getting a fresh warrant. Take this case. In the afternoon a police constable went in search of a child, and found, before he could execute the warrant, that she had been removed; he, however, received information which would justify him in obtaining another warrant; but on going back for it he found that the magistrate had gone away, that it was impossible to obtain another warrant, and, in the meantime, all the mischief was done. What he wanted was to prevent the felony from being committed; but if the Committee would not support him in the Amendment he would ask leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he believed they had now reached the end of the new clause, and in that case he had an Amendment to propose, the object of
    868
    which was to add to the clause words providing that—
    "In the absence of a Justice of the Peace, or, if it were found impossible to go before a Justice of the Peace, a Superintendent or Inspector of Police, or other officer in charge of a police station, shall, on receiving information on oath, as in the clause mentioned, take such information down in writing, and shall act upon it in all respects as if a warrant had been issued as aforesaid; and that any person who shall wilfully make such information, knowing it to be false, shall be guilty of perjury, and may be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
    He was quite aware that the words he proposed to add might be open to objection. He was quite alive to the danger of placing a power of this kind in the hands of a police officer, or of any other person, even if it were the Home Secretary or the hon. and learned Attorney General himself. No one was more keenly alive to the importance of safeguarding the liberties of the people, and of not allowing them to be subjected to the irresponsible and despotic action of the police; but in all cases there were instances to be found which would demand exceptional treatment. Under the clause, as it now stood, a search warrant might be obtained by information on oath before a magistrate by any parent, relative, or guardian, or other person, having a bonâ fide interest in any woman or girl, that there was reasonable cause to suspect that she was unlawfully detained for immoral purposes; but what was to happen if a magistrate could not be found? Suppose that it became necessary to apply for a warrant late at night, and that information reached the police station through the parent or guardian that a child was locked up in a particular house for immoral purposes, and it was desirable to obtain power at once in order to rescue and save the child. Unless the magistrate could be found, which might be very difficult at a late hour of the night, no warrant could be obtained, and the child might fall a victim unless some provision, such as that which he suggested in the Amendment, were inserted in the clause. He was certainly of opinion that power ought to be given to the police to go and do all that was necessary, even without a magistrate's warrant, just as the police would have the right to do on receiving information that a felony had been committed. As his hon. and learned Friend the Member for

    869
    Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had pointed out, if a felony had been committed, and the police received information of it, they already possessed the power of entering a house, and taking into custody the criminal who had committed the offence. It was, therefore, no novel power to give to the police to enable them to enter a house without a warrant. The case he wanted to provide for was a case where a felony had not actually been committed, and where a child had not been made the victim of a great crime. What he wished was to save the child, if possible, from the consequences of the position in which she was placed; and it was, therefore, for that reason that he proposed to insert these words to provide that if by any accident it was found impossible to go before a Justice of the Peace, then the Superintendent or Inspector of Police, or any other officer in charge of a police station, should be able to receive information on oath, and take down such information in writing, and should act upon it in all respects as if a warrant had been issued. In order to guard against abuse, he proposed to add that if any person should wilfully and falsely make such information, knowing the same to be false, he should be guilty of perjury, and should be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. His object in adding that proposal was to safeguard the Amendment. Short of having a warrant issued in the presence of a magistrate, supposing that a magistrate could not be found it was desirable that the police should take information on oath, the same as would be necessary for the issuing of a warrant; but he had safeguarded that power by providing the punishment of perjury against any person who wilfully made a false statement. It was only in a very extreme case that the power would ever be used. The felony might not have been actually completed; and all he proposed was to extend to the police constable, in a case where it was suspected that a felony was about to be committed, the power which he now possessed where a felony had actually been committed.
    Amendment proposed,
    At end of new Clause, to add—"In the absence of a Justice of the Peace, or, if it were found impossible to go before a Justice of the Peace, a Superintendent or Inspector of Police, or other officer in charge of a police station, shall, on receiving information on oath, as in
    870
    the clause mentioned, take such information down in writing, and shall act upon it in all respects as if a warrant had been issued as aforesaid; and that any person who shall wilfully make such information, knowing it to be false, shall be guilty of perjury, and may be proceeded against and punished accordingly." — (Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that much as he respected the motives which had induced his hon. and learned Friend to make this proposal he was sorry that he was obliged to oppose the Amendment. This, as he had pointed out before, was a very important duty. His hon. and learned Friend proposed to give the power even to a police officer for the time being in charge of a police station. They had heard of cases where grave mistakes had been committed by police officers in charge of a police station when persons were brought to the station; and he did not think that the Committee would be willing to entrust to a subordinate police officer a duty of such responsibility.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) moved to add at the end of the clause the following Proviso:—
    "Provided always, That every warrant issued under this section shall have been addressed to and executed by a Superintendent, Inspector, or other police officer."
    As the clause had been framed by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the warrant was to be issued upon information laid by the parent or guardian, or any person having bonâ fide interest in the girl. Upon that information it was proposed that a warrant should be issued by a Justice of the Peace authorizing one of these persons to search for and bring up the girl. It was quite clear that this might be a work of considerable difficulty, requiring great tact; and there might be occasions in which a breach of the peace might be caused, and it would be dangerous, after the law were put in motion, if some person, in no way connected with the administration of justice, but only having an interest in the girl, were allowed to go, unassisted by anybody connected with the law, to carry out the warrant. The Proviso would, he thought.

    871
    in no way weaken the clause, but rather strengthen it in requiring that the warrant should always be carried out by a responsible police officer.
    Amendment proposed,
    At end of new Clause, to add — "Provided always, That every warrant issued under this section shall have been addressed to and executed by a Superintendent, Inspector, or other officer of police."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. HOPWOODobjected to the words "other officer of police." They would include all, for every policeman was an "officer." He thought that a Police Inspector ought to be the lowest officer entrusted with this power.
    MR. WESTsuggested that the word might be "constable" instead of "police officer." There might be instances in which the only officer available would be a parish constable.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he understood the object of the Attorney General to be that in either case the execution of the warrant could only be entrusted to a police officer.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that was so.
    MR. JAMES STUARTagreed that it would be quite proper to take precautions to prevent a person visiting a house of this kind with a search warrant in an infuriated state of mind. Under such circumstances, a breach of the peace might be occasioned, and he should, therefore, be accompanied by a police officer; but he thought that provision should be made to enable the parent or guardian to accompany the police in the search if it were only for the identification of the child. To Clause 6 of the Bill as it originally stood he had put down an Amendment to this effect—to enable a police officer of ordinary or superior rank to enter the premises with such assistance as he might consider necessary. In addition to those words he proposed, in order to make it sure that there should be ample identification of the child, to add these words—"Such assistance as may be necessary for the identification of the girl or otherwise." His object in making that proposal was to permit that in every case where the parent or guardian made a proper representation he should be allowed to accompany the police in the search. He was afraid that the parent or guardian
    872
    would run the risk of being excluded if the words suggested by the Attorney General were adopted; and he hoped, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman would reconsider the exact form of words with a view of providing for the point he had indicated.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)thought the words proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General were all that were necessary. They required that an officer of police, whether an ordinary constable or an officer of superior rank, should execute a warrant; and it was perfectly clear when any necessity arose that the police would have a perfect right to take such strength with them as they might deem necessary for enforcing the warrant, or for the purpose of identification. Therefore, the words which the hon. Gentleman proposed to add would be mere surplusage.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he certainly felt, seeing that this was a matter of morality, some distrust in regard to the action of the police; and, therefore, he would like to give the parent or guardian something more in the shape of a right than the mere permission of the police to accompany them in the search for the purpose of identification.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he could not understand why, if the hon. Member had a distrust of the police, he should desire to give them such enormous powers. It was quite clear that no police officer in his senses would go to look after a girl if he was not accompanied by somebody who was able to identify her.
    MR. BULWERsaid, the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) had remarked that the relative or other person interested in the case might be in an infuriated condition. It was, therefore, extremely desirable that the police officer should have some discretion vested in him to say whether it was wise to associate with himself in the search an infuriated person who might probably bring about a breach of the peace.
    MR. INCEpointed out that there might be danger of collusion to a certain extent if they placed the right of search in the hands of the police only. It must be borne in mind that the persons with whom the police would have to deal in these cases were, in most cases, persons making a large income out of

    873
    their nefarious practices; and, therefore, they would be supplied with long purses, which might be exercised in preventing a poor man from obtaining his rights. If they put the right of search entirely in the hands of the police, without desiring to make any imputation upon that body, he thought they might be putting an instrument in the hands of men who worked hard for extremely small salaries, and who wore, consequently, open to bribes. It must also be borne in mind that the execution of the law would be entrusted to them as against persons who possessed the means of bribing, and who would not hesitate to go any length in order to prevent the possibility of discovery.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)reminded the hon. and learned Member that there was nothing new in the clause, and that all warrants were now executed by the police.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
    MR. M'COANsaid, that, before the clause was finally adopted, he wished to call attention to the vagueness and inadequacy of the words in the 10th line of the clause, which provided that the girl might be delivered up to her parents or guardians, "or otherwise dealt with as circumstances may require." To his mind, that contained no enactment whatever, nor did it add anything to the present power of the Justices. A girl might be taken out of a house which was not necessarily a brothel, and, once out of it, the power of interference by the police would be exhausted. The girl would be practically in the streets without being under the legal control of any person whatever. He had brought that question forward before, but had been stopped by a remark from the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), that the case was one which was dealt with under the Industrial Schools Act. But on referring to that Act he found that he (Mr. M'Coan) was right, and that the right hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong. The present clause referred not only to girls, but to women. There were two Acts which affected the question, and the first, which was passed in 1866,
    874
    provided for the detention of girls under 12 years of age; the second increased the age from 12 to 14; and in those cases there was power to send the girls to an industrial school. But there was no provision for girls beyond that age. The Act of 1880 did provide for the treatment of and dealing with girls who were found lodging, living, or residing reputedly for purposes of prostitution; but that was a limitation of possibility which was not dealt with by this new clause at all. He had no doubt that there were cases in which girls were smuggled into a private house or hotel which could not be described as being kept "for purposes of prostitution," and in that case the girl could not be said to be living in the companionship of prostitutes. Unless, therefore, there was some such provision as he suggested, the law would still remain inoperative; and he trusted the Home Secretary would consent to the insertion of some words which would render the clause more effective.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the hon. Member asked what was to be done with the girl when she was taken out of the house whore she had been detained for immoral purposes? The clause provided that she must go with her parent or guardian, or, if no parent or guardian was to be found, with any person who had a bonâ fide interest in her before the Justice of the Peace. He presumed that if there was no person to take charge of her she could be handed over to the Board of Guardians and taken care of out of the rates. He thought that course would be taken under the clause as it stood at present; and if there was no parent and no legal guardian the girl would, of course, be sent to the workhouse, and dealt with in some other way. He did not wish to send her before the magistrates, unless there was no other way of dealing with her; and, therefore, he would be chary in putting any additional words into the clause. He would, however, consider the point before the Report, and see whether the clause could be altered in any way.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he was satisfied, as far as he was concerned, with the promise given by the right hon. Gentleman; but he should not be astonished if there were a large awaken-

    875
    ing of public opinion in this matter, and if it were ultimately found that children who were rescued were subsequently left homeless and friendless. Under the circumstances, he would be prepared to await the result of the operation of the clause before taking further legislative action in so difficult a matter. The only objection he had at present to the clause was to that part of it which related to the execution of the warrant, and which placed the sole power in the hands of the police. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said that the insertion of additional words was not necessary, because all the warrants were now executed by the police; but he thought that some words should be added to give the Justice of the Peace power to order that some person should accompany the police officer in the execution of the warrant. He thought that that might meet the difficulty, and upon the Report he would propose an Amendment to that effect.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought it would be very dangerous to impose any legal liability in regard to the future care of a girl rescued under these circumstances upon the person who had interposed in her behalf. There were many persons who would be anxious to befriend children placed in this deplorable condition; but if it were to involve a future liability to provide for them they might hesitate very much about showing any kindness in the matter. There were a good many individuals who would do a great deal voluntarily; but if it came to compulsion, they would, at any rate, hesitate before they incurred any responsibility.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, that before the clause was added to the Bill there was one point upon which he wished to say a word. He desired to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that in many cases it was very difficult to know where the magistrates were to be found, as many of them lived a long distance from their courts. He thought it would very much conduce to the smooth working of the measure if some steps were taken to remedy this difficulty. In London some of the stipendiary magistrates lived a long distance from the police court at which they presided, and were not accessible at night at hours when an application for a warrant would most probably be made. It
    876
    would be most advantageous, he thought, if steps were taken to make known who the Justices of the Peace were, and where their residences were to be found. He made the suggestion to the Home Secretary in the hope that he would give instructions to the police to provide that this information should be readily obtained at all the police stations.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)thought that the matter alluded to by the hon. Member was one rather of administration than of legislation. At the same time, he thought the suggestion was a very good one, and he would consider it before the Report.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that a case might occur of special emergency, and he asked if the Home Secretary would consider before the Report if it were possible to take any course, properly safeguarded, which would enable a Superintendent of Police, or some other police officer, where it was found impossible to get a police magistrate to interfere, to exercise some limited power.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. STANSFELD MR. STANSFELD moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following Clause:—
    (Medical examination when unlawful).
    "Any medical man, midwife, or other person who, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the examination is required with a view to an immoral purpose, shall examine any woman or girl in order to discover whether she be a virgin, 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."
    The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposal which he submitted to the consideration of the Committee was an exceptional one; but it was made under exceptional circumstances. They had heard a great deal lately of the abuse of the privileges of the Medical Profession in connection with the commission of abominable offences, and it was against the perpetration of such offences that the clause was directed. He did not know whether there was any person who could say to what extent these offences were committed; but the allegations which had been made had not been contradicted, as far as he was aware, either

    877
    on the platform or in the Press; and, therefore, he was bound to believe that, to a certain extent, they were true. If there were cases of the kind, whether they were few or many, he held it to be the duty of Parliament to make provision for them. He therefore begged to move the clause which stood in his name.
    New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he could not ask the Committee to agree with the clause. Of course, he accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who moved it; but he objected to the clause as a matter of principle. In the first place, he thought it would be unwise, on the face of the Bill, to draw a distinction between girls who came within the class of virgin and those who were not. It would be a very difficult thing indeed to decide who should come within that class, and it was not desirable, when they were administering the law on a broad principle, to say that special privileges should be given to any particular class; but there was another objection to the clause, which he would specially commend to the right hon. Gentleman. It was well known by those connected with the administration of justice, especially in the Divorce Court, that it was absolutely necessary, for proper and sufficient purposes, that an examination should sometimes take place by a medical man; and if this clause were passed medical men might decline to have anything to do with such an examination. Even assuming that a girl was not a virgin in the sense which the right hon. Gentleman meant, it might still be right to have a full opportunity for examination; and he did not think it was desirable that the Bill should contain a clause in favour of special protection being given to any class of persons. As to what had been said in reference to the recent action of the Press, he desired to say very emphatically that, however much public opinion, with reference to the subject-matter of the Bill, might have been awakened by the Press, the opinion of the Government had not been so
    878
    awakened, inasmuch as they would have adhered to the Bill in any circumstances, and it would have been proceeded with quite apart from any statements which had appeared in the Press. At the same time, he had no wish to pass any criticism upon the action of The Pall Mall Gazette; and he certainly did not attach so much importance to that part of the exposure which referred to proceedings of the kind mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman as he might to some others.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that as the Government did not intend to accept the clause, his duty would be rendered more easy than it would otherwise have been. He had come down to the Committee to protest against the clause, and to oppose it by every means in his power. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have attempted to place an unmerited stigma upon a distinguished Profession by the manner in which he had worded the clause. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what ground he had for branding an honourable Profession with the most frightful imputations which could be cast upon any class of persons? He was convinced that in no part of the world, except in England, could any person for one moment have supposed that medical men required to be specially legislated against on account of practices of this kind being prevalent among them. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be satisfied with a very small amount of evidence in order to induce him to inflict an inexcusable and abominable insult upon a Profession which everyone respected. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to frame his clause simply to insure that the object of it should be carried out, it would have been quite sufficient to have used the words "any person," instead of which he had attempted to inflict upon the Medical Profession an insult of which they were altogether undeserving. He protested against the infamous publication which had charged medical men with the malpractices to which this clause had reference. What possible good, he asked, could be done by the offensive and bestial prints with which the town was now in undated? For his own part, he did not believe one word of the statements which had been made, and he would like to call the at-

    879
    tention of the Committee to the conduct of the conductors of the journal in which they had appeared. [Cries of "Question!"] What they had done appeared to be to discover some medical man who was willing to make himself a party to these disgraceful proceedings, and then to publish an account of the investigations of this medical man. He believed that in so doing they had themselves been guilty of a criminal offence. If not guilty of a criminal offence it ought to be made one; and, so far as the Medical Profession was concerned, this individual who had placed his services at the disposal of The Pall Mall Gazette was the only individual who had really and truly appeared in such a position. He was therefore glad that the Government objected, not only to the first words of this clause, but to the whole of it. Whether it was true that such things were ever done he did not know; but he did not think it was proper to place such a brand upon their common humanity without better proof than that which had been afforded in the columns of The Pall Mall Gazette. He trusted that the Committee generally would express its indignation against The Pall Mall Gazette for continuing to inundate the country with unnecessary sensual and pestilent paragraphs.
    MR. STANSFELDremarked that after the violent attack which had been made upon him——
    MR. WARTON: No, no!
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) must forgive him if he repeated that it was a violent attack.
    MR. WARTON: Not half strong enough.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, the hon. Member had undoubtedly made a somewhat violent attack upon him. He did not object to that attack, because he knew that the hon. Gentleman had in former times been an honourable and distinguished member of the Profession which he now desired to defend. But what he (Mr. Stansfeld) wished to draw attention to was the fact that the hon. Gentleman had practically justified his clause, because the ample knowledge he possessed of the Profession of which he was formerly a member did not induce him to say that such things had not happened in the past and might not happen again. His hon. Friend
    880
    stated that if they wished to accomplish this object it ought to be accomplished by a different method, and by the use, in the clause, of different phraseology. He was perfectly ready to accept any different phraseology; but he had felt that he could not logically put it in any other form. It would have been impossible to make his meaning clear except by putting it in these words; but when his hon. Friend came forward and said that he could not accept the Amendment unless it was put in a form which would not convey a reflection upon an honourable Profession he had no answer to give except to express his readiness to acquiesce in the request of his hon. Friend, and to say that he should be delighted to do so if it were possible. Having made that concession he should feel bound to insist upon dividing upon the clause.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the clause was undoubtedly a very strong one so far as the honourable Profession to which it related was concerned. It might be the fact that some cases of this kind had happened; but he should be sorry to see such a clause put into any Bill at the present moment without there was the strongest evidence to show its necessity. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten one point—namely, that if a medical gentleman undertook an examination of this kind at the instance of a third person he would undoubtedly be guilty of conspiracy, and would lay himself open to a prosecution together with the other person concerned. He believed that the law relating to indecent assaults was quite strong enough, and would meet the object of the right hon. Gentleman. He, therefore, hoped that the clause would not be pressed.
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRexpressed a hope that his right hon. Friend would not divide upon the clause. There might be in the Medical Profession, unhappily, some person so degraded as to undertake an examination of this kind; but that was no reason why they should insert a clause in the Bill which would cast an imputation upon the whole Medical Profession. His right hon. Friend stated in the clause—
    "Any medical man, or other person, who had reasonable cause to believe that the examination was required for an immoral purpose."

    881
    How was a medical man to have reasonable cause to believe that except by instituting a cross-examination of a most delicate nature which might place him in a very difficult position?
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had no objection to leave out the words "medical man."
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the words which followed were "midwife, or any other person."
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he would confine the clause to "any person."
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRremarked that, in his opinion, the clause was not required at all. If a degraded medical man, or any other person, could be induced to make such an examination he would place himself under the law relating to indecent assaults; and, therefore, the clause was not required.
    MR. SAMUEL MORLEYdesired to say a word or two with regard to what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) as to certain statements which had appeared in The Pall Mall Gazette. No doubt, as a matter of taste, most serious objections might be raised to the modus operandi of the newspaper in question; but he was prepared to say distinctly, having been engaged for four days with three or four distinguished men in making an investigation, that the truth of the statements made by The Pall Mall Gazette was substantially proved to the satisfaction of the Committee. He would even go so far as to say that the half had not been told of the condition of things in London. Although he could not approve of the phraseology adopted by the writer of the articles, he believed The Pall Mall Gazette had done an enormous service to the moral life of London. He trusted his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) would carry the Amendment to a division; if he did he (Mr. S. Morley) would certainly vote with him.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLdeclared, in the face of the country, that if the statements made by The Pall Mall Gazette had been proved to the satisfaction of what was called the Committee of Investigation, it was the duty of the Committee to give the names of the persons implicated. A filthy editor of a filthy production had no right to make gross charges against Englishmen occupying
    882
    exalted positions in Church and State, and then to go skulking before four or five men who were as unfit to try the case as they would be to try a domestic cat. If the allegations were true it was the duty of the publishers of the journal in which they were made to give the names of the guilty persons. Dearly cherished as some members of the Investigation Committee were, it was their duty also to give to the House and the country the names of the persons implicated, so that if they had been guilty of these foul practices they might be convicted of them and dismissed from the offices they held.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must beg of the Committee to return to the consideration of the clauses of the Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, everybody must feel that if crimes of this kind were committed by medical men they ought to be punished. But the Committee must be very careful what they did. He pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) that it was not merely by generalizing the words that the guilty men only would be reached. The great risk which the Medical Profession ran of having charges preferred against them was very well known, and therefore he entreated the Committee to pause before accepting this Amendment. If a clause of this kind were carried, he could not see how a medical man could safely, in delicate cases, attend women at all. Suppose a woman, suffering from a painful disease with which human nature was afflicted, went to a doctor for advice. What would be the position of the medical man if he felt there was the possibility of a criminal charge being preferred against him? Of course, examinations of a certain nature must necessarily be made very privately; and, therefore, the medical man was at the mercy of any person who consulted him. This was a fact which must be taken into consideration.
    MR. FIRTHthought it was very undesirable to duplicate legislation. If he rightly understood the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) it was the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that legislation already provided for a case of this kind. He would like to know from the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) whether he did not consider that offences of the nature con-

    883
    templated were not sufficiently met by the existing law?
    MR. DWYER GRAYsaid, it was a very serious thing to ask the House of Commons to cast a slur of this kind upon a highly honourable Profession upon the strength of the allegations made in The Pall Mall Gazette, allegations in which no names had been mentioned. No means of identification had been provided, and the verification of the allegations, if verification it could be called, had been made by a number of gentlemen who, however much they might be respected—and, of course, the Committee did respect them individually and collectively—had, in the opinion of rational men, discredited their own certificate. The Investigation Committee said they did not investigate charges against classes; secondly, they did not investigate charges against the police; thirdly, they did not investigate charges against individuals. What, then, did they investigate? What conceivable means could they have taken to verify the charges? There might be medical men who were a discredit to their calling; but the same thing happened in every Profession. He asserted that the suggestion that the Medical Profession as a body, or any appreciable percentage of them, would prostitute themselves by going about certifying to the physical condition of girls was an outrageous calumny upon the Profession. He protested against any Amendment of this kind. Personally, he was of opinion that what was now contemplated would amount to conspiracy, and was covered by the law as it now stood.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYprotested against one remark made by the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). The right hon. Gentleman said he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) admitted the necessity, to some extent, of a clause of this kind.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, that what he said was that the hon. Gentleman admitted that such cases might occur.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the observation the right hon. Gentleman had just made showed how very cautious the Committee ought to be in what they did in this matter. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) did not make the observation attributed to him. He repudiated, on the part of the Medical Profession, any kind of complicity in this matter, and he said
    884
    most distinctly that he believed the charges were inventions and lies. And, further than that, he now wished to say that he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) would have done himself more honour in that House if he had said one word in condemnation of the paragraphs which had appeared recently—so late as Friday last—in The Pall Mall Gazette, calculated to excite the passions of the individuals who read them, and totally unnecessary to accomplish the good object with which The Pall Mall Gazette professed to have introduced the subject. He trusted his hon. Friend would do that yet, because his voice was potent, and a word from him might possibly prevent a repetition of these loathsome and wicked paragraphs calculated only to sell the paper.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he was sorry that so much heat and so much irrelevant matter had been imported into this debate. Perhaps the Committee would allow him to make one observation with regard to his responsibility concerning the investigation into the statements made by The Pall Mall Gazette. For what small part he had taken in that investigation he intended to be responsible to himself. He was not responsible to the House of Commons, and would not be. He hon. Friend (Mr. S. Morley) and himself had done what they thought their duty in a most painful and difficult inquiry, and he was not going to answer to anybody. Now, he intended to vote for this Amendment; but he had not the smallest desire to make an imputation against the Medical Profession. Were they to be told that they were not to legislate in regard to a particular evil because it was suggested that wrong might be done to a Profession which stood as high, if not higher than any other Profession? His firm conviction was that this offence was rarely, if ever, committed by medical men at all. It was committed, as a rule, by the midwives, or wretched people connected with this unhappy and nefarious traffic. What he would suggest to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) was that he should omit from his Amendment the words "or having any reasonable cause to believe," because before they convicted a man or woman of an offence of this kind they ought to be satisfied that the person knew that the examination was being made for an im-

    885
    moral purpose. If his right hon. Friend would so amend his clause that it would read—
    "Who knowing that the examination is required with a view to an immoral purpose,"
    a safeguard might be provided against the evils which had been pointed out by the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt). He could not help thinking that this evil existed, and he would be glad to learn from the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) whether he was informed by the police of its existence. He (Mr. Reid) would vote with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld); but he trusted that no hon. Member would suppose he did so in the belief that the Medical Profession was not one of the highest, if not the highest, Profession in point of honour in the whole country; he believed there was no Profession which stood more deservedly high than the Medical Profession.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that, knowing the part the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hereford (Mr. R. T. Reid) had played in the recent inquiry, the Committee must with great satisfaction have heard him say that he believed that rarely, if ever, had this offence been committed by a medical man. But the hon. and learned Gentleman failed to comprehend the objection to this clause. It was not objected to because it might possibly imply a reproach on an honourable Profession; but it was objected to because it would add to the many dangers which beset that Profession. Charges which might be made might be dissipated and disproved; but the very making of them would be sufficient to ruin the most honourable man practising in the Profession. It was because the clause would open the door to an infinity of accusations that he hoped the Committee would reject it.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAbelieved that the adoption of this clause would add to the dangers to which medical men were subjected in the performance of their duty; and, therefore, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) would not divide the Committee upon the clause.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that in answer to the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) he had to say that the Govern-
    886
    ment did not oppose this clause on the ground that the offence was covered by the present law, but because the clause was one which ought not to be introduced in the Bill.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 115: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 266.)
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the Amendment which appeared in his name was directed to the second part of the Bill, and was intended for the protection of girls and women who were in a good many cases compelled to remain residents in houses of ill-fame when they might be anxious to escape. He believed there was no more potent engine employed by the keepers of these houses than the threatening of unfortunate women with criminal proceedings if they went away with wearing apparel which had been supplied to them. He understood it was a common case that girls, when they went to houses of this description, were induced to part with their old clothing, and were supplied with other and more attractive apparel, so that they might ply their trade successfully. The consequence of this was that the unfortunate women felt bound to remain in a life which they might be heartily sick of. He understood that the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had an Amendment on the Paper of a kindred nature to which he (Mr. Raikes) had no objection; and if his Amendment were accepted by the Committee he should be happy to agree with him to put them into one clause. He had also reason to believe that there might be some suggestion made on the Treasury Bench of words to cover part of the ground; and he should be very happy to hear what the suggestion would be, with the view, if possible, of accommodating what was contained in this clause to the views of the Government in this matter. In the hope that his proposal might be of some assistance in reclaiming from this life a number of their fellow-country women, who he believed were detained entirely against their will by the power which was exercised over them by the keepers of these houses through the belief that they would be prosecuted if they went away with the clothes lent to them, he asked that the clause should be read a second time.
    New Clause—Page 4, after Clause 8, to insert the following clause: —
    (No criminal proceeding against a woman for retaining apparel supplied by owner, &c. of brothel.)
    "Whereas it frequently happens that women and girls are intimidated and deterred from leaving brothels by threats of criminal proceedings for taking away with them wearing apparel which has been lent or otherwise supplied to them by any person, being the owner or occupier of such premises, or having or acting or assisting in the management or control thereof: Be it therefore declared, That no criminal proceedings can be had or taken for taking away or being in possession of any such apparel,"—(Mr. Raikes,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he believed that this was the first time Parliament had ever been asked to legalize a breach of the Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." The Amendment proposed to allow a woman living in a brothel to steal the clothes lent to her for immoral purposes, and there was to be no indictment. If hon. Members would look at the clause, they would see that no criminal proceedings were to be taken, so that the result would be that, in addition to the woman or child being a prostitute, they were to allow her to be a thief also. If the clothes were the property of another person, the woman ought not to be allowed to steal them without incurring the ordinary penalty of the law. A girl ought not to be entitled, because she was a prostitute, to pack up any quantity of clothes which did not belong to her, and walk off with them, without being liable to prosecution for stealing the clothes. He believed that the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman, and those who supported this clause, was that if there were power to claim civil damages they would stop it if they could. He did not for one moment imply that they were in favour of allowing women to steal clothes under the circumstances; but he pointed out that if the Amendment were accepted they would allow the clothes to be stolen without liability to prosecution. It was equivalent to saying that if a theft were committed it would be no crime.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he had listened with attention to the argument
    888
    of his right hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James) who had just sat down; but his right hon. and learned Friend ought not to forget that if the same clothes were supplied to a girl by the keeper of a brothel, on the understanding or the promise that she should pay for them, she might snap her fingers at the person who supplied them, because no Court of Law in the country would enforce a contract or liability incurred for an immoral consideration. Therefore, in another form it might be said that the law encouraged a girl to commit an immoral action. However, he would pass from the casuistical questions raised by his right hon. and learned Friend, and come to the practical question before the Committee—that was to say, whether something could not be done to bring pressure to bear on the persons who got women to lead an immoral life, and prevented their leaving it by threats of various kinds. That state of things, he said, ought to be met by the law; and he proposed to meet it by the clause of which he had given Notice. It went further than the clause of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) then before the Committee. It did not legalize theft, as the right hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) had said was the result of that clause; but it said that the person who retained and kept any girl under restraint, or kept her in a brothel, or, by retaining her clothes, prevented her from leaving, should be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being convicted, should be punished accordingly. He proposed that the offence should be dealt with and punished summarily. For these reasons, he should, with all submission, propose his own clause in substitution of the clause brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman would not be entitled to do that.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he presumed that he could do so if the clause now before the Committee were withdrawn. He should propose his own clause if that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite were not adopted, because he believed it would be very efficacious in checking the evils which had been pointed out. If the right hon. Gentleman the

