Sitting of 7 July 1885

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Aylesbury v. Sir Nathaniel Mayer Rothschild, baronet, now Baron Rothschild, called up to the House of Peers.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—£30,000, MARRIAGE PORTION OF HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCESS BEATRICE MARIE VICTORIA FEODORA—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—GLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE; Votes 1, 3, 4. Resolutions [July 6] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Bankruptcy (Office Accommodation)*; Polehampton Estates*; Artillery and Rifle Ranges*; Turnpike Acts Continuance*; Poor Law Unions' Officers (Ireland).*
First Reading—Yorkshire Registries* [211]
Second Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2)* [207]; Medical Act (1858) Amendment [130], debate resumed and
1806
further adjourned; Tithe Rent Charge Redemption [181].
Select Committee—Pluralities [22] [House counted out].
Committee—Merchant Shipping (Transfer of Registry, &c.) [179]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Local Loans (Sinking Funds)* [189]; River Thames (No. 2) (re-comm.) [90],
Considered as amended—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders* [182]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7)* [201]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 9)* [198]; East India Loan (£10,000,000)* [109].
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (Municipal Corporations)* [199]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [168].
Withdrawn—Beer Adulteration [14].

DEE CONSERVANCY BILL [Lords.]

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. RAIKESmoved—
  "That the Resolution which, upon the 23rd day of Juno last, was reported from the Select Committee on Standing Orders in relation to the Dee Conservancy Bill, together with the Bill and the Report of the Examiner with respect to non-compliance with the Standing Orders, be referred back to the Select Committee on Standing Orders:—That the following Petitions in relation thereto be referred to the said Committee (that is to say):—

  "1. Corporations of Chester and Flint, River Dee Commissioners, and others interested in the navigation of the River Dee;

  "2. River Dee Company;

  "3. Shipowners, Traders, and others:

  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, That they have power to inquire into the allegations contained in such Petitions, and to report to the House whether the circumstances therein stated are such as render it just and expedient that the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with."
  The right hon. Gentleman remarked, that, at the outset, he was desirous of stating that nothing was further from his intention than to treat with disrespect any decision at which the Committee on Standing Orders had arrived. He fully recognized, and he was sure that the House attached much value, to the services which were rendered by the Standing Orders Committee in the conduct of the Private Business of the House. And he was quite certain his right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee (Sir John E. Mowbray) would know and feel that he was actuated by no disrespectful motive either

  1807
  towards the Committee or their decisions. There were, however, precedents for the course which he now took. He was quite aware that the Motion he intended to submit to the House was not one which had been frequently made, and he had noticed that in one of the papers which had been circulated among Members exception was taken to the Resolution on that account. He, therefore, thought it was as well to remind the House that a similar Motion had been brought forward with regard to the Dundalk Water Bill, and in another case in 1875, when he had the honour to hold the Office of Chairman of Ways and Means, with regard to an Edinburgh Street Tramways Bill. The Great Northern and Western Railway of Ireland, five years earlier, also formed the subject of a similar Motion. But, as he gathered from the statement to which he had just referred, some difficulty was felt as to what might be the effect in the case of Petitions for the presentation of which the proper time had elapsed. He would, therefore, say that, in the event of this Bill being allowed to be sent back, he thought there could be no doubt that if the Committee on Standing Orders were asked to reconsider the matter they would facilitate the presentation of any such Petitions. He believed that that would be a matter of course; and he himself, if necessary, would be glad to submit a Motion to the House to the effect that any Petition presented up to a date to be fixed subsequent to this Motion which in that respect failed to comply with the Standing Orders of the House should, nevertheless, be considered by the Committee upon the Bill. He also wished to say that in taking the course which he had adopted he had no intention whatever of appearing as champion of the Bill upon its merits. Indeed, it seemed to him that there were many points of the Bill which were extremely arguable, and which would require careful consideration and sifting by any Committee of the House to whom the Bill might be referred. Having cleared the ground so far, he would now ask the Committee to consider what he really thought would be a serious miscarriage of justice if his Motion were not accepted on the present occasion. The Committee on Standing Orders had had before them a Report from the Examiner of Private Bills, and
  1808
  they had decided upon that Report that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, and that they ought not to be dispensed with. The Report of the Examiner was to the effect that no notice in writing, as required by the Standing Orders, was given to certain owners and occupiers on or before the 15th of December last, in respect of the compulsory taking of their lands under the powers contained in a particular clause of the Bill. Having that Report before them, the Standing Orders Committee thought proper to declare that the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with. He must confess that, having that Report from the Examiner before them, and in the absence of the information which he was about to lay before the House, the Standing Orders Committee only took the usual course. Now, what was the history of this case? The Dee Conservancy Bill was one of several measures introduced into the House of Lords in the present Session of Parliament. The Committee of the House of Lords, having before them two or more of those Bills, came to a decision which was embodied in the Dee Conservancy Bill as it now stood. That was to say, that they sought to amalgamate some of the provisions contained in other Bills with the Bill which they ultimately determined to pass in reference to the River Dee. Those provisions covered the ground which formed the subject of the Report upon the Bill by the Examiner. The history of the question was briefly this. The Bill which was now before the House, or which might more correctly be described as having passed the House of Lords and come down to this House, was a Bill promoted by the Corporation of Chester and by the River Dee Company for the conservancy and improvement of the River Dee, and for vesting the same and the control and management of the river in a Conservancy Board. That Bill, as introduced into the House of Lords, contained compulsory powers for the acquisition of certain embankments upon the River Dee. As the Bill proceeded through the House of Lords, and in view, he supposed, of some forms of opposition with which it was threatened, the clause containing these powers was withdrawn from the consideration of the Committee. But one of the principal grounds of opposition which was taken when the Bill

  1809
  came into Committee was the absence of those powers to vest in the new Conservancy Board the embankments in question on the River Dee. Objection was taken, among others, by the Trustees of the late Lord Wenlock, who were the persons now moving to get the Bill stopped on the ground of non-compliance with the Standing Orders. Ono of the Executors and Trustees of the late Lord Wenlock (Mr. John Coleman) was examined before the Committee of the House of Lords, and he stated, in his evidence, that he thought these embankments ought to be vested in the Conservancy Board. Under these circumstances, he thought the House would be somewhat surprised to learn that after this course had been taken by Lord Wenlock's Trustees, after this evidence given on behalf of the Trustees to their Lordship's Committee, and after the speech made by the learned counsel who represented them, these same persons now came before the House of Commons with a claim to have the Bill stopped, on the ground of its non-compliance with the Standing Orders of the House, because it now contained a certain provision which was the very provision for which they had contended both by evidence and speech. Now, in the Memorial which was submitted to the Examiner in the House of Commons, and which must have influenced his decision in a great degree, it was said that the Wenlock Trustees had received no notice in respect of the compulsory taking of upwards of five miles of embankments of which they were owners and occupiers. That was a point with which he had already dealt. The Bill, as introduced, did provide for the compulsory taking of these embankments, and regular notices were served, in the ordinary way, for the acquisition of the compulsory powers. The Memorial proceeded to say that the words in the clause proposing to vest the embankments in the Conservancy Board were inserted in the absence of the Wenlock Trustees. Technically, this statement was capable of being defended, because the Wenlock Trustees, having appeared against the Preamble of the Bill, as soon as the Preamble was passed by the Committee, retired, as was the custom in all such cases when it was intended to oppose the Bill in the other House of Parliament, and they did not,
  1810
  therefore, take part in the settlement of the clauses. But it was necessary to inform the House, at the same time, that when the Committee of the House of Lords passed the Preamble of the Bill, they stated to the whole room, in which there were present at the time the Trustees, their counsel, and representatives, that they did so on condition that clauses should be inserted vesting these embankments in the Conservancy Board; and, therefore, although, technically, the Trustees were out of the room at the time these clauses were actually inserted in the Bill, practically they were aware that such clauses were going to be inserted; and, in point of fact, it was at their instance, and upon their representation, that the Committee decided upon inserting them. The Memorial then went on to say that these clauses were inserted under an entire misconception as to the rights of the Wenlock Trustees in the embankments. He would only say, in regard to that matter, that they had been adopted after six days' consideration of the Bill before the Committee of the House of Lords; that they were urged by one of the ablest counsel at the Parliamentary Bar, and that they were supported by the evidence of one of the Trustees himself. He would further point out that this gentleman (Mr. Coleman) was also one of the promoters of a rival scheme by which it was equally sought to vest these embankments in the Conservancy Board. Therefore, he did not see what possible material the House of Lords could have required in excess of that presented to them as a means of ascertaining how urgently the Wenlock Trustees desired the incorporation in the Bill of a clause vesting these embankments in the Conservancy Board. It was further stated in the Memorial of Lord Wenlock's Trustees that the clause was inserted to meet the objections of the opponents of the Bill. He had only to say, in regard to that allegation, that, as he had already pointed out to the House, the opponents in deference to whose opposition this clause was inserted were the persons who now came to the House of Commons and complained of the insertion of a clause which was inserted at the instance of their own counsel and witnesses. Beyond that there was one other statement in the Memorial to