    889
    Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had a clause which would meet the case he should be glad to accept it. He presumed they had only one object in view—namely, that of protecting the women in question, and vindicating the law.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)said, the Government intended to propose a clause which would go farther in one direction than the clause before the Committee, which would leave the unfortunate girl still exposed to threats. The clause of the Government would be to the effect that—
    "Any person who detains any woman or girl against her will—(1) In or upon any premises, with intent that she may be unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether any particular man or generally; or (2) In any brothel, 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."
    And they proposed that—
    "Where a woman or girl is in or upon any premises, or in any brothel, a person should be deemed to detain such woman or girl in or upon such premises or in such brothel, if with intent to compel or induce her to remain in or upon such premises or in such brothel, such person withholds from such woman or girl any wearing apparel or other property belonging to her, or where wearing apparel has been lent or otherwise supplied to such woman or girl by or by the direction of such person, threatens such woman or girl with legal proceedings if she takes away with her the wearing apparel so lent or supplied."
    And then would follow the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge—
    "That no criminal proceeding can be had or taken for taking away or being in possession of any such apparel."
    He believed this proposal of the Government would meet the object which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had in view; and in commending it to the Committee he would remind the right hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) that although the words "carrying away" occurred in the clause there was no mention of stealing.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he was at a loss to understand why the words which he proposed were not added at the end of the clause. His object was to make it a punishable offence to threaten a girl. He could see no use in saying that criminal proceedings should not be taken if she kept the clothes supplied to her in a brothel. His proposal was to make it an offence to threaten proceedings, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would accept the view embodied in his clause.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, after listening to the first part of the clause as read by the Under Secretary of State for the Home Office (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), he thought he preferred the wording of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon). He quite agreed with the desirability of stopping these threats of detaining clothes, and so preventing the girl leaving the house; but he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee on the words—
    "That no criminal proceedings can be had or taken for taking away or being in possession of any such apparel."
    He had admitted that these things took place, and he had admitted all that had been said against the practice. But if the woman said, "I object to your taking the clothes." and the girl went away with the clothes, he said there was no Judge in existence who would not say that technically it was a theft. He contended that they ought not to say that what was technically theft was not a great crime; and he asked the Government to consider whether they should not stop short of saying there should be no criminal proceedings if the clothes were taken away against the will of the owner. With regard to punishing the person making the threats, he would prefer the wording of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he thought that what his hon. and learned Friend had proposed might be admissible; but he submitted that the words referring to criminal proceedings did not constitute an objection to the clause. It frequently happened that a woman had the use of a carriage and clothes. Actions had been brought for the hire of a

    891
    brougham and clothes, and it had been held that no action would lie for either. He would go further, and say that no action of detenu could be brought for the clothes. He was dealing with the case of a girl walking away with clothes which did not belong to her. His right hon. and learned Friend proposed that the Amendment should not protect her if she took away mere necessaries. He (the Attorney General) ventured to say that that was not an objection which the Committee ought to accept. He would ask the Committee to pass the clause in the form proposed by the Government; and if there appeared to them reason for altering it in respect of the words declaring that no criminal proceedings should be taken it should be altered hereafter.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLpointed out that there was nothing in the proposed clause which would not allow a girl to take away any amount of clothing; and although no hon. Member would have any objection to that, yet it was a very strong measure to put into an Act of Parliament. He thought they had better leave the matter to the Judge and jury before whom it might be brought, feeling absolutely certain that the girl would not be convicted.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Attorney General to consider whether what they desired to accomplish—namely, that these girls should not be threatened—was not secured by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon). He said they should desire to avoid legalizing in any form a criminal act. If they were to declare that criminal proceedings should not be taken in these cases it would be imagined very soon that they would not be taken in other cases. Surely they ought to set their faces against such a proposal as this. With regard to the taking of criminal proceedings, it was clear that if a woman were to take such measures against a girl, under the circumstances she would convict herself of being guilty of a misdemeanour. If that argument applied, he thought they might avoid the other alternative, which would be a summary alteration of the law of the country.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir B. ASSHETON GROSS)said, he thought that their present course should be to
    892
    take the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon). The clause which had been presented by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department was a long one, and until it was read it could not be fully understood, or, at all events, discussed. He therefore suggested that they should take the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury, and before the Report he would see to what extent the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) could be added to the clause.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) would proceed with his Amendment. It had received the sanction of all hon. Members sitting around him, who considered that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury did not touch the essence of the case. The gist of that Amendment was that it made it an offence on the part of the owner or occupier of the house to threaten to detain the clothes belonging to the girl. But there was no question about the clothes of the girl, because these would have been already taken away and others lent to her. The object of the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters was to deal with the clothes lent to the girl, and not with those belonging to the unfortunate woman herself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had spoken of legalizing theft. That was one of the strangest remarks he had ever heard. The whole of the contract with the brothel-keeper was an immoral contract, and he did not wonder that hon. Members smiled when they heard his argument about breaking the Commandments. The whole thing was immoral, and he repeated that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) did not touch the point they were aiming at—namely, the threats about the clothes that did not belong to the girl. He appealed to the hon. and learned Attorney General to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University that evening-, and then, if any modification were necessary, let it be made on Report; but he could assure him in the meantime that the principle

    893
    of that Amendment was such as he and his hon. Friends meant to insist upon, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman who proposed it would not allow it to be deferred.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he should be prepared to save the Committee the time and trouble of dividing if he were to obtain from Her Majesty's Government a satisfactory assurance that the object at which he was aiming would be secured by the now clause to be proposed. But he was afraid that at the present time he was hardly in possession of that assurance. The object he had in view was distinct from that of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), whose Amendment was directed entirely to the act of the brothel-keeper in detaining the girl and threatening to detain her clothes. But his own clause was intended to reach the minds of the persons concerned, and he had no doubt that many unfortunate women would not be slow to avail themselves of this provision as soon as they became sufficiently acquainted with it. He thought it was a mistake to suppose that it would not become known. There would doubtless be some cases in which its effect would not be reached immediately; but he imagined that this particular provision would become speedily known, and that a great many would avail themselves of it in order to quit a life of which they had become ashamed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) had said that his proposal was one for legalizing a breach of the Ten Commandments; but, although he regarded the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a great authority both on law and morality, he could not think that he had fairly construed the words of this particular clause. His (Mr. Raikes's) object was that no criminal proceedings should be had or taken for taking away necessary apparel, and he had not proposed in any way to legalize theft. He should be willing to accept words limiting the operation of the clause to such clothes as the woman might find it necessary to wear on the occasion of making her escape. He had no intention that the operation of the clause should extend so far as to enable her to pack up and take away clothes that were not necessary for making her escape. If he could obtain from the right hon. Gentleman
    894
    the Secretary of State for the Home Department an assurance that he would embody in the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury words which would secure the object he intended to reach by means of the words he had placed on the Paper—in that case he would not press this particular clause; but unless he could get that assurance from the Government he should feel justified in proceeding.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he understood that the object was to secure that a girl who took away with her only the amount of wearing apparel necessary should not be brought into a Criminal Court. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly in forming that view, he was willing to go to that extent.
    MR. BULWERsaid, he wished to point out, before the Committee passed from the present discussion, that such legislation as was proposed was utterly unnecessary. No one supposed for one moment that a girl wishing to leave a brothel would hesitate to take the clothes that were necessary for her. There was no magistrate in the Kingdom who would commit her under the circumstances. He sympathized with those who desired to prevent the girl being kept in a brothel; but that was dealt with by the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Serjeant Simon). But it was not alone with innocent girls that they had to deal; there were artful girls in these places as well as others, and there was no doubt that many an artful girl who heard that there was legislation of the kind proposed would walk off with what clothes she liked, because she would know there was no possibility of punishing her. He did not say that the clause was not right in its object; he pointed out that it was quite unnecessary, because even if a case of the kind were brought before Quarter Sessions, or before a Judge and jury, there would be no chance of obtaining a conviction unless it was shown that the girl had taken away a great deal more than what was necessary for her to go away with. He said that neither in law nor morality would there be any criminality in leaving with the clothes necessary for her escape; if she took more it would be a question to be decided by the Court in the ordinary way.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he understood from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he was willing to introduce words into the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) which would effect the object he had in view, of preventing legal proceedings being taken against a girl who took away such wearing apparel as might be necessary. If he was correct in that, he had no wish farther to occupy the time of the Committee, and would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
    MR. DWYER GRAYsaid, he wished to point out, before the clause was withdrawn, that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary did not meet the case. Neither, in his opinion, did either of the Amendments. What they wanted was to combine the principle of the two Amendments. The mere providing for the taking away of clothes was not sufficient, because the point was that the girl should not be threatened that a prosecution would ensue unless she remained. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury only provided against the detention of the girl's own clothes, whereas they wanted to deal with the clothes which the brothel-keeper lent her. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would see his way to combine the essence of both clauses. It was impossible to get a knowledge of the law home to the migratory population of these houses, which were constantly recruited by girls who had no means of knowing the law. But the brothel-keepers would know the law well enough, and it seemed to him necessary to go beyond the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury by dealing with the clothes lent by them. Unless they did that they would do nothing, for those persons knew that they could not prosecute the girl for taking away the clothes she was wearing. Therefore, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would meet his wishes and those of his hon. Friends by combining the two clauses.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am of opinion that the clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) does not come within the
    896
    purview of the Bill, and that it cannot, therefore, be moved.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would ask whether he could divide the Committee on the Amendment, or what steps he should take to get a decision upon it?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, it would save the time of the Committee if he stated that it was just as well that they should have some law of this kind. He would bring up an Amendment of a similar kind on Report.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had another clause on the Paper dealing with the cessation of parental authority. It was as follows:—
    "In all cases where it can be proved that the carnal connection of an unmarried girl under the ago of twenty-one with a man has been encouraged, favoured, or facilitated by the father, mother, or guardian, such father, mother, or guardian shall cease to have any authority over her."
    He had given Notice of another clause on the same subject, but he did not see it on the Paper. He could, however, move it here. It was—
    "And in such cases where the girl is under the age of sixteen any magistrate shall have authority on proof of the offence to send her to a reformatory or industrial school, or to commit her to the custody of any person or persons whom he may think fit until the age of seventeen."
    It seemed to him that this Bill had a very great defect. It punished those who seduced young girls, and those who induced them to go into houses of ill-fame; but it did not in any sort of way say what was to be done with the girls themselves. It might be said that the parents or guardians of a girl would be punished if they sold her for improper purposes; but there were many other ways in which the defilement of a girl might be "encouraged, favoured, or facilitated" besides by selling her. The magistrate who heard the case might come to the conclusion that it had been the intention of the parent or guardian to allow the girl to engage in these offences; and under such circumstances he did not think the guardian ought any longer to have authority over the girl. At the same time, if they deprived such parent or guardian of all authority, they must place authority somewhere else—they must either vest it in the magistrate, or, if the girl was deter-

    897
    mined to hold to the life, and was under the age of 16, they must give him power, in the words of this Amendment—
    "To send her to a reformatory or industrial school, or to commit her to the custody of any person or persons whom he may think fit, until the age of seventeen."
    Because there were now a considerable number of homes to which girls of this kind could be sent, and they could send her to one of these if it was not thought desirable to commit her to a reformatory. He limited his Amendment to cases where the girl was under the age of 16 years and up to her attaining 17 years of age; but in all cases where the girl was under 21 he would deprive parents and guardians of all authority over her. Perhaps the Committee would allow him to add this to the clause, and to move it altogether.
    New Clause (Cessation of parental authority,)—(Mr. Labouchere,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he could not advise the Committee to accept the clause. He would point out to the Committee and the hon. Member that the issue under the clause would be a thoroughly collateral one to the issue being tried by the magistrate—namely, the guilt of the seducer; and it was doubtful whether, in many cases, it would be raised. Although he sympathized with the hon. Member's object, the words of the clause were vague, and would be found unworkable. The hon. Member did not say what would become of the obligations of the father. They would not wish to get rid of these obligations because of the man's misconduct. In nine cases out of ten he did not think it would be possible for the magistrate to try this collateral issue; and though he admitted it would be well to cast a stigma, if possible, on the father, he thought the clause would not operate if it were passed.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had taken the clause out of the French Criminal Code. What, he asked, was to be done with these particular girls? Take a girl of 13. A man was accused of having seduced her; it was admitted that it had been done in the worst way
    898
    —that it had been "encouraged, favoured, or facilitated by the father, mother, or guardian"—was the girl then to be sent back to the custody of this father, mother, or guardian? That seemed to him to be rather a strange thing to do. He did not wish to pin himself to this particular clause; but he did think that something ought to be done in the Bill—or, if they liked, in some subsequent Bill, if it was too late now—to meet the question of what was to be done with these girls.
    CAPTAIN PRICEthought there was a great deal to be said in favour of the latter portion of the clause moved by the hon. Gentleman. In fact, he had proposed to move a clause giving effect to what the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) had just stated. He had desired to insert a new clause after Clause 5; but, no doubt, it would come in very well where the hon. Gentleman proposed. They had raised the age of protection from 15 to 16; and he had sought on Friday night to make that provision applicable to girls who were not prostitutes. There was no doubt there was a great number of those girls—namely, prostitutes under the ago of 16 years, who were so with the connivance and encouragement of their parents. As the hon. Gentleman had said, some punishment should be provided for these girls. Certainly they ought not to be sent back to the custody of their parents, but should be detained in a house of correction or reformatory. They should remember that the legislation they were passing now was not solely for people in well-to-do circumstances who went and deliberately debauched young girls, but that it was for the whole community—for the boys of the working classes as well as others. He was quite certain that it would be found in all large garrison towns, and in many other places, that frequent cases would arise of extortion practised by young girls and their parents under the Act. He would point out a case that he thought would be a very common one. A man had improper relations with a young girl under 16–15 and a-half, say—a precocious, well-advanced, and well-developed girl, who looked more like a woman of 17 or 18. But the man knew perfectly well that she was under 16. He (Captain Price) did not wish to complicate the matter with a question as to default of knowledge. He would as-

    899
    frame that the man knew he was having unlawful intercourse with the girl; the girl was, perhaps, not satisfied with the present she received, or got in the way to become a mother, or had a quarrel with the man, and wished to be revenged on him, or, from some cause of that kind, caused proceedings to be taken against the man. That would be a very common occurrence, he thought, and they ought to guard against such an easy means of extortion. If the clause were left as it was, it seemed to him that it would encourage juvenile prostitution, and lead to extortion being largely practised. He, therefore, thought that some punishment should be provided for the girl. When a man had been prosecuted, and it had been found that the girl was a common prostitute, she ought to be punished in some way. Certainly she ought not to go back to the custody of her parents if they were found to have connived at her prostitution.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would take one class of these girls they were desirous of protecting. There was, unfortunately, a large number of parents who found their children very burdensome, and desired to get rid of the duty of taking care of them. Now, they were quite familiar—those of them who knew anything about reformatory schools—of the great danger there was that by taking charge of children they might be really offering temptations to people to get their young girls seduced—to encourage this offence on the part of their children in order to get rid of the responsibility of maintaining them. What would happen in this case? If a parent desired to get rid of his child he would only have to encourage or facilitate her seduction for the State to take charge of her and maintain her up to the age of 21. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down had said was perfectly true. In the newspapers they saw this question treated as a question of the rich seducer and the poor girl. That was an easy topic of prejudice; but that was not the way this Bill was going to operate. It was going to operate on the whole mass of the people who belonged to the humbler classes; and if they did not take care this Bill was going to fill their gaols, which, happily, in the last few years, had been so rapidly emptying. They might have hundreds, aye thou-
    900
    sands, of the people of this country thrown into prison simply through yielding to the passions of their nature. When that occurred they would find that there would be a tremendous reaction against the measure. If it were put in operation in the sense in which some people desired it to operate, he ventured to think that, in the course of a few months, there would be thousands on thousands of people, not at all of the wealthier classes, but belonging to the manufacturing and the agricultural classes of the country, cast into gaol. What was it proposed that they should do? They had dealt with the offence of the male sex towards the woman; but now the woman was to be provided for by the State in an industrial or reformatory school. The expense to the country would be enormous. Wherever immoral relations had existed between two persons where the woman was under the age of 16, if this Bill were carried into operation the man would go to prison and the girl would go to a reformatory school. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Or to a home.] Or to a home. Had they any idea of what the consequence of such a state of things as that would be? Why, he ventured to say if it were to happen they would have the greatest reaction in the matter. From the point of view of everyone who wished to put down the crimes with which the Bill dealt there was that in this proposal which should induce them to regard it with care. The Bill was not directed against ordinary sexual vice, but against degrading and corrupting the child. If the present Amendment, however, were agreed to that which he had described would be what would follow from the Bill—the ordinary, casual, immoral association with a prostitute would come within this clause and other clauses of the Bill; and under these circumstances, as he had said, the man would go to prison and the woman would be sustained at the cost of the State in an industrial or reformatory school. It would not be maintenance by a private charity; it would be a State support, and that would, he thought, be a most dangerous and extravagant proceeding. With regard to the hon. Member's object, everyone would agree to that. The parent or guardian should cease to have control over the girl under these circumstances; but that was the

    901
    law already, which would be enforced if a case were brought before the proper tribunal—namely, the Court of Chancery. If a case were brought before the Court of Chancery in which a parent had encouraged a child to prostitution—and that would be the state of things dealt with in this clause—the child would be taken away from the custody of one of the parents. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that they could not do away with the authority of the father on a collateral issue, and that it would be necessary to have a separate and definite charge brought before they could deal with a case of this sort.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, the very excellent observations of the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) opened up one of the most difficult considerations in connection with this Bill, because they had already enacted that wherever a boy or young man of 15 or 16 had to do with a girl under the legal age he was guilty of an offence; and no one would say that a girl of 15 or 16 was not as matured as the boy. They would have cases of this kind oocurring—and he ventured to say that it would be in cases of this kind that the Act would most come into operation—namely, where in the district or neighbourhood of a factory town a boy and girl were found by a policeman on his rounds behaving immorally, the girl under the age of 16. The boy would be immediately taken up and tried for misdemeanour. Which of the two—the boy or girl—would have been most to blame—the girl, who for two or three years had arrived at puberty, or the boy who, developing much later, had scarcely arrived at puberty then? Who was the more guilty of the two, supposing they called it guilt? Why, every woman would tell them that a girl approaching 16 years of age was far more advanced and developed than a boy of that age, and yet they were going to punish the boy and not touch the girl at all. He thought that before they got to the Bill on Report they would have to deal with that state of things. He himself would propose a clause which would deal with the matter in this way—that wherever a boy was being tried for having had improper relations with a girl under 16, the Judge might ask the jury to find whether or not the girl had been a con-
    902
    senting party, and if the jury answered in the affirmative it should be in the power of the Judge to send the girl to a reformatory for two years. He certainly thought that by doing that they would be able to stop a great deal of mischief that might otherwise arise under the Bill. When they arrived at the Report stage he should venture to bring before the House an addition to Clause 5. He was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary had drawn their attention to this point, because it was really one of the most difficult matters they had to deal with.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)deprecated any lengthened discussion on the clause.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Let it be negatived.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS): Very well; let it be negatived. I do not want to go on with the discussion.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. GRAFTONsaid, he wished to move, as a new clause, after Clause 12, the following:—
    "Any person who, by his own act or that of his agent, lots or leases premises with the knowledge that such premises are to be used as brothels, or for immoral purposes, shall, on summary conviction in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, be liable—

    (1) To a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds, or, in the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two months, with or without hard labour; and

    (2) On a second or subsequent conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds, or, in the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour;

    and in case of a third or subsequent conviction such person may, in addition to such penalty or imprisonment as last aforesaid, be required by the court to enter into a recognisance, with or without sureties, as to the court seems meet, to be of good behaviour for any period not exceeding twelve months, and in default of entering into such recognisance, with or without sureties (as the case may be), such person may be imprisoned for any period not exceeding three months, in addition to any such term of imprisonment as aforesaid.
    "Any person on being summarily convicted in pursuance of this section may appeal to a court of general or quarter sessions against such conviction."
    This clause would be an extension of the Act to the owners of brothels or persons letting houses to be used for im-

    903
    moral purposes. He maintained that those who let their property for such purposes were as bad, or worse, than the occupiers, and it was only right that the Act should, accordingly, be extended to them. He understood that the Government were prepared to meet the object he had in view, to a certain extent, by substituting words for the purpose in another portion of the Act; and if they did that, and the words were made strong enough, he should have no objection to withdraw his clause. He felt himself that the imposition of a heavy fine would very often prevent these people from letting their houses for improper purposes. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would permit him to say that, as he desired the clause to be applied to brothels or houses to be used for immoral purposes, he hoped that before the Bill passed he would take care that the definitions were strong enough and wide enough to cover all these places.
    New Clause (Suppression of brothels,)—(Mr. Grafton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)said, if this clause were withdrawn, he should on Report move to introduce words as to ownership as in Clause 12, which dwelt with the occupier.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw the clause?
    MR. GRAFTON: Yes.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he would move the insertion of the following new Clause:—
    "Any owner or occupier, or any person having or acting, or assisting in the management or control of any brothel, house, or premises, or any person who shall keep any woman or girl under restraint in any brothel, house, or premises, or shall prevent, or threaten to prevent, any woman or girl from leaving any brothel, house, or premises, or shall detain her clothes or other property in order to prevent her from leaving such brothel, house, or premises, or to compel or induce her to remain in any brothel, or to compel or induce her to remain for immoral purposes in any house or premises, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, 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."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS): That clause will be put in the Bill—the effect of it.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMON: Then I will not move it.
    MR. JAMES STUART: In the absence of Mr. William Fowler—["Order, order!"]—the hon. Member for Cambridge, I beg to move the following Clause in his name:—
    "(1.) Everyman who, in any thoroughfare or public place within the limits of the Metropolitan Police District, habitually or persistently solicits women or girls for immoral purposes, shall be deemed to commit an offence under section fifty-four of the Act of the Session of the second and third years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter forty-seven, intituled 'An Act for further improving the Police in and near the Metropolis.'
    "(2.) Every man who, in any street within any town or district wherein section twenty-eight of 'The Town Police Clauses Act, 1847,' is in force, habitually or persistently importunes or solicits women or girls for immoral purposes, shall be deemed to commit an offence under the same section."
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot move this now. He must wait his turn—that is to say, he must wait until the Amendments on the Paper are disposed of.
    MR. PICTONsaid, he begged to move the following Clause:—
    "Every person charged with an offence under this Act, and the wife of the person so charged, shall he competent witnesses on every hearing at every stage of such charge: Provided, That no person so charged shall be compellable to be a witness on any such hearing: Provided also, That no person so charged, being a witness on any hearing of such charge, shall have the right to refuse to answer any question on the ground that it would tend to criminate him as to the offence so charged, unless the court before whom such hearing shall take place shall think fit."
    It had been said in connection with various parts of the Bill that it would give occasion for false accusations against people. Instances had been adduced of special cases of conflicting testimony in which, had the person charged and his wife been competent witnesses, all suspicious circumstances would have been explained, and a miscarriage of justice would have been prevented. In some oases already the accused was allowed to give testimony for himself—in cases of adultery, for instance, and in many cases of conspiracy. It appeared to him that offences charged under this measure were especially offences on which such testimony ought to be allowed, and,

    905
    therefore, it was that he moved the clause. He should like to add after the word "wife," in the first line, "or husband, as the case may be," because, in some cases, women might be accused under some of the clauses. He might add that the wording of the clause was taken directly from the Bill which had received the assent of the other House of Parliament, and had received, he believed, the sanction of this House, but which had not been carried to its final stage.
    New Clause (Person charged and his wife shall be competent witnesses,)—(Mr. Picton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he should not at all like to say what his view of this new clause was. In his opinion it was right, in some cases, to allow the accused to give evidence; and he thought, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) would do well to allow the merits of his proposal to be considered. It certainly would seem that of all classes of cases that dealt with in this Bill was the one in which the defendant should be allowed to give evidence. As he had said, the principle had been allowed in some instances—in affiliation cases, where it was sought to fix the paternity of illegitimate children on certain persons; and in cases where charges of sending un-seaworthy ships to sea were made the defendant was allowed to speak for himself. He wished to say this, in view of an Amendment negatived by a small majority the other day—that to prevent a child giving evidence—that if there was one reason why he felt why the House should be in favour of this clause, it was because he thought the guilty would be detected just as well, whilst the innocent might more readily escape. He remembered once being in a case with one of the best men who ever practised at the Criminal Bar—namely, Mr. Serjeant Parry—at the York Assizes. The case was one of sending unseaworthy ships to sea; and Serjeant Parry had pointed out that where permission was given to a defendant to give evidence, and he did not do so, the conclu-
    906
    sion to be drawn was that he was in the wrong. He could not help thinking that in cases where the evidence of a small child was taken, the statement of the prisoner himself would be of value. Where guilty he would be likely to say nothing—so that the provision would enable the innocent man to get off, and aid the conviction of the guilty. With regard to the Proviso—
    "No person so charged, being a witness on any hearing of such charge, shall have the right to refuse to answer any question on the ground that it would tend to criminate him as to the offence so charged," &c.
    That, he thought, should be left to the discretion of the Judge at the trial. He thought the clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) the better form of clause—namely,
    "Any person charged with any offence under this Act shall be a competent witness on his own behalf: Provided always, That no such person shall be compelled to give evidence."
    As the Committee was principally concerned, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would say whether he agreed to the clause, or the principle of it.
    MR. PICTONdesired to point out that the concluding lines expressly gave power to decline to give such evidence.
    MR. M'COANentirely agreed with the principle involved in the first lines of the Amendment, but strongly objected to the end of it. He ventured to suggest that the intention of the hon. Member would be carried out if the clause were amended in this way—"Every person charged," and so on, "shall be competent but not compellable witnesses," &c. Of course, in the case of a witness refusing to give evidence, the inference would be very strong against him.
    MR. TOMLINSONpointed out that, in accepting this Amendment, they were making a very serious alteration in the jurisprudence of the country. He did not see how the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General applied, because affiliation summonses were not criminal cases.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)wished to explain that he had also mentioned the charge of sending an un seaworthy ship to sea, which was certainly a criminal offence.
    MR. TOMLINSONfelt it his duty, nevertheless, to warn the Committee that in putting this clause into the Bill, they were practically conceding' the admission of the prisoner's evidence in all criminal cases.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)hoped the Committee would accept the clause. When it had boon read a second time, he should move to strike out the last portion of it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. M'COANwished to move an Amendment in the first line of the clause, so that it would read—
    "Every person charged with an offence under this Act, and the wife or hushand of the person so charged," &c.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLthought the Home Secretary would find it necessary to slightly amend this clause on Report. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would find that, under the clause as it stood, there would be no power of cross-examining these witnesses. He was under the impression that there was some particular form of words to be put in a clause of this sort to enable this to be done.
    Question put, "After the word 'and,' inline 1, to insert 'if married,'" and agreed to.
    Question put, "After the word 'wife,' in line 1, insert 'or husband,'" and agreed to.
    MR. M'COAN MR. M'COAN moved, in line 2 of the new clause, after the word "competent," to insert the words "but not compellable."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. HOPWOODthought the Committee would make a great mistake if they made these class of persons competent but not compellable witnesses. He would put it to the Home Secretary, who would see at once what he meant. There was a prosecution against a man who was not called as a witness. The counsel prosecuting would be able to say—"Where is the prisoner? He might have been called; I could not call him, but my learned friend could have done so: and, as he has not been called, I say it amounts practically to a confession of guilt." That would be
    908
    a great injustice to the prisoner. The only way in which they could make the clause workable at all was by inserting the words "competent or compellable." They ought to give the prisoner no choice in the matter, as they would be doing him a great injustice if they gave him a discretion. Juries did not always understand the fencing of opposing counsel; and if they were told that the defence could have called the prisoner, they would naturally come to the conclusion that they had some very good reason for not doing so. He ventured to warn the Committee that if they adopted the principle that the prisoner was not to give evidence unless he liked, it would be found that they had not conferred the benefit on him which they intended in giving him the power of rebutting the evidence against him.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there was no doubt that where an accused person was competent to be a witness and was not called, it raised a presumption against him; but, in administering the Criminal Law, they wished to give protection to an innocent man, and they could not deny that a provision like this was of the greatest value to enable a man to prove his innocence. If a man were innocent, he would appear to give evidence; but if he were guilty he would not appear; and if they forced a guilty man into the witness-box, whether he liked it or not, they would be subjecting him to the temptation to commit perjury, and thus rendering him liable to the additional penalty attaching to that offence. That was a pressure to which he ought not to be exposed.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYthought that this clause would be valuable in any shape at all, and hoped there would not be too much criticism of detail. It would be such a great step in regard to their Criminal Law that he hoped it would not be too much criticized. They know that in civil cases it was not supposed to be the duty of the plaintiff to call the defendant, although he knew a great deal about the case at issue. It was the business of the defendant to call himself. He had some doubt in regard to the cross-examination, for they know how the people were occasionally shocked by the cross-examination of a prisoner by the Judge in France. He thought, however, that

    909
    public opinion in England would keep the counsel for the prosecution in check. Under all the circumstances, he hoped they would accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, "That all the words after the word 'charge,' in line 3, be struck out," put, and agreed to.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL MR. STAVELEY HILL moved to insert, after the word "charge," at the end of the clause, the words
    "And if tendering himself or herself as a witness, shall be subject to cross-examination."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, that surely this followed as a matter of course. If a witness gave evidence, he would be subject to cross-examination in the ordinary way.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)was bound to say that he was of the same opinion as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood); but if the hon. and learned Member thought the words necessary, he had no objection.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, it would be necessary, then, to insert words to enable a re-examination. He would really ask the hon. and learned Member to withdraw his Amendment.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he had been all through this matter, and there was really no necessity for the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR HENEY JAMESsaid, he would not move any further Amendment on this clause now; but he would do so on the Report, because it ought to be made clear that the prisoner could be examined at every hearing. At present he was rather afraid that there might be a difficulty about the Grand Jury where the prisoner did not appear. He was so glad to got this alteration in the law, however, that he would not take up the time of the Committee now, but would consult with the Attorney General, and move some Amendment at the later stage.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
    MR. WARTONpointed out that they were now making a most startling change in their Law of Evidence. The clause introduced so vital a change that he was surprised at the ease with which the Attorney General and the ex-Attorney General had seen their way to desert the principles which had hitherto formed the bases of their criminal legislation. The two important principles involved in this clause should certainly not be introduced into a measure which they were hurrying through Parliament as they were hurrying that one. He did hope the Committee would pause. All the other questions in this Bill did not together amount to the same importance as the great and grave principles which they were now introducing into it. No more startling innovation had been made in their Criminal Law for centuries, and he could not allow the clause to pass without entering his earnest protest against it. He warned them of the state of things which happened in France, where the Judge cross-examined the prisoners in a most infamous manner. Next year he would undertake to say they would have the same sort of thing in their Courts. They would have lawyers cross-examining these unfortunate criminals in the same infamous style. It was a return to the same state of things as existed in the old days of the Inquisition in France, and was quite too serious a change to be introduced into such a wretched Bill as this, which, after all the noise and fuss that had been made about it, might not produce any startling results, or, if it did, stood a very good chance of being repealed in a very short time. The principle of the Bill was sure to be abandoned when the public returned to their common sense. In the meantime, he stood aghast and horrified at the action which had been taken by the right hon. Gentlemen of the Legal Profession on this occasion.
    SIR HENRY JAMESaltogether denied that they were acting in a hurry in this matter. The clause bad in the shape of a Bill received the approval of the House of Lords twice before, and it had received the approval of the Criminal Code Commissioners. It had also been inserted in the Explosives Act, and its introduction into that measure had been the direct means of estab-

    911
    lishing the innocence of a man charged under that Act.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked whether this clause ought not to be carried further? They were going to allow a prisoner to give evidence on his own behalf in a class of cases of the nature of rape, but they did not allow him to do the same thing in the actual case of rape itself.
    SIR HENRY JAMESwished to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that they could not, while this Bill was in Committee, extend this clause to prisoners charged with rape; but they might do on Report.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONinsisted that it was a most extraordinary and invidious thing that they should allow the principle in these cases, but that in the case of actual rape, when the man might be the only person who could thoroughly explain the matter, they should not allow it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITH,with the permission of the Committee, begged leave to move the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. William Fowler), which was as follows:—
    "(1.) Every man who, in any thoroughfare or public place within the limits of the Metropolitan Police District, habitually or persistently solicits women or girls for immoral purposes, shall he deemed to commit an offence under section fifty-four of the Act of the Session of the second and third years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter forty-seven, intituled 'An Act for further improving the Police in and near the Metropolis.'
    "(2.) Every man who, in any street within any town or district wherein section twenty-eight of 'The Town Police Clauses Act, 1847,' is in force, habitually or persistently importunes or solicits women or girls for immoral purposes, shall be deemed to commit an offence under the same section."
    MR. WARTONrose to Order, and submitted to the Chair that the Committee had decided this matter when they struck out Clause 0 with regard to solicitation.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he was not in the Chair when Clause 9 was struck out; but he now saw it referred to the same thing, and therefore the hon. Member would not be in Order in moving this Amendment. The principle of the matter had already been rejected by striking out Clause 9.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he had a short clause to move. Under a previous clause, the age at which consent could be urged as a defence to an indecent assault had been raised from 13 to 16. It would be necessary, therefore, to put in a few words to make it meet the case of young persons of 16 under this Bill. Therefore, he moved the following words:—
    "Consent to be no defence to a charge of indecent assault on a young person below the age specified in this Act."
    MR. HOPWOODasked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed that a woman could be charged with familiarity with a boy of 16 years of age, and consent was to be no defence? He hardly knew what they were coming to. This clause opened up a vista of new ideas in regard to the relations of the sexes which Parliament had never dreamed of. He did not know whether those who were responsible for this Bill knew where they were going to stop, or where this whirlwind was to cease. For his part, he thought it would be advisable for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to leave this matter alone, at all events for the present, and if they found that there was any necessity for dealing with it, they could amend the Act at some later period.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this matter and bring it up on Report. If the offence took place, it might generally be proved by direct evidence.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he had been about to bring forward a clause providing for the punishment of a man who did an act tending to the commission of a midemeanour; but he would bring it up on Report.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had an Amendment to propose the object of which was to provide that no person should be convicted of an offence under the 2nd and 3rd sections of the Act upon the evidence of one witness only. It had been observed a short time ago by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that the Committee hardly knew where they were going in the matter of this Bill. In some respects he quite agreed in that opinion of the hon. and learned Gen-

    913
    tleman. As far as the 2nd and 3rd sections of the Bill were concerned, they were founding an enactment of a kind which he supposed had never before received the sanction of Parliament. By those clauses the door was opened to all sorts of extortion and fraud, especially since the existing limitation of the age of women had been repealed. Now, he proposed to tack on to the two clauses the Amendment which he had described. However, if his right hon. Friend did not wish him to move it then, he would do so later; but in the meantime he wished to express his views upon the subject. He had adopted in this case the principle contained in the former Bill brought in by the late Government, and adopted by the present Government, as would be seen on reference to Clause 9—the Solicitation Clause—which repealed portions of the Town Police Clauses Act of 1847. The Bill substituted other clauses, and also provided that a conviction should not take place in pursuance of the section in question on the evidence of one witness only. He understood that that Proviso was introduced for the protection of women, and the Proviso he had to propose was intended for the protection of men. He believed that there was nothing new in this. So far as regarded Scotland, he was told by the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) that no person could be convicted there criminally, on the evidence of one witness only, without there was some corroborative evidence; but, as he had said before, they were, by these two clauses, opening the door to all sorts of extortion. It should be remembered that if there was one characteristic in women of the unfortunate class more noticeable than another it was untruthfulness, as any person would be aware who had taken the trouble to inquire into the matter, or who like himself had sat on a Committee for the purpose of considering this question, or who had inquired at the Homes where this class of women were received. It was a well-known fact that these persons were not all credible persons; and it seemed to him that there was very great danger that false charges might be brought by such women utterly unsupported by any evidence, and convictions obtained against innocent men. Hon. Members knew that in cases of breach of promise of marriage, a good-
    914
    looking lady had an extremely good chance of getting heavy damages; and he thought it was more than probable that when a good-looking prosecutrix showed herself in the witness-box in support of a charge under these clauses, there would be a very bad chance for the defendant or prisoner as the case might be. Instances of charges of the kind unsupported by reliable evidence were very common, as might be seen by reference to a newspaper that had been mentioned once or twice in the course of the evening, and described by an hon. and learned Friend in a speech made the other night as a "magazine of filth." On Friday last there was a column in The Pall Mall Gazette devoted to an alleged case of ruining a young girl; and if hon. Gentlemen would be kind enough to read this story, they would find that the whole case depended entirely on the testimony of one witness—that was to say, of the girl alleged to have been injured. When he considered that they had not alone to deal with artless young girls, but with artful and immoral women of a notoriously untruthful class, he thought that some additional protection should be given to persons who were likely to be inculpated. Therefore, he had prepared a clause which he begged to move, and in which was incorporated a principle already adopted by Act of Parliament in England, and in operation in another part of the United Kingdom.
    New Clause:—
    "That no person shall be convicted of an offence under the second and third sections of this Act upon the evidence of one witness only,"—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have known that, if this clause was unnecessary in the case of ordinary offences, it was unnecessary in the case of rape. He should not like to see this clause placed on the Statute Book. He did not believe that a Judge would ever allow a person to be convicted under these sections upon the uncorroborated testimony of one witness.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, there were within his own knowledge several instances of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven had alluded to. Some time ago he had had occasion to attend one of the Police Courts when a case of indecent exposure was before the magistrate; the sole witness was a highly respectable woman, and the magistrate said aloud to the clerk that he believed it was the rule of magistrates not to entertain charges of the sort unless they were proved by two persons. The clerk replied in the affirmative, and the magistrate dismissed the prosecution. These instances were very common, especially with regard to the relations of the sexes. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Home Department that this was a matter in which he had had to interfere on several occasions. There had been charges of assault in railway carriages. Within the last few months a respectable gentleman had been charged, his name appeared in the papers, and he had to submit to all the disagreeable consequences, and although he was not allowed to give evidence he had succeeded in rebutting the charge by the force of character. There was another instance which occurred when the right hon. Gentleman was last Secretary of State for the Home Department. It was the case of Seth Evans. He had interested himself in that case on behalf of a great number of people who did not believe the story against him. The man had been sentenced to two years' imprisonment; and after two trials for perjury against the girl, in which the jury could not agree, the right hon. Gentleman said the case was not made out—that it was completely rebutted in his mind—and the man was discharged. If there was a case in law which entitled them to ask for peculiar treatment it was this. If they were to make these things the subject of legislation, it seemed to him that they demanded special and peculiar treatment. He believed that as the House went on educating itself it would see that what was at first so clear had become fraught with great danger, and that those dangers were now unfolding themselves.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, that having been appealed to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for White-
    916
    haven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to say whether his view of the case with regard to Scotland was correct, he had to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had correctly stated the case. According to Scotch law there must be two witnesses, or one witness whose evidence was corroborated, in order to warrant a conviction. As a general rule two witnesses were requisite. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to say that although there was no technical rule to the same effect in England, the like practice obtained there, and that a direction would not be given by a Judge to find any person guilty on the unsupported testimony of one witness. He thought it desirable to know whether in such cases the liberty of a man would solely depend upon the arbitrament of the Judge, or whether he would not have the protection of a definite rule of law to the effect that the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness was not sufficient?
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he was sorry to differ from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department in anything connected with the law; but he was obliged to say that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) supposed that there was no hon. and learned Member having experience of criminal trials who did not know there had been convictions for rape that were absolutely wrong. He had one case distinctly before his mind. It was a case in which he was counsel, and where the man was convicted on a cock-and-bull story and sentenced to penal servitude. There was not the slightest corroboration of the woman's story; and although he had done his best to get a remission of the sentence, the man had to suffer five years' penal servitude for a crime of which he was, in his opinion, absolutely innocent. There was no requirement that there should be corroboration of the woman's evidence and no understanding that there should be any corroboration, and if a woman got into the witness-box, and her evidence could not be broken down be cross-examination, the man would be absolutely certain to be convicted. He entreated the Committee to take into consideration the arguments brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), and

    917
    to consider how dangerous it would be to apply that system in the cases which they had then before them. As the Bill now stood, the girl, who might be a consenting party, might come forward and give evidence, upon which alone, as there was nothing to require the evidence of a second witness, a man might be convicted and sentenced. Unless the clause proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) were added to the Bill, he feared there would be many cases in which serious injustice would be done.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, there were some reasons why a clause of the kind proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) should be added to the Bill, as applying to some of the acts dealt with. For instance, with regard to the administering of drugs and other matters, it was a very common thing for a girl to state that drugs had been administered to her, and that she had been violated under those circumstances. If she was to be allowed to tell that story without corroboration, it might lead to a serious miscarriage of justice. As they had not the exact words of the clause before them, it was rather a difficult matter to form an opinion upon, and he would therefore suggest that the question should be raised on the Report, so as to give hon. Members an opportunity of deciding what words should be added to the Bill.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not accepted the clause in the form in which it had been read. He hoped that on Report words would be adopted to meet the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). The right hon. Gentleman said, in the case of rape, no corroborative evidence was necessary. But with regard to the other cases, if they did not take care, the Bill would simply become the means of extortion as against men, whom it was their duty to protect as well as women. He thought it a monstrous injustice that a girl without any corroborative evidence should be able to bring a charge against a man, and probably get a conviction. Tie would remind the right hon. Gentleman that if a provision of this kind were in-
    918
    troduced into the Bill, a girl would not be so likely to bring a false charge against a man as she would be if she could get a man convicted on her own statement alone. He perfectly agreed with the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that, on the whole, some provision of the kind should be put into the Bill; and, for the protection of men and the prevention of extortion, he hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's clause would be carried.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he had not heard all the discussion on this clause; but his right hon. Friend had given him the meaning of the Amendment, which he understood to be that no person should be convicted under the 2nd and 3rd clauses of the Act on the evidence of one person only. He was not aware that any Statute had ever provided that no conviction should take place on the evidence of one witness only. He was bound to say that the Amendment really provided that there must be more than one witness, and that, so far as he knew, was an entire anomaly. The practical outcome of the discussion was that no Judge would allow a case under these clauses to go on without corroboration. ["No, no!"] Although he agreed with the hon. Gentleman behind him that there was no rule that there must be a second witness, yet all those acquainted with criminal practice would know that no Judge would allow a case of the kind to go to the jury upon the uncorroborated evidence of one witness. Corroboration did not mean that there should be another witness—they had experience of that in the Divorce Court, and in cases of breach of promise of marriage, where corroborative evidence was necessary. With all respect to hon. Members who thought otherwise, he said again that a Judge would not allow one of these cases to go to the jury without there was corroboration in fact of some kind or other. That corroboration might arise from a variety of circumstances, as, for instance, from the fact of the prisoner being found close to the spot. But, however it might arise, he said that they would be introducing into the Bill matter which ought not to be introduced into it, if they put in a provision that more than one witness should be called. The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr.

    919
    Gregory) had very properly said that a great distinction ought to be drawn between cases in which the mouth of the defendant was closed and where it was not. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's clause became law, no case could go to a jury upon the evidence of one witness, and he submitted that the person who made the accusation should be able to explain the circumstances and give evidence.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he felt a great deal of interest in this question, and, on the whole, he was rather inclined to favour the clause proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). But he did not quite agree with what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. He thought he was wrong in saying that Judges had not over and over again allowed persons to be convicted on the evidence of one person without corroboration. He recollected a case in which a man was convicted under those circumstances. Again, he did not understand the distinction which his hon. and learned Friend drew between a second witness and corroboration. Corroboration must exist in the mouth of a second witness, or else there would be only one statement. How could there be corroborative evidence of the worth of testimony, unless it came from a second witness? Any corroboration of the evidence of one witness must come from another witness. Certainly he was unable to see the distinction drawn by his hon. and learned Friend. In bastardy cases two witnesses were required, although the accused person might be examined; and if they insisted on two witnesses in that case, he did not see why the same principle should not be applied to the 2nd and 3rd clauses of this Bill. As to the rule in Scotland, he believed it had worked well, and there was a good deal to be said in favour of it, because, although it was much to be hoped that all Judges would hesitate to go on the statement of one person, they did not always do that. He should consider the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and, if he could, he should, vote for the clause.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he did not propose to press his clause upon the Committee on that occasion.
    920
    He should put it on the Paper for consideration on Report. He did not wish to add a word to the arguments adduced in favour of his clause by his right hon. and learned Friend; but he must express his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary seemed to set his face so strongly against a clause intended to prevent extortion. He did not wish to detain the Committee by any further observations. He would withdraw the clause now, and bring it up again on Report.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule.
    MR. WARTONproposed to add, after "forty-nine," "and section fifty-five." The other evening something was said about the Consolidated Statutes of 1861. It ought to be said in justice to the memory of Mr. Grey, who drew the Code, that there never was a better series of Statutes drawn than the seven or eight Statutes which had formed for so many years their Criminal Law. [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS: It is already repealed.] If it was already repealed, they had had no law respecting abduction since it was repealed. When was it repealed? The Home Secretary had passed him the Statutes, and he found 55 still standing. He was perfectly correct, and on questions of Criminal Law he generally was right, because he knew the Criminal Law well. Was it the intention of those who brought forward this Bill that they should have two sections dealing with abductions? It seemed to him that when the promoters of this Bill drew their Abduction Clause—Clause 7—which fixed the age at 18, they forgot the existence of s. 55, c. 100, 24 & 25 Vict.
    Amendment proposed, to add, after "section forty-nine," in the Schedule, "and section fifty-five."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON GROSS)said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was alluding to Section 51, and that was what he had in his mind when he said the section was repealed. It was intended to keep Section 55, because the offence it dealt with was quite different to that dealt with by Clause 7 of this

    921
    Bill. Section 55 was general in its terms—namely,
    "Whosoever shall unlawfully take or cause to be taken any unmarried girl out of the possession and against the will of her father or mother, or any other person having the lawful care or charge of her;"
    but Clause 7 of this Bill made it a misdemeanour for anyone to do the same thing—
    "With intent that she should be unlawfully and carnally known by any man."
    The hon. and learned Gentleman would see that the two sections were very different.
    MR. WARTONremarked, that Section 55 was never used except in cases of abduction for sexual purposes. Practically it was now intended to have two abduction sections, one fixing the age at 16 and the other fixing it at 18.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."
    MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, that as the Bill applied to Scotland he desired to put a question to the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour). He was told that the evidence of children of tender years, without the solemnity of an oath, was admissible in Scotland. The other night it was resolved by a very narrow majority that such evidence should not be allowed under the operation of this Bill. He would like to know what the law of Scotland was on this point'? If it was as he had suggested, would it not be well to consider on Report the advisability of assimilating the law of England to that of Scotland, especially as it was admitted that the law of Scotland was generally better than that of England?
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, his hon. Friend had been correctly informed. It was not essential that a child of tender years should take the oath. The custom in cases where a child was concerned was for the Judge to put some questions to the child in a kindly fashion in order to ascertain its state of education and intelligence, and if it was fit to take the oath the oath was administered. If it was too young to understand the nature of an oath, but the Judge thought it understood the obligation to tell the truth, it was examined without being
    922
    put upon oath, but after being admonished to tell the truth. Of course, the evidence was given in the presence of the jury, so that they could form an opinion as to its worth. He was quite sure that there were many cases in which the truth would not be reached unless the evidence of the child were taken, and it was in that view he gave a vote in favour of the Amendment the other night. If on Report the proposal was made to allow a child of tender years to give evidence without being sworn, he should again vote for it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 257.]

  SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL. [Lords.]— [BILL 242.]
  (Secretary Sir B. Assheton Cross.)
  SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL. [Lords.]— [BILL 242.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: The second reading of this Bill was brought on so unexpectedly that I was then the only Scotch Member on this side of the House, and there was no discussion. This debate involves the principle of the Bill. I do not profess to see its necessity or to support its general provisions, while I ardently oppose some of them. No doubt, it has numerous supporters in Scotland. I know of no country which has made so much progress as Scotland since it became an integral part of Great Britain, united with England in interests, in feeling, and in administration. Undoubtedly, that administration had to be carried on with a knowledge of local differences in law and in the habits of the people; and, on the whole, through the Ministerial functions of the Lord Advocate and the vigilance of Scotch Members of Parliament, Scotland has largely had its own way as to its peculiarities; but has gained vastly in solidarity and prosperity by accepting its position as an integral part of Great Britain. This Bill is intended to accentuate the differences between England and Scotland for the future, and, in my opinion, it will tend to convert Scotland into a Pro-

    923
    vince, with the narrower peculiarities of Provincial existence. No country can less afford than Scotland to narrow the ambition of its educated classes or to parochialize its institutions. If it separates itself from England in administration and education it need not be surprised if in time England becomes less of an outlet for Scotch enterprize. I doubt altogether the wisdom of such a separation, though I admit that a certain demand for it exists in Scotland. The Scotch Secretary to be created by this Bill is to be the responsible Minister for affairs connected with local government—such as public health, the relief of the poor, the care of lunatics, the supervision of prisons, and like subjects, none of which have fundamental differences, either in their principles or applications, from similar subjects of English administration. But if separation of Scotch and English administration be desirable, I do not in the least understand why it should suddenly stop so as to exclude the new Minister from all control over matters relating to law and justice. Questions relating to law and justice are the very subjects of all others in Scotland where there are national differences and even mysterious peculiarities. I could understand the demand for a Minister who should be intrusted with the important differences of legal procedure, a different law, and a different form of justice. But just at this point the Bill fails, and the English Secretary of State at the Home Office is to control such administration with the aid of the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate, who has hitherto been the Scotch Minister, is to have no official relations to the new Scotch Secretary, but is to be a sort of comet revolving in a small orbit, controlled by the great English luminary in Whitehall. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government, in speaking of the Bill in "another place," stated that he supported it because it was a work of decentralization, and that it was better to localize than to centralize administration. I could understand this argument if there were a Scotch Parliament to whom this new Minister was responsible; I could understand it in a lesser degree if the Office of the new Minister was to be in Edinburgh. But we have been distinctly told that this Office is to be in London. How decentralization
    924
    and localization are to be produced by going from one side of Whitehall to the other side of Whitehall is altogether beyond my comprehension. The creation of this new Minister is an act of centralization, not of decentralization. It gathers into one office Acts now administered by the Home Office, the Privy Council, Treasury, and the English Local Government Board. Decentralization is the last word that can be applied to the Bill; but nationalization would be more appropriate. It practically means that no English Minister must presume to administer Scotch affairs. How would the converse proposition suit the ambition of Scotland—that no Scotchman should become an English Minister? One proposition is as good as the other. The new Scotch Secretary, as he is to have no charge of law and justice, must have something added to the duties of supervising local government, so that he may have an office of dignity and an office of work of such apparent magnitude as will justify Parliament in creating a new Minister. The dignity is to be conferred by giving to him the custody of the Great Seal. I do not know much about the Great Seal. I see that it has an office in Edinburgh, which is open one hour daily, and that it must be difficult to keep, for it has already a "deputy keeper" and a "substitute keeper." If such officers are really required for its safe custody, the new Scotch Secretary can have little work added to his office by being made Keeper of the Great Seal, and official dignity in these days does not arise from a mere name, but only from the due performance of official work and duties. As this dignity does not give work, education is to be added to his office. This raises the important question whether the supervision of education in Scotland by the new Minister is to be undertaken in the interests of education or in the interests of the new office? The Earl of Fife, speaking "elsewhere," let the eat out of the bag when he said that every Scotchman to whom he spoke on the subject, replied—"What on earth is the use of a Scotch Secretary if education is not included in his functions? "That really, Sir, is at the root of the Bill. Law and justice have been cut out of his functions, and so little is loft for the new Minister to do that you must add something, and so

    925
    education is to be joined to the Great Seal, to police, prisons, public health, lunacy, adulteration of food and drugs, pauperism, fisheries, wild birds protection, and other miscellaneous subjects with which education has nothing in common. No one will dispute that to Scotland education is a subject of the deepest interest, for its prosperity largely depends upon it. It is, therefore, a very serious matter to deal with education as a means of augmenting the importance of an office. In any case that is not an educational argument, for it proceeds on the assumption that education is a branch of administration which can be handed from one office to another, not for its own advantage, but for that of the office which takes it. No doubt, the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) who introduced this Bill sincerely believes that the junction of education with the office of Secretary will benefit not only the office, but also education itself. I know much less of local administration in Scotland than that noble Earl; but I have made the study of its education a specialty, so I hope the House will allow me to state my reasons for opposing the educational provisions of this Bill. It is really the essence of the Bill, and cannot be relegated to the Committee stage. Afterwards I will speak of certain peculiarities in Scotch education. But now the initial question arises—Has education in Scotland suffered by its connection with that of England since the Act of 1872? For the answer to this question is the justification or condemnation of this Bill. Sir, it has gone on by leaps and bounds since it has been managed by the Department in Whitehall. Every parish has now its school board. In 1872 the schools in Scotland could only accommodate 282,000 scholars; now they have places for 656,000. The education, as a whole, has advanced, not only in extent, but also in quality. There is, therefore, no à priori argument for a change such as is proposed by this Bill. If we look at the amount spent on the education of the people in the three sections of the Kingdom, Scotland receives more than England. Taking the population of the Census in 1881, the money spent last year per head of the people was 2s. 6½d. for England, 2s. 8d. for Scotland, and 3s. for Ireland. If England had received
    926
    as much as Scotland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have had to provide £162,340 more for English education. Surely, it is absurd to speak of neglect of Scotch education by an Engglish Department with such figures. The House cannot forget that it has appointed various Select Committees during the last 15 years to consider how Ministerial responsibility can best be secured for the largely increasing Votes for Education. It was pointed out by all these Committees that the present system by which the Lord President of the Committee of Council on Education sits in the House of Lords is essentially bad in theory, though it is tempered in practice by the really active Educational Minister—the Vice President of the Council—sitting in the House of Commons. Another Committee sat last year under the Presidency of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers), and it unanimously recommended that a Minister with duties not less important than a Secretary of State—by which they intended to indicate that he should be of Cabinet rank—should have charge of the education of Great Britain. The present practice of having the responsible Minister in the House of Lords, and the active, though irresponsible, Minister in the House of Commons, was emphatically condemned. The Cabinet of the late Government accepted the conclusions of this Report. The late Prime Minister [Mr. Gladstone), on the 6th of November, 1884, said, in answer to a Question—
    "We propose on an early day—I cannot name the day exactly—to adopt measures founded upon the Report of the Select Committee."—(3 Hansard, [293] 1116.)
    This answer was understood to mean that a responsible Minister of Education for Great Britain would be appointed, not certainly that the present Vice President of the Council should be reduced in influence and position by being confined to England, while a Minister was to be created for Scotland, with Poor Law, police, public health, and other offices tagged on to his educational duties. I am sure that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) will not say that this is the spirit in which his Committee reported. But this Bill, so far as regards education, is founded on the system which has been so repeatedly condemned. It proposes

    927
    that a Vice President of the Council for Education in Scotland shall be appointed, and the terms of the clause are copied from the Act for appointing the present Vice President of the Council of Education. The Scotch Minister is to be the Vice President of the Council in all matters regarding Scotch education. What will follow in law, fact, and practice? The present Vice President of the Council, whom we have been accustomed to look upon as the Education Minister de facto, if not de jure, is to be shorn of his proportions and dignity in order to give increased proportions and dignity to the new Scotch Minister. If this Bill becomes law, you will have two Vice Presidents of Education—one for England and one for Scotland—two subordinate Tycoons to administer education; while the powerful but invisible Mikado, the Lord President of the Council, sits up aloft in regions to which we have no access, and remains irresponsible to us who have to vote large sums for the education of the people, while we have no Minister of responsibility in the House of the people. There is no mistake in this subject. The Duke of Richmond, when President of the Council, was asked—"Are you or the Vice President the Minister of Education?" And he replied, frankly and truly—"I am the Minister of Education." All the Presidents of Council examined before the Committee accepted this responsibility, and gave to the Vice President the position of an Under Secretary of State. But we found on examination that the Vice President did all the work, while the President monopolized all the patronage. This false relation of Ministerial responsibility became intolerable to the House, and your Committee recommended that a distinct Minister of Education, with the position, if not with the name, of a Secretary of State, should be appointed. This is not a view confined to one side of the House. The late Duke of Marlborough, when Lord President of the Council under the Earl of Beacons-field's Government, introduced a Bill to create a new Secretary of State who should take charge of national education. But what does this Bill do? It reduces the rank and position of the de facto Minister of Education in this House by passing part of his duties to the new Scotch Secretary, and thus it
    928
    raises the power and position of the Lord President as the true Minister of Education, although necessarily, from his relations to the Queen, he is in the House of Lords, which has no touch with the education of the people. I have no doubt that the promoters of this Bill thought that they were really passing Scotch education to the Scotch Secretary. They have done nothing of the kind. It is true that the Earl of Rosebery, who had charge of the Bill in "another place," said that it transferred education to the new Minister "in the most complete and absolute fashion." But how did the Lord President view the alleged transfer? He said—
    "The Department existed, everything was ready to his hand, and the new official would merely have to take the place at present held by the Vice President of the Council for England, who was also Vice President of the Council for Scotland."
    That is the law and fact of the change proposed by this Bill. Both Vice Presidents will continue to be subordinate to the Lord President, who has the ultimate and single responsibility for the education of Great Britain. The Lord President will continue to exercise the patronage of the Department, and will appoint the Inspectors and other officers for both England and Scotland. The Lord President has the right and the responsibility of approving or disapproving of every act of his subordinate Vice Presidents in both countries. I believe that this will be the working of the Bill; and I admit that if there be no removal of the Scotch Department from its present offices, the educational evil will be reduced, because the Lord President and the two Vice Presidents can meet in constant consultation. But we ought to be assured that this is the way in which the system will be worked without transference to a new office, and that the new Scotch Vice President of the Council created by the Act is, like the English Vice President, a responsible officer of one division of the Education Department under a common head, and with the advantages attending a common office of administration. But even this least injurious form of working the two Departments does not commend itself to men of large experience in educational administration. The present Government have wisely called into their councils a well-known Scotch-