  1811
  which he desired to call attention, and it was that the Wenlock Trustees were to be deprived of the embankments without notice or compensation. That, if the House would allow him to say so, was entirely a matter for the consideration of a Committee, and had nothing to do with any point of procedure before the Standing Orders Committee. But, at the same time, he was informed that it was not the fact, because the proposal to rest the embankments in the Conservancy Board would relieve from grave responsibilities the lands of the Dee Conservancy, on which the Wenlock Trustees had a heavy mortgage, and would place the mortgagees of that property in a much more favourable position than they occupied at present. He thought that he had now dealt sufficiently with the allegations contained in the Memorial of the Wenlock Trustees, and the statement they had submitted to the Standing Orders Committee. But he might, perhaps, be allowed to refer also to an objection presented by the Duke of Westminster, and his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Robertson), both of whom came forward to represent the landowners and traders of the locality. Their Petition, however, he ventured to maintain, had nothing to do with the question now raised, although it might be a valid objection upon the merits of the question. He did not, therefore, propose to enter into it, because, as the House would see, he had carefully endeavoured to keep clear of the merits of the scheme. With that the House had not, at the present moment, anything to do. What he asked the House to do was to give to the Standing Orders Committee the power of reconsidering, in the light of the facts he had now adduced, and the allegations contained in the Petition of parties who were interested, a decision which he contended would not have been arrived at if the Standing Orders Committee had had the true facts before them at the time they took the matter into consideration. It must be borne in mind that when the Standing Orders Committee arrived at their decision they had only before them the technical statements of the officer intrusted with the examination of the Private Bills submitted to the House. It was well
  1812
  known that the Committee on Standing Orders would never be able to get through the work they had to dispose of if they were obliged to conduct their business by the oral examination and cross-examination of the parties who were concerned. They had, therefore, to rely upon the statements made to them by the agents of the House; but they had a right to expect that such statements contained an exact and complete representation of the facts. He thought he had been able to show to the House that in this case certain statements and facts had been misrepresented or omitted in the Memorial submitted to the Examiner, and if there had been a deviation from the ordinary practice, in a case of this sort, he thought the House ought to have no difficulty in accepting the Motion which he ventured to make. At any rate, he was sure that his right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee on Standing Orders (Sir John E. Mowbray) would see that he was not without warrant for making the Motion, and that he was casting no reflection on the Standing Orders Committee, because they had to rely upon the representations which the Parliamentary agents, who, as a matter of fact, were also officers of the House, felt it their duty to make to them. In every representation made by the agent of a Private Bill there ought to be a careful, a literal, and a precise adherence to the facts of the particular case dealt with, and it was the duty of the House to guard their jurisdiction, in regard to Private Business, with the care and consideration for every interest involved which they had hitherto so jealously preserved. He did not think that it was necessary that he should trouble the House with any further statement on this matter. He thanked the House for the kind attention they had given to what was rather a technical statement, but which was one he had felt called upon to make in the interests of Private Bill legislation in that House, and from a real regard for justice and equity in this particular case. Quite apart from the merits of the Bill with which he was dealing, he thought he had made out a case for referring the matter back to the Standing Orders Committee, and he begged to move the Motion which he had already read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Resolution which, upon the 23rd day of June last, was reported from the Select Committee on Standing Orders in relation to the Dee Conservancy Bill [Lords], together with the Bill and Report of the Examiner with respect to non-compliance with the Standing Orders, be referred back to the Select Committee on Standing Orders:—That the following Petitions in relation thereto be referred to the said Committee (that is to say):—

  "1. Corporations of Chester and Flint, River Dee Commissioners, and others interested in the navigation of the River Dee;

  "2. River Dee Company;

  "3. Shipowners, Traders, and others:

  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, That they have power to inquire into the allegations contained in such Petitions, and to report to the House whether the circumstances therein stated are such as render it just and expedient that the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with."—(Mr. Raikes.)
  SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAYsaid, he thought it was possible that he might save the time of the House by stating at once the views which the Standing Orders Committee entertained upon the matter. He thought it might prevent a discussion upon the merits of the Bill itself if he rose at the earliest moment to state the views of the Committee. He had had an opportunity, that day, of placing before the Standing Orders Committee a Petition from the Corporation of Chester which represented, as far as he knew, the grounds upon which the Motion of his right hon. Friend was based. He had no complaint to make of the statement which had been made by his right hon. Friend, nor did he dispute the right of any hon. Member to call in question the decision of the Standing Orders Committee. At the same time, although his right hon. Friend had disclaimed any intention of dealing with the merits of the question, he had certainly gone very much into the history of the Bill, and might probably lead the House into a discussion of those merits. It was perfectly understood that the Standing Orders Committee knew nothing about the merits of any Bill that came before them. They had merely to say whether the Standing Orders had been complied with or not. That was the whole question they had to consider, and in this particular instance they had before them a Report of the Examiner that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. The judgment at which the Standing
  1814
  Orders Committee arrived was founded on the Report which the Examiner himself had placed before them, and on the statement presented to them by the opponents of the Bill. His right hon. Friend was right in saying that the statements presented to the Standing Orders Committee by the Parliamentary agents of the House ought to be complete and accurate statements of the facts of the case. Their statements were always treated by the Committee as documents uberrimæ fidei, as evidence that was unimpeachable, and as allegations of facts which, within the knowledge and in the judgment of the competent gentlemen who acted as Parliamentary agents in regard to the promotion of Private Bills, could not be controverted. The documents submitted to the Standing Orders Committee were not, in the first instance, accessible to the opposite parties; but it was in the power of the Parliamentary agents on the other side to have said, when they first saw them, that the statements of the opponents of the Bill were not founded on fact. If they had done so at once, or if they had applied the day after the decision of the Standing Orders Committee was given, for a re-hearing, on the ground that the Standing Orders Committee had been misled by the statements which had been placed before them, the Committee would have been quite ready to reconsider the case. The real difficulty in this matter was that the questions upon which the Standing Orders Committee gave their decision came before them on the 23rd of June, and it would be seen that a considerable time had now elapsed before they were asked to reconsider their decision. Certainly, the proper time to have raised the question was within a day or so after these documents were placed before the Committee. The complaint was that the statements put before the Committee contained certain allegations which were contrary to the real facts of the case, and that they gave a colourable account which could not be supported by evidence. Whenever such an allegation was made, although the Standing Orders Committee had arrived at a decision, it was their custom to reconsider that decision. Therefore, the question arose whether, if the Committee would have taken that course at an earlier period, they should not do it now, simply because there had

  1815
  been a lapse of time? The question resolved itself into a very narrow issue—namely, whether the Committee, when they came to a decision upon certain re-presentations placed before them, were really in possession of the full facts of the case? He trusted the House would not be led, either on one side or the other, to discuss the merits of the Bill, which really had nothing whatever to do with the question of compliance with the Standing Orders. Compliance with Standing Orders consisted of certain nude facts; and although the Standing Orders Committee were perfectly ready, if it were the wish of the House, to go into the matter again, he hoped it would be perfectly and clearly understood that there was no question whatever raised as to the merits of the Bill.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid, that in the few remarks he intended to make he would confine himself to the ordinary practice and custom of the House in reference to Private Bills. He simply wished to call attention to the manner in which the objection to the decision of the Standing Orders Committee had been brought before the House. The decision arrived at by the Standing Orders Committee was in accordance with the prescribed Rules of the House; and it was simply sought now to re-open the question in the interest of some particular persons who were promoting the Bill. The whole of the facts of the case had been brought before the Examiner, and the discussion now taking place was simply a repetition of that which occurred before the Examiner. He strongly deprecated the re-opening of questions of this kind at the instance of lion, or right hon. Gentlemen who might be influenced by certain parties outside the House, the Corporation of Chester, or others, who objected to the decision of the Standing Orders Committee. He had nothing to say against the Corporation of Chester more than this, that the facts which were alleged in their Petition to have been misstated were—and he was able to say so from his own knowlege of the case, having been a party to the opposition—fairly and correctly given in the statements submitted to the Committee, and in the Report of the Examiner. When the question was before the Examiner, counsel, and agents, both for the promoters and the opponents, were heard, and every point which had
  1816
  been raised by the right hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) was then gone into and argued. The real point would be familiar to every hon. Member who was acquainted with the requirements of the House in reference to the deposit and plans for Private Bills. If it was proposed to take a piece of land, the owner of that land received a notice including the whole of his land within the limits of deviation. In this particular case it turned out that when the Bill came before the Committee it was amalgamated with another Bill; but these particular works were abandoned, and the notices which wore required to be given by the Standing Orders of the House did not apply to the special clause introduced into the Bill, which altered entirely the position of the property without due notice having been given. It was quite true that the Committee intimated their intention of inserting a certain clause in the Bill affecting these embankments; but how could the opponents, who had retired from the room, know what that clause was to be? The parties opposing the Bill retired from their opposition on the distinct understanding that they would oppose the measure in the House of Commons; and when the Bill was sent down to the House of Commons, Lord Wenlock's Trustees found that a clause had been inserted providing for the compulsory taking of upwards of five miles of embankments of which they were the owners and occupiers and which formed a frontage to the Wenlock Estate. It must also be borne in mind that this was proposed to be clone without compensation, and that was the real essence of the case. If the promoters of the Bill had proceeded in the regular way the owners of the property would have been entitled, under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, to be compensated for the land taken from them; but they would have no right to claim compensation under the clause inserted in the Bill by the House of Commons. That clause was a distinct clause giving the whole of the embankments to the Conservancy Board; and a further clause provided that they should take land for wharfage purposes out of adjoining property, which provision, if carried out, would materially affect the interests of those who at present had access to the river. No notice for the acquisition of this

  1817
  and had been given; and therefore the Land Clauses Consolidation Act had been infringed, as well as the ordinary Rules of Procedure imposed by Parliament in reference to Private Bill legislation. He therefore maintained that the decision of the Examiner of Private Bills, upon whose Report the Standing Orders Committee decided that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, was precise and accurate. No notice in writing, such as was required by the Standing Orders, had been given by the holders or occupiers on or before the 15th of December last in respect of the compulsory taking of their lands under the powers contained in the clause inserted by the House of Lords. The whole gist of the matter was that the clause inserted in the Bill by the House of Lords, behind the backs of the opponents of the Bill, gave five miles of the embankment of the river, without compensation, to a third party. Therefore, when that representation was made to the Examiner, he decided that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. The Standing Orders Committee supported the decision of the Examiner, and it was now sought to revive the question in the House itself and to upset the Report of the Examiner and the decision of the Standing Orders Committee. The question, practically, resolved itself into this—What was the meaning of a "notice," and what was the meaning of the Rules and Regulations provided by the House for its Private Bill legislation? Was the House to turn itself into a Court of Examiners of Standing Orders. He sincerely trusted that it would not undertake such a task; but that it would refuse the Motion of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) and support the decision of the Examiner and of the Standing Orders Committee.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he had no personal interest whatever in this question, and he should not have risen to say the very few words he proposed to say upon the matter if it had not been for an exceedingly strong representation he had received on the subject. He had been intrusted with the presentation of a Petition which had received 771 signatures against the Bill. Among others signing it were the Duke of Westminster, Lord Mostyn, the Rev. S. Gladstone, the Trustees of the
  1818
  Hawarden Estate, and a large number of private firms which were greatly interested in the question. He quite agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) that it was not desirable, at the present moment, to enter into the merits of the question. At the same time, his right hon. Friend must admit that the course he had taken was, to say the least of it, a peculiar and an extraordinary one, and in order to justify it his right hon. Friend set up a precedent which occurred so far back as 1875.
  MR. RAIKES: No; there have been various other precedents—one in 1883.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANagreed with the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Robertson) that it was most undesirable to convert the House into a Committee of Standing Orders. The real points of the case, about which there was no dispute, were in the smallest possible compass. When the Bill was originally introduced, it proposed to vest some four miles of embankment, on the River Dee, belonging to the Trustees of the late Lord Wenlock, in the Conservancy Board, and, of course, that proposal came under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and the promoters of the Bill were bound to serve, and did serve, notices upon the Trustees of Lord Wenlock in respect of it. But when the Bill came before the Committee of the House of Lords, that clause was withdrawn, and with its withdrawal the notices which had been given to the Trustees of the Wenlock Estate, for acquiring that property, fell to the ground. What afterwards took place was this. The House of Lords, by its own Motion, inserted a clause which not only gave the four miles of embankment, in regard to which the original notices had been given, but five miles of embankment, absolutely to the Conservancy Board without requiring them to make compensation. In that state the Bill came down from the House of Lords, and the House would see, at once, how the matter stood. Here was a Bill giving away five miles of a man's property without any notice having been given to his representatives. On that ground, and on that ground alone, the Trustees of Lord Wenlock objected to the measure when it came before the Examiner. It was not pretended that they had received any notice in respect