    929
    man—Sir Francis Sandford—and given him a seat in the Scotch Education Department. No one in the Kingdom can speak with greater authority on the subject. He was asked by the Select Committee what he thought of a proposal such as is made by this Bill—
    "Would you be sorry to see the Vice President limited to English, work, and somebody else introduced for Scotch work—say a Scotch Vice President?—I think it would be better not to do so. My opinion is that it is bettor for the two countries to be both under one head."
    It would have been better for education and easier for administration if the Bill had proceeded on the recommendations of the Select Committee, and made an effective Scotch Department with a separate Secretary, and gave to the new Scotch Minister an ex officio seat on the Board. To make him a subordinate officer of the Lord President is altogether a mistake of administration when you are creating a new Minister, while it increases the evils of a condemned system of educational responsibility, and puts formidable obstacles to the future creation of a true Ministry of Education. At all events, it prejudges the question before this House has had time to consider the Report of its Select Committee. One of the great reasons for recommending such a Ministry was that we felt sure the responsible Minister of Education would be a man of Cabinet rank, and naturally would sit in this House. The absence of a Representative of education from this House led to the appointment of the present Vice President, who, if this Bill passes, will be reduced to a Vice President for English education only. But with regard to Scotch education, there is neither security, nor even probability, that the new Minister will be in the House of the people. The 3rd clause says that "the Secretary, if not a Member of the House of Lords," shall be able to sit in the House of Commons. You will continue to have the Lord Advocate in this House, and the most natural consideration to a Prime Minister forming a Government will be to say—as there is a Scotch Minister already in the House of Commons, let us put the new Scotch Secretary into the House of Lords. Quite natural and quite proper such an arrangement, if he were not also the Education Minister for Scotland; but
    930
    not convenient or even tolerable to this House, which votes £500,000 yearly to education in Scotland, to have no Minister here immediately responsible for its administration, when all results relating to the education of the people are so eagerly and constantly discussed in this House, and so rarely in the House of Lords. Is it not obvious that English education under an English Minister wholly devoted to it would have our fostering care; while Scotch education, lifted above our heads into the House of Lords, in charge of a Minister with fifty other functions, would be viewed with suspicious jealousy? Scotland has marked peculiarities in paying for higher subjects, and they are recognized in the Act of 1872; but when you find among these that classical and modern languages, as well as science, are subjects in primary schools, how are they to fare with a Scotch Secretary in the House of Lords? If you have any doubt on this subject, the recent discussion in "another place" by Lord Norton, and the speech of Viscount Cranbrook on the inexpediency of having such subjects taught in primary schools or in secondary schools by school boards, will indicate a very considerable danger. If the Scotch Minister was in this House, with the aid of Scotch Members this danger would be mitigated. It is possible, therefore, that the Prime Minister, in forming a Government, may ultimately allow the Scotch Minister to sit in this House. If so, we would then have three Ministers responsible for Scotch Business—not one Minister, which would appear to be the object of this Bill. First, law and justice would be managed by the Home Secretary, aided by the Lord Advocate. Then, sitting on the same Bench, but with an inferior salary of £2,000, you would find a Scotch Secretary, who has no official relation to either of them. Perhaps in time the English Members might learn their different responsibilities, and ask the right Questions of the right Ministers; but does not the whole arrangement look absurd, when it might be rectified in the construction of a Bill? My own belief is that no such bungling proposal as this Bill could have been made to us if it were not intended that the Scotch Secretary should sit in the House of Lords, and that the Lord Advocate

    931
    should represent him in the House of Commons. But when his main work is to administer the £500,000 voted for the education of the people, both this House and the Scotch people will ultimately insist that he should sit in the House of Commons, which takes such keen interest in all questions relating to education. We have an instance of combined work in the case of the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He practically controls the work of local government, law and justice, and education in Ireland, or, at least, he represents Ministerial responsibility in this House. But his fractional care of education is so limited in amount that we have constantly to be reminded that he has charge of Irish education. And what has been the outcome of this fragmentary attention to the absorbing subject of education? It is that though Ireland has had a National system for more than half a century, the last Census shows us that 41 percent of the population above five years of age cannot read and write; while in one Province—Connaught—53 per cent are in this sad condition of ignorance. Had there been one Minister of Education for the United Kingdom, this melancholy outcome of half a century could not possibly have happened. And yet in "another place" this isolation of Irish education, and the neglect of it by a Minister who could only give to it a fragmentary attention, was quoted as a precedent, and held up as an example for the isolation of Scotch education. It was abandoned in the House of Lords; but the hon. Member for Roxburgh (Mr. Elliot) has given Notice of an Amendment to complete the isolation of Scotch education. It is true that in Ireland the isolation is so complete that teachers' certificates from that country are not recognized in England. Such a result is likely to happen if Scotland obtains the isolation of her education, for what interest would England have to recognize certificates given on a separate system? Already there is a plethora of teachers in Scotland; but it is relieved by 50 or 60 teachers, now the offspring of a common system, being annually appointed to English schools. The Earl of Rosebery, speaking in "another place," looks with contempt upon the proposal to have a Minister of Education for Great Britain, excluding Ireland, and calls him a vulgar
    932
    fraction of a two-thirds Minister. But what will this now Scotch Secretary be when he sits in this House? As a Scotch Minister with an inferior salary sitting on the same Bench with the Home Secretary, and the Lord Advocate having the important control of law and justice, he will, indeed, be a vulgar fraction of a one-third Scotch Minister. But what will he be as an Education Minister? The Act of 1872—the Education Act—is to be pitched, with more than 50 other Acts, into his Office. As Scotch Secretary, he is already the vulgar fraction of a one-third Scotch Minister; but, as Education Minister, he is one of lesser dimensions still—a one-fiftieth Education Minister. For if there be a real work for him to do in the care of police, paupers, lunatics, fisheries, and wild birds, there can only be a small fragment of his time left to take care of education. We have been told that there is a consuming desire of the Scotch people to have a Scotch Secretary, and there is no doubt a widespread demand for it. But I do not admit that there is the same feeling for including education in his functions. A number of the small towns, through their Town Councils, have petitioned in favour of this inclusion; and the large towns of Edinburgh and Paisley have also done so. But the other large towns of Scotland have expressed no such desire. The Churches met in General Assembly last May, and the United Presbyterian Church has petitioned; but the Church of Scotland and the Free Church have not. The Convention of Royal Burghs expressed a unanimous feeling on the subject last year; but this year the Resolution to petition was only carried by a majority of 2. I do not believe that any feeling in favour of education being attached to his Office would have arisen had not the lawyers been able to cut out law and justice from it. It is because they have succeeded in doing so that education has been thrown to him as a corpus vile. Schoolmasters and Professors are not as powerful as lawyers in this House; but surely their voice should be heard in such an important proposal. Educational authority is certainly against it. The Scotch Educational Institute, which is composed of Scotch teachers, have petitioned in favour of one Minister of Education for Great Britain, and against the separation of

    933
    English from Scotch education. Out of 2,473 teachers who have expressed themselves by Resolutions on this subject, only 97, or less than 5 per cent, are in favour of the educational part of this Bill. The Scotch Universities, which are most intimately connected with the schools of the people, are represented in this House by two Members, both of whom are in opposition to this proposal. No doubt it will be contended that my own opposition to it has lost me my seat. I sit here with only a small majority; and it is quite true that a considerable number of United Presbyterian ministers who have always supported me withdrew their support. Whatever capital the supporters of the Bill make out of this fact, they cannot deny the sincerity of my convictions when I sacrificed a University seat which I have had the honour to hold for 17 years, in order that I might be free to oppose this Bill. Not a single teacher, Professor, or University authority has intimated to me their disapproval of my hostility; while a large number of them have encouraged me in opposing a measure which they think will be disastrous to the interests of education in Scotland. The Earl of Rosebery in "another place" stated that he had waited for the expression of the school boards. What has been that expression? There are 980 school boards, and of those only 36 have petitioned this House in favour of the Bill. They are all small boards, for the united population represented by them is only 80,000. The Edinburgh School Board was last year against the proposal; this year it is in its favour; but I do not find a Petition sent to this House. Of the largo towns, the school boards of Glasgow, Govan, Dundee, and Aberdeen are against the transference of education. I include Aberdeen on the authority of its Chairman, who has been hero to oppose the Bill. I do not deny that there is a general feeling in Scotland that the Education Department has not sufficiently distinguished the differences between English and Scotch education. It was to insure this that the Select Committee of last year recommended that there should be a permanent Scotch Secretary to the Department, so that the responsible Education Minister should be brought into touch with the peculiarities of Scotch education. These differences are real, and depend upon
    934
    the fact that while education in England become National by the Act of 1870, the Scotch Act of 1872 was not the creation of a National system, but the extension of one which was no longer sufficient for the wants of the people. In Scotland the division between primary and secondary schools is not so marked as in England. The Scotch school boards are charged with the management of the burgh or grammar schools, and in England the boards have no such functions. This denominational system is not nearly so marked in Scotland as in England, for each parish has its school board. The Universities also receive many students direct from primary schools, where they obtain a certain amount of secondary education. These are distinctions of such importance that the Select Committee wisely recommended a responsible Scotch Secretary in the Education Department, with a staff charged with the ordinary administration of Scotch work. But, at the same time, they recommended that there should be only one responsible Minister for Education in Great Britain. England may learn many things from Scotch education, and the separation will be injurious to the interests of education in this country. For example, it will accentuate the antagonism between board and voluntary schools. You have an example in Scotland of board schools dealing satisfactorily with religious education, so that voluntary schools work with them in little antagonism. The denominations have had perfect confidence that the Department in Whitehall would give them fair play. But the Roman Catholics in Glasgow, who are very numerous, have not the same faith in a Scotch Secretary, who will be more subject to pressure from local influences. This has been pressed upon me as a real danger by those interested in denominational schools; and if it be well founded it will disturb the harmony which now exists between board and voluntary schools. If England may benefit by an example of this harmony, there is much also that Scotch education may learn from England. At present the Scotch Code is inferior to the English Code in its requirements, and requires assimilation. In the attention given to Art and Science, both in primary and secondary schools, Scotland is getting far behind England. Scotland has not

    935
    yet adapted itself to the needs of a scientific age. It may be contended that if there had been a Scotch Minister these differences would have been rectified. But he will be the Representative of national prejudices which have hitherto prevented this progress in Art and Science, and a more complete isolation will confirm them, while the friction with the English system was gradually rubbing them down. The Science and Art Department in South Kensington will in future be presided over by the English Vice President, though in a few years every school in Scotland will be reported upon for drawing by an Inspector from that Department, and, I hope, before long, for science also. Does this not show the absurdity of the proposed separation? I need not say that I think the educational part of this Bill is essentially bad. It is bad, because it lessens the influence of the Vice President of the Council, who has hitherto been a de facto Minister of Education in this House, though under a system of defective responsibility. It is bad, because it will render it very difficult, if not impossible, for us to rectify in the future a system so often condemned, and will prevent us, if the House so desire, from securing a single responsible Education Minister, not only for primary education, but also for all the Votes for higher education, including Science and Art. It is bad for Scotland, because it gives to its education only the fragmentary attention of a Minister who has many other duties unconnected with education. This is now a Government measure, acquired, like the Estimates and various other Bills, as an inheritance. Its conduct in "another place" shows that it has only a stepmother's love. How was it that the Duke of Richmond, with his large experience in the Education Department, said not one word in its favour, although he was in the House? He literally, not metaphorically, turned his back upon the speakers all through the debate. How is it that the present Lord President (Viscount Cranbrook) was deaf to all persuasions, and refused to praise the Bill? I go further, and ask whether there is one of the leading statesmen on the Treasury Bench who like this Bill in their hearts? The Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross), in 1883, described the then proposed Scotch Secretary "as an independent officer, who would be
    936
    neither fish, flesh, nor fowl." What does he think of him now with more than 50 miscellaneous Acts thrown into a Scotch Office, and then supplied with a Chair in the Education Department to administer the Education Act, when he has some fragment of time to attend to it? No doubt the Government may retort that this Scotch Secretary was the offspring of the Liberal Government. That is quite true. It was introduced into this House in August, 1883, by the late Home Secretary in a mocking speech that nearly strangled the infant at its birth. But then education was not in the Bill. I believe that now the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) is a supporter of the Bill in its present form. A General Election is near. That induces both sides to throw a tub to the Scotch whale. There is a demand on the part of many persons in Scotland for a Scotch Secretary. Though I am one of those who do not see any advantage to my country in such a measure, I would not divide the House against giving to the new Minister all Home Office work and local government. If he had the control of law and justice, he would have functions which would give him dignity and insure him respect. But I do not like this Bill, which makes a Minister of shreds and patches, and then to raise him from an inferior position gives him a Chair to sit in an Education Department outside his Office, and in subordination to another Minister. It is quite right that he should have influence of a powerful character in a distinct administrative Scotch Education Department. That could be given him by making him an ex officio member of it. Such a course would not raise a barrier between Parliament and the important reforms required in the re-organization of education in this country. This House must soon give its close attention to this subject, and ought not on a side issue to preclude itself from its consideration. The great countries in Europe give education to the charge of a Minister dealing with that alone. The smaller countries, like Greece, Portugal, Egypt, and Japan, have done so. Even Victoria and New Zealand have now their Education Minister. But Scotland alone, which above all other countries is essentially educational, is in future to have a Minister made up of a large variety of heterogeneous materials mixed

    937
    up like a Scotch haggis, and then salted with education to give it a flavour. It is too serious to deal with education in this fashion, and I make as earnest a protest as I can against it by moving the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELL,in seconding the Amendment, observed that though he agreed with the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, he could not commit himself to all the views he had expressed so forcibly and eloquently with regard to the Bill as a whole. At the same time, he could not say that he was particularly enamoured of this proposal to create a Scotch Secretary. He could not say that he had ever seen the necessity for adopting this particular way of improving the administration of Public Business connected with Scotland. For his part, he should have been better pleased if a Bill had been brought in to strengthen the position of the Lord Advocate, and, at the same time, to make an appointment which was proposed some years ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross)—that of an Under Secretary of the Home Office, with special charge of Scotch Business. But the point in this Bill to which he would refer was that on which his right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) had dilated so fully and so much to the instruction of the House—the proposal as regarded education. The question suggested itself— why was it proposed to transfer education to the new official? Was it in the interest of the new Office, or in the interest of education? It could not be said to be in the interest of the new Office, for the simple reason that when the Bill was introduced last Session it was not proposed to make this transfer. What, then, had happened to Scotch education during the past year that had made it necessary to transfer it to the Scotch Secretary? The advocates of the Bill in its present form had said that education would be the most important of all the matters with which the Scotch Secretary would have to deal; but in his opinion that made it worse for the Government of last year, for it convicted them of having proposed to create an officer without enough to do, or with nothing to do of sufficient importance. Then, as to the interests of education, he considered that education in Scot-
    938
    land would be best attended to by a Minister who was appointed to his Office with the view of giving his services to education entirely. That surely was a reasonable view, because his attention would not be distracted by other and multifarious duties. It was said by the advocates of this Bill that Scotch education could only occupy part of the time of a Minister of Education, and that, considering the relative proportions of the two countries, it could only have a small part of his time. Taking the Government grant as an index, they found that in England as much as £3,000,000 a-year was spent in education grants, and in Scotland £500,000; so that Scotch education might be said to represent one-seventh part of the educational interest of Great Britain, as measured in that way; and it was argued, therefore, that a Minister of Education could only be expected to give a proportion—say one-seventh—of his time and attention to the interests of Scotland. But even if that were true, a small proportion given by a Minister who devoted the remainder of his time to cognate subjects was much more likely to do justice to Scotch education than a much larger share of time given by another Minister, who had besides to attend to the miscellaneous and wholly unrelated subjects found in the Schedule of this Bill. But he did not allow that the attention given by the Minister of Education to the educational interests of the two countries would be given in a measure proportioned to the relative magnitude of the countries, or the number of their schools. It was enough if the interests of each country would be fully considered and attended to, and by one who had the advantage of being familiar with what was going on in both countries. There was proof that good had come to both countries from having their educational system under one Head. They found, from the evidence of past Vice Presidents of the Council, that being in charge of Scotch education had been a help to them in the administration of English education; and they had evidence from teachers of the best standing that the education of Scotland had profited greatly by the familiarity they had—through their connection with the Education Department—with the progress of education in England. While he felt strongly that any

    939
    proposal to transfer education from the Education Department was to be deprecated, he felt no less strongly that it was necessary to plead for the separate management of Scotch, education under one Minister. At present they did not enjoy this arrangement to the extent that was necessary, now that the educational work of the country had become so important and so extensive. The Committee to which his right hon. Friend had referred recommended that a distinct permanent Secretary should be appointed for Scotland, responsible to the Minister of Education. That was necessary, because in Scotland they had a different Education Act, a different Code, and different educational history and traditions from England, and they had even now, as they had had all along, a separate Scotch Education Department of the Privy Council. Now, it was necessary that they should have separate administration within the Ministry of Education; but that by no means implied that their system should not be under the same Minister as the English system. He thought that the want of this separate administration accounted for no small proportion of the movement for the transference of Scotch education to a Scotch Minister. He could not admit that the movement was general. It had been keen in some quarters; but those quarters were not numerous or very extensive. But grant separate administration under the Education Minister, and he believed that many of those who had petitioned for the transfer would feel that they had got all that they asked for. He might mention that some of the largest school boards in Scotland had taken up a decided position against the proposed transfer. In fact, the Petitions in favour of it were from boards and places which taken together did not represent a population equal to the population of one parish that had petitioned against the proposal. The Bill appeared to him to weaken the position of the Vice President. He would no longer be responsible for education in both England and Scotland. They would be placed further than at present from having a proper Ministry of Education, and they would be practically condemning in advance a Report which had not yet been considered. It had been said that the evidence taken before the Com-
    940
    mittee was that only of Presidents, Vice Presidents, and other officials, and the Report was disparaged on that account; but he would remind the House that the duty of that Committee was to consider how Ministerial responsibility, under which the Votes for Education, Science, and Art were administered, might be best secured; and the question could be best answered by consulting those who had been engaged in the actual administration. He hoped the Government would give some indication that the changes suggested in the Amendments of his right hon. Friend would be satisfactory to them; in which case, he hoped the House would not go to a division, and that the object his right hon. Friend had in view, and which he believed would substantially accomplish all that the Government and the promoters of the Bill desired—giving the Secretary for Scotland an interest in education, without giving him the place now occupied by the Vice President—might be attained. He begged to second the Resolution.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in view of the Report of a Select Committee of last Session, recommending that there should be one responsible Minister of Education for Great Britain, it is not expedient, before this House has considered that Report, to proceed with the proposal of this Bill, that the charge of Scotch education should be removed from the Vice President of the Council, thus lessoning his influence and responsibility, in order to transfer it to the Secretary for Scotland intended to be created by this Bill,"—(Sir Lyon Playfair,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he was very sorry that this discussion should have come on so late in the Session, for the majority of the Scotch Members had left for their homes, believing that this Bill would not pass. [Cries of "No!" and"Hear, hear!"] Well, he believed that till Friday last it was not thought by anyone that they could expect to have an opportunity for discussion; and as the Bill might be amended, and would require to be reconsidered in the Lords, and then come back to this House, therefore it was thought and believed it would not pass. His right hon. Friend

    941
    (Sir Lyon Playfair) had given them the benefit of his views on this subject; but he recollected that his right hon. Friend made the same appeal to the House some six or eight years ago, when speaking in favour of appointing a Minister of Education for the whole of the United Kingdom. The object of the Committee, to which reference had been made, was a very definite one. The Committee was appointed to consider how the Ministerial responsibility under which the Votes for Education, Science, and Art were administered might be best secured. His right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) attached great importance to that inquiry by the Committee; but they did not come to any resolution regarding Ireland. They only heard one witness regarding Ireland, and they felt that sufficient to satisfy them that the Minister for Education whom they desired to appoint should not take any cognizance of Irish education, but that Irish education should be left as it was. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that over the whole of Ireland 41 per cent of the people were unable to read or write; and yet to find that the Committee, with that fact before them, should have neglected to make any suggestion for the improvement of education in that country. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of one county in Ireland where there were 55 per cent in that condition; and he dwelt on that fact as an evidence of the little that had been done under the present system of Irish education. That was quite true; but a Committee appointed to consider Low Ministerial responsibility could be best secured might surely, when they recommended the union of the education of Great Britain under one Minister, have taken some means of considering the difference in the systems of education in the two countries; but the Committee made no such inquiry, and made no suggestion for improvement either in Ireland or Great Britain. The English and Scotch systems were essentially different, and for that reason it was desirable that they should be separately administered. In England at present the majority of the schools were denominational. To place England on the same footing as Scotland it would be necessary to establish in the former 13,000 more school boards; and any
    942
    Minister who had charge of that number of English boards would have enough to do without interfering with Scotch education. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Lyon Playfair), speaking very sharply as to the prospects of Scotch education, had assumed that it had not suffered by the present method of administration; but how could he be sure of that? He had advanced in support of that idea the fact that the Scotch school children had earned 2d. per head more than the English from the Government grant; but that was to be accounted for, in his opinion, by the circumstance that Scotland had had a system of National education in operation for 400 years; whereas there had been no attempt at anything of the kind in England until within the last 15 years. It was significant that in the Committee presided over by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) there was hardly a question asked as to the effect which any change in the mode of administration might have on Scotch education. It seemed to have been taken for granted that Scotland would be able to take care of itself. His right hon. Friend had expressed a doubt whether there was more than a limited number of persons desirous to have matters of education placed under a Secretary for Scotland. He did not like to controvert anything which was said by his right hon. Friend, who was so highly and justly esteemed in Scotland; but he must point out that the right hon. Gentleman had himself mentioned as his reason for withdrawing from his own country the zeal of his Scotch constituents to have Scotch education affairs placed under a Scotch Minister. He was as sensible as his right hon. Friend of the advantage that would arise if the Minister having charge of Scotch education had a seat in the Cabinet. He remembered that when, at the request of his Colleagues, he presented the first Memorial in favour of Scotch affairs, including education, being placed under a Scotch Minister distinct from the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate, the Prime Minister asked him if it was wished that the proposed Minister for Scotland should be in the Cabinet. He (Mr. Ramsay) replied—"Certainly, that is our wish; but we do not make it a condition." The Memorial which he presented on that occasion was

    943
    signed by more than two-thirds of the entire Scotch representation. A great meeting was held in Edinburgh nearly two years ago, such as he had never seen in his country at any time before; and it was then urged that every part of purely Scotch Business should be intrusted to the Minister who would be appointed if their wish were carried out. If his right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) had been present at that great meeting he would never have entertained any doubt as to the feeling of the people of Scotland on that question. The people of Scotland were not only anxious to have this reform, but they were determined to have it; and although the Scotch Members did not act together so harmoniously as the Irish Representatives below the Gangway, they were not incapable of being educated in that policy of united action which their Irish Friends had found so successful. His right hon. Friend alluded also to the number of schools which had been established in Scotland since the passing of the Education Act of 1872, and adduced that as evidence of the efficiency of the administration of Scotch education in England; but the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that the schools he referred to were not established by the Education Department, but, in terms of the Education Act, by the Board of Education from their office in Edinburgh. He adduced also the fact of the existence of the Scotch Education Department; but the truth was that the Department—and nobody knew better than his right hon. Friend —was but a sham. It had no record of proceedings, and it went on day by day without being asked for its opinion upon any question. He believed that the late Vice President (Mr. Mundella) did occasionally call some of the members of the Department to confer with him on certain points; but even then it was more a pro formâ meeting than anything like one for actual deliberate business, and that their opinion was never asked about the Code, or anything affecting it. He (Mr. Ramsay) felt, therefore, that it was quite sufficient to say that the people of Scotland were anxious to obtain this small measure of Home Rule. His right hon. Friend deprecated the separation of England and Scotland. He joined with his right hon. Friend in the statement that Scotland had derived much advantage from her union with England;
    944
    but England had also derived much advantage from her union with Scotland. It was said that the education of England was very much the same as that of Scotland; but where in England did they find the labourer's son rising to fill a pulpit? They had nothing of the kind. Where in England did they find the shepherd's son getting to be one of the most learned men of his time? These, he thought, were evidences of the efficiency of their system. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill would be prepared to accept some of the Amendments on the Paper for the purpose of rendering the transfer of Scotch education efficient and complete, and thus adding dignity to the Office of the Secretary for Scotland.
    MR. COCHRAN-PATRICKsaid, he was somewhat surprised that his right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) dealt with the general aspect of the Bill, as there was nothing in his Amendment to lead the House to believe he would attack the principle of the measure. He thought the Bill was one which was absolutely necessary; and he believed it was a Bill which would give very great satisfaction to the people of Scotland. He believed the main reason why the agitation in support of the measure assumed an acute form was that for many Sessions, for many Parliaments he might say, they had seen Scottish measures passed over, and not taken up, because there was no motive power to bring them forward; and he was sure, if the Bill should have the good fortune to pass into law, the result would fully answer the expectations formed of it. He was bound to say, with regard to the educational aspect of the Bill, he entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend. He was perfectly satisfied the real solution of the educational question was a Minister of Education, fully qualified and competent to deal with the subject. If they considered how important that subject was at the present moment, and how much more important it was likely to become in future, and if they considered also the vast amount of money annually involved in the Education Vote, he thought it was absolutely necessary that they should have one competent and responsible Head in that House to answer for that expenditure. But, at the same time, and along with a Minister of Education, he thought it was absolutely ne-

    945
    cessary that they should have the Scotch and English Departments in London made separate; that they should have a permanent Secretary for the Scotch Department; and that they should also have a Committee either of the Privy Council or of Privy Councillors. The measure before them was certainly not one in which the question of a Minister of Education for the United Kingdom could be dealt with; but he felt with his right hon. Friend that if they did anything in this Bill which would preclude or even postpone the adoption of such a measure, which he, for one, believed to be necessary—and it would come, eventually, sooner or later—that it would be a very great misfortune. But it should be remembered that a special recommendation of the Committee which had been alluded to was for a separation of the two Departments, and that that separation they could have now, and also have a Committee of Privy Councillors. He thought, therefore, it would be very advantageous if the Government would agree to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend to delete the words which referred to the particular position of the Scotch Secretary, and make him a Member of that Committee of Council dealing with Scotch education, leaving it to that Committee to place him in any position they pleased. Then he thought they should secure at once the great advantage of having a separate Department, and they would not imperil or put off the chance of the question of a Minister of Education.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he had always held the opinion that the demand which was contained in this Bill had its origin in the defects as to Scotch work in that House rather than from any defects in the practical administration of the country. He would deprecate anything like a separation of Scotland from England in matters of general administration. He believed their administration would be benefited if some Minister connected with Scotland were appointed who would stand beside the Lord Advocate and fight their battles. Public opinion in Scotland on the question of education was very much divided. The other day he had the honour of introducing a deputation from one of the largest parishes in Scotland, and their opinion was very decidedly against the proposition in the Bill.
    946
    There was nothing conflicting between the two systems of education in England and Scotland, and they could be well worked together. He wished the present arrangement to continue; and he would strongly impress on the Government that they should do nothing to shake that union which now existed in the administration of the two countries. He hoped the House would soon get into Committee on the Bill.
    SIR JOHN HAY,while not supporting the whole of the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), entirely concurred in the views he expressed on the question of education; but he (Sir John Hay) thought that was a question which ought rather to be considered in Committee, and not at the present stage of the Bill. He confessed that although the Bill was one which might be considered to be more sentimental than businesslike, yet it was one which had the approbation of the people of Scotland. On the other hand, the general feeling of Scotland, so far as he was able to gauge it, was in favour of leaving the management of education under the Privy Council as at present conducted, with a special Department for Scotland under its control. He did not believe that there was any general desire in Scotland that the Secretary for Scotland should appropriate to himself, in addition to all the various odds and ends which were to be concentrated in that Office, the charge of the education of the country. After all, what was the reason why this Secretary for Scotland Bill had become a national desire? From 1707 to 1747 there was a Secretary for Scotland. From 1747 to about I860 the Lord Advocate did the duty, and did it admirably; but about that time it was found necessary that the Lord Advocate should become Queen's Counsel in England, and have added to his various duties here as Scotch Minister the duty of attending to the trials in the House of Lords and elsewhere. The result of that was that from the time of Duncan Forbes to the time of James Moncrieff there was no complaint whatever of the management of Scotch Business in the House of Commons by the Lord Advocate under the Home Office; but from that time onwards there had been a general complaint, not due, he must say, to the negligence of the Lord