  1819
  of the new locus standi they had acquired in consequence of the alteration of the Bill which had been made in the House of Lords. No doubt, it was asserted that some of the statements in the representation laid before the Standing Orders Committee on behalf of the Trustees of Lord Wenlock were incorrect, and perhaps it might have been very difficult, under the circumstances, to have been literally accurate in every respect. But that was a purely ex parte statement, and, he must say, with all deference to the opinion of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John E. Mowbray), that he was setting a somewhat dangerous precedent. His contention was that when the promoters of a Bill did not choose to go before a Standing Orders Committee at once, and declare that certain statements which had been made to the Committee by the opponents of a Bill were incorrect, and when they had allowed the decision of a Standing Orders Committee to remain in force for some time, it would be a most dangerous precedent to establish if the House were now to hold that, under such circumstances, the promoters of a Bill were entitled to come down to the House and, on a mere ex parte allegation, call upon it to refer the whole question back to the Standing Orders Committee.
  SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAYbegged his right hon. and learned Friend's pardon. What he had said was that the Standing Orders Committee had dealt with the statements which had been placed before them, and that the opposite party had placed no statements before them. If, however, under such circumstances, the Standing Orders Committee discovered within a few hours afterwards that the statements made to them, and upon which they had based their decision, were not correct, then the other side were entitled to come before them and contradict them.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, the explanation of his right hon. Friend only showed the danger of going behind the back of the Examiners and of bringing arguments and allegations before the House that were not before them, for by so doing they were virtually turning the House into a Standing Orders Committee. It seemed to him that the onus probandi rested upon his right hon. Friend the Member for the University
  1820
  of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), and he thought if the House adopted the Motion of his right hon. Friend they would very much shake the confidence of the public in the proceedings connected with Private Bill legislation. There was one fact, which had not been alluded to by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), which ought not to be forgotten, and it was that the Bill was really promoted by persons who were in the position of creditors to the Dee Conservancy Board, and who were seeking to release themselves from various obligations which had been imposed upon them by Act of Parliament. Another point was that they had now arrived at the 7th of July, and that an important question with all of them was how soon they were to "shuffle off this mortal coil" and obtain a happy release from their labours. The Bill would require a great deal of examination and consideration; and there was every reason to believe that if it were referred back again to the Standing Orders Committee, and then referred to a Private Bill Committee, it could not receive that attention which the importance of the questions with which it dealt entitled it to. Therefore, upon all those grounds, he opposed the Motion of his right hon. Friend.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENEY DE WORMS)said, he did not propose to discuss this question upon its merits; but he must say that the argument of the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee (Sir John E. Mowbray) appeared to him to be a very cogent one, while the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed the House did not, to his mind, meet the points which had been raised by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes). As a matter of fact, a reference back to the Standing Orders Committee would only result in an investigation of the facts, and he could not understand why, if there was not anything to conceal, hon. Gentlemen should offer such a strenuous opposition to the proposal to refer the question back to the Standing Orders Committee. They had been told by the Chairman of the Committee that there was nothing uncommon in the Committee reconsidering their decision. Therefore, any argument as to absence of pre-

  1821
  cedents fell to the ground. As he had said, he was not going to discuss or express any opinion upon the merits of the Bill itself; but he would simply say this—that for several Sessions past attempts had been made to constitute a conservancy of the River Dee, and in the present Session four Bills had been introduced with that object in view. Two of those Bills had been formally withdrawn; the third failed in Committee; and the fourth was the Bill they were now considering. If the Motion of his right hon. Friend was defeated, as a matter of fact, the House would kill the only Bill now before them. Indeed, he took that to be the reason of the opposition now offered to the Motion of his right hon. Friend. So far as the Department which he had the honour to represent was concerned, he could only say that they viewed with great favour any Bill which had for its object the construction of a conservancy of any river; and as the conservancy of the River Dee was materially affected by the present Bill, it afforded a reason why he proposed to support the Motion of his right hon. Friend.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, that his only object in addressing the House was, if he could, to save its time. Therefore, he wished to recall the consideration of the House to the practical question now before it. Hon. Members were not asked to reverse the decision of the Standing Orders Committee. They were merely asked to take that action with regard to the Bill which the Committee would have taken with their own accord if the case had been brought under their notice. They were asked to refer the Bill back because the accuracy of the statements upon which the Standing Orders Committee had founded their decision had been impugned; and whenever the accuracy of such statements was disputed, it had been the custom to give a re-hearing, in order to test whether they were accurate or not. It was now proposed to refer this question back again to the Standing Orders Committee, of which he was a Member, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether the statements placed before them, and on which their decision was founded, was accurate or not. They had nothing whatever to do with the merits of the Bill itself, and he was sorry that the merits of the
  1822
  question should have been gone into at all.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, it was quite true that the Motion had nothing to do with the merits of the case; but surely the right hon. Gentleman who made it was acting upon information derived from an ex parte statement, and dealing with a technical point which had been already disposed of not only by the Examiner of Private Bills but by the Standing Orders Committee. If the Motion were adopted, he did not see what opportunity would be given to those who were interested in the matter to obtain an adequate representation of their case. Questions of this kind must be dealt with according to the merits of the evidence forthcoming in regard to them; and surely if the House took any action in reference to this matter at all, they should give to the parties opposing the Bill the right of rebutting any fresh statements; and if the whole matter was to be gone into, de novo, the people of the district should have an opportunity of presenting Petitions, if they wished to do so. Under all the circumstances, he trusted that the House would not adopt the Motion of his right hon. Friend.
  MR. GILESsaid, the House had appointed a specific tribunal to adjudicate in certain cases. That tribunal had already given its decision, and the House were now asked to reverse that decision. [Mr. RAIKES: No.] The Committee of Standing Orders had agreed that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, and that they should not be dispensed with, and the House were now asked to dispense with the Standing Orders. [Mr. RAIKES: No; not at all.] For his own part, he thought it would be better to accept the decision of the body specially appointed to adjudicate upon these matters. They were told that there were many precedents for re-opening the decision of the Standing Orders Committee. He was bound to say that that was perfectly true, but he believed they were bad precedents. On that side of the House, at all events, they were not accustomed to have a sort of vacillating policy; and when a question had once been investigated by a proper tribunal and decided upon he hoped the decision arrived at would not be reversed.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the House were very much indebted to the

  1823
  hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whit-bread) for having put the matter so clearly and plainly before them. They had also the high authority of the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee (Sir John B. Mowbray), who was in favour of the Motion, and had expressed an opinion that the matter ought to be reconsidered. He thought the House were bound, out of respect for the position of the Committee, to attach the greatest weight to the opinions of its Chairman; and he was satisfied that it would not shock the confidence of the public in the Private Bill legislation of the House if, upon this occasion, they were to refer the Bill back for the reconsideration of the Committee. He did not see how such a course could shake the public confidence in anybody. If, by any possibility, a mistake had been made, an opportunity ought to be afforded for correcting it, and he did not see how it could shock the confidence of anybody to know that an opportunity had been afforded for arriving at a proper conclusion when an error had been committed. His hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Giles) said they were asked to reverse the decision of the Committee. It was nothing of the kind. They were simply asked to refer the Bill back to the Committee on the distinct allegation that a mistake had been made, and that the decision of the Committee in regard to the Bill had been founded upon that mistake. They were in no respect sitting as a Court of Appeal to reverse the decision of the Standing Orders Committee. They were not asked to do anything of the kind, but were simply asked to afford an opportunity for reconsidering a mistake. It was simply owing to the accident of a change of Government that there had been a lapse of time between the decision of the Committee and the application for re-hearing the case. If this application had been made to the Committee itself on the 24th of June, the day after the Committee reported that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, there would have been no difficulty at all in the matter; but because, owing to political changes, there had been a lapse of time, it was now contended that the Motion for referring the Bill back again was improper. Personally, he was of opinion that the political crisis which had occurred ought not to
  1824
  be allowed by the House to prevent them from doing justice to the promoters of a Private Bill. They were not asked to reverse the decision of the Standing Orders Committee, but to give them an opportunity of seeing whether an error had or had not been committed. They had to consider the importance which attached to every statement made by a Parliamentary agent before a Committee of this sort. Every such statement ought to be strictly and literally true. Upon every ground, therefore, and having perfect confidence that the Standing Orders Committee would properly discharge their duty, and that they would arrive at a just decision, he would support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 155: Majority 26.—(Div. List, No. 210.)

  SITTINGS AND ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—COMMENCEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, perhaps it might be the pleasure of the House that after to-day the Public Business of the House should commence at a quarter-past 4. He understood that Private Business was sufficiently advanced to admit of that being done.
QUESTIONS.

  CRUISERS OF THE MERCANTILE MARINE—MANNING AND EQUIPMENT.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he can inform the House the number, names, tonnage, coal endurance, speed, and terms under which the Admiralty have engaged the America and other merchant steamers as cruisers; also for what purpose they are to be utilised; and whether any of them have been manned wholly or in part by officers and seamen of the Naval Reserves; and, further, to inquire the calibre and description of guns with which the ships have been fitted, and the cost of re-construction from merchant to fighting ships?
  THE FIRST LORD: The number of merchant steamers which the Admi-

  1825
  ralty engaged is 16. Their number precludes me from giving within the limits of an answer to a Question all the information which the hon. Member desires to have; but I shall have no objection to produce a Return stating the number, names, tonnage, and speed of the merchant steamers engaged, and the terms upon which they were engaged. The purpose for which they were to be used was explained by the late Government. The Naval Reserves were not called out, and therefore these vessels were not manned by them.

  POST OFFICE—SIXPENNY TELEGRAMS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Postmaster General, If he can inform the House how much of the £500,000 estimated as required to prepare for the proposed introduction of sixpenny telegrams on the 1st of August has yet been expended, and what number of extra "learners" and clerks have been added to the telegraph staff in anticipation of the extra work; and, whether be proposes to proceed with the Postal Telegraphs Bill with or without provision for free addresses, as proposed in the Amendment to the Bill of which he recently gave notice?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): With reference to the first part of the Question, I have to say that the whole sum of £500,000 will be spent in making the necessary arrangements, and that the number of learners and clerks added to the staff is 1,202. With respect to the second part of the Question, I would remind the hon. Member that the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down last night the lines which the Government would wish to follow with reference to legislation. My right hon. Friend said that it was the desire of the Government not to proceed further with legislation of a contentious character. Now, the object of the Bill to which the latter part of the Question refers is to abolish free addresses on telegrams, and that is a question which has been very much contested in the House and outside it. I think, therefore, that the Government will not be disposed to proceed further with this Bill during the present Session. A fact bearing upon the finance of this question has recently been brought to my notice. It has been
  1826
  calculated by the officers of the Department that if the estimate of the contemplated increase of business mentioned by my Predecessor in Office were realized, there would be an additional outlay required in the course of about four years amounting probably to not less than £1,000,000. This outlay would be necessitated by the provision of additional plant, office accommodation, and the laying of underground wires from London to the principal towns in the Kingdom. I may also say that the scheme proposed by this Bill could not under any circumstances be brought into operation before October. Therefore, weighing all these considerations together, the Government are of opinion that it would be inexpedient to proceed further with this measure this Session, and that it would be wise to remit the whole question to the next Parliament, which would have to find the very large sum of money for the outlay which the Bill would necessitate.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked whether it was the intention of the Government to withdraw the Order of the Day on going into Committee on the Bill that evening, or whether the noble Lord would name an early day for doing so? He thought there would be very great dissatisfaction in the country at the intention of the Government to drop the Bill; and he wished, moreover, to have an opportunity of commenting on the proposal and controverting the statements of the noble Lord.
  MR. PULESTONwished to know whether the estimate of £1,000,000, to which the Postmaster General had alluded, was a new one, or whether be found it in the Office?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL: It is not a new estimate, but is a calculation which was given me when I entered the Office, and of which I had no previous knowledge.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I should like to say that I have no knowledge of it. [Ministerial cries of "Order!" and counter cheers.] The noble Lord says that that is an estimate which he found in the Office. I can only say that I have no knowledge of any such estimate.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL: I do not in the least dispute the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I have given the facts as they have been, given to me in the Office.

  THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE"—OBJECTIONABLE ARTICLES—REVELATIONS OF GROSS IMMORALITIES.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to publications relating to objectionable subjects which have been printed and extensively circulated throughout the Metropolis by the proprietors of the newspaper called The Pall Mall Gazette; and, whether any means exist of subjecting the authors and publishers of these publications to criminal proceedings? He also wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that yesterday and today the sale of The Pall Mall Gazette had been suspended at the railway stations and other bookstalls in London, and had only been carried on by individuals in the streets, many of them being under age, who exhibited indecent placards and sold the publication at more than the market price to purchasers without reference to sex or age?
  MR. CALLANasked whether the proprietor and responsible editor of The Pall Mall Gazette, which, according to its own advertisements, was a journal written by gentlemen for gentlemen, and which purported to represent independent Liberalism, was a person of the name of Yates Thompson, and whether this was the same Mr. Yates Thompson who for many years was the confidential Private Secretary of Earl Spencer while Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the confrère during that time of Mr. George Cornwall and ex-Inspector French, lately charged with felonious practices? ["Oh, oh!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question of the hon. Member does not appear to me to fairly arise out of the Question upon the Paper.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that in that case he would supplement his Question by asking whether the Home Secretary knew that the price of The Pall Mall Gazette, which had been hitherto sold at the usual trade price of 9d. per 13 copies, had that day been raised 25 per cent by the responsible manager in consequence of the increased demand arising from the pruriency of the previous day's publication?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPAETMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): I am asked a Question bearing on a point of pure law which might have been put very well to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. Treating the question as one of pure law, I am advised that the publication of any obscene writing is a misdemeanour, that the publishers can be prosecuted by indictment in the usual way, and that the offence is punishable by fine and imprisonment, according to the discretion of the Court. The question whether any particular writing is obscene is one for a jury to determine. It is a question of pure law, and it is one which I thought it right to inform myself about. With regard to the sale or price of the paper I have no knowledge either one way or the other.

  EGYPT—SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF'S SPECIAL MISSION.
  MR. M'LARENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is intended to replace Sir Evelyn Baring by the honourable Member for Portsmouth, a Director of the Anglo-Egyptian Bank and the Land Mortgage Company of Egypt; and, if so, whether, in making the appointment, the Government have considered the honourable Member's public statements that the Khedive was an accomplice of the massacres of Alexandria, and that he himself has publicly condemned the sending of Special Commissioners to Egypt who are pecuniarily or personally interested in Egyptian financial undertakings?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): It is intended, as was stated last night, that the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) should undertake a special mission to Egypt; but the particular arrangements for that mission have not yet been determined upon. The right hon. Member for Portsmouth was, I believe, a Director of the Anglo-Egyptian Bank and of the Land Mortgage Company of Egypt; but I am informed that his connection with one of these Companies has for some time ceased, and that he resigned his connection with the other before any notice of his appointment was given to him. The Government have, of course, considered the position of the hon. Member and his public actions, and they have seen nothing in his public actions to debar him from usefully performing the duties of

  1829
  such a commission. On the contrary, they have reason to believe that his appointment will be acceptable to the Khedive's Court. [Laughter from the Opposition.] I make that statement on authority. I understand that the hon. Member has never publicly condemned the sending of Commissioners to Egypt who are personally or pecuniarily interested in Egyptian affairs.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART—THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
  MR. COOPEasked the First Commissioner of "Works, Whether he is aware that the National Portrait Gallery is a non-fireproof erection of very slight character, with roof partly of slate with skylights, and the remainder of boards covered either with zinc or tarred felt; whether it is not in an equally hazardous condition with the International Exhibition, which it adjoins; whether this invaluable collection is not exposed to the greatest risk from fire; and, whether this deplorable state of things is to be allowed to continue, or whether he is prepared to adopt such remedies as may secure the Nation from an irreparable loss?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): In answer to my hon. Friend I beg to assure him that I fully recognize the importance of the subject to which he has called attention. I have for some days been inquiring into it, and I am glad to be able to inform him that the actual danger to the National Portrait Gallery is not as great as his Question seems to imply. The building is of ordinary construction, with brick walls and wooden joists and floors; the roof is slated, and has skylights; it is not covered with tarred felting; and it is separated from the wooden corridors outside by brick walls and iron doors; it cannot be said in any sense to be in an equally hazardous condition with the International Exhibition, which is built entirely of wood, covered with asbestos paint. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the risk of fire has been to some extent increased by the proximity of the Exhibition; and I am not satisfied with the condition of the building, which contains a collection of such immense value to the nation. I have asked Mr. Scharf, who is the keeper of the collection, and the secre-
  1830
  tary to the Trustees, to give me the great advantage of his advice, and I hope within a short time to be able to make some further statement to the House, should my hon. Friend be inclined to put another Question on the subject.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYwished to know whether the information the right hon. Gentleman had just given to the House was derived from the Board of Works; whether he had sent anyone to make a special inspection of the building; and whether he would assure the House that his statement really and accurately described the building? He was astonished at the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER,in reply, said, the information he had given was, of course, received from official sources; but he hoped in a day or two to examine the building himself. He had no doubt in the world that the information which he had already given was perfectly correct.

  EGYPT—THE MILITARY EXPEDITION—VOTE OF THANKS TO THE FORCES.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is intended to propose a vote of thanks to the Home, East Indian, and Colonial Forces of the Crown, of the Navy and Army who have been serving, under such trying circumstances, in the Soudan and on the Nile, and have fought with such courage and devotion at El Teb and Tamanieb, and at Abu Klea, Gubat, and Kerbekan?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. H. SMITH): We do intend later in the Session to propose a Vote of Thanks to the officers and men who in the recent campaign so gallantly maintained the reputation of the British Forces. The precise form of the Vote will be more conveniently considered in connection with the rewards to be given for this campaign, the recommendations with regard to which we expect to receive shortly.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—THE CHOLERA—PREVENTIVE MEASURES.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, having regard to the serious increase of the cholera epidemic in Spain, and its possible approach to England, the Government have taken

  1831
  any steps of a preventive character, through the various port sanitary authorities and other local authorities?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): In the latter part of last year an inspection was made of the principal ports of England, with the object of seeing how far the local Sanitary Authorities were prepared to execute the regulations of the Board with regard to cholera. During the present year a more extended inspection has been undertaken by six Medical Inspectors of the districts of England where cholera may be more especially expected to prevail. This inspection is now almost complete as regards the port and riparian districts of England, and is being pursued in other districts which there is reason to suppose would be most likely to suffer from cholera in the event of its introduction into this country. As a part of this inspection, Sanitary Authorities are met and counsel taken with them, and their more immediate duty of preparation against cholera as well as their general sanitary duties are impressed on them by the Board's Inspectors, and, where necessary, by subsequent communication from the Board. The regulations which were in force during the prevalence of cholera in France and Italy are still in operation. As regards rags, an Order has been issued prohibiting until the 1st of November next the importation of rags from Spain.

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will consider the Police Superannuation Bill of the late Government, with the view either of re-introducing it in the next Parliament or of bringing forward a measure which, whilst not increasing local burdens, will satisfy the just demands of the Police forces throughout the Country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): It is quite impossible for us to go on with this Bill this Session, and, therefore, when the Order is called, I shall move that it be discharged. If, however, at any other time, I can see my way to meet the just demands of the police without in-
  1832
  creasing local burdens, I shall be only too glad.