    947
    Advocate entirely, but due to the fact that there had been a great pressure of Business in the House of Commons, which had resulted in a difficulty to get through Scotch Business as well as other Business in the way the country desired. The fact had been that the Lord Advocate for the last 20 years had not been in the position of the Lord Advocate before that—he had not been the Scotch Minister to whom Scotchmen looked for the conduct of Scotch Business. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh was right in saying that the general wish of Scotland was that education should not be among the matters entrusted to the new Secretary. That should be continued under the Privy Council with a special Secretary, and that he believed would be satisfactory to the whole of Scotland. That he believed would conduce to the advantage of education in Scotland, and, at the same time, to the management of the Scotch Business in that House, which would be expedited as far as might be possible by the creation of an official which, after all, was not an office of great importance, but was one which, under the Home Office, would no doubt gather up the various threads, exclusive of education, which were included in the Schedule of the Bill. He trusted his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh would not divide the House on his Resolution. If he succeeded in excluding education in Committee he (Sir John Hay) should be happy to support him. He trusted he would not delay the Bill, which he (Sir John Hay) would rather see pass as it stood than not pass at all.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I do not propose to go through the numerous matters that have been touched upon by previous speakers, but merely to say a very few words with regard to the question which has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews (Sir Lyon Playfair)—namely, the question of education. I daresay an opportunity will be afforded at subsequent stages of the Bill for dealing with the other matters which have been introduced. I shall make my words very brief, in order not to stand between the House and its desire to get through the Bill. As a Member of the Govern-
    948
    ment which introduced this Bill, I think it right to say that nothing has been urged to-night which has in the least shaken my opinion as to the propriety of confiding the care of education to the Secretary whose Office is proposed to be created by this Bill. My right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) began his speech by making observations of a general kind relating to the scope and effect of the Bill, and then gave it as his opinion that the effect of introducing education into the Bill would operate disastrously upon the interests of education in Scotland. While I followed him with close attention, I failed to discover in what particulars this proposed transfer would have these disastrous effects; and I think there were some admissions, and indeed assertions, which my right hon. Friend made which go very far indeed to justify the introduction of education as part of this measure. He admitted that the present system was not satisfactory; and one of his earlier remarks by way of criticism of the Bill was that it was founded upon a condemned system. He did not say, as I understood, that what the Bill proposes was worse than what now exists; but he suggested that it was not so good as something which was promised, but had not yet been fulfilled. The standard of comparison which he set up was not so much between the present system, which he condemned, and the new proposal, as between the latter and the system which we might have if the recommendation for a Minister of Education were carried out. We have not got that yet; and there are many difficulties which stand in the way of the appointment of a general Minister of Education. I agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) that, even if this Bill became law, it would be open to Parliament in its wisdom at any future time to reconsider this question; and if it arrived at the conclusion that it would be well to have a Minister of Education, education could be detached from the Office of the Secretary for Scotland and handed over to a Minister of Education. I am not anticipating that. I am only saying this—that the passing of this Bill with education in it will not be a barrier to the creation of a general Minister of Education, if, in the judgment of Parliament and of the country, such creation

    949
    should be thought desirable. Just let us see how very narrow, after all, the differences are between what my right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) put forward as desirable and what is proposed in the Bill, I think it is now common ground that there should be a certain amount of separation between the administration of English and Scottish education. That is one of the very things which this Bill proposes to further. Again, it is agreed that there should be two Committees of the Privy Council. This Bill accepts that position, and proposes to make the existing Scottish Committee of the Privy Council a more effectual instrument for educational purposes than it is at present. These are two things in regard to which not only the arguments advanced to-night, but the recommendations of the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) were practically agreed. I understand that the substance of the proposal of that Committee was that there should be a general Minister of Education, with an English Department, presided over by one Vice President, and a Scottish Committee presided over by another Vice President. There you have all the elements which you have here, except the common head over the two. So that if the House will consider for a moment how very slender the difference is they will see that there is no reason for rejecting this proposal, unless some cause can be shown for perpetuating or stereotyping the two separate systems which, it is admitted, should be brought into existence under a common head. The hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. J. A. Campbell) began by stating correctly that in Scotland we have different Education Acts, a different Code, and different educational traditions. In this he was correct; but I should have thought that these promises would have led to the conclusion that there should be a separate administration. But, by some strange transition, the conclusion which he seemed to draw was that you should put one man to administer both Departments, or put two sets of men to administer them, with one more or less ornamental head over the two. When we have arrived at a time when there are separate Acts, separate history, separate conditions, it seems
    950
    the most natural thing in the world, when the Minister is being created to have cognizance of many of the most important matters in Scotland, that this matter of education should be transferred to him. That is the proposal of the Bill. My right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair), in moving his Resolution, spoke of the progress which has been made in educational matters in Scotland. It has been great, and I hope it will continue to be great. But has that been due to a system of common administration? My right hon. Friend says "Yes, entirely." I do not agree with that at all. It was due, in the first instance, to the passing of the Education Act of 1872. Although it is quite true that every credit is due to the Department in Whitehall, a Board sat in Edinburgh for a considerable time, and aided in starting the administration of that Act. It was the great Act of 1872 which adapted the parish schools of John Knox to the existing conditions; but I submit that though the Act was launched and started with the aid of a temporary Board, it would not have succeeded any the less if it had been launched and started under a Scottish Secretary. While I should be sorry indeed to deny to the Department the credit justly duo to it for the manner in which it has administered that Act, still I fail to see that the administration by the Department was the cause, or at all events the sole cause, of the admitted advance of education in Scotland. I do not say that it would have been altogether better, or that it would have been worse, if there had been a separate administration of that Act in Scotland. I believe, in some respects, it would have been better if there had been a more direct and close connection between the official—whoever he was—and Scotland, in there had been more immediate and direct access to him; and if he had had his undivided attention devoted to Scottish education I do not see how that could have given a worse result. But it is said that, in some way, the advantages of deriving light from what is going on in English educational matters will be lost by this change. Why should that be? I do not suppose, if this Bill passes, and education is assigned to the new Minister, he will shut his eyes to what the English Department is doing. I hope he will keep his eyes and his ears

    951
    open to everything that is passing. Of course, he would not be influenced by that, except in so far as his reason dictated. He would not be obliged to assent to what he did not think right; but if he saw anything which he thought was an improvement, he would adopt it because it was an improvement. Is it not possible that there may be a certain advantage in an honourable emulation between the English and Scotch in educational matters? I should think it is very probable that if you have one Minister administering English, and another Minister administering Scottish education, they will each desire to do their best, and each wish to show that his educational system is superior to the other. The possibility of a Minister of Education being appointed at some future time is no reason against this measure of reform being passed now. We know that, under existing conditions, we cannot get Acts passed as we desire them; and if we are not to go a practicable step in a certain direction because there is a possibility of a larger proposal coming up for consideration by Parliament, there might be an almost indefinite postponement of many reforms. Something has been said in regard to Scottish opinion; and, no doubt, as we have heard this evening, there is a division of opinion in Scotland on this subject. But, as far as I have been able to collect it—and I have taken a good deal of pains to do so—the preponderance of Scottish, opinion is in favour of the inclusion of education in the Bill. Of course, if this question goes to a division, we shall have an opportunity of learning the sentiments of those who represent Scottish opinion in this House. I do not desire to detain the House longer. I thought it right to make these observations, in order to show that I see no cause whatever to go back on the Resolution in pursuance of which this Bill was introduced with education in it.
    THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. DALRYMPLE)said, he was anxious to say a few words on this Bill, for more reasons than one. Before he gave those reasons, the House would, perhaps, allow him to say that, so far as he understood, there was no difference of opinion in the House on the point of including education in the Bill. The
    952
    only question was as to the degree in which education should be included in the Bill. His right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. B. Balfour) had referred to the Board of Education in Edinburgh, which existed first in 1872, and which did so much to put the Education Act into operation. He (Mr. Dalrymple) maintained that the fact that that Board was provisional, and not continued, was a proof that it had been intended that in future the Act should be worked from Whitehall. He desired, before he forgot it, to refer to a remark made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) concerning the great feeling shown in Edinburgh two years ago upon the question of education. The hon. Gentleman referred to the meeting which was held in Edinburgh at that time. It was, however, a peculiar circumstance, but one worth mentioning, that at that great meeting the question of education was not referred to.
    MR. RAMSAY: I supported a Resolution myself in reference to education and all distinctively Scottish Business.
    MR. DALRYMPLE: Then I stand corrected.
    MR. RAMSAY: It was not mentioned at the deputation.
    MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he did not think any very great stress was laid upon the question at the meeting, and for a very good reason. The two first resolutions at that famous meeting were moved by two noblemen whom he would designate as Lords A and B—[Cries of "Name!"]—well, Lords Aberdeen and Balfour of Burleigh—and they differed entirely in regard to the question of putting education under the Secretary for Scotland. It was not likely, therefore, that the question of education was mentioned very much at the meeting. But he would pass on—he had only mentioned that to show that the reference of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ramsay) was a type of the language which was used in regard to this subject. Reference had been made to the enthusiasm for this measure, and the enthusiasm was interpreted as enthusiasm for the educational proposals of the Bill. There was enthusiasm about the measure, but there was no enthusiasm about the educational proposals of the Bill, because there was no unanimity upon those proposals. He had said that for

    953
    more reasons than one he was anxious to say a few words on this Bill. He did not agree altogether with the educational proposals in the Bill; and, furthermore, two years ago he led the opposition to the Bill for the establishment of a Local Government Board in Scotland. He held then, and he held now, that the Bill had not then been properly thought out. It was thrown out in "another place," and he believed no one ever regretted its loss. By the fate of that Bill time was given for public opinion to be matured upon the question; and even if he were disposed to resist this measure, which, indeed, he was not, he should admit that there had been in Scotland a great advance of opinion in favour of the measure. It was not too much to say that many people were possessed with the idea of having a Scotch Minister to manage their affairs. People might differ as to the title to be given to the new Minister; they might differ as to the subjects which were to be dealt with by the Minister; they might differ as to the expectations they entertained of the appointment; but there was no difference, so far as he knew, as to the appointment itself, and accordingly a very great interest was taken in this Bill. The truth was that their defect in Scotland, as was very well said some time ago by the noble Earl who took charge of the Bill in "another place" (the Earl of Rosebery), was not legislative, but executive. It was not legislative, because the Scotch Members were in the habit, generally speaking, of agreeing on measures relating to Scotland entirely without reference to the side of the House on which they sat; and oven in a very congested Session of Parliament it was sometimes possible, in consequence of that agreement, to pass Bills relating to Scotland. The defect was executive. He did not wish to reflect in any degree upon the distinguished men who had filled the Office of Lord Advocate of Scotland; but the very circumstances which had led to this Bill had somewhat altered the position of that official. This movement had made the position of Lord Advocate somewhat provisional, so far as his lay character was concerned. Anyone who had seen the room at the Home Office in which the Lord Advocate sat would not doubt for a moment that his condition had of late years been of a provisional kind.
    954
    It was a small and dark apartment, and he doubted if it was even wholesome. The room was typical of the way in which Scotchmen carried on their affairs throughout the world; they carried them on in spite of the most adverse circumstances. But let him say there was no reason why, if this Bill passed, the position of the Lord Advocate should not be enduring. The Lord Advocate would still be an officer of State for Scotland; he would have, as heretofore, a great deal of patronage in his hands; he would retain his connection with the Home Department in reference to the administration of law in Scotland, and he would be the Legal Adviser for Scotland. Reverting to the question of the feeling in Scotland in favour of the Bill, he might say that he had been at some pains to examine the Petitions which had been presented, because the language used about the Petitions had been so very wild. It had been said that the school boards were unanimously in favour of the proposed transfer of the control of education to the new Minister; but he doubted that that was so. There was a body known as the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland, and hon. Members were in the habit of attaching considerable importance to its opinions when its opinions were favourable to their view of any case. When, however, its opinions were contrary to those of hon. Members the Body was spoken of as of no importance. Last year that Body was apparently unanimous about putting education under the Secretary for Scotland; but this year it was so divided on the question that by a bare majority of two it saved itself from stultifying itself by reversing its former decision. Whatever enthusiasm had been shown in Scotland for the Bill it could not have reference to the educational part of the measure. The proposal about education as it stood in the Bill was never even in print in the House of Lords before it was introduced. To show how suddenly the educational proposal was made, he might say he remembered the Lord President of the Council saying that until he came down to the House of Lords he had never seen it. One other statement had been made—namely, that Scotland had made up its mind to have charge of its own education. No one was opposed to the Secretary for Scotland being identified with the

    955
    management of education, the only question was as to the degree of that management. He rejoiced more than he could say that when Her Majesty's Government took up this Bill the subject of education was left an open one. There was great division of opinion about it; it was not an essential part of the Bill; but there was no sort of reason why the difference of opinion existing should in any way imperil the passing of the Bill. He had given the utmost thought not only to the whole Bill, but to this particular part of it; and he confessed that he cared more for the fate of Scottish education than he did for eking out a sufficient amount of work for the Secretary for Scotland. It was of more importance that the Scottish education of the future should be thoroughly well managed than that the Secretary for Scotland should have his time fully occupied; and yet he held that the Secretary for Scotland's time might be fully occupied even if he had no concern at all with education. Let the House remember that the proposal to include education was no part of the Bill of 1883, and no part of the Bill of 1884, and that in its present shape it was no part of the Bill of 1885 as introduced. ["Oh!"] He was not, and no one else was, proposing to put education out of the Bill; but he maintained that the particular form in which education was referred to in the Bill was no part of the Bill as the Bill was at first introduced; and, therefore, it was open to them in Committee to consider the exact shape in which education should be embodied. It was because he remembered that there had been some dissatisfaction in recent times with the management of Scotch education in detail that he considered it was important that the Scotch Committee of the Privy Council should be strengthened, and that its Members should receive the addition, amongst others, of so well known a friend of Scottish education as Sir Francis Sandford. Now, he (Mr. Dalrymple) submitted that instead of the Secretary for Scotland being a Vice President of the Council for Scotland he should be an ex officio Member of the Scottish Committee of the Privy Council, and that there should be a Secretary told off in the Department to be at the special call of the Scottish Committee, and that he should be specially informed, by being a Scotchman, of the
    956
    needs of Scottish education. That was a proposal which a large school board in the West of Scotland, and a great many elsewhere in Scotland, were in favour of. They were not in favour of including education in the Bill, but they were in favour of such a connection as he had specified between the Secretary for Scotland and education; they did not want to supersede the present Vice President, whose equal he never could be, because the English Vice President was a Member of the Cabinet, and it was not contended that the Secretary for Scotland should be always in the Cabinet. He was all for recognizing the peculiarities of Scottish education; and his idea was that the management of Scottish education should be distinct, but not separate. It should be distinct, inasmuch as those charged with it should be the Scotch Committee, of which the Secretary for Scotland would be a Member; and who could doubt that that Minister would be put in the Chair in the absence of the Lord President? On the other hand, no encouragement should be given to the idea of separating the management of Scottish education from the management of English education within the Department. This was the only modification he had to suggest in regard to the educational proposals of the Bill. Its adoption would not only satisfy his right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair), who moved the Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker left the Chair; but it was approved by all the Members from Scotland who sat on the Ministerial side of the House; and Gentlemen who sat on the Opposition Benches, to whom he had had an opportunity of mentioning it from time to time, regarded it as a fair compromise. The recommendations of what was known as the Childers Committee were not before the House at the present time; but what he asked of hon. Members was that the recommendations of that Committee should not be prejudiced by anything they did now. He put it to the House whether this modified proposal as to the new Secretary being an ex officio Member of the Scotch Committee was not less calculated to prejudice the larger question hereafter than was the proposal to create the new Secretary a Vice President of the Council? While he sincerely desired to support the Bill as a whole, he

    957
    should be very glad if the House, when it got into Committee, thought proper to accept this modified plan in reference to education, which he really believed would unite a great number of persons.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I assure the Scotch Members and the Committee generally that I will not detain thorn more than a very few minutes. I feel this is a Scottish question, and I would not have intervened at all except for my interest in education generally, and for the fact that I happened to be in Office when the English Bill was brought in, and when the Scotch Bill was brought in with great ability by the Lord Advocate of that time. It was my business to assist the right hon. and learned Gentleman in conducting the Bill, and to do my best afterwards in administering the Bill. This is a matter in which Scottish feeling and the views of Scottish Members ought to be mainly considered; and although I have a rather strong opinion in favour of the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews (Sir Lyon Playfair) I do not know that I should have ventured to express it if the opinion of the Scottish Members was strongly the other way. But certainly it is quite clear, from the debate to-night, that there is a very considerable amount of Scottish support of my right hon. Friend. The real point in dispute is whether education in Scotland will suffer or not by Scottish education being put into the hands of a Minister perfectly distinct from the Minister having charge of education in England. I have not the slightest doubt that education in England will suffer by the change; but hon. Members will say—"That is your look out; we do not much care about that." Of course, I feel that we have gained a great deal in England by the example which Scotland has set us, and by the hints that we have received from Scotland, though the advantage is not altogether onesided. The old system of education in Scotland was something that was quite wonderful in its time; it was an example not only to England, but to all Europe. But the social condition of Scotland has to some extent changed, and you have now very large populations in towns, as we have in England, and there was the fear that the children of the poor would be somewhat
    958
    neglected by the old system of higher education for the peasants of the country. There is now a feeling that there are two perfectly different educational systems; and it is said—"Let us have a Scottish Department with a Scotchman at its head, and an English Department with an Englishman at its head." I think that as matters are worked at present Scotland gets far more than its share, and very rightly, in the management of the education of Great Britain. Take the facts. The late Permanent Secretary. Sir Francis Sandford, was a Scotchman with Scotch views which he never forgot. The present Permanent Secretary, my friend Mr. Cumin, is also a Scotchman; and you maybe quite sure from that, that Scotchmen, knowing so much as they do about education, will have a very strong representation in the Education Department. But, after all, the real question is this—It is not proposed that there should be a Vice President for Scottish education, and that he should have nothing else to do —it is admitted that Scotland, with a population under 4,000,000, could hardly expect that there should be a special officer of State for that purpose, and that if there was he would be over-shadowed by the other officers of State who had more to do—but that the management of Scottish education should be entrusted to a Scottish Minister who has many other things to attend to. Is it likely that education would be attended to better by such a Minister than by a Vice President of Education who has nothing but education in Great Britain to attend to? Speaking with some degree of practical experience, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that education in Scotland would gain more by the carrying on of the present system than by the change. Now, what you want is a Minister who has nothing else to do but to attend to education, and the difference between Scottish education and English education is nothing approaching the difference between education and the other matters that will have to be dealt with by a Scottish Minister. I have had some little experience in Ireland also. Of course there were circumstances in Ireland that took one's attention from everything else; but I was greatly interested in education, and I would have been delighted if I could have

    959
    attended to it. General business prevented me giving that attention to educational matters which I should have liked to give. And what was the result? Why, that education in Ireland fell into the hands of a Board, and I fear that the result of the change now proposed will be that education in Scotland will fall into the hands of a Board. I have no doubt some hon. Members prefer that; but what is the meaning of it? The more the control of education fell into the hands of a Board, the more it fell out of the hands of the House of Commons, or out of the hands of the Representatives of the people. I would hardly venture to express my opinion upon the subject if educational authorities in Scotland were strongly on the other side; but, so far as I can make out, they are in favour of the view of my right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair). Now, the schoolmasters of Scotland are a remarkably intelligent body of men. They take an immense interest in their Profession, and rarely have I received so strong and earnest a deputation as the deputation of Scotch schoolmasters who waited upon me two or three weeks ago to protest against this Bill. They contended that if the Bill passed the cause of education in Scotland will suffer, and they were particularly alarmed at the idea of education getting into the hands of a Board, and out of the immediate cognizance of the House of Commons. Well, then, it is true that there have been some school boards petitioning in favour of the plan proposed by the Bill. But my right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) tells me there are 980 school boards, so that there cannot be any very strong feeling in favour of the Bill, because only 36 school boards have petitioned for it, and these 36 only represent a population of 80,000. There are not two more important boards in the whole of Scotland "than those of Glasgow and Govan. When I was down in Glasgow, I found that the education there was managed economically, with the greatest possible efficiency, with full respect to the Scottish feeling on higher education. I had the honour of opening a higher board school in Govan, a suburb which, as hon. Members know, has increased more rapidly than any part of the United Kingdom. The population of Govan has increased in 10 years from
    960
    50,000 to 110,000, and with this large increase the school board has kept pace, not only in the matter of mere elementary teaching, but with higher teaching. I venture to state that there is more feeling in the two boards of Glasgow and Govan against this Bill than there is in the 36 boards which have petitioned in favour of the measure. There is also the large town of Dundee. That takes the same line, and I am told that in Aberdeen there is a greater feeling against the Bill than for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster) is one of the best authorities on education in the United Kingdom, and I hope I do not anticipate him when I say he agrees with my right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair). I think we ought to know what the view of the Government is. My hon. Friend the Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) made a very good speech; but, so far as I could make out, he is in favour of the view of my right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) on the question of education. Did he speak on behalf of the Government or not? Surely we ought to know that. The question of education is one of immense importance to Scotland. Whether you make this change or not, it does seem to me to be rather a strong measure to propose it on a Bill brought in in the very last days of a Parliament. It appears to me that if the Government are rather unfavourable to it, it ought to be left for the decision of the Scotch people in the Election which will soon take place. I thank the House for the patience with which they have listened to me.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I must apologize to hon. Members from Scotland for taking any part in this debate; but during the last two years this subject has been so constantly before me, and I have received so many deputations and representations on this question, that it is only fair to those who have been at so much pains to bring their views before me that I should state what those views are, and how they bear on Scottish education. I had hoped to have risen after I had learned the views of my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Mr. E. Stanhope). It is significant he is not in his place at this time to give us the views of the Government upon this subject. I am sure he must have some views on

    961
    the question, and I have very little doubt what those views are. Now, by this Bill it is proposed to transfer the management of Scottish education to the new Secretary for Scotland. I would not venture for a moment to dispute the right of the Scottish people to have a Secretary for Scotland, or to administer Scottish education in Scotland. If a Minister were appointed to manage Scottish education solely and exclusively, I do not think anyone in this House would have any right to complain. I have no doubt that if a Minister devoted his whole time to the work he would do it well; but I am quite satisfied that to make such an appointment would be a comparatively reactionary step. It must be borne in mind that this is not the Bill which was introduced in the House of Lords. The Bill now stands in the most anomalous shape, reducing, as it does, the position of the new Secretary, with respect to education, to an absurdity. The new Secretary would have to deal with 50 or 60 Acts of Parliament; he would have to administer the Cattle Diseases Acts; he would have Home Office, Local Government Board, and other Scotch work to attend to; and he would not be, as it was intended he should be, the sole administrator of the Education Department in Scotland. He would simply be the Vice President for the Education Department of Scotland under the English Lord President, and the English Lord President will sit in the Privy Council Office, and the Scottish Minister will sit, I suppose, in the Home Office. The whole of the patronage of the Scotch Education Department will be vested in the English Lord President, and there is not a single act the new Secretary can do that may not be vetoed at any moment by the English Lord President. I cannot conceive anything more anomalous or more absurd than the position in which the Bill stands at the present moment. Talk about a step in advance! It is many steps backwards. It is not a step in the direction in which we have been going; but it is a decidedly reactionary step, and one which I believe will be fraught with disaster to education in Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) was very adroit in taking advantage of a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Universities of Edin-
    962
    burgh and St. Andrew's (Sir Lyon Playfair) to the effect that the present system is not altogether satisfactory. It is quite true that the present system is not altogether satisfactory; but why is that so? If my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. B. Balfour) refers to the Report of the Committee, he will see that the present system is not satisfactory, because we have no responsible Minister for Education. What are you doing by this Bill? You are making confusion worse confounded; you are making a Vice President who is not to administer in his own Office his own Department, but who must go to another Office, under the Lord President, where he will have to ask for whatever staff he may require, and will have to submit all his Minutes, schemes, and Codes to the Lord President's approval. Now, with respect to the present administration. My right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) has spoken in the most eulogistic terms of Sir Francis Sandford. Sir Francis Sand-ford has been the Secretary for Scotland as well as for England ever since the passing of the Act of 1872; and I may say, from, five years' association with him, that, as Secretary for Scotland and for England, he did his duty faithfully and well. The Scotch part of his work he did with affection, and, so far from Scotland having been neglected under Sir Francis Sandford's administration, it always had his first thoughts and best efforts. Scotland has not suffered under the present administration. If she has suffered, it has been owing to the agitation of the last two years. All educationalists in Scotland—all those who have administered education and care about its progress, are thoroughly opposed to putting education under a Scottish Secretary. I am speaking from what I actually know. I have met the educationalists in Scotland, and have found a singular unanimity in this respect. There are two Members for the four Universities in Scotland, and both of them have spoken against the educational proposals of the Bill, and six out of the eight Scotch Members who have spoken in this debate have declared against these proposals. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) referred to the great school boards of Glasgow and Govan as being opposed to the inclusion of education in the Bill. He might have added

    963
    Dundee and Perth and Aberdeen. All the great communities in Scotland are in favour of the Bill, but against the inclusion of education. One of the hon. Members for Glasgow is in favour of it, but the other is against it; and I may say that Mr. George Anderson, than whom Scotland never had a better Representative on educational matters, besought me to oppose as strongly as I could the transfer of Scottish education to a Scottish Secretary. I will not detain the House long; but just let me point out that which has been referred to by various other Members—namely, what will be the position of this much occupied Scotch Secretary. Will he be able to deal with Scotch education when he is Vice President of the Scotch Council of Education? No; he will have nothing to do with any part of Scotch education except the literary department. Will he be a Minister representing the Science and Art Department—will he have anything to do with the teaching of Art in the common schools of Scotland, or of Science in the new endowed schools of Scotland? What would he have to do with Institutions like the Highland Institution and the Heriot's Trust? Why, nothing at all. You will have one Minister to settle the literary part of the Code, and another Minister to settle the Science and Art teaching, and also that more important branch, technical education, which Scotland cannot much longer neglect. Then take, for instance, the circulating objects for teaching Science. They will come from the English Vice President, who has to deal with the Science and Art Department—who has the supply of the Museums in his charge—all this must come from the English Vice President, and the Scotch Vice President will have nothing to do with it. So that the Code will have to be framed by the Scotch Vice President and submitted to the English Vice President entirely as a literary Code, and the Science and Art question will have to be dealt with by the English Vice President. Can anything be more confusing or more absurd than the position to which this matter has been brought? The Vice President of the Council at this moment is the sole Minister who devotes his whole time and attention to education. He receives Reports from time to time from the various Ministers of Education
    964
    throughout the world. It is his business to acquaint himself with all that happens in regard to education, not only in this, but in other countries. He is brought daily into contact with the Inspectors, managers, teachers, and the various educational systems that are in vogue and in progress. It is his business to gather up all points that his opportunities and experience suggest to him, and endeavour to apply them successfully to the educational system he has to administer, and, that he may be free to do this, Parliament has relieved him of all his other duties. It was thought a great anomaly that a Minister of Education should represent the Privy Council, and should have to do with questions of cattle disease, and so on. Unhappily, business of this kind has been put on him; and what would be said hereafter of the administration of Scotch education, if the gentleman intrusted with it had to discharge all these duties? Let me point out the first duty that would devolve upon the Scotch Minister of Education. His first duty would be to revise the Code. The Scotch Code needs revision. It should have been revised before, and it would have been but for this agitation. No one would revise it while this agitation, which had for its object to transfer the work from one Minister to another, was going on. I should like to see the Code revised by any new Vice President, and I should like to see what sort of condition the new Minister would be in after he had been six months in Office. I think we can very well imagine what would be the result. If he is not himself complete master of his business, what will be his position? Why, he will be entirely at the mercy of his permanent officials. I do not dispute that he may have good permanent officials; but a Minister of Education who resigns himself solely to his permanent officials, and is content to be governed entirely from within-side of his own Office, will inevitably come to grief, and we should soon hear about it in Scotland. That sort of system would not do at all. Scotland would lose the advantage, then, of the large experience of the Minister whose sole object it is to deal with education. She would lose another great advantage—namely, she would lose the advantage of interchange of ideas. I will give you an example of what I

    965
    mean. A few months ago, either at the beginning of this year or at the end of last year, I invited some Scotch Inspectors to come and inspect English schools with English Inspectors, and see what they found in them which struck them as being good or bad, and to report on them. They found much that was very interesting to them, some things that were very new, some things that they admitted were complete revelations to them; and I say to Scotch Members, honouring them as I do, and the educational system they have given to their country in the past, that there is one side of Scotch education which requires waking up and improvement. Instead of teaching Greek in their public schools to boys who are going out to work, they should teach them some modern languages and modern science, and bring home more to the pupils the facts that are necessary to enable them to apply the Arts and Sciences to the industries they have to enter upon. There will be no great advantage resulting from interference with the present system in regard to the training of teachers. The Scotch Secretary will have to train his own teachers entirely to meet his own supply and demand, and the English Minister will have to train his. Now, at the present time, a considerable number of Scotch teachers come to England, and I should be glad to see more of our English teachers go to Scotland to get the training that is to be acquired in that country. It would be a very good thing for them to do so; and it is, therefore, desirable that there should be solidarity in the system between the two countries so far as the training of the teachers is concerned, so that it should not be said that Scotland produces too many teachers and England too few. If you divide the two systems, the result will be that the English Minister will train just as many teachers as he requires for his own schools, and the Scotch Minister will train just as many as he requires for his, and it will be impossible to have that interchange and solidarity which there should be. I do not know whether hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have read the Memorials which have been received upon this subject. There has been one from teachers, not elementary teachers, but teachers of all ranks in Scotland. There is no better class of teachers in
    966
    Europe than the Scotch teachers of today. They are every day coming more and more into the Universities—more than half the teachers, I think, have passed through the Universities—and so far from the Scottish education having deteriorated, and the teachers having had their position injured by the Act of 1872, I was assured the other day that, since the passing of that measure, Scottish education has vastly improved as compared with the old parochial system—that the Universities are exacting a higher test every year, and that the Scotch schools are meeting these tests. I believe, however, that if this proposal is carried out, Scottish education will not keep pace with the progress that it has made during these recent years.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he desired to say a few words, as the House would be under some misapprehension if it imagined that all the Scotch Members agreed with the sentiments which had been expressed by previous speakers. There was one sentiment, and almost one only, which he agreed with in the interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair); and that was that this Bill, both this year and in previous years, had been singularly unfortunate in those who took charge of it in that House. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) was justified in saying that they had an example before them in the attempt at infanticide made on the Bill at its first appearance by its first father, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). And now they found that the Bill was in charge in that House of those who, two years ago, spoke against it and voted against it, and he thought he might say obstructed it in its progress through the House. The hon. Member for Buteshire had opposed it; but on the present occasion he had stood up in a white sheet, and with a candle in his hand, doing penance.
    THE LORD OF THE TREASUEY (Mr. DALRYMPLE): I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I have done nothing of the kind.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, that, at any rate, the hon. Member's vote that night would be singularly in opposition to the