  PROVISION FOR THE ROYAL FAMILY—A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government adhere to and adopt the promise given by the First Lord of the Treasury in the late Government, upon the occasion of the vote of an annuity for Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice, that early in next Session a Committee shall be appointed to consider the question of provisions for members of the Royal Family and other than the Sovereign and the Heir to the Throne?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The promise of the right hon. Gentleman which is referred to in the Question deals with a subject of great importance, but it is one to which we have not yet had time to give our attention. I am afraid, therefore, it will not be in my power to give the House any undertaking with regard to it this Session.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—THE CHANCERY DIVISION.
  MR. INCEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, considering the fact that the suitors of the Chancery Division cannot select the Court in which to try their causes, and that there is a great variation in the rate of speed with which causes are tried in different Courts, there is any likelihood of such a change of practice being established by authority, either by way of a rota of judges, or otherwise, as will give to each suitor an equal chance of having his case heard within a given time?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Mr. WEBSTER)said, the hon. Member was no doubt aware that a Committee, presided over by the Master of the Rolls, had been investigating the question; and as their Report would shortly be laid before the Lord Chancellor, it would be unwise to express an opinion on the point until that Report was presented.

  THE STATIONERY DEPARTMENT—CONTRACTS.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether complaints

  1833
  had reached the Treasury as to the mode of issuing contracts by the Stationery Department, whereby competition had been practically reduced to a few firms; and whether some system would be adopted enabling firms paying the full trade wages to compete for Government work in the future?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND),in reply, said, he was happy to inform the hon. Member for Stoke that new draft forms of contract had been prepared and would be submitted to the Treasury in a few days. Very large alterations had been made in the schedules and prices, and the prices were now so arranged that anyone could understand them. The intention was, he believed, to publish these prices about September, and ample time would be given to anyone tendering to make the necessary arrangements.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked whether the terms of contract and the form could be issued before the rising of the House, to allow of any suggestions being made as to the alterations?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, he should certainly hope so, though he should not like to give any distinct pledge on the subject.

  NAVY—THE STEAM RESERVES.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the case that a fresh classification of the ships in the Steam Reserve has been made, of which the Fourth Class is to consist of ships unfit for further sea service, if so, whether the names of the ships in this class are to remain upon the Navy List?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON),who replied, said: A fresh classification has been made, of which the fourth class will consist of ships unfit for further sea service. It is not contemplated to remove the names of these ships from The Navy List, as many will be employed on harbour work; but instructions have been given to place against their names in The Navy List an intimation that they belong to the fourth class.

  NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINES—PENSIONS OF NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the daily
  1834
  rate of pension for Non-Commissioned Officers of the Royal Marines has yet been assimilated with that of Non-Commissioned Officers in the Army?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. RITCHIE): The rate of pension of the non-commissioned officers of the Royal Marines has not been assimilated to that prevailing in the Army; but the difference is only small, and the Marines enjoy some advantages that are not open to the soldier. The present Government has not, however, had the opportunity of investigating the subject; but I can promise the hon. and gallant Gentleman that inquiry shall be made into the matter, with a desire on the part of the Government to do full justice to the claims of so gallant and distinguished a corps.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH),in rising to move the following Resolution:—
  "That the Committee of Supply have precedence this day of all other business; and that, for the remainder of the Session, including this day, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesdays, Government Orders having priority; that Government Orders have priority on Wednesdays; and that the Standing Order of the 27th November 1882, relating to Notices on going into Committee of Supply on Monday and Thursday, be extended to Tuesday and Wednesday,"
  said: Mr. Speaker, in the statement which it is now my duty to make, I wish, in the first place, to guard Her Majesty's Government against any possible misconception of their motives in making the proposal which I have put on the Notice Paper. Sir, I need not, I hope, dwell upon the rather remarkable assumption of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) that this proposal is intended as a kind of Vote of Confidence in Her Majesty's Government. I need not, I think, Sir, say it is nothing of the kind. It is merely the proposal which we venture to submit for the convenience of the House, and, as we believe, for the advantage of the country, in the arrangement and transaction of the remaining Business of the Session. Her Majesty's Government have not the

  1835
  least desire, in making this proposal, to deprive private Members of anything beyond that which they have in former years surrendered to the Government of the day under similar circumstances. Much less do we wish to do anything that would deprive this House of its complete liberty of action with regard to Her Majesty's Government. We do not desire for one moment, either in proposing this Motion, or by anything we may do if this Motion is adopted, to screen ourselves from any criticism of our policy, or of our actions, which may be offered from any responsible quarter of the House; and if there be any desire to make such criticism, it will certainly be our duty to provide the necessary opportunity for the purpose. What we desire to do is simply this—to ask the House to consider its position with respect to what may be called the necessary Business of the Session, and to make such arrangements as may best be made for winding up that Business at the earliest possible day. It will be universally admitted, I think, that it is desirable, in the interests of the country, of Parliament, and of the Government of the Queen, that an appeal to the new constituencies should be made as soon as may be; and, therefore, it necessarily follows that we should lose no time in completing the work of the present Session and of the present House of Commons. What is that work? In the judgment of Her Majesty's Government the main Business of the rest of the Session should be the Business of Supply and of Ways and Means. I hope that will be a proposition which will commend itself generally to the House, and I rather gather that it received the adhesion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) in the few words he addressed to the House yesterday. At the end of the first week in July, I do not think I need put forward any arguments in favour of the proposal that, as this Business has to be transacted, it would be better to utilize our time by transacting it, than by discussing abstract Resolutions, which, even if adopted, could not be carried into effect, and which certainly would not be binding on our Successors; or, by dealing with the Bills which now stand on the Order Book for Wednesdays, and which, even if fortunate enough to obtain a second reading, would certainly
  1836
  not be able to advance beyond that stage. I do not think that, in itself, the request which I make is in any way exceptional, if hon. Members will only consider what has been done in the last five years. The Business of Ways and Means is notoriously backward at the present time. I do not wish to go into the reasons for that fact; but it is a fact, and a fact of great importance, as the unsettlement of the financial arrangements of the year is certainly a matter of injury to the country. Supply, until last night, was quite as backward as at a similar date in 1883 or 1884. Last night, no doubt, the House was very generous to us, and considerable progress was made; but much remains to be done. I would like to state the proposals made by the late Government and adopted by the House in the last five years, with a view to the more rapid progress of Business at this period of the Session. I will say nothing as to the continued Morning Sittings in June and July, which were resorted to by the late Government, except to point out that the system of Morning Sittings is almost as effectual in practically depriving private Members of the opportunity of bringing forward their Motions as if the whole time of the House had been devoted to the Government Business. In 1880 the right hon. Gentleman opposite moved, on July 12, that Wednesdays should be devoted to Government Business, and that Tuesdays from July 20 should be devoted to Government Business. Those Motions were both adopted, and so were the others to which I will allude. In 1881, on June 28, the Government obtained the entire time of the House for the Irish Land Bill on all days it was set down, and in 1882 the same privilege was obtained for the Irish Arrears Bill from June 20, and on July 24 Government Orders were given precedence on Tuesdays and Wednesdays for the rest of the Session. In 1883 the right hon. Gentleman obtained Tuesdays and Wednesdays from the 11th of July; and, in 1884, Tuesdays from the 4th of July, Wednesdays from the 15th of July, and on a later day the Standing Order with reference to Notices of Motion on going into Committee of Supply on Mondays and Thursdays, and which permits you, Sir, to leave the Chair without Question put, was ex-

  1837
  tended to Tuesdays. I confess that we have been anxious not to make any proposals with regard to Morning Sittings. It has no doubt been customary that proposals with regard to Morning Sittings should precede a Motion such as I am making to-day; but we have thought that not only would Morning Sittings be inconvenient to the House, but that they would practically fail to effect the object we have in view. It is also evident that without the extension of the Standing Orders with regard to Supply to Morning Sittings, the whole result of such a proposal would be that hon. Members would bring forward their Motions on going into Committee of Supply, instead of in the manner customary on Tuesdays. We have considered it insufficient on the present occasion to make any proposal with regard to Morning Sittings. We have instead asked the House to give us Tuesdays and Wednesdays to be devoted to the purposes which I have mentioned, under the belief that by so doing we shall be best promoting the convenience of the House and the rapid progress of the work which the House, I believe, is most anxious to get through. It is, no doubt, a fact that, in previous years, the Government of the day were not only anxious to promote their financial measures and Supply, but also to complete important measures of legislation. That is not the desire of Her Majesty's Government on the present occasion. We do not think that we can be fairly expected to make ourselves responsible for the more important measures which were proposed by our Predecessors in Office; and, even if we could, I would venture with all deference to the House to submit this consideration to hon. Members. The great measures relating to the reform of the House of Commons have now become law, and that is a fact which I think we must all feel has made a material difference in the position of the House. I do not think it would be satisfactory, or for the advantage of the country, that, under the circumstances in which we are now placed, the present House of Commons should undertake legislation upon any subjects, except those which are urgently necessary to be dealt with on this particular occasion, or are of a non-contentious nature. This is the principle governing the proposal which Her Majesty's Go-
  1838
  vernment now make to the House. I will venture to name a few of the measures coming under these heads, with which it is our intention to proceed. In the first place, of course, we have to proceed with the necessary financial Bills of the 3rear; then there is the Federal Council of Australia Bill, the East India Loan Bill, which passed through a stage last night, the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Bill, the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Bill, the Summary Jurisdiction (Term of Imprisonment) Bill, and some other Bills, with which I need not weary the House, of a purely Departmental character. There is also a Bill of great importance now under consideration in "another place"—namely, the Secretary for Scotland Bill, which we hope to be able to pass into law; and there is a question relating to Ireland on which we are extremely anxious to place our proposals before Parliament in the hope that it may be possible to deal with them. That is the question of land purchase in Ireland. Of course, it is a matter of very great importance; but I would also add that it is a matter on which I believe the necessity for legislation has been unanimously admitted by all parties in Ireland. It is a subject on which legislation has been promised, I think twice by our Predecessors in Office, and last year a Resolution on the subject was unanimously agreed to, proposed by my noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton). Although it is a matter of great importance, yet we certainly are not at all clear that it will necessarily prove to be one of a contentious character. I well remember that when we were last in Office we were called upon to deal with an Irish question which then appeared at least as thorny and as difficult as the question of land purchase in Ireland. I refer to the subject of intermediate education. We were fortunate in proposing a measure which passed through Parliament with scarcely any opposition, and which I believe is now universally admitted to have been a satisfactory settlement of that most important subject. I do not, of course, know whether we shall be equally fortunate in our proposals with regard to land purchase; but what we are anxious to do is to place them fairly on the

  1839
  Table of this House and ask hon. Members to consider them. Then, of course, if we find that such opposition arises to them that they would fairly fall outside those two classes of measures with which I have stated it is alone our intention to deal, it will not be possible for us to proceed with them and pass them into law. I have referred to the subjects on which we should be glad to legislate. I should now like to refer to another question connected with Ireland on which we do not propose to legislate, as the House is already aware. I mean to the renewal of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act. Now, Sir, some weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman who was then Primo Minister informed Parliament that it was the intention of the Government to propose the renewal of certain valuable and equitable provisions of that Act. I do not know what those provisions were. We find no trace whatever that any Bill was prepared embodying them; but I do not say that in any way as a matter of complaint, because we do not propose to renew them ourselves. We do not propose, Sir, to renew any of the provisions of that Act, because we object to exceptional legislation of that character, unless such legislation in our minds is clearly necessary for the preservation of order. [Laughter, Hear, hear!"and "Oh, oh!"] I quite understand, from the way in which that observation was received, that there are several hon. Members opposite who share an opinion that was expressed some little time ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain)—namely, that "coercion with the Tories was a policy; with the Liberals only a hateful incident." Sir, I will venture to say that, in my humble judgment, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, in the study which he proposes to make of Irish questions, would devote a little time to researches into the history of Irish government, he would find that his idea on that subject is a complete delusion. He would find, no doubt, that it has sometimes been necessary for Conservative Administrations to introduce and carry exceptional legislation for Ireland; but I think he would find more occasions on which it has been necessary for Liberal Administrations to take that course; and he would also
  1840
  find, if he sought for the period during which Ireland had been most free from legislation of this character, or when such legislation had been most moderate, that those periods had occurred during the government of Ireland by the Conservative Party. [" Oh, oh!"] Now, I am very far from asserting for a moment that occasions may not arise in Ireland, or in any other country, where such a state of anarchy or social disorder may exist as existed in Ireland, unfortunately, at the end of 1880 and at the beginning of 1881, when very stringent measures of this sort may be required. But, Sir, what I would venture to say is this—that, even when required, such legislation is to some extent an evil in itself; for it undoubtedly fosters among the people who are subject to it a feeling of disaffection, which leads more than anything, perhaps, to disobedience of the law; and I am afraid it also, at any rate occasionally, induces the authorities not to exert that vigorous and vigilant administration of the ordinary law which, after all, can be the only permanent security for order and good government in Ireland. Sir, if this was true in the past, I will venture to say that it is doubly true now; and why it is doubly true now? Because Parliament has granted to Ireland complete political freedom in Parliamentary elections by the ballot and the extension of the franchise, and it is absolutely inconsistent with that complete political freedom to continue permanently the old-fashioned government of Ireland by a system of coercion. Sir, in our opinion there is but one question at issue. I do not suppose anybody would suggest that it was necessary or desirable to renew the whole of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act. The question solely is this—whether some of the milder provisions of that Act are or are not necessary for the maintenance of order in Ireland. Well, now, Sir, we have carefully considered that question; and, in our opinion, there is reason to believe that it will be possible to maintain law and order in Ireland by a firm and vigorous administration of the ordinary law without the re-enactment of those provisions to which I have referred. I would say that, as the House is aware, there has been a steady and gratifying diminution in agrarian crime. No doubt, agrarian

  1841
  crime has not reached, as yet, so low a point as we could wish it to stand at; but there is another fact, and it is this—that cases of serious agrarian crime are now very rare. There is also a matter which I feel justified in alluding to, although I do not wish to lay too much stress on it, and it is this—that I think the change of Government has not been unaccompanied with certain symptoms, pervading all classes in Ireland, of a better feeling to the Queen's Government than has recently existed. Well, then, Sir, there is another consideration which I hope may commend itself to hon. Members opposite. They have continuously put forward theories, the truth of which I do not at all now wish to discuss, on the effects of the extension of the franchise in pacifying Ireland. If there be any truth in those theories, we have good reason to expect that during the coming autumn the energies and the action of Irishmen may be turned from the evil of the past to action of a peaceful and political kind. I think it is not absolutely without some negative value that the Irish people should be free from the effect of irritating and angry discussions upon the renewal of those minor provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act—discussions which, perhaps, might do almost as much harm among the people of Ireland as the renewal of those provisions could possibly do good. Sir, I have merely to add that, considering the whole situation, Her Majesty's Government have felt that, consistently with their duty, they can rely on the ordinary law for the maintenance of order in Ireland; and they have not felt justified in proposing to this House measures which, unless their necessity were proved to the satisfaction of the House, would, I will venture to say, be odious to all Parties among us. I now turn to the question of some other Bills on the Order Book, which are of greater importance than the Bills with which I have already stated Her Majesty's Government intend to proceed. I will refer to four measures which were mentioned yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone). He alluded to the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Bill, to the Intermediate' Education (Wales) Bill, to the Parliamentary Elections (Medical Relief) Bill, and to the Criminal Law Amendment Bill.
  1842
  With regard to the first of those measures, the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Bill, I am afraid that I cannot hold out any expectation that we shall be able to proceed with it. I would remind the House that it is a Bill on a subject which was carefully inquired into by a Royal Commission; but that it is not based on the Report of that Commission, but on the views of Her Majesty's late Government. It certainly, I should suppose, is a Bill of a contentious character. Although the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) asked me a Question on the subject yesterday, I remember that he himself gave Notice of an Amendment to the second reading of the Bill which, if accepted, must have defeated the measure. It is a Bill which, I think, in the minds of those who represent the feeling of the crofters, and of the crofters themselves, cannot be looked upon as a permanent settlement of the question to which it relates. [Mr. MACFARLANE: Hear, hear!] I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Carlow approves that proposition, for I cannot think that it would be for the advantage of any Party or any class that our experience of land legislation in Ireland should be repeated in Scotland, and that we should pass now, as was passed by Parliament in 1870, with reference to Ireland, a Land Bill absolutely abortive as effecting any settlement of the question. Again, I find that, even in the opinion of the Members, or at least of one Member, of Her Majesty's late Government—and that a noble Lord especially connected with Scotland—this Bill is not entirely satisfactory. I observed the other day, in a speech of Lord Rosebery's, that that noble Lord stated that if an improved system of local government had existed in Scotland, a more satisfactory Crofters' Bill might have been passed than was now before us. Then, again, the Bill relates to the interests of a large class of persons who do not possess the franchise, but who will have the opportunity to exercise it at the next Election. For all these reasons, and the Bill being, as I believe, of a very contentious character, I do not think it would be advisable that it should be proceeded with at the present moment. Now, Sir, I turn to the question of Welsh intermediate education. I do not feel able to go, even if I were quite in Order in doing so, into

  1843
  the merits of that Bill. No doubt, it is a subject that has been much under the consideration of the people of Wales. No doubt, legislation with regard to it is much desired; but I observe that that legislation, although the late Government was strongly supported by the people of Wales, has been postponed for many years, and that this Bill has only, in fact, become a prominent measure in the House of Commons just when the late Government have left Office. I think, as far as I can learn, it is so full of disputed matter, that it would not be possible to pass it in the present Session. But I have to add that we appreciate to the fullest extent the importance of the question, and we shall devote our best attention to it during the autumn, and if it should be our lot, as it very likely will be, to occupy these Benches in the next Session of Parliament, we shall endeavour to deal with it. The other two subjects to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are the Parliamentary Elections (Medical Relief) Bill of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. As regards the first, I stated yesterday, in reply to a Question from the hon. Member, that we were of opinion that this matter should be dealt with. I do not think that the hon. Member fully understood the purport of that reply. When I said that, in our opinion, the matter should be dealt with, I meant that it should be dealt with in the sense in which he desired, and it should be dealt with soon; because it would not be reasonable to deal with it in a way which would not allow of the franchise being exercised in the coming Election by those who would be admitted to it under such a Bill. What I would venture to say to the House on this subject is, that we will undertake, if the House gives us the control of its time for which we ask, that means shall be found to enable the House to express its judgment on the question, our view of the matter being that which I have stated. There then remains, Sir, the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. This is a Bill which occupies a very remarkable position. It is the result of a very important inquiry into a very painful and difficult subject. It has been passed twice, if not three times, by the other House of the Legis-
  1844
  lature. It has been to some extent debated in this House, and I must say that there are certainly some provisions in this Bill which appear to Her Majesty's Government to be of very great importance and to be provisions which should, if possible, pass into law. I do not, in saying that, intend my remarks to apply to the whole Bill. There are parts of it which I do not think it would be possible to include in an Act of Parliament that could be passed this Session; but what we should like to do would be to confer fully and frankly on the matter with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), who has taken so much interest in it; and we should feel it our duty, if the House should give us the facilities for which we ask, to find any-reasonable time for the consideration of the subject. I think it will be admitted that the catalogue of legislation which I have gone through, as that of measures with which Her Majesty's Government ought to proceed, is at least a modest one. Therefore, I shall make no apology for asking private Members who have introduced Bills to sacrifice their chances of passing those Bills into law. The very number of private Members' Bills now standing in the Order Book would, in any case, preclude the vast majority from any chance of becoming law, whether the House accepted our Motion or not. But I should like to say one word with regard to those hon. Members who have given Notices of Motion for the days which we hope to be able to appropriate to Government Business. First of all, I would venture to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) for the readiness with which he waived his right to bring forward this evening a Motion on a subject of importance, in order to afford us an opportunity to make progress with Supply. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) has obtained the first place in the list of Motions for Tuesday next for the discussion of a very important matter, in which, as the House is well aware, he has long taken a deep and a self-sacrificing interest. I would venture to hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to waive his right, on condition that he should be afforded the opportunity of the discussion he desires to raise on the