    967
    vote he had given and the speech he had delivered on the subject two years ago. Then the action and vote of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would be very different from his action and vote two years ago. He had said on that occasion that he was rather lukewarm towards this Bill; that he did not altogether care for it; in fact, that he rather disliked it; but that there was one argument in favour of it which had not been advanced—and it had not been advanced to-night by anyone sitting on the Ministerial Bench. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "There was one argument in favour of the Bill which he had omitted to notice, and it was this. One defect of Scotchmen was that they did not show well at the poll; they had a habit of returning a majority of Liberal Members, and the result of that was that a Liberal Government could always command the services of eminent Scottish lawyers. It had not always been the case that the Conservative Government could do so, and that was a consideration the Conservatives should not lose sight of. This provision might be of convenience in the extremely unexpected event of a Conservative Government coming in. He did not mean to say that a Conservative Government were likely to come in; but in no circumstances, however unimportant, ought it to be lost sight of when they were passing legislation of this kind. Though he should vote with his hon. Friend against the Bill, still that was a reason which made him believe that, after all, there was something to be said for it."—(3 Hansard, [282] 1523.)
    Now a Conservative Government had come in; but the Conservative Lord Advocate, unfortunately, had not a seat in the House. He (Mr. Buchanan), therefore, supposed that was the motive, and that was the sole reason, why hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Benches opposite now took up the sponsorship of this Bill. For what had been the action of those who had spoken more or less in favour of the Bill that night? Why, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen (Mr. J. A. Campbell) had spoken against the Bill and blocked it on a previous occasion, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay) had spoken against it and blocked it, the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) had spoken against it, blocked it, and divided against it. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had also spoken against it, he did not know how
    968
    often. He had spoken against it on the second reading; he had advocated Amendments, and had blocked it on going into Committee—had blocked it with the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) and the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). Those were the Gentlemen who now had charge of this unfortunate Bill. The form to which the Government were going to reduce the Bill was exactly the form in which it was in in 1883, and that was what Scotch Members had to object to. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) he entirely agreed with in the criticism he had made as to the alteration that had been made in the form of the Bill as it at present stood—as to the manner in which it proposed to confer the charge of education on the new Scotch Minister. His right hon. Friend had clearly shown the confusion that would arise in the Education Office from the presence of two Vice Presidents. But added to that was the alteration proposed by the Government opposite, and, he was sorry to say, supported by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick), who had hitherto been a thorough supporter of the Bill. That alteration was practically to take education out of the Bill altogether. It was right that the House should be informed that if they were going to do that the Bill would not be worth having, and would not be received or welcomed in Scotland. He should like to say one or two words as to the argument brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair). The right hon. Gentleman's argument as to the progress of education had, he thought, been answered several times over. The right hon. Gentleman's other arguments were, first of all, a comparison between the educational systems of Great Britain and Ireland, and then one which he had based on the evidence of Mr. Childers' Committee, and the state of public opinion in Scotland on the subject. With regard to the argument as to the condition of Irish education, he (Mr. Buchanan) did not think he need trouble the House with any reply; for the right hon. Gentleman would himself remember that he had advanced that argument in Committee to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border

    969
    Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan)—at that time Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs would on no account allow that the backward state of Irish education was due to its being managed in Dublin under the direction of the Chief Secretary; and the right hon. Gentleman had compared the backward condition of that education in the past with its present state, and had pointed out the great progress it had made during recent years. Then, as to Mr. Childers' Committee, he thought that one point had not been noticed. They ought to consider what was the authority of that Committee in dealing with this question. It would be in the recollection of some Scotch Members that the Motion of the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) for the appointment of a Minister of Education was brought forward on the same night as the Local Government Bill for Scotland was read a first time, and that at the conclusion of the discussion, after the Motion was put, there had been some allusion to this question of the control of Scotch education being dealt with by the Committee, when his hon. Friend the Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) got up and protested against this Bill coming within the observation of the Select Committee. It had not been mentioned in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who proposed the Committee, and the hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay) at once got up and said—
    "No arrangement would be satisfactory to the people of Scotland unless they had a Department of their own for administering the laws relating to education in Scotland."—(3 Hansard, [280] 973–4.)
    But that was not all, because a week or two after, when the Local Government Board Bill came on for discussion, the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Dick-Peddie), whom he was sorry not to see in his place, moved to put education in the Bill, and he was met by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that this Select Committee had been appointed, and was going to deal with it. What was the reply of the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs? Why, that he could not recognize the action of the Committee on that subject, for the matter had not been referred to the Committee, and that the only Scotch
    970
    Members put upon it were the Members for the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, whose views were known on the subject, and who, it was known, would vote in the same direction. A further caveat had been entered against it, for on the 17th of August, 1883, he himself (Mr. Buchanan) had said that the
    "Select Committee appointed was not such as would adequately enable a thorough investigation to be made, and a satisfactory decision to be given."—(3 Hansard, [283] 1032.)
    He was bound to say that they could not have supposed that these two hon. Gentlemen, when they took up the matter, would have proceeded to deliberate upon it in the manner they did. They actually did not call a single Scotch witness on the subject. The only persons examined were the Permanent Secretaries of the Department, both Scotchmen certainly (Sir Francis Sandford and Mr. P. Cumin), and two Gentlemen from Ireland, the others being either past Presidents or past Vice Presidents of the Council. No one single witness was called from Scotland; and were they, he would ask them, to be bound by that Committee, when they knew that they did not attempt to get any evidence which did not agree with their own view? Therefore, he did not think that Committee was entitled to very much attention on this subject. Then there was the question of Scotch feeling on the subject. Well, he must, first of all, protest against the argument of the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) with regard to the Petitions which had been presented to that House on the subject. The hon. Member said that the people were not in favour of the transference of educational matters to the Scotch Secretary, although in favour of the Bill, because education was not in the original Bill. He would point out, however, that in the Bill of 1884 education was transferred to the proposed new Minister; and it was on the basis of that Bill, as approved by the House and as introduced this year by Lord Rosebery, that all these Petitions had been sent in. More than that, almost all the Petitions this year specially included a clause in their prayer that I education should be given to the new Minister. He would point out also that there was not a single public Body in Scotland which had petitioned against education being placed in the hands and

    971
    under the control of this new Minister. He had only one other thing to say with regard to Petitions. Mention had been made of School Board Petitions; but no one had mentioned the large numbers of Town Councils and other public Bodies who had petitioned in favour of this Bill. He had looked through the list, and he found that no loss than 70 Town Councils and Municipal Bodies Lad petitioned this year in favour of it, and these included places of the importance and variety of Edinburgh, Greenock, Inverness, Paisley, Montrose, &c.; and he would also point out that he knew of no single instance in which one of those Bodies had said they were not in favour of the Bill including the question of education. Beyond this, he and other Scotch Members had had many representations made to him throughout the Session on the point. It was perfectly well known, and the Government ought to be aware of it, that this was the very substance of the Bill. The whole object of the measure was to give a thorough-going Department for Scotland, and there would be no general interest in it if it did not deal with the question in which all Scotland was interested in—namely, education. If Her Majesty's Government were going to accept the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, thou they had better not go on with the Bill at all.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, the last speaker had said that the occupants of the Ministerial Bench had hitherto been very lukewarm in supporting this Bill. Well, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that the debates to which he referred had not taken place upon this Bill at all, but on the Bill of 1883, which was in no souse the same Bill as that which was now before the House. He was especially surprised by what had fallen from the hon. Member, because he had said that if education were omitted from the present Bill it would not be worth having. He even hinted that he and his Friends would obstruct it. Well, in the Bill of 1883 education was not included; and, therefore, according to his own contention, the Bill which they were lukewarm in supporting was one which, in his opinion, was worthless. The debate that evening had been chiefly confined to a question which he thought ought to be
    972
    left to the Committoe—namely, the precise position to be taken with regard to Scotch education. The right hon. Gentleman, who understood the matter, and who spoke first that night (Sir Lyon Playfair), had not confined his remarks merely to the question of education; but he had spoken against the Bill as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that their motive for bringing in the Bill was to be found chiefly in the fact that a General Election was approaching, and that but for that fact there would not be found that unanimity which existed amongst Scotch Members. Well, all he could say on that point was that some time ago, at a meeting in Edinburgh, he himself had spoken very strongly in favour of the measure, and he believed that a very large number of Scotch Members were committed to it long before the prospect of a General Election appeared above the horizon. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said the tendency of the Bill would be to narrow Scotch national fooling and to separate the two countries. Well, if he believed that either of those disastrous effects were likely to follow in the path of this Bill he would certainly have nothing more to do with it; but he could not understand why the appointment of a Minister for Scotland, administering a Scotch Department not in Scotland, but from Whitehall, would have a tendency to promote provincial narrowness or to separate the two countries. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the efficiency of official Business, especially with regard to education, would not be promoted by this measure, because it was evidently the idea to make the Minister for Scotland a Member of the other House. Well, he did not believe that there was the slightest idea of allocating the Minister for Scotland to one House more than to the other; nor did he believe that even if the Minister were in the House of Lords that circumstance would make him neglectful of the interests of education, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to infer. Some hon. Gentlemen held that the Lord Advocate was the proper Minister on whom the additional weight of Scotch Business should be thrown; but, as he had pointed out years ago, there was not always a Lord Advocate in that House. It unfortunately happened, for instance,

    973
    that when a Conservative Government came into power their Lord Advocate was not always elected, although they hoped that if they were returned at the coming General Election their Lord Advocate would be in the House. He thought that Scotland had a right to ask for a separate Minister, and, seeing the great difference between Scotch and English education, that education should be included in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had held that the tax upon the time of a Scotch Minister demanded by the consideration of several affairs would render him unable to devote the same amount of time that ought to be devoted to Scotch education; but he would point out that although the Scotch Minister with regard to Scotch education might have far more varied duties to perform than the English Minister of Education, still the demand on his time would probably be less than in the case of the English Minister. Indeed, he could not believe that there would be found any number of duties appertaining to this new Office which would so overburden the Minister that he would not be able to devote his best attention to the interests of a subject which was so dear to the hearts of his countrymen. He altogether denied that there was a single sentence in that Bill, or in the Bill as it was sought to be amended by the right hon. Gentleman, tending towards a separation of the interests of the two countries. He would be out of Order if he attempted to discuss that Amendment now, nor did he wish to do so; but he would suggest to the House that they should no longer delay the prospects of the Bill by debating a point which could be best discussed in Committee. He would suggest that they should get into Committee, and that when they came to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman they should thoroughly thrash the matter out. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman would wish that the question of education should be discussed in Committee; and he would most earnestly recommend all Scotch Members who desired to see the Bill pass into law that Session not to interpose any unnecessary delay at this stage of the proceedings.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he wished, with the permission of the House, to make a few observations on this subject before the Question was
    974
    put from the Chair, because he had been connected with this Bill from the commencement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) had made a very impartial attack all round in stating his objections to the Bill; he began by attacking everyone on the Front Benches, and, amongst other things, he had charged him (Sir William Harcourt) with having been guilty of something like infanticide with reference to the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman should remember that before he could perform that operation he had brought it to birth, and that very early in 1880 he had come to the conclusion that it was desirable that there should be a separate administration of Scotch affairs. He remembered very well having consulted with the Earl of Rosebery on the subject in 1880; but the real difficulty had been to get an expression of Scotch opinion in favour of the measure, and then to discover what that opinion was. And when his right hon. Friend complained of his lukewarmness in this matter, he remembered that he had been so doused with cold water by Scotch Members both in and out of the House that it was not an easy thing to maintain the temperature at the point he wished. But for the last three years he had been endeavouring to discover what were the wishes of Scotch Members on this subject, and that, too, with a strong and earnest desire to carry them into effect. First of all, he introduced the Bill of 1883; and the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), who had studied the subject for many years, said it was exactly the thing that the Scotch people wanted—the thing they had wanted all along—and that he was glad they had got it at last. Well, he naturally supposed that everything was right. But afterwards he discovered that it was the thing which nobody wanted; another proposal was made, and he was expected to be enthusiastic in favour of it. There were many hon. Gentlemen who did not like that Bill; and, amongst others, the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. A. J. Balfour) said he was opposed to the Bill of 1888 because it did not include education, although when the Bill was before them in 1883 he did not say one word on the subject of education. He did not think that that was

    975
    the ground on which the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple) had opposed the Bill; but, as a matter of fact, the Bill had been cold-shouldered all round. However strong might be the feeling in Scotland—and he believed the people of Scotland did wish for the measure—an extraordinary conviction took possession of hon. Members on both sides of the House that they were not very favourable to it. Then took place the great meeting at Edinburgh, and a deputation followed to the Prime Minister, and he (Sir William Harcourt) remembered that it was said that they had expressly determined not to accept any Bill which did not include education. Now, that was distinctly the case at the beginning of 1884, and the late Government were blamed for not including education in the Bill of 1884. After trying to ascertain the opinion of the Scotch Peers, the late Government were extremely anxious to know what were the views of Scotch Members in the House of Commons. There had been great difficulty in discovering that, and he was bound to say that the present debate had not removed that difficulty. He could not make out that any two Members who had spoken that evening held exactly the same views upon this subject. He would like to know what were the views which Scotch Members entertained on this subject of education, because if they were clearly expressed he should be extremely glad to defer to them. For his own part, with his right hon. and learned Friend the late Lord Advocate, he was prepared to support the Bill as it was introduced into the House of Lords. That was his view upon the subject; but he did not pretend to have that absolute knowledge of the matter which many Members present possessed, nor had he the knowledge which the Earl of Rosebery necessarily had when he introduced the Bill into the other House of Parliament, although he had taken the best means he could to inform himself from persons best acquainted with the subject. If the question of education was to be discussed, he thought that the present debate should terminate as soon as possible.
    DR. CAMERON(who rose amid cries of "Divide!") said, it was all very well for the hon. Member opposite who cried "Divide!" to be impatient; but he did not represent a Scotch constituency; and
    976
    it would be well for him to remember that possibly some other Scotch Members might have to speak upon this question. He should himself not have spoken on the question if he had not understood that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Lyon Playfair) did not intend to divide the House upon his Amendment. He understood that the occupants of both the Front Benches would be governed by the opinions of the Scotch Members; and, therefore, he would have liked a division to take place, because he believed it would have shown that the proportion of Scotch Members who were opposed to this proposal to those who were in favour of it was as two to one. Without travelling over the old ground, he wished the House to understand that there was a large section of the Scotch people who, so far from agreeing with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had said—namely, that Scotch education had flourished under his Presidency, were convinced that it had flourished in despite of it. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to understand that there was not the same unanimity of opinion upon that subject as he appeared to think. But the question was whether or not education in Scotland would be improved by the proposed changes. Well, his opinion was that it could not be made worse than it was at the present time. During the existence of the Scotch Board a number of grants were made for building purposes; but they were so administered that a deputation came up from Glasgow to point out that until they could get the grant for building on different lines to those laid down by the Department they had better build the schools themselves without any grant at all. With regard to the schools in the Highlands, year after year the Scotch Board had protested against the absurdities and extravagance of the Department in that matter. Further, he had put a Question to the late Lord Advocate on the subject of corrupt practices at elections, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman had told him that the law in England had made those corrupt practices illegal; but that with regard to Scotland nothing had been done, and the consequence was that the Scotch School Board Elections were carried out under an improper system. Again, what power had the

    977
    Vice President to carry out what he conceived to be good for Scotch Education? There had been, under a Scotch Education Act passed some years ago, a provision for the examination of the higher class schools in Scotland by Government Inspectors; and it was the intention that the Treasury should bear the expense of those examinations. But they had been pegging away at the Department for five or six years, and it was only the other day that they had succeeded in getting this reform carried through. They were told that the Scotch Code was inferior to the English Code. If that were so, why had not the right hon. Gentleman, who had been so long at the head of the Education Department, paid a little attention to Scotch affairs, and made the Scotch Code as good as the English? He mentioned those facts to show the absurdity of expecting that they would have greater powers in the hands of the Scotch Secretary if he had to attend to the affairs of the whole country. There was another important matter—namely, the health question, involved in this; and he could not help expressing his surprise that his right hon. Friend should pooh-pooh a Bill which would create a Minister for Health. He reminded the House that this Bill was the effect of a compromise, and that it was introduced into the House of Lords in a much stronger form. As he could not get the whole of what he would have liked, he went for a part; and he trusted the Government would adhere to the compromise that had been arrived at with regard to the Bill.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he would appeal to the House as to whether they had not discussed this matter long enough, considering that the whole question of education must be discussed again on the 5th clause? Under the circumstances, he thought they would do well to get the Speaker out of the Chair; and then, as he had no wish to keep hon. Members discussing the question unnecessarily, he proposed, after the 2nd clause had been passed, to move to report Progress, and they would then take the discussion on the education question on another day.
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, after the long discussion that had taken place,
    978
    and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that they would leave the question of education open, he thought it right to ask the House to allow him to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had stated that it was merely a question between the Vice President and the Chairman of the Council of Education. But he thought it was a question of restoring the Bill to the state it was in when the Earl of Rosebery introduced it to the House of Lords. He thought some further explanation was necessary; and he asked the Government whether they intended to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot), or that of the hon. Member for Eifeshire (Mr. Preston Bruce)?
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he should like to discuss this question sufficiently to enable the Government to state to the House what line they intended to take with regard to the Amendments on the Paper, as had been suggested by his hon. Friend who had just sat down. There had been an extraordinary difference in the language which proceeded from the Treasury Bench with regard to this matter. They had had a fancy sketch of what had taken place in the House of Lords. What occurred was that the Bill, as introduced into that House, more or less with the approval of the Government, was a Bill which transferred bodily the management of Scotch education from the Education Department to the new Secretary for Scotland. The Acts relating to education were scheduled in the Bill, and all the powers exercised by the Department were transferred bodily to the Secretary for Scotland; but in the passage through the House it was proposed to substitute a clause constituting the new Secretary President of the Committee of Council on Education. The Bill had gone through three distinct stages, and they had heard that night that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) had proposed actually to constitute the new Minister an ex officio Member of the Board. The Education

    979
    Board consisted of a number of persons who never came together. He was told that even on such occasions as when the Annual Code was brought forward they did not meet; that the Board had no head; and that, in fact, the whole business was in the hands of the President of the Council. He urged on the Government to tell the House what it was they proposed to do. He did not intend to address the House in the strong terms used by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron); but if he were disposed to do so, he also could tell some tales about the management of matters by the Education Department. He had had some small experience in educational matters in the past; and he could only say that, instead of thinking that the Scotch parishes required to be made more alive to their duties, his own opinion was that the Education Department required to be awakened. In a particular case well known to the late Vice President of the Council, if it had not been for the action of persons of some little Parliamentary influence, who had used it on behalf of the education of the parish, the parish would have been entirely neglected by the Department, which it was difficult to get to perform even its statutory duties. Why that was the case he did not know; it might be because the Education Department had its hands full of English business, or because they thought that Scotch education was not a matter of first-rate importance. He had strong testimony from some school boards in Scotland that they were convinced by the neglect they had suffered that their endeavours would not be rewarded until their interests were looked after by a Minister for Scotland. He hoped that before the Speaker left the Chair they would be told by the Government what it was they intended to do when the House went into Committee.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): I understood that my right hon. Friend had stated that we intended to stand by the Bill as it is.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Appointment of a Secretary i for Scotland).
    On Motion of Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS, the following Amendment made:—Page 1, after line 9, to insert—
    "There shall be paid to the Secretary, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, a salary of two thousand pounds a year."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS) moved, in page 1, line 14, to leave out after "determine," to end of clause, and insert as a new paragraph—
    "The salaries of such secretaries and other officers of the Secretary's office shall be fixed with the consent of the Treasury, and shall, together with such other expenses of the said officer as may from time to time be sanctioned by the Treasury, be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."
    MR. BUCHANANasked if this clause would empower the Government to transfer the permanent staff of the Education Office, who had charge of Scottish educational work there, to the Scottish Secretary's Department?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): Yes; it would do so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought it almost impossible for the Bill to go further that night. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would now consent to Progress being reported.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he did not wish to detain the Committee unnecessarily; but he would suggest that they should continue until Clause 5 was reached, when the real question at issue would arise.
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he understood that there had been a distinct promise on the part of the Government that they would not go beyond Clause 2. In consequence of that understanding several hon. Members had left the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Holland.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Henry Holland, Secretary to the Treasury.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the Motion of the hon. Baronet, but merely to state that he should reserve for the third reading of the Bill the special subject on which he had some remarks to make.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Wednesday.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.— [BILL 254.]
  (Sir Henry Holland, Mr. Dalrymph.)
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.— [BILL 254.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Henry Holland, Secretary to the Treasury.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses agreed to.
    New Clause—
    "'The Harbours and Passing Tolls, &c. Act, 1861,' shall be construed as if the expression 'shipping purpose,' in sections two and three thereof, included the advance of money for the redemption of debts incurred by the authority of any harbour under any Act of Parliament for the improvement of such harbour."
    MR. STEVENSONsaid, he proposed to move that the clause be read a second time.
    THE CHAIRMAN: In my opinion, the proposed clause of the hon. Member is out of Order, inasmuch as it is beyond the scope of the Bill. This is a Bill for the purpose of enabling the Public Works Loans Commissioners to make advances for certain purposes up to a certain amount. The hon. Member proposes to include in it the provisions of another Bill, and that proposal is not in Order.
    MR. STEVENSONsaid, on previous occasions opportunity was taken to do a thing precisely similar to what he now proposed to do—namely, to enlarge the powers of the Public Works Loans Commissioners in regard to loans by Clauses in the Annual Bill. He wished
    982
    to point out that in the Act of 1876 power was taken to advance money to a particular Railway Company beyond the then existing powers of the Commissioners. And he found also that in the Act of 1879 a clause was inserted empowering the Public Works Loans Commissioners to lend money to the Peabody Trustees, and to Companies engaged in the erection of labourers' dwellings. His present proposal was to enlarge the powers of the Public Works Loans Commissioners in the administration of the Harbours and Passing Tolls Act. He believed that in so doing he was not taking an unusual course.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have not ruled the hon. Member out of Order without taking competent advice on the subject, and that advice is that the clause of the hon. Member is beyond the scope of the Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that perhaps the Chairman would be good enough to define how this clause which the hon. Member proposed differed in respect of the precedent which the hon. Member had cited. In what particular did that Amendment differ from the Amendment made in 1876 and 1879? This was an extremely important matter, and it was desirable that the ruling on this subject which would become a precedent should state precisely why a very similar, if not identical, thing to that which was allowed to be done in 1876 and 1879 should now be ruled out of Order.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)said, that one of the matters mentioned was the Harbours and Passing Tolls Act. A certain amount of money had been invested in the Board for the purpose of carrying out that Act. In that Act the words "shipping purposes" were defined; but by this new clause it was now proposed to extend the words "shipping purposes;" to give them a further and wider definition; and thus to extend practically the power of the Board. This would be beyond the scope of the Bill, and should be effected by a Bill to amend the Harbours and Passing Tolls Act. The point aimed at by the proposed clause required consideration. However, for the present he ventured to suggest that this clause was really extending and enlarging the power mentioned in this very Bill, by which money

    983
    was to be placed in the hands of the Commissioners for a special purpose.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is impossible for me to point out the difference between this question and those referred to by the hon. Gentleman, because these Bills, or the particulars of thorn, are not before me. I would point out that the clause the hon. Gentleman proposes to insert is on a different subject to the Bill now before the Committee.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 250.]
  (Baron Henry De Worms.)
  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 250.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: May I ask when it is really intended to take this Bill? I have come down hero to-day at great inconvenience, because I thought it was especially arranged that the measure should be taken to-night. I hope the Government will take it upon an early day, as it is obviously very inconvenient for hon. Members to be kept up here night after night expecting it to come on.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): My intention was to take it to-day; but it was pointed out to me that it would be necessary to have the Amendments printed, as otherwise great confusion would be caused. I am, however, anxious that the Bill should be brought forward as early as possible. I would ask hon. Members not to burden the Paper with Amendments if they desire to see the Bill carried to a successful issue.
    MR. WILLIAMSON: Are there any other Amendments on the Paper besides mine?
    THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Yes; there are other Amendments besides those of the hon. Member.
    MR. WILLIAMSON: I think I may say that there will be no difficulty in disposing of mine.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) (No. 2)
  (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Solicitor for Ireland.)
  LABOURERS (IRELAND) (No. 2)

    [BILL 68.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
    Leases of Land by Agreement and otherwise.
    Clause 2 (Power of limited owner to make leases. 46 & 47 Vict. c. 60).
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he desired to call attention, in line 10, to the words "the term of any lease shall not exceed 99 years." The period dealt only with the power of the Sanitary Authority to take compulsorily any lands referred to in the Provisional Order for any term of years not exceeding 99. He did not know whether the discretion of the limited owner should be restricted in this case, and why land should not be taken for more than 99 years if the parties thought fit.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, to leave out—
    "There shall be reserved thereby the best yearly rent which can reasonably be obtained, to be," and to insert, "the rent reserved thereby shall be."
    MR. SEXTON: That is not my Amendment. I wish to move the Amendment in the name of Sir George Campbell.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, to leave out Sub-section (1).—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the subsection stand part of the Clause."
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that the reason why 99 years was fixed in the sub-section was because that was the usual term of building leases.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): 99 years is according to the ordinary usage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he now begged to move the following Amendment:—
    Page 1, line 14, to leave out "there shall be reserved thereby the best yearly rent which can reasonably be obtained, to be," and insert "the rent reserved thereby shall be."
    The words he proposed to strike out seemed to him to be altogether a new phrase, and he thought the words he suggested would be much better.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 14, to leave out "there shall be reserved thereby the best yearly rent which can reasonably be obtained, to be," and insert "the rent reserved thereby shall be."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, that those words were taken from the usual form, and he did not see why the Committee should depart from them. He would ask the Committee to adhere to the words of the clause as they stood.
    MR. VILLIERS-STUARTsaid, that speaking as an Irish landlord he had no objection whatever to the Amendment proposed.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment if a corresponding alteration were made later on.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the landlord was perfectly certain to take care of his own interests; and he, therefore, did not see why his Amendment should not be accepted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 3 (Confirmation of lease) agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Compulsory powers of taking land for a term of years).
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the first section of this clause ran as follows:—
    "For the purposes of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, the Local Government Board may, by provisional order confirming any scheme under that Act, empower a sanitary authority to take compulsorily any lands referred to in such order for any term of years, not exceeding ninety-nine years, at a rent to be determined in case of difference in the manner provided by this Act."
    He wished to move to leave out the word "compulsorily," in line 8. He must say, in the first place, that the idea of the compulsory lease was an entirely novel idea, for in English law or any other law it was an entirely new idea. The power of taking land by purchase was given in the interests of the State, and they had very often to tight that power and to protest against it. There were many cases in which the landlords would be very glad indeed to give up their lands for the purposes of this Bill; and when the measure had been referred to the Committee last year, he, for one, had been very anxious to make the Act of 1883 work as smoothly as possible. Among other things he had considered was the ex-
    986
    pense that the Sanitary Body would be put to in the case of land being taken for labourers' cottages either compulsorily or otherwise. If the landlord had to give his land they eliminated a great protection—that was that the landlord had to prove his title, the expense of doing which was as great, although the piece of land in question might be two or three acres, as it would be to prove a full title to a whole estate. Therefore, the landlord to save expense, and to save friction, and to enable the limited owner to give a lease for a longer time than the power of settlement would allow, was enabled to give a lease for 99 years. He would not say it had not been proposed that the lease should be made compulsory, because he had understood that the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) in his absence had stated that he hoped that a compulsory lease would be given; but the idea of a compulsory lease was one which had, practically, never entered into the minds of a large portion of the Committee. It was an entirely new idea. It had been maintained that it was perfectly clear that the Committee intended that this power of compulsory leasing should be giving, because the Land Commission would be brought in to adjust the rent. It appeared to him to be an extraordinary thing that a landlord should be obliged to give a compulsory lease of land for the purpose of labourers' cottages. He could understand compulsory sale; but he ventured to remind the Committee that compulsory leases were entirely contrary to the legislation of the present Government. They were bringing in Bills and making every possible arrangement to buy out the landlords, and now they proposed in this Bill to compel landlords to create tenants—squat tenants of half an acre of land for 99 years. It might come about that a landlord would sell his property to his tenants and go elsewhere. What would be the result then? Why, he would sell all his property except this small patch which they had compelled him to leave to the Sanitary Authority, who in their turn had leased it to the labourer, who in his turn would probably pay no rent at all for it, and who would certainly not keep it in a proper state of repair or cultivation. He had no idea that there was any notion of compulsory leasing until he took