  1845
  Votes which still remain to be passed in Committee of Supply. I understand his desire is rather to elicit an expression of opinion, than actually to obtain a vote of the House on a Motion which, even he carried it, could not result in any legislation during the present Session. Sir, I have now only to thank the House for the patience with which it has listened to me, and to ask its favourable consideration for the Motion which I have placed on the Paper. It is, I will venture to repeat, a Motion which we believe to be for the convenience and in the interest of the House of Commons. If the House should agree to it, we should hope to be able to wind up the Session in a very moderate time, thus affording a longer interval for that rest which all of us require, though I fear a great many of us will not be able to obtain, before the time arrives when Her Majesty will be able to resort to the counsel and support of a new House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Committee of Supply have precedence this day of all other business; and that, for the remainder of the Session, including this day, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesdays, Government Orders having priority; that Government Orders have priority on Wednesdays; and that the Standing Order of the 27th November 1882, relating to Notices on going into Committee of Supply on Monday and Thursday, be extended to Tuesday and Wednesday."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.")
  MR. GLADSTONE: I purposely ask, without delay, for the indulgence of the House; because, while the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has brought before us matters of rather a wide scope, and certainly of very great importance, Notice has been given of an Amendment, of which I may say that it threatens or promises to open to us a still wider field of discussion. But the two things are quite distinct, and I am bound to state at the outset that I am not able to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). Whatever proceeds from him is well worthy of our attention; and I take the opportunity of offering to him—I will venture to say in the name of the House—our very sincere congratulations on the restoration of health which has happily
  1846
  been attained by so patriotic, so consistent, and so able a Member of this House. But, Sir, it would not, I think, be consistent on the part of a House of Commons, which, by a majority, arrived at a vote which, in regular Parliamentary course, led to the resignation of the late Government—it would hardly be consistent in the House of Commons which arrived at that vote, and which deliberately facilitated the arrangements for the formation of a new Government of opposite politics, at the first moment when that new Government has been formed and comes forward, and before it has done either good or evil, that it should interfere for the purpose of preventing its action by procuring its dismissal from Office. I think, Sir, there can be no lengthened discussion required upon a proposition of that kind at the present moment. I now come to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I will distinguish broadly between the prefatory portion of his speech which related to the general grounds of his Motion and the character of his Motion, and, on the other hand, to the particular reference which he made to certain subjects of importance, some of which I shall have to notice, and to a number of which I shall have to make certain additions. With regard to the general statement of the right hon. Gentleman and the Motion ho has made, I think we have very little to object to. It is true that we have made particular demands for Morning Sittings during the continuance of the late Government. It is also true, as the right hon. Gentleman fairly admitted, that we have done that with reference to the special urgency and importance of very large measures of legislation; but as no such argument can be used in support of the Motion he now makes, he does not think it his duty to ask for Morning Sittings on the same ground as that on which we asked for them; he bases the request on a different ground. His ground is that, in all the circumstances of the case, the Government having just assumed Office, and having in view a Dissolution, which the present Government, in my opinion quite rightly, desire to bring about at as early a period as the action of the law will admit, the Government, in that position, think that their prime duty is to what is called wind up the Business of the Session; and such winding-up of

  1847
  the Business of the Session is a proposition in respect of which they are entitled to claim the sympathy and assistance of the House. In that proposition, so stated, I concur; I only attach to it the condition which the right hon. Gentleman has, in a very great degree, fulfilled in his speech to-night—namely, that he should fully inform the House, and should satisfy the House, as regards the particular course which the Government propose to take with respect to immediate and pending subjects of legislation. In expressing my disposition, therefore, to support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, I only make this general proviso at present-—that I pay regard to the words in which the right hon. Gentleman signifies that he would feel himself under an obligation to the House to facilitate discussion where it might reasonably be asked for, either in the way of Question, of Censure, or of Inquiry, as to the conduct of the Government in its Executive capacity; and, taking notice of those words, I think they meet the justice of the case, and I have no difficulty, therefore, in giving a cordial assent to the Motion he makes. Then I come to the question of legislation, as it was touched upon in his speech, only for the purpose of saying again that I am of opinion that he is justified in thinking that it is his duty and the duty of the Government to confine itself, under present circumstances, to such legislation as falls under one of two categories—either the category of being urgent, or the category of being non-contentious. But before I go into particulars on the position of that subject I wish to say a few words—and I think it will be felt that this Motion also affords a proper opportunity for saying them—I wish to say a few words upon the part which Her Majesty's Government will have to play, both during the next few weeks and during the autumn, in the direction of the foreign policy of the country; and I refer to this for no contentious purpose, but rather under an impulse of public duty, and a desire to find that there need not be at the present time cause for raising contentious discussions between us; while, on the other hand, it is a duty incumbent on the late Government, where they believe the present Government are engaged in the pursuit, or have reason to hope that they are engaged in the pur-
  1848
  suit, of important national objects—it is their duty to afford them such support as they can in the prosecution of such purpose. I may do this in a form which I hope will not be thought irregular, by referring to words which I believe to have been used by high authority, not within the walls of this House, but yet on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The first question which naturally challenges attention is the question of the Afghan Frontier, It has, I think, been said that the British Government has promised to secure the Pass of Zulfikar to the Ameer of Afghanistan. I am not quite sure to what words reference is made in that statement. I do not say that it is incorrect, and I am not at all disposed to quarrel with the spirit in which the words are used in making it. The main promise which I think has been made by the British Government to the Ameer of Afghanistan has been that they would, to the best of their ability, deal for him in settling the question of the Frontier as they would deal for themselves, and that they would consider his interests to be their interests—to do, in fact, the best that they could for the country and to act in that spirit. That being so, another very important declaration has been made, that the Pass of Zulfikar has been promised to the Ameer of Afghanistan by the Russian Government. Now, that is a most important statement, and I am bound to say that in my judgment, in the main and in its substance, that statement is correct. It is of very great importance, and if I repeat it I do not repeat it as an assumption, or as a matter of no consequence. If that promise has been made, at any rate, those of us who have dealt with the Russian Government deemed it our duty to deal with it on the same principle as applied to the dealing with all other regular established Governments. We therefore feel the utmost confidence that the promise will be fulfilled. It was not an unconditional engagement. It was a distinct promise on the one hand, that Penjdeh might, without injury- to the interests of the Ameer of Afghanistan, be allowed to remain on the Russian side of the border, and if that were so, the Pass of Zulfikar should be, in the Russian view, a consideration to be weighed against Penjdeh, and should be secured to the Ameer. Now, in all the reasonable

  1849
  efforts which Her Majesty's Government may make to bring about a settlement of this question upon terms such as have been indicated, such as, I think, have appeared to justify the expedience of a speedy and satisfactory conclusion—in all such efforts I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will receive the best support of those who have recently quitted Office and now sit on this side of the House. It has also been said, and it is a proposition of great importance, that the main matter is the defence of the Indian Frontier. I will not pretend to understand precisely some of the language in which comments appear to have been made upon that proposition, but with the proposition itself I thoroughly agree. There can be no doubt that we are engaged in a very considerable difficulty in relation to a country, the independence of which in the main we recognize; for it is only a friendly and defensive intervention that we have contemplated at any time in Afghanistan. Of course, in this I speak of the late Government. We are in a very difficult position in negotiating for the external frontier of such a country, and with a Power that is negotiating not for an ally, but for itself. And, no doubt, it is right to bear in view the great and main interests we have in this matter, after fulfilling honourably every engagement that we have made with the Ameer of Afghanistan. The main interest we have in this matter is the security of India and the defence of the Indian Frontier, which can never be regarded in this House as anything but a primary interest and an imperative and paramount duty, both on the part of the Indian Government and of the Legislature and Government of this country. Reference has also been very naturally made to that difficult and perplexed Egyptian Question, in regard to which two propositions have been laid down the justice and equity of which I should be the first to assert. The one is, that the present Government ought, as I should say, sedulously, even, to avoid committing itself too pointedly at the present moment, but that the present Government should be allowed time for obtaining the fullest and best advice in regard to a question so full of complications. That is a full and perfectly equitable demand to which I, for one, at once assent. It has also been said—and I hope that it having been said from
  1850
  that quarter may commend it to the judgment of Members of this House who may heretofore have doubted it—that, so far as Egypt Proper is concerned, finance is really a question of the first importance, and until that is settled nothing can be done. It is to be borne in mind that delays have occurred in regard to the settlement of general questions connected with the occupation of Egypt which have been most reluctantly submitted to by Her Majesty's Government. They were ready 18 months ago with their full plans for dealing with Egypt both as to finance and as to occupation; but delays of which I do not seek to discuss or investigate the causes have brought us to this point—that although, in the main, we have arrived at an Agreement with the Powers of Europe which is absolutely binding and which suffices for the settlement of the whole question of finance, yet some of the executive provisions necessary to give full effect to that Agreement have not been completed in all the countries, and at once coming down to the present moment, the finances of Egypt cannot be said to be absolutely settled, although the essential engagements which involve the settlement of that question have been agreed to and signed by united Europe. Sir, with regard to this important subject, an expression has been used as to which, I think, there has been some misapprehension—that, in the case of the Soudan, we had to deal with a triumphant enemy, or, at least, an enemy that believed himself to be triumphant. I am not at all convinced that, even in the limited application of it, that is a proposition to which we need subscribe. The rumours which appear in the papers upon this subject, when they refer to movements of wild tribes, and persons seeking for ascendancy among those tribes, at great distances beyond the sphere within which regular and authentic intelligence habitually circulates, ought to be received with considerable distrust. When I look at the result of all these engagements that have taken place in the Soudan, which may from some points of view be sincerely deplored but which, at any rate, have maintained in a remarkable degree the honour of the British arms, I do not believe that the Arab tribes of the Soudan are so wanting in perception as not to be aware of the nature of the enemy