    987
    up the Bill and looked at it closely. There he saw the word "compulsorily;" but even then he could not really believe it, and thought it must be an error in the drafting of the measure. It involved an entirely new principle, and would work extreme harm. It was a very dangerous principle, and if they once entertained it they would never know when they were going to stop. If they introduced the principle for the purpose of enabling the building of labourers' cottages, there was no reason why they should not introduce it for other purposes, and he warned the Committee against the dangers of any such scheme. He would not detain the Committee any longer, but begged to move to leave out the word "compulsorily."
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the word "compulsorily."—(Colonel King-Harman.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, that as he knew the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel King-Harman), and others with him, felt very strongly on this matter, he trusted the Committee would pardon him for a few moments while he explained this word "compulsorily," and stated why the Government could not accept the Amendment. The Labourers Act of 1883, as it passed the House without any objection, was an exceptional piece of legislation. It gave power to purchase land for labourers' dwellings compulsorily, and it also gave power to take leases of land for the same purpose; but that was not compulsory. It was found, however, that the expenses of title were so great, that the Boards of Guardians could not purchase the land, and after an experience of 12 months it was found that the Act was a dead letter; and as the Irish Administration were anxious that it should not be a dead letter, they appointed a Committee to inquire into the matter. That Committee took a vast amount of evidence, and it was suggested before them that inasmuch as this was an Act of an exceptional character, and the amount of land taken was small, it would be desirable that a compulsory form of lease for 99 years should he given. He might point out that the
    988
    very best security for the rent was given, as it was charged on the Union rates. The tenant the landlord had was the Board of Guardians, and they were just as responsible as any other tenant. It seemed to him that the principal object of this Bill was to give this power of compulsory leasing, the other provisions being wholly subsidiary to it; and the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) now was to strike out of the Bill that which was the most essential part of it. As he thought, therefore, that this provision was a very desirable one, and the only one that could make it a workable measure, he was obliged to refuse to strike it out, and therefore the Amendment could not be accepted.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he would like to point out to the hon. and learned Attorney General that his argument that the Bill of 1883 passed through without opposition was one which he would not have used if he had been in the House at the time. It was brought in late in the Session, and was not opposed, because they believed that the statement that the labourers required cottages to be built was perfectly sound. They said, however, that they would move Amendments in Committee; but the Committee was taken at about 3 o'clock one morning, and it was impossible for the one or two Members who were present on that occasion to discuss the matter at such an hour, therefore it was passed through without serious opposition. He maintained that the real state of the case was this. This clause had been put in to prevent the Treasury from having to apply for an extension of time for the repayment, and the whole thing was to be done at the expense of the unfortunate landlord.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he entirely agreed with all that had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend who had just spoken. [Ironical cheers from the Irish Members.] He congratulated the Government on the cheers they had been able to obtain from the hon. Members opposite. There was no necessity whatever for this Bill, which appeared to him to be a further nibbling at the interests of the Irish landlords, which, he thought, had been done already to a sufficient extent during the last few years.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not oppose this Bill on principle; but he would point out that if this provision were struck out the Labourers Act would become a mere cypher, as the Boards of Guardians would not go on, as they had been doing under the old Act, in the costly way that they had. Was the convenience of a few landlords who wished to sell their estates and abandon their country to stand in the way in such a question as this?
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. SEXTON MR. SEXTON moved to leave out from the word "Act," in line 27, to the end of the sub-section. The words which he proposed to get rid of provided that the order of the Court should be subject to the same stamp duty as if it were a lease, and that a duplicate should be supplied at the expense of the Sanitary Authority. He could not see why an order or lease of this sort, which was given as a matter of public policy, should of necessity have a stamp at all. He did not think it should have a stamp. They ought to exercise economy as much as possible. Another thing. He did not see why the Sanitary Authority should be put to the expense of making a copy of their agreement.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "Act," to end of Sub-section (3).—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, it had always been a rule that stamps should be insisted upon in these matters, and he thought it would be very bad to make an exception in this particular instance. He was obliged to retain the clause as it stood.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, this was a matter in which the Irish Members felt inclined to persevere. The hon. and learned Member had himself referred to the Committee which had sat to inquire into the working of the Act of 1883; and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) found that that Committee reported that the amount of rent that could be got from the Irish labourers would be very small indeed, and every witness appeared to agree in the opinion that they
    990
    should minimize the expenses under this Bill to the very finest point—to the very last penny. Therefore, he would appeal to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). They were dealing with an exceptional case, with a very hard case of distress, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he would consent to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo in a modified form.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought the Government had done just the opposite to what most people would have done. If an order in Court were made under the Act, there would be no necessity for drawing up the lease—it would be sufficient to do away with the lease, and therefore there would be no necessity for drawing up a lease. The acceptance of the Amendment, therefore, would really mean a State subvention, however small to the Boards of Guardians. If the landlord refused to grant a lease, the order of the Court would come in and the lease would escape the ordinary stamp duty. He thought the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury should rise and explain how it was that the Government proposed to make this gift or bonus to the Boards of Guardians. The Treasury appeared to be giving away what was part of the Revenue of the country, and he was obliged to say that the proposal struck him with extreme surprise.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he did not know whether the hon. Member for Liskeard had a copy of the Bill; but he thought it would be found that there would be a stamp on the order. The clause did not substitute the order for the lease.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he could not assent to that for one moment. The Court might, if they thought fit, require a lease to be prepared and executed; but the drawing up of the lease depended on the discretion of the Court. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) did not seem to understand the point. If a landlord refused to give a lease, then this clause operated and made a lease compulsory; an order of the Court would be made which would operate as a lease. The sub-section preceding

    991
    gave the Court power to require the authorities to renew the lease depended on the discretion of the Court, and therefore nothing turned on that point. It was assumed that the order was not a lease, whereas the order declared that it should operate as if it were a lease, and that being so it ought to be subject to stamp duty. If the lease were executed in two parts, by the landlord and the authorities, then there was no need of a stamp. He called on the hon. Gentleman to say why the stamp was given up.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he should have thought that anyone acquainted with the class of Acts, of which this was one, would know that the order of the Court should bear a stamp. It was under such Acts necessary to apply to the Court to make what was called, a vesting order. The words meant that the order of the Court was to operate in the same manner, and have the same effect, as if it were a lease. The previous part of the sub-section exactly defined what were the rights, conditions, and so forth, so that the meaning was that the order of the Court would vest in the lessee the same interest which he would take if a lease had been executed. It was the more common form to provide that the order should bear a stamp; and if the Government proposed to give up that, all he could say was that it would be an absolute innovation in Bills of this kind.
    MR. INCEsaid, with reference to the suggestion of the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) as to the parties being required to show their title, he could conceive of nothing that would be better than the order of the Court. They would have the best possible title in the order itself, which would be on the records of the Court; and if they wanted anything to show they could have an official copy of the order, and the lessee would have the best secondary evidence of showing the document under which he held.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)said, this was the first time his attention had been called to the point raised by the hon. Member for Liskeard. He could not consent to the country losing the amount of stamp duty, and the order of the Court should bear the stamp; but he proposed that with a view to saving ex-
    992
    pense to the lessee the Proviso should be omitted.
    Amendment proposed, in line 28, to leave out from "Provided" to the end of the sub-section."—(Sir Henry Holland.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. CALLANsaid, he hoped at that hour the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) and the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) would not throw any difficulties in the way of the Treasury Bench.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he accepted the saving and the Amendment of the hon. Baronet; but the proposal did not commend itself to his economic conscience, for the saving would have to be secured out of the poor rates.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he should like to know why a landlord should not have his own record of what had taken place? Why should he have to procure a copy of the record at considerable expense to himself?
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, it was to the interest of the landlord that these leases should not be drawn, because otherwise the landlord would have to pay a good deal to the poor rates. The solicitors would probably make £5 or £10 out of each operation. For his own part, he would much rather pay the stamp duty and have done with the matter. He dreaded the making out of these legal forms. He had known a case where £300 was paid over land worth £350. He had a great fear of all these Provisos.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, it was perfectly absurd to give a compulsory lease for half an acre of land. Some of the most eminent lawyers in the House had shown the absurdity of the clause, and he should therefore divide the Committee against it.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 7: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 267.)
    Clauses 5 to 7, inclusive, agreed to,
    Clause 8 (Compensation for loss by compulsory taking of land).
    MR. SEXTON MR. SEXTON moved the omission of the clause, on the ground that it would tend to make the Bill unworkable. The Local Government Board Inspector had unlimited power; and, therefore, he (Mr. Sexton) did not see that any case for compensation would arise.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, to leave out Clause 8.—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he thought it would be well to allow the clause to stand. As a general rule no compensation would be awarded; it would only be given in exceptional cases. Both in the interest of the landlord and also of the occupying tenant, it was advisable there should be some clause of this kind.
    MR. GRAYasked, what case could arise which could not be met by the adjustment of the rent?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, the hon. Gentleman would notice that it was not only the owner but the occupier of the land taken who might be compensated for any loss, injury, or damage occasioned by the taking of the land. It was possible that if the rent were increased an injustice would be done to the occupier.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the powers of the Local Government Board Inspector enabled him to take care that there was no severance. The tenant was amply protected already. He thought that, at any rate, the Government ought to put in words indicating the exceptional cases.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, that should be done.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, it was quite true that the Local Government Board Inspector could order a cottage to be erected where he pleased; but there was much more to be taken into consideration than that. If half an acre was taken out of the farm and handed over to a labourer a certain amount of injury would be done which would be injury to the occupier as well as to the owner. There should be com-
    994
    pensation in such a case; especially as the compulsory taking of land was always compensated for.
    MR. P. J. POWERremarked, that the Local Government Board Inspector would assuredly take care that no injury was done.
    MR. SEXTONasked if the Government would introduce words on Report?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he would suggest, on Report, to insert, after "award," "if the circumstances of the case so require."
    MR. COURTNEYagreed so far with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that he did not see the necessity of this clause. Injury to the occupier was provided for in the matter of rent, as well as injury to the owner; but it would be observed that by this clause compensation was to be given for loss and damage—
    "Not compensated for by the rent payable to such owner, or by the apportionment of the rent payable by such occupier."
    Clearly, under the lease to be granted, the rental to be paid would be reduced pro tanto. The whole matter might be compensated for by a reduction of rent.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the matter was thrashed out in the Committee Room. Amongst other things, it was pointed out that injury might be done by goats and fowls.
    MR. GRAYthought the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman made it very necessary that the Committee should consider the propriety of putting in stronger words than those suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and gallant Gentleman considered that the owner should be compensated for any injuries done by goats or fowls.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANprotested against this attempt to hoodwink the Committee. It was absurd to say that he was in favour of the owner being compensated for injury done by this trespass.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAconsidered the law against trespass was strong enough to leave the tenant to seek redress for himself.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORthought the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) constituted a strong argument against the retention of this clause. The hon.

    995
    and gallant Gentleman considered that fowls would injure the property of the occupying tenant. They might assume that most of the labourers would keep fowls; and, therefore, according to the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, every property would be injured, and there would be a case for compensation. In other words, the hon. and gallant Gentleman thought there would be compensation over and above the rent in every single case where land was compulsorily taken and a labourer's cottage was erected. That was just the reason why the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) objected to this clause. The hon. Gentleman objected to the clause, because it would give an opportunity for vexatious and bogus claims for compensation, and thus be an impediment to the operation of the Act. If the hour were not so advanced (2.50), he would advise his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) to persevere with his objection to this clause, because if he did he would find a large amount of support. At all events, his hon. Friend ought to prosecute his objection so far as to obtain an assurance from the Attorney General for Ireland that the words introduced should be such as to exclude the interpretation which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) sought to put on the clause.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he had already stated what words he was prepared to introduce on Report. The clause would only apply to exceptional cases, and on Report he would be able to insert three or four words which would make that clear.
    MR. SEXTONcontended that the very existence of the clause in the Act would encourage every fractious landlord in the country to make bogus claims. Therefore, unless the clause was to be struck out, the words ought to be very strong indeed—"The court in any exceptional case in which it may see cause may award," or some such words. It ought to be made clear that if landlords made bogus claims they would suffer.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman had spoken about fractious landlords. The hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that one of the great reasons why the present Act
    996
    had not worked was that it was opposed by the occupying tenants. [Mr. SEXTON: I do not believe it.] His experience justified him in saying so. What the occupying tenants dreaded was that cottages would be put up in places where they would be an annoyance to them. The Act would work much more smoothly if it was made apparent to the occupier that if he was injuriously affected there was a reasonable chance of his being compensated.
    MR. MOLLOYthought it would be much better that when any land was taken from an occupier his rent should be reduced by the amount which the Guardians paid to the landlord.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clauses 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
    Provisional Orders.
    Clause 12 (Provisional Order may be confirmed by the Privy Council).
    COLONEL KING-HARMANproposed the insertion of "or occupier," after "owner," in line 14.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 14, after the word "owner," to insert the words "or occupier."—(Colonel King-Harman.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, there was very serious objection to the Amendment, and he hoped the Government had no idea of accepting it. This was a case where a Provisional Order had been granted by the Local Government Board. If there was no opposition the Provisional Order took effect; but if there was opposition all the costs of an appearance in Court would be incurred. That would make all the difference between a cheap scheme and a dear one. There were some landlords in Ireland who were reckless, and others who were cunning. A cunning landlord would put some mean sneak in as occupier. Therefore, if the word "occupier" were inserted here, there was hardly a scheme which would not be opposed by the occupier, acting not for himself, but for the landlord.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that if an acre or two were taken out of a holding of 30 or 40 acres it would not matter much; but a case occurred in Westmeath lately where an occupier of

    997
    five acres was pounced upon by the Sanitary Authority for some reason best known to them, and half an acre of his best land taken from him for a labourer. The occupier did not want a labourer. If he had had double the acreage he would have been able to till it. Was that unfortunate man, or were men in a similar position, not to be allowed to petition?
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the Local Government Board Inspector told the Select Committee that they never allowed a cottage to be put on a farm of less than 20 or 25 acres.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) had taken up two very antagonistic positions. A few moments ago he said the great obstacle to the working of the Labourers' Act was the unwillingness of the occupiers to have labourers on their farms. [Colonel KING-HARMAN: No; I did not.] He certainly understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that of the two, landlords and tenants, the tenants were the greater obstacles. Having made that statement, he now proposed to give every occupier the power of imposing a very serious and costly litigation upon any Board of Guardians who proposed to erect labourers' cottages. If the Amendment were accepted the Bill might as well be torn into pieces.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)saw no objection at all to the Amendment. It must be borne in mind that the tenant had quite as great an interest in the matter as the landlord, and therefore it would be unreasonable to deprive him of the same right of appeal as the landlord. The Amendment seemed to him to be in accordance with the principles of justice.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he hoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment, on the ground that it would increase the conflict between classes in Ireland.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Attorney General for Ireland if a whole scheme would be destroyed by the objection of one landlord applied to one cottage on a particular farm? Now, the point brought before the Labourers' Committee was this, that the whole of an important scheme extending over 70 or 80 cottages might be destroyed by
    998
    the objection of one landlord applied to only one cottage. A case of that kind had occurred.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Where did that case occur?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he believed it was on the estate of Lord Dunally at Nenagh. Lord Dunally objected to one or two cottages in the whole scheme of the Nenagh Board of Guardians, and that scheme fell through because of his Lordship's objection. [Colonel KING-HARMAN: No, no.] He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would hear him out. One of the questions the Committee had directed its attention to was the making of such improvements in the Act that the whole of the scheme should not depend upon the fate of a small portion of it. Here they might have that objectionable feature on an extended scale. The whole scheme extending over 70 or 80 cottages might fail because the occupier of one half an acre which it was sought to take for a single cottage might raise an objection. The clause dealt with by the Amendment was a capital point of the Bill; they were all agreed, and the hon. and gallant Member would bear him out, that if the process of raising these cottages were not minimized in the matter of expense the Bill would be a dead letter. Here, after both Administrators, acting on the Report of the Committee, had endeavoured to minimize the expenditure by doing away with the appeal to Parliament, and substituting appeal to the Privy Council, the hon. and gallant Gentleman came clown and proposed an Amendment which would practically make every case contentious. It was really monstrous on the part of the Government to accept a proposal like that which would make every ease contentious.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, the hon. Member was under a great mistake if he thought that the objection of a single owner would cause the whole scheme to be disallowed.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I said every case would be made contentious—I did not say disallowed.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The Privy Council has power to award costs against any person who presents a petition which ought not to be presented, and

    999
    which would be considered frivolous. As all petitioning occupiers will be liable to the danger of having to pay costs, they would be careful not to bring frivolous objections.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the occupiers of five-acre holdings, if they chose to object to the scheme, would have power to compel the Guardians to go to Dublin before the Privy Council. That would make the whole scheme far more expensive—the whole scheme, it might be of 100 cottages, more costly. What would happen if the Amendment were agreed to would be this—that the landlord would get one of his bailiffs on one of his farms to object. All he would have to do would be to get one of his bailiff's or understrappers to object; and in that manner kill the scheme or obstruct it. He (Mr. Sexton) warned the Committee that the Bill would be destroyed by the insertion of this Amendment.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Committee to form its own opinion of the argument of the hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues. He made the reckless charge that the landlords—who were as honourable a set of men as any in the Three Kingdoms—were so discreditable that when one heard of a scheme of which he disapproved he would get his bailiffs or understrappers to object; with the intention of getting rid of the whole scheme. Such a suggestion was not worth a moment's consideration. In the case of Lord Dunally and the Mullin-gar Guardians, an appeal was made in regard to certain parts of a scheme, and though those particular cottages were thrown out the scheme did not fall through—the remainder of it was passed. A man—an unfortunate man with only five acres of land, it might be—if he objected, could relieve himself from having a cottage placed on his holding; but the remainder of the cottages in the scheme might be built. Was it not right that the Guardians should be at liberty to consider the case of the man with five acres, and give him as much consideration as though he were a large landed proprietor?
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked whether they could not fairly leave the protection of the tenant to the landlord? If the tenant went to the landlord and objected, if the landlord was a good one, could it not be left to him to defend his tenant? If the farm was a small one,
    1000
    or if it was inconvenient to have a cottage built, could it not be left to his moral courage to go to the Privy Council?
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The owner may be a minor or an absentee.
    MR. P. J. POWERsaid, that if the Amendment were adopted, it might not have the effect of killing an improvement scheme, but it would have the effect of retarding it and greatly increasing its cost. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland could frame some Amendment to give the tenant the right to apply to the Local Government Board or to the Privy Council to have his case reconsidered. Could it not be done in such a way that the effect of his requiring to have his case looked into would not necessarily retard the scheme?
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the whole question was a question of extra costs, and that the costs were in the discretion of the Court. That was fallacious, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew as well as he (Mr. Molloy) did that even if the slightest case was shown by the tenant the costs would not be thrown on him. Therefore, he thought a statement of that kind was not to be defended.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that, as the Bill at present stood, three ratepayers would be able to bring a case before the Privy Council, and the cost, under any circumstances, would not, he should think, exceed 1d. or 2d. in the pound. The Amendment he offered was that it should require as many ratepayers to bring the Sanitary Authorities before the Privy Council as it did to launch an arbitration, which was 12.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 17, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "twelve."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word ' three ' stand part of the Clause."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, he saw nothing magical in the word three.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANhoped the Amendment would not be accepted. If they made it 12, why not 24? He considered that three were quite as many

    1001
    as should be required to object and to ask that a case should be thoroughly investigated by a Local Government Inspector.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that the Bill provided that Petitions against the taking of land should be heard by the Privy Council. Well, he had had a close acquaintance with the proceedings of the Select Committee, whoso every meeting he had attended, and whose every witness he had seen, and he was, therefore, in a position to say that the general tendency of the evidence was not to recommend the Privy Council, but the Land Commission. The Privy Council was little know in Ireland, and was less trusted than it was known. It was composed of Judges and other eminent persons; but it sat fitfully in Dublin, he believed, and an appearance before it was a costly thing. His proposal in the Amendment on the Paper was that the Land Commission should be the tribunal to hear these cases. The Commission was now composed of three members; but it was proposed in a Bill now before Parliament to appoint two others. That was a Court which could go to the suitors, instead of requiring the suitors to come up to Dublin; and it was a Court, which was better known to the people—though they had anything but perfect confidence in it. It would, however, inspire greater confidence than the proposal in the Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 26, to leave out the words "Lord Lieutenant, acting with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland," and insert the words "the Court."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, it seemed to him that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member was one the Government could not accept. One of the recommendations of the Committee had been that the Privy Council should be substituted for Parliament.
    MR. SEXTON: No; the proposal was that the authority should be either the Privy Council or the Land Commission.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, that, after carefully considering the matter, they had come to the conclusion that the best tribunal would be the Privy Council. It had on many occasions acted in a similar manner—for instance, under the Tramways Act. As to the composition of the Privy Council, it must be remembered that almost all the distinguished Judges in Ireland were Members of it, and that these cases were heard by a Judicial Committee of the Council. These matters were heard in full Court; they were fully discussed; and nobody in the whole of Ireland would be better able to deal with such matters.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he failed to see the cogency of the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Here was a question dealing with the valuation of land; they had a tribunal in the Land Commission whose duty it was to consider this subject—which was daily employed in dealing with it. They had, therefore, a Commission which was daily engaged in the very work to which this Bill had reference. The Privy Council, on the other hand, was a Body which was never called upon to deal with questions of the valuation of land. It was called on to deal with questions of policy, but not to deal with questions affecting fair rents and other matters which were daily under the consideration of the Land Commission. Then, as an hon. Friend behind him suggested, the attendance at this Privy Council Court would be the attendance of the Judges of the land, who had other work to do. Their attendance was accidental and irregular. They dropped in "promiscuous-like," to use the phrase of Dickens. They were not regularly employed, and they sat in Dublin; whereas the other tribunal was of a perambulating character.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTquite agreed in the contention that the Land Commission would be the better authority, and hoped the Government would consider the proposal.
    MR. LEAsaid, that some of them in the North of Ireland felt very strongly that the power which was placed in the hands of the Privy Council had crushed the Tramways Act, and he hoped it would be done away with in this matter rather than it should be allowed to crush this Act. He would certainly

    1003
    support the hon. Members below the Gangway.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HAKT DYKE)said, the Bill had been prepared by the late Government, and they had inserted the Privy Council. He could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. MOLLOYpointed out that the Privy Council know nothing of these matters, and they would have to consult the Land Commissioners and take their opinion, although they would not do so officially.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 13 (Amendment of Provisional Orders made before this Act).
    MR. SEXTONwished to move an Amendment to this clause, in page 7, line 2, to leave out the word "less," and insert "more." The clause provided that an amended Provisional Order should become absolute within not less than one month; but what he wanted to provide was that the landowner could object to such amended Provisional Order, provided he did so in such a period of not more than a month. What he thought was that too much time should not be allowed, and the landlord ought not to be given more than one month. If he could not make up his mind in a month then the Order should become absolute, because it was essential that these people should not be kept in their wretched habitations longer than was absolutely necessary.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANdid not see what the hon. Member meant, and considered that the clause was very much better as it stood than it would be if amended as suggested.
    Question, "That the word 'less' stand part of the Question," put and negatived.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. SEXTON MR. SEXTON moved, in page 7, after line 7, to insert—"An amending Provisional Order may alter sites and otherwise vary the original Order."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)thought there was no objection to that Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Additional Powers of Sanitary Authorities.
    Clause 14 (Amendments in schemes).
    MR. SEXTON MR. SEXTON moved, in page 7, line 14, to leave out all the words from "necessary" to the end of the paragraph. The effect of this was to strike out the word which precluded the Sanitary Authority from amending their schemes so as to alter the proposed area of charge before the Provisional Order was made.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 14, to leave out from "necessary," to end of Clause.—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN COLONEL KING-HARMAN moved, in page 7, line 34, to leave out "if necessary," and insert "if applied to." The object of this was to provide that when a local inquiry into the proposed amendments of a scheme was desirable, there should be a demand for it from the place interested.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 34, to leave out the words "if necessary," and insert "if applied to."—(Colonel King-Harman.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, he would accept the Amendment, but would propose to add after the words "if applied to," the words "by the owner or occupier of the land proposed to be acquired."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)thought it would perhaps be better if the words ran—
    "If necessary, or if applied to by the owner or occupier of the land proposed to be acquired."
    Because there might be some other grounds for an inquiry apart altogether from the owner and occupier.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)thought the clause would run very well "if applied to by the owner," &c.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words 'if applied to by the owner or occupier of the land proposed to be acquired' be here inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. SEXTONproposed, in line 37, to leave out from the word "effect" to the end of the paragraph. The words which would thus be left out were the following: —
    "The Local Government Board shall not adopt any amendments in a scheme if such amendments would, in their opinion, materially add to the estimated cost of the scheme."
    Such amendments as those mentioned in this provision might be found absolutely essential to the success of the scheme.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 37, to leave out from the word "effect" to end of paragraph.—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. COURTNEYasked whether this provision was not intended to give a safeguard to the persons affected locally? It was a matter which not only affected the Sanitary Authority of the Local Government Board, but the people in the locality themselves.
    MR. SEXTONpointed out that there would be a local inquiry into the amendments, which could not be made except by the Local Authority, who would have to pay the money.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 15 (Powers of the Sanitary Authority relative to purchase existing cottages, and allot land to existing cottages).
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN COLONEL KING-HARMAN moved, in page 8, line 12, to leave out all the words from "cottage," to the word "repair," in line 13. He was not quite clear as to the bearing of these words.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 8, line 12, to leave out from the word "cottage" to the word "repair," in line 13.— (Colonel King-Harman.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, they were more or loss immaterial words, and he had no objection to their being cut out.
    COLONEL KLNG-HARMANdid not think they were immaterial at all. They would certainly prevent anyone building labourers' cottages in future.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said he had accepted the Amendment.
    MR. SEXTONpointed out that it seemed extremely hard to please the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. VILLIERS-STUART MR. VILLIERS-STUART moved, in page 8, line 19, after "labourer," to insert—
    "Or may, without having or purchasing any cottage, purchase tracts of land to be parcelled out in allotments to be let to any agricultural labourers living in any neighbouring village or town."
    The object of the Amendment was to extend to the labourers living in villages or towns the advantages of allotments. He need not say more on the subject; but he did hope that the Government would see their way to accepting the Amendment, because, if they did not, they would exclude from the benefits of the Bill a very large number of those whom it was really intended to benefit.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 8, line 19, after the word "labourer," to insert "or may, without having or purchasing any cottage, purchase tracts of land to be parcelled out in allotments to be let to any agricultural labourers living in any neighbouring village or town."—(Mr. Villiers-Stuart.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)was afraid that this Amendment interfered with the whole principle of the Bill, and also of that of 1883, which kept the ownership of the cottage and land identical.
    COLONEL NOLANthought that this would be a most valuable provision, and could not be of a very revolutionary character, seeing that it was proposed by one of the very largest landowners in Ireland.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he thought the proposal a fair one. There were no Guardians to be taxed in this matter. Why should labourers in villages occupying cottages without land be deprived of the benefit of having new cottages built in another place? He did not think the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) would object to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Villiers-

    1007
    Stuart). Seeing that such a proposal was made by a landlord, he thought he ought to accept the suggestion.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he should have no objection whatever to agree to the Amendment, if certain words were inserted in it. He did not think it right to make it compulsory on the landland to sell the best portions of his land for the purpose of the Bill. He was willing to accept the Amendment, with the addition of the words "by agreement."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he hoped the mind of the Government remained open on this subject. The object was to save expense. It was absurd that because a labourer lived in a bad house the public purse was to be used in buying for his benefit a house and land, while the man who had a good house was to get nothing. It was simply a question of a good or bad dwelling; and he could not understand what the intention of the Government was with regard to it.
    MR. GRAYsaid, this was probably the most important point in connection with the whole Bill. The proposal of the hon. Member, if adopted, would confer an enormous benefit, and he trusted that the Government would consider it favourably. It was the one Amendment put down to the Bill which had a consensus of opinion in its favour. It was agreed on all hands that the clause would be most useful; and he thought that the argument of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) in its favour was very strong —that was to say, that if a man had a bad cottage, he was to get the benefit of the Bill, and that if he had a good one he was not to have it. The Amendment, if made, would revolutionize the condition of labourers in Ireland, and would, on the whole, be of immense benefit.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, in its present form, the Government certainly could not accept the proposal. It would constitute too great an alteration of the Bill.
    MR. VILLIERS-STUARTsaid, he was ready to accept an Amendment from the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) in the direction he had indicated.
    MR O'KELLYsaid, he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment suggested by
    1008
    the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County—namely, to add the words "by agreement," after "purchase." He could see no objection whatever to that; they were simply seeking to extend the advantages of the Bill to labourers living in villages and small towns.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he was willing to agree to the Amendment suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman); but as he was not prepared to accept the words of the hon. Member for "Waterford as they stood on the Paper, he suggested that the matter should stand over until the Report.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, it would be a very easy thing for the Attorney General for Ireland to agree to insert the words "by agreement," which would remove all difficulty in the matter.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert, after the word "purchase," in line 2, the words "by agreement."—(Mr. T. P. O' Connor.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 16 (Closing of dwellings unfit for habitation).
    MR. SEXTONsaid, this clause cast on the Inspector of the Local Government Board the duty of prosecuting the owner of any house which might be unfit for habitation, and in the result the house might be ordered to be demolished. It would be seen, however, that the demolition might be postponed until the house was empty, which would have the effect of defeating the object they bad in view. He, therefore, proposed to leave out the words "may, if they think fit," in order that the word "shall" be inserted.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 9, line 30, to leave out the words "may, if they think fit," and insert the word "shall."— (Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. GRAYsaid, he was of opinion that it would be better to omit this clause altogether. There was already a duty cast upon the Sanitary Authorities with