  1851
  with whom they would have to come in conflict if they adopt an aggressive policy, and, therefore, I doubt whether even the Mahdi himself is to be assumed to believe that he is at this moment triumphant. I put that as an argument on the grounds of public policy, and by no means as a matter of political controversy, or as implying any reproach on the noble Person who used the expression which I have ventured to qualify and comment upon. As far as I am able to see, no intention has been formed by the present Government, since their accession to Office, which would lead them into necessary conflict with the views which the late Government have been endeavouring to act upon in the Soudan. I have seen an expression to the effect that it remains a matter to be considered how much of the Soudan ought to remain under the actual Government of Egypt; but even that expression, which I read with some question as to its exact meaning, does not come into conflict with what has been asserted and acted upon steadily by Her Majesty's late Government since they announced their intention to that effeet to the House—namely, that the British military power shall be withdrawn from the region of the Soudan. With respect to any departure from that intention, it would no doubt raise a most serious question. I do not say that Her Majesty's Government has committed itself on the subject. Were I to go back to former times, I might suppose that the intention of altering or reversing the policy of the withdrawal of British arms from the Soudan might have been acted upon; but I note with satisfaction that no such intention has been declared, and that the outside of what has been declared has been to raise the mere question of how much of the Soudan ought to continue under the actual or direct Government of Egypt. I think when the affairs of Egypt come to be considered, and what will be its responsibility within the limits of Egypt itself, and on the frontier of Egypt, whenever it may become responsible for the frontier of Egypt, I suspect it will not be found very difficult to arrive at what I consider a right decision as to how much of the Soudan ought to be left to the actual or direct Government of Egypt. I am therefore glad to think that we can give our best wishes to Her Majesty's Government
  1852
  with respect to the prosecution of objects which are certainly of the deepest importance to the well-being of this country. I do not now go into the question connected with the occupation of Egypt itself, as distinguished from the question of the Soudan, although I must say that all experience shows me more and more how necessary it is for the interests of the country that, when once this great and insurmountable impediment of financial difficulties has been put out of the way, a decisive and early determination should be arrived at by the Government and Parliament of this country with respect to the occupation of Egypt itself, not in order to make sacrifices of British interests to other Powers, and certainly not without a due regard to the arrangements to be made for the security and practical independence of Egypt hereafter, but for the purpose of placing this country in a position of real independence of every Foreign Power, and relieving it from sources of embarrassment which have been, as will be understood by those who have practically to deal with them, and will be found to be, of a most serious character as long as the present state of things exists. Before I rose in my place it was with the hope that I should not introduce into this debate matters of a contentious or polemical character, and so far as I have gone—while indicating opinions of my own without endeavouring to force them prematurely on the Government, and giving them time for consideration, with the advice of the best authorities, as to the course they would have to pursue—I hope that I have, down to the present moment, fulfilled that intention, and have not raised any matters of contentious or angry controversy. I was desirous of going on as far as I could without the smallest deviation from that course of proceeding, and of making the full concession which I have made to the right hon. Gentleman as to the general spirit of the proposition which he has laid before us, and of the explanation with which he has accompanied that proposition. I am sorry, I own, that at a single point of his statement, the right hon. Gentleman deviated from the line of his general remarks, and somewhat impaired the spirit of his speech. It was at the point where he touched the important

  1853
  subject of special legislation for Ireland, and contested the proposition, which he perhaps truly ascribed to my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Chamberlain), that with the Tories coercion was a policy, with the Whigs or Liberals it was an incident. I was sorry that anything of the kind should have been mentioned, and I cannot believe that Whigs, Tories, or Liberals have been properly introduced into this question. We shall have time enough when we join issue on practical matters to enter into questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman; but, after that, I must, in no controversial spirit, say a word upon this subject. I am far from thinking or asserting that no errors have been committed by Liberal Governments as regards the proposal of coercive measures for Ireland. I shall not hesitate to join in the freest discussion, neither shall I deprecate the heaviest censure, of their conduct in that respect; but I think that historical justice compels us to admit that in the case of the severest proposals which have been made by Liberal Governments for the introduction of repressive measures for Ireland, in the interest, or supposed interest, of public order, there has always been a disposition, so far as I know, to couple with those measures remedial propositions, with the object of conciliating the people of Ireland and of laying more solid foundations of concord between the two countries. I think that the very first important legislative measure which it was my fate to hear discussed in the House of Commons was that severe Coercion Act of 1833 proposed by the Government of Lord Grey—that historical and, perhaps, I ought to say, illustrious Government, fresh from the great struggle and the great triumph of the Reform Bill, all full of Liberal sympathies and desires with Ireland, but thinking, and consciously thinking, themselves bound by the necessities of public order to make stringent proposals for restrictive measures in Ireland. But immediately after that coercive measure was proposed and carried into law, a Bill was introduced, upon which we now look back as a Bill of very moderate dimensions—what was then called the Church Temporalities Act—but which I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite was opposed by those who preceded them, and was denounced
  1854
  as the destruction of the Constitution, as the dismemberment of the Empire, and as involving the most subversive consequences. Then, at the risk of detaining the House, I will remind it that when we found it our duty to take the reins of power, our first act was deliberately to waive any application to this House for the enactment of coercive legislation for Ireland. And though I am sorry that this question has been touched, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman himself what kind of assistance we received from him and his Friends, who are now Her Majesty's Government, in that attempt? I think he will find it very difficult to say. I do not know that there has been a more famous historical document placed before the eyes of the people of this country, for many years, than the letter of the Earl of Beaconsfield to the Duke of Marlborough at the time of the General Election in 1880. What picture did that letter give of the position of Ireland, of the intentions of its popular Leaders, and of the necessities laid on the Government of this country for dealing strongly with them? I do not know any document more important; I do not know any document that I have seen so frequently alluded to with triumph—aye, and with exultation—by hon. Gentleman that side of the House, as the true setting forth of what ought to be the Irish policy for the guidance of the Government of this country. I may say we thought it our duty—whether rightly or wrongly is an historical question fairly open to discussion—we thought it our duty to recommend the introduction of a severe measure in the Session of 1881 for serious restriction of personal liberty in Ireland; but whether that measure was, as I have said, right or wrong, at any rate it was accompanied with a measure to which the character of remedial could hardly be denied. And here I must say that the right hon. Gentleman surprised me when he said that the Land Act of 1870 was an abortive measure. I never heard a more strange expression used in this House. How was it an abortive measure? If the right hon. Gentleman had said it proved an insufficient measure, that would be a very different affair; but I do not hesitate to say, and I believe I cannot be contradicted, that the immediate effects of the Land Act

  1855
  of 1870—effects which lasted for a period of not less than seven years after the passing of the Act, before the failure of the crops and all the difficulties connected with the last years of the Administration of Lord Beaconsfield and the first years of our Government—were in a high degree satisfactory, and were welcomed as satisfactory in a high degree by the people of Ireland. But when we proposed to make this coercive proposal, it is something to be placed on record that we acted as the Predecessors of our Party traditionally acted—we endeavoured to introduce at the same time what we believed, and still believe, to be a remedial measure of the utmost importance for the advancement, the comfort, and the happiness of the people of Ireland, and for laying the foundations of a better feeling between Ireland and this country. Unfortunately, this topic, which to my regret has been opened, suggests to me many reflections. We introduced, as I have said, a Coercion Bill for the suspension of habeas corpus, and we also introduced a Remedial Bill—the amendment of the Land Law. Were these two Bills similarly treated? I remember the enthusiastic support given by hon. Gentlemen opposite to the Bill for the suspension of habeas corpus. I remember a pretty pointed and prolonged opposition, certainly not unattended with the most vehement denunciations, of the Bill for the reform of the Land Laws and in restraint of the power of the landlords. But, Sir, I will now leave this subject, which I am sorry has been introduced, and turn to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, in which he has said, with what I must admit to be excellent sense, a great deal upon the subject of special legislation. No doubt, special legislation is, in itself, an evil. It is a thing which every Government, either on accession to Office, or at any other time, ought to feel the desire to get itself rid of if it possibly can. The right hon. Gentleman has said, and said truly, that we do not, in this case, propose to get rid of special legislation. He says that he does not know of what we were to propose, and that he found no Bill prepared upon the subject. Well, I must say that I have known a great many changes of Government and transfers of important questions from the hands of one responsible Executive to the hands
  1856
  of another; but where those questions have been of a contentious character, I am not aware that I ever recollect the handing over of Bills which were in preparation, or which had been prepared, to the Successors in Office of the existing Government. I stated in this House that, in our opinion, there were certain provisions of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act which were valuable and equitable. I will not now enter in detail upon those provisions; I will only mention one by way of illustration, and that is the provision which may be described as the provision for prior inquisition. That provision is the law of Scotland at the present moment, and has been from time immemorial; and I believe I am correct in saying that, for England also, it was proposed by that very eminent lawyer, Sir John Holker, to insert that provision into the great measure which he prepared for reducing to order the mass of our Criminal Law. There is nothing very violent or special in such legislation as that. Without going into further detail, what I would say is this—the provisions of the Act fall into two classes. One of them consists of a set of clauses which, more or less, narrow personal liberty. The others are clauses which do not narrow personal liberty, which do not alter in substance the Criminal Law, but which may be described as rendering its procedure more certain and effectual. That was the distinction which we proposed to draw. On that ground I always protested against those who sought to put into my mouth—and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) is one of them—the avowal that we had intended to introduce a Coercion Bill. We believed that the remedial part of that Act was perfectly separate from the coercive part; and it was the remedial part of it which, under conditions I will not now describe, would have had a most important effect. That was what we had in view, and not the renewal in any shape of the coercive provisions of the law. But, however, we now have a Government bolder than we were, and a Government the Leader of which in this House does not scruple to avow that it is within his knowledge and belief that he will receive assistance in the government of Ireland from an important following, in consequence of the improved feeling that I suppose he

  1857
  has reason to believe, although not known to us, exists—that he will receive assistance which we should not have received. I think, Sir, that is highly probable, and I shall not found on that probability any of the offensive imputations, any of the sweeping and outrageous charges and condemnations, which have at times been frequent in the mouths of others. The Government are responsible for the peace and order of Ireland, and, looking forward to the coming winter, they have made up their minds that they can be responsible for it without any special legislation whatever. It is obvious that, in saying that, they incur a great responsibility. There can be no doubt that, after all that has occurred since 1880, after the views they expressed in 1880 about the suffering of such legislation to drop, and after the experience of the great anti-rent conspiracy since 1880, they do incur a great responsibility; but, although they incur that responsibility, it is not our business to wish that they may fail in their bold undertaking. A bold undertaking it is; but they are the Ministers of the Crown, and it is their business as such not to plead Parliamentary difficulty—not to plead being in a minority—not to plead anything except their absolute duty; and if they conceive that with the present ordinary law properly administered they can protect life and property, I say that, whether I myself, with my Colleagues, might be as bold or not, whether we might have been able to reckon with the same assistance or not, I bid them God speed in their career. There is nothing which, at any time, I have more desired than to see Ireland free from special legislation in any form whatever. The Government are the proper judges, in the first instance, whether this can be prudently attempted. They say that it can. With all my heart I wish that they may prove to be in the right. I pass from that subject with one other observation. The question of special legislation for Ireland is a question of very great importance; but when we have got rid of special legislation in the sense of coercion or repression, or of the improvement of procedure, or anything else—when we have got rid of all special legislation, there comes the question what legislation Ireland requires, not merely negative but
  1858
  also positive in form; and for my own part I must say that, important as this question of special legislation is, it is not, according to my convictions, the main question for Ireland. The people of Ireland have not enjoyed local self-government in the same degree as England and Scotland—whose enjoyment of local self-government, I am bound to say, is, in my judgment, very imperfect and requires to be largely extended—the people of Ireland have not enjoyed even that limited measure of local self-government, and the application of local self-government in a complete sense and upon a large scale is, in my judgment, the primary want of Ireland, without which no mere cessation of repressive legislation can help the country far onward on the road towards political peace and happiness and union with, this