    1009
    regard to habitations unfit for occupation by a long and complex Code. It was the duty of the Sanitary Authorities to find out houses unfit for habitation, under the Public Health Acts, and it was the duty of the Guardians to proceed against the owner of the house and compel it to be closed, and then it was the duty of the Local Government Board to see that the Sanitary Authority did its duty and had the house closed. The proposal now made was to release the Sanitary Authority of the duty cast upon it by another Act of Parliament. He asked the Attorney General for Ireland to bear with him for a few moments. The Act imposed a specific duty on the Sanitary Authority in the case of any house unfit for habitation. Suppose the local Inspector certified that a house was unfit for habitation, and suppose the Sanitary Authority availed itself of its right under this Act, it would be necessary to get an injunction to compel it to do its duty. This Bill contradicted the Public Health Acts; and, therefore, he thought it would be better to strike out the whole section. If it was to be maintained at all, it ought to be made a working section by imposing on the Authorities the duty of providing a good house, if once the house in which the man was living was proved to be unfit for habitation. But the Government shrank from doing that, and the result was that they proposed what was a contradiction of the existing law, because by the existing law a certain duty was imposed on the Sanitary Authority, and by this clause it was exempted from performing it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. GRAY: I propose to leave out the clause altogether.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can vote against the clause when it is put.
    MR. CALLAN: I propose to leave out Sub-section 4.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member proposes to leave out a section which the Committee have already agreed to amend.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the last Amendment was to omit the words "may, if they think fit," and insert "shall" His proposal was to omit the sub-section.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go back to the words "Sanitary
    1010
    Authorities," and propose to leave them out because an Amendment has been made subsequent to that.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he had listened to what had been stated by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray); but, according to his recollection, there was no inconsistency between the clause and the existing law. However, the matter should be considered before the Report.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Miscellaneous.
    Clause 17 (Miscellaneous Amendments of Act of 1883).
    On Motion of Mr. SEXTOX, the following Amendment made:—Page 9, line' 39, leave out from "one," inclusive, to end of line 41, and insert "any time."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 18 (Definitions).
    MR. SEXTONproposed the omission of the word "principal," in line 29, and urged upon the Government the vital importance of accepting the Amendment. The definition of an agricultural labourer had been found to be the greatest impediment in the application of the present Act. In some cases the schemes of Boards of Guardians had fallen through altogether, because the Inspector of the Local Government Board could not be satisfied that the principal occupation of the labourers was that of agricultural labour. There were many places in Ireland where the labourer could only get work on farms during the spring operations, in the harvest-time, and when the potatoes were being put in—in all about 16 weeks' work. It was not the fault of those poor men that they could not get agricultural labour through the year. When agricultural labour failed, they mended the roads or drove cars—and, indeed, anything they could get to do. Why should those men be deprived of the benefit of the Act? The town labourer was provided for by law; why should not the labourer be provided for who did as much agricultural work as as he could get? The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) proposed, and he (Mr. Sexton) moved the Amendment in his hon. Friend's name, that an agricultural labourer—

    1011
    "Shall mean a person whose occupation during any part of the year is the doing of agricultural work."
    By "any part of the year" was meant the agricultural season. The Government were not spending their own money; the local rates would have to supply every 1 d. spent on the operation of the Act. From an Imperial point of view, from the point of view of statesmen desiring to put an end to discontent in Ireland, he could not understand how anyone could refuse the definition of an agricultural labourer which he now suggested. It was clear to him that unless Parliament accepted in a bold spirit the state of Ireland as it was, they would leave such a condition of things behind as would create the necessity for another amending Bill next year, or the year after.
    Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 29, to leave out the word "principal."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'principal' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. GRAYsaid, there was absolutely no reason for the retention of the definition of an agricultural labourer found in the clause. The object of this Bill should be to extend the benefit of the Artizans' Dwellings Act to the inhabitants of rural districts who had not the benefit of the legislation, and who ought not to be shut off from it by any artificial restrictions. He trusted the Government would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend, as it would remove a great grievance, and one which was a source of much heartburning.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, the Amendment was one of a very serious character. He did not think there would be any difficulty in ascertaining what men could be properly described as agricultural labourers. To fulfil the conditions, it was not necessary that a man should do agricultural work every day in the week. He could not accept the Amendment, because it seemed to him that its introduction would bring in an entirely different class of men to that contemplated by the Bill.
    MR. O'SHEAasked whether the Government would, under the circumstancs, put words in the Bill to show clearly what was an agricultural labourer. The Attorney General for Ire-
    1012
    land had said it was not necessary for a man to labour every day in the week. He (Mr. O'Shea) had considerable experience in various parts of the West of Ireland; and he could not help thinking that unless some Amendment of this kind were accepted the Bill would benefit very few men. It might possibly be that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) went too far; but, at the same time, it was perfectly evident that the clause, as it now stood, did not go far enough. Could not the Government propose something as a go-between?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)said, that this Bill went further in the direction hon. Members desired than the Act 47 Vict. c. 60. In that Act the words were "a person who habitually works for hire." In this Bill the words were—
    "A person whose principal occupation is the doing of agricultural work."
    There was a great difference between the two sets of words. He did not antiticipate the slightest difficulty in ascertaining who was, and who was not, an agricultural labourer. This Bill certainly went further than the Act of 1883.
    MR. SEXTONasked if the Government would say—
    "A person whose principal occupation during the chief or regular seasons of agricultural work is the doing of agricultural work?"
    If the definition was not wide enough to cover men who at times could not get agricultural work, thousands of men would be shut out from the benefit of the Act.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, that perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland would consider the point between this and Report. The present definition would exclude the many labourers in County Cork who could only get agricultural labour during certain periods of the year.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he had no objection to consider the matter by Report; but he doubted still whether he could find words which would aptly express the object they had in view.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would read the evidence given before the Select Committee by the Inspectors of the Local Government Board, he would find that

    1013
    those officials had been compelled to exclude a vast number of labourers from the operation of the present Act, because, during a portion of the year, they did other than agricultural work. The words of the present Act, which the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland) had read, were the result of a compromise which was hurriedly arrived at. He did not, therefore, attach very much importance to the words, though he believed he himself suggested them. Anyhow, he assured the Secretary to the Treasury and the Attorney General for Ireland that a large number of men who really were agricultural labourers had been excluded from the benefit of the present Act by the definition which was adopted. It was a well-known fact that in Ireland men could only get agricultural labour during certain portions of the year, and that at other times they fished, or broke stones, or drove cars. Surely there was no valid reason why those poor creatures should be deprived of any benefit which the Act conferred.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. SEXTONproposed to insert, after "herdsman," in line 31, "and a widow who does farm work." Anyone who knew Ireland knew that very often when a man died a widow continued to work the farm. He supposed there was no intention in any quarter to deprive women of the advantages of the Act. It was well the matter should be made clear, and, therefore, he proposed this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 31, after the word "herdsman," to insert the words "and a widow who does farm work."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he had no objection to make it clear that "agricultural labourer" should include women; but he did not think this Amendment would serve that purpose, for it was certainly very ambiguous. Words might be introduced on Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTONproposed to insert the words "wholly or partly," after "not," in line 02, so that the clause would read—
    1014
    "The term does not include any person who is not wholly or partly paid for his labour by wages."
    In many parts of Ireland labourers were paid partly by wages and partly in kind. It was as well the point should be made clear.
    Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 32, after the word "not," to insert the words "wholly or partly."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Sir Arthur Otway, I desired to speak upon the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry I did not notice the hon. and gallant Gentleman rise; but he cannot now speak upon the Amendment.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I bow to your decision, Sir; but I rose before you put the Question.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite correct; but I did not notice him.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I beg to move that you do report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Colonel King-Barman,)—put, and negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 19 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
    MR. SEXTONproposed, after Clause 13, to insert the following new Clause:—
    (Order confirmed before the passing of this Act may be superseded by new Order.)
    "When a sanitary authority has not obtained and applied a Treasury loan in pursuance of a Provisional Order made and confirmed by Parliament before the passing of this Act, such Order may be allowed to lapse, and such sanitary authority may avail itself of the provisions of this Act in applying for a new Provisional Order, and may proceed in all respects as if the original Order had not been made and confirmed."
    He thought this clause would recommend itself to the Government. It was an attempt to meet the case of Sanitary Authorities who had already obtained power. Those Authorities had to purchase land or would purchase land, and it might be a very expensive operation. As this Act would enable Sanitary Authorities to lease land as well as buy it, he proposed that the old power should lapse and the Authorities be permitted to proceed by the cheaper method.
    New Clause,—(Mr. Sexton),—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)was understood to say he would consider the question involved in the clause by Report.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the now clause, "Appointment of inspectors of labourers' dwellings," standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. Villiers-Stuart), could not be put, because it voted public money; and that the clause, "Repayment of loans," standing in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), could not be put for the same reason.
    MR. SEXTONasked if the Government would make an announcement on the subject of the repayment of loans? Perhaps it would be well that he should move to report Progress, in order to afford the Government an opportunity of stating their intentions.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, he did not know whether he would be in Order in making an explanation.
    MR. SEXTON: I move to report Progress, on the ground that we cannot well proceed without knowing what the Government propose.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Probably the Committee will allow the right hon. Gentleman to make a short explanation.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)was understood to say that it was proposed to extend the time of repayment, and that, in future, loans to be repaid in 40 years would be advanced at the rate of 3¼ per cent per annum, and those to be repaid in more than 40 years at 3¾ per cent per annum.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not wish to make any observation on that statement.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am calling on the hon. Member to move the latter part of his next Amendment—the first part of it cannot be put.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he begged to move the new clause—"Allowances to Sanitary Authority out of a general
    1016
    rate"—standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The great impediment in the way of the working of this Act would be the desire on the part of Boards of Guardians for the saving of expense; and the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends had considered the matter, and had come to the conclusion that it would bridge over the difficulty if they arranged that the Sanitary Authority should be allowed, out of a rate to be anually levied for the purpose, one-third, payable annually by such Sanitary Authority in respect of each house and plot provided under the provisions of the Labourers' Act, 1883, or of the present Bill. The rate would be levied on the Poor Law Valuation, and it was provided in the clause that the rate so levied should not exceed 1d. in the pound. He thought public opinion in Ireland would cheerfully accede to such a rate as that for the purpose of providing comfortable houses for poor labourers. He did not believe that the sum required would reach 1d. in the pound. A penny on the Poor Law Valuation of Ireland would pay for 40,000 houses, whereas the total number it was proposed to erect at the time the Committee sat was only 3,000. So that the Committee would see that in the five years in which it was proposed to carry out this work the sum which would be required would not amount to 1d. in the pound. The allowance to the Board of Guardians would be £1 5s. 6d., and the labourers would pay £2 12s., which would leave only a small balance to be imposed as a burden on the local rates. It was where the Act was needed most that, under existing circumstances, there was the least chance of its being put in force. If the Committee would allow this clause to be put into the Bill he was sure they would be removing an impediment in the way of the working of the Act which in a very short time would put an end to the discontent of the labourers. He begged to move the insertion of the following new Clause:—
    New Clause: —
    (Allowances to sanitary authority out of a general rate.)
    "Each sanitary authority which becomes liable for repayment of loans under 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883,' or this Act, shall be allowed, out of a rate to be annually levied for the purpose on the Poor Law Valuation of

    1017
    Ireland, one-third of the amount payable annually by such sanitary authority in respect of each house and plot provided in virtue of the provisions of 'The Labourers' (Ireland) Act, 1883,' or of this Act: Provided, That such rate to be so levied shall not exceed one penny in the pound: Provided also, That no such allowance shall exceed in any case the annual sum of one pound five shillings and sixpence in respect of each such house and plot of land,"—(Mr. Sexton,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be road a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, this clause was a very serious one, and he did not think it would be possible for the Government to accept it. This rate would be struck on towns as well as on country districts, and he did not see how they could well tax urban residents in order to build cottages for agricultural labourers. Such a thing would neither be fair nor just; and, having reference to the fact that towns in Ireland had already enough to do for the maintenance of the poor, he thought it would be very unfair to ask them to pay any part of this rate. Besides that, there might be many districts in Ireland where, through the industry and thrift of the inhabitants, the labouring classes were well-housed. Why should they contribute towards the expense of providing labourers' cottages for other parts of the country?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he should like to point out that this proposal was made on the Labourers' Committee. It was discussed there, and there was no very great objection raised to it on the part of the English Members. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) had objected; but the hostility on the part of the English Members was that the proposal was brought forward just as the Committee was about to conclude its labours. He did not know whether the Committee was acquainted with the abortive legislation of the late Chief Secretary as to National teachers in Ireland. In that Bill the right hon. Gentleman had proposed a National rate for the benefit of the teachers. That seemed to him (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) a precedent upon which they could rely, because the right hon. Gentleman belonged to the same eco-
    1018
    nomic school as the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), who was bearing present legislation with greater patience than they could have expected, and was confining his attention to the Stamp Duty in the Imperial taxes. If the Representatives of the people who would have to pay this rate were willing to support it before the Committee the sign was a good one, and the Committee should have no difficulty in acceding to the present demand. This question of labourers' dwellings in Ireland was really a National question. It was a question which affected the whole country. The country consisted of districts of varying prosperity, and the Irish Members thought it was only right that the tax should be equalized in the different districts by a National rate. He thought if the Irish Members were willing to pledge themselves to this proposal, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland should make no objection, but should leave them to make their peace with their constituents.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that an expression had just now fallen from the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) which brought out a point he (Mr. Courtney) wished to submit to the Chairman. The hon. Member's statement was that this was a proposal to tax the whole of Ireland, and that the Irish Members agreed to it. He (Mr. Courtney) wished to know whether it was in Order for a private Member to propose to tax the whole of Ireland, and whether it was not a fact that such a proposal could not be made except on the authority of a Minister of the Crown?
    THE CHAIRMAN: This is a question of rating, and I understand that such a question can be dealt with by the Committee. This is not a tax.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would submit to the right hon. Gentleman whether the present clause was in Order, seeing that it was not applied to a certain area, but to the whole of Ireland for the purpose of levying a tax?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is evident that a rate might be imposed by the Local Authority, and in that sense I understand that it can come within the province of the Committee to deal with it.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he submitted that the argument used in favour of this clause cut entirely against

    1019
    it; because the object of the Bill was to put agricultural labourers into houses where there was no labour for them, and, therefore, no means for them to obtain support. The object of hon. Members who moved this clause was to take a number of men who subsisted by labour, to call them labourers, and to put them in houses to which they had no sort of title at the expense of the community.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 56: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 268.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he now begged to move the next Amendment on the Paper, which was also in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). At present, the Local Government Board in Dublin had power to say what the area charged should be; and hitherto they had exercised it in a most embarrassing manner, saying that it should be put upon the electoral division containing, at times, no more than half-a-dozen houses. To make the area the electoral division, as now proposed, would be to make it impossible to work the Act. If the Act was to work at all this Amendment should be accepted. He would urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to give this matter his favourable consideration. The clause was carried by a large majority in the Committee. It would have the effect of equalizing the rate and of preventing very small bodies of occupiers from being seriously embarrassed by the pressure of the rate upon them. He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in deference to the opinion of the Irish Members, he could not see his way to accepting this clause in order to enable the Act to work? The clause was in these terms—
    "The area upon which any rate shall he levied by a sanitary authority for the discharge of any liability incurred for the purposes of 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883,' or of this Act, shall be the union at large."
    New Clause (Area of charge for rate levied by sanitary authority,)—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HAHT DYKE)said, that this question of area was a very large one, and he did not think the Committee could accept the clause.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that hon. Members who represented Ireland were far more unanimous on this question in proportion to their number than were English Members, who changed the fate of Parties in this House. An enormous number of Irish Members were, and had been for years, in favour of Union rating. They were only proposing to apply in one special case in Ireland a rate they had insisted on having in England for a number of years. The rate the English Members had themselves they would not give to Ireland. He believed this Amendment to be absolutely vital to the Bill. It would be impossible to put the Bill in operation if taxation was to be put upon small areas, usually the poorest and least able to bear them in the Union. He would really ask the Government whether, seeing that this clause had been supported by a large majority in the Committee, and seeing the principle was adopted in England a long time ago, they could not adopt it, for he was sure it would have a satisfactory effect in remedying the evils they were suffering from in Ireland? He hoped that Irish Members would press this upon the Government very strongly, as he was sure that without this new clause the Bill would not work at all. If they had in Ireland a Local Government Board which really had the interest of the country at heart, and did not oppose themselves to the requirements of the districts, they would make areas which would somewhat relieve the pressure of taxation on the poorer districts. But, on the contrary, the Local Government Board always tried to restrict the areas and make them smaller than the Guardians themselves. He (Mr. Gray) was convinced that the labours of the Committee that night would be thrown away if they did not adopt this clause, because in districts where they wanted the Bill most the taxation would press with such severity on small areas that it would be impossible to carry out the intentions of the Act.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he hoped the Government would favourably consider this Amendment. There could be

    1021
    no doubt it was vital to the success of the Bill, and he could not conceive upon what principle it could be resisted. For 20 years they had had Union rating in England. As he had ventured to mention before, the whole weight of official evidence in Ireland was in favour of it. The present Vice President of the Local Government Board had declared himself for Union rating on all but one point, and almost every official in Ireland connected with the Poor Law was in favour of it. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would consider this matter between now and the Report.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would see their way to accepting the principle of this clause, because if these charges were thrown upon the narrow areas of the electoral divisions, irrespective of what the population was, it would lead in many cases to an enormous increase of taxation. If, however, the same principle was carried out which existed in England, that grievance would be removed. A grievance in this matter had existed to an enormous extent in Ireland.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was very sorry that the Government seemed to raise opposition to the abstract principle of this clause, and had seen fit to discard the opinion of the Select Committee. He should like to ask whether the mind of the Government was made up? Were they open to any further argument, because he wanted to save time? If they were not, he had one more suggestion to make, which was that the area on which this rate should be levied should be fixed by the Sanitary Authority. That was a compromise—would the Government accept it?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): That is a proposition of a very different kind from the others, and we will consider it.
    MR. SEXTON: What are we to hope for? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman see any objection to the proposal—is he ready to accept it?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I cannot say. I have not had an opportunity of considering the matter, or of ascertaining the feeling in the various parts of Ireland.
    MR. SEXTON: At any rate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman sees no objection to it at present?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member propose to withdraw the clause?
    MR. SEXTON: Yes; I withdraw it for the present.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTONbegged to move the following new Clause:—
    (Compulsory powers to purchase land without investigation of title.)
    "For the purposes of 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1S83,' the Local Government Board may, by Provisional Order confirming any scheme under that Act, empower a sanitary authority to purchase compulsorily any lands referred to in said Order, and if no valid petition is lodged against the said Order, or if, after lodgment of a petition, the Order is confirmed, the Court shall make a vesting order transferring the interest of the owner to the sanitary authority upon such consideration as the Court may fix, and the title conferred by such vesting order shall be valid against the person from whom the land is purchased, and against all persons entitled to any incumbrance, estate, or interest in the land either paramount or subsequent to the estate or interest of such person."
    He did not see why, in cases where the landlord was so well known and the matter was only a small one of a few acres, they should have to go to the expense and trouble of investigating the title.
    New Clause,—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he had looked carefully into this clause. Vesting orders would not be necessary, and he did not see his way to accepting the proposal of the hon. Member.
    MR. SEXTONasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider it in the same friendly spirit that he had promised to consider the other matter?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I do not think so.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTONbegged to move the following new Clause:—
    (25 & 26 Vict. c. 83, s. 2, not to apply to holdings under this Act.)
    "Notwithstanding the provision contained in the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth Victoria,

    1023
    chapter eighty-three, section two, with respect to out-door relief, it shall he lawful for any hoard of guardians to give out-door relief to any persons occupying a house erected by them in pursuance of 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883,' or this Act."
    New Clause,—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he did not think that this Act would impose the burdens which the hon. Gentleman contemplated, and he could, therefore, see no reason for the proposed change in the law.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he hoped, at all events, that his last clause would be accepted, which was as follows:—
    (Power to contractors to take building materials.)
    "Any contractor or other person engaged in building houses for a sanitary authority, in pursuance of 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883,' or this Act, shall he entitled to take and use for such purpose stones, sand, or any material requisite for building, from quarries and other places from which such materials are ordinarily supplied, paying for the same the price current for such materials in the district."
    He was desirous that the contractors building houses under this Bill should have the same power to take building materials as they had under the Grand Juries, otherwise there would probably be great impediments put in their way.
    New Clause,—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, it appeared to him that if a man would pay a fair price he could get what he wanted. He thought the acceptance of this clause would be introducing a very curious provision, and he did not think the Government could consent to insert it.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORthought the right hon. and learned Gentleman was inaccurate in stating that they were introducing a novel provision, for in pre-
    1024
    vious Acts it had been provided that contractors should have the right of going in and buying materials at the current market price. He thought it was a very small matter, and he could not understand why the right lion, and learned Gentleman opposed it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel King-Harman) did not oppose the Amendment. [An hon. MEMBER: He will.] He would be very much surprised if even the hon. and gallant Member opposed it. They really ought to give the contractor the same power in a case such as this as they did under the Grand Juries.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was mistaken. The contractor, under the Grand Jury, had the power of obtaining materials for road-making or road-mending, but not for ordinary work such as was contemplated in this instance.
    MR. CALLANwas surprised that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, being an old Grand Juror of experience himself, should have made such a great mistake. He wished to point out to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman, through his agents, had made use of these powers to obtain these materials; and, therefore, he could not understand him objecting to the same powers being inserted in this Bill.
    MR. TOTTENHAMexplained that what he had said was that they had no power to take materials for building, although they had for road repairing.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he understood that that was so. All he wanted was that contractors, under this Bill, should have the same facilities for obtaining materials as they had under the Grand Juries.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, that the class of materials wanted was entirely different in these two cases. They wanted sand and stone for building, which they did not for road-making. He could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORcould not see why they should not have the same advantages for building these houses under this Bill as they had for other public work under the Grand Jury system.
    Question put, and negatived.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANbegged leave to move the following new Clause:—
    (Outdoor relief to terminate tenancy.)
    "The sanitary authority shall not permit any person who may be in receipt of outdoor relief, other than medical relief, to remain in occupation of any houses which may be built or acquired by the sanitary authority under any of the provisions of this Act."
    New Clause—(Colonel King-Harman,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR, IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, that the existing law entirely met the case which this clause was intended to deal with.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  INFANTS BILL [Lords].— [BILL 157.]
  (Mr. Bryce.)
  INFANTS BILL [Lords].— [BILL 157.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, this Bill was substantially the same measure which was debated at such great length last Session. It then went to the House of Lords; but their Lordships said they had not sufficient time to consider it, and consequently it had to be dropped for the year. It was, however, introduced afresh into the House of Lords at the beginning of the present Session, referred to, and considered by, a very strong Select Committee, which included Lord Selborne, the late Lord Cairns, Lord FitzGerald, and Lord Bramwell, and subsequently debated fully in the full House. It now came before the House as the result of much time and thought in both Houses—for the changes made in the House of Lords had not substantially affected it; and under those circumstances, and considering the lateness of the hour, he did not think the House would wish him to go into the details of the measure.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Bryee.)
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he had blocked this Bill right through, and it was only through inadvertence that he had allowed his block to lapse. He most strongly
    1026
    opposed it, because he thought it was a very wrong principle to give a wife the power of appointing guardians over her children during the lifetime of her husband, and for that reason he had done all in his power to prevent the passage of the Bill. He objected to a matter of such importance being brought on at so late an hour also. He hoped the House would not accept the second reading; and, therefore, he moved that the debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Onslow.)
    The House divided:—Ayos 17; Noes 54: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 269.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
    House adjourned at five minutes after Fire o'clock in the morning.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Registration Appeals (Ireland) *(226); Expiring Laws Continuance * (229); Telegraph Acts Amendment * (230); Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) * (231).
Committee—Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) * (190); Evidence by Commission * (212–228).
Committee—Report—Pluralities * (213); Customs and Inland Revenue (No. 2) * (220); Lunacy Acts Amendment * (221).
Committee—Report—Third Reading— Patent Law Amendment * (223), and passed.
Report— River Thames (No. 2) (218).
Third Reading— Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2) * (188); Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * (209), and passed.
Withdrawn— Scottish and Irish Peerages (10).

SCOTTISH AND IRISH PEERAGES BILL.—(No. 10.)
(The Lord Waveney.)
SCOTTISH AND IRISH PEERAGES BILL.—(No. 10.)

  BILL WITHDRAWN.
  LORD WAVENEY,in asking the leave of the House to withdraw the Bill, said, that it had been introduced in order to provide a remedy for the anomalies that arose from the present system of electing Representative Peers for Scotland and Ireland. He considered it a great and positive evil that the two Kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland should be represented by a close corporation in that House. The question of Peerages in their Lordships' House had been considered on various occasions; but it had never been fairly considered in regard to the important point raised in the Bill. Under the existing arrangement, all the Peers elected generally belonged to one side in politics—that, namely, of the majority, or the Conservative Party. Peers who belonged to the minority, or the Liberal Party, had no chance of being represented, or of getting into the House, except by being created Peers of the

  813
  United Kingdom, in which case they had to sink the old historic names by which they were known and distinguished. That was an unsatisfactory state of matters, which was never intended, and which required to be remedied. He recognized the impossibility of getting the Bill through that Session, and therefore thought it more respectful to their Lordships to formally withdraw it, than to allow it to remain any longer on the Paper. He thought it would be well, however, if their Lordships were to bear in mind and see whether a system could not be devised that would do away with the existing anomalies in connection with the Peerages of Ireland and Scotland. The constitution of the House of Lords was at present a subject of popular discussion; and he thought that made it all the more desirable that their Lordships themselves, and of their own accord, should apply themselves to the remedying of any defects that were found to exist, instead of waiting until pressure was brought to bear on them from without. Their Lordships would recollect a very remarkable gathering that recently took place in Hyde Park. He never saw a more good-natured assembly or a more representative body of men; but, under the influence of popular excitement, a good-humoured crowd of that description might easily degenerate into an unruly mob. As he had said, the evil was a very serious one, and ought to be dealt with by their Lordships. He would give Notice that he would bring the Bill forward again next year.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he thought their Lordships were indebted to his noble Friend (Lord Waveney) for calling attention to this important subject. He hoped his noble Friend would carry out his intimation, and that the Bill would be brought forward again at the first opportunity.
  Bill (by leave of the House) with-drawn.

RIVER THAMES (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 218.)
(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
RIVER THAMES (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 218.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF ABINGDON THE EARL OF ABINGDON moved an Amendment in Clause 4, giving the
  814
  Conservators power to hear complaints as to unreasonable delay of boats in front of the property of riparian owners.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE moved an Amendment, providing that the bye-laws of the Conservancy for the regulation of traffic on the Thames should not allow house-boats or other boats to remain for more than 48 hours at anchor in front of a residence. At present, a serious nuisance was caused to owners of houses on the banks of the Thames by boats being moored for weeks and and months in front of these residences. At regattas and on other occasions the public would be deprived of much of their present enjoyment if arbitrary power were bestowed on occupiers of houses to prevent any temporary loitering at their banks.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 6, page 3, line 7, after ("ground") to insert ("for more than forty-eight hours.")—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
  LORD BRAMWELLmaintained that the owners of these boats had no right to loiter opposite to the residences of riparian owners at all, and on that ground he opposed the Amendment. It would be an intolerable nuisance for a boat —especially a house-boat, with, perhaps, many persons on board—to stop in front of a gentleman's garden for 48 hours. They might as well give gipsies power to camp for that time on the high road in front of a dwelling-house.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSalso opposed the Amendment. He would point out to their Lordships that there might be a succession of boats each staying 48 hours.
  THE EARL OF ABINGDONsaid, he supported the Amendment in the interests of riparian owners, a committee of whom had come to the conclusion that they would rather have a summary jurisdiction power of removing boats after 48 hours than be left, as at present, with the alternative of a Common Law action, which, in all probability, would not be tried until months after the order for removal had ceased to be of any practical benefit.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEexplained that house-boats were used by artists,

  815
  lovers of nature who would have no enjoyment if they were not permitted to loiter. As it was, these boats were often moored opposite a house for as long a period as three months. All the riparians knew very well that they had better have the boats removed at the end of 48 hours.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he thought the owners of boats ought to be liable to a penalty if they stayed opposite a house at all.
  THE EAEL OF ABINGDONbelieved that they had a right to loiter.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, they had not.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 20; Not-Contents 14: Majority 6.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

REGISTRATION APPEALS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to accelerate the hearing of appeals under the Acts relating to the registration of voters in Ireland in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five—Was presented by The Earl BEAUCHAMP; read 1a; to be printed; to be read 2a To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with. (No. 226.)

PRIVATE BILLS.
Standing Orders Nos. 10., 22., 52., 57., 64., 85., 114., 115., 134., and 179., considered and amended; and to be printed as amended. (No. 227.)
House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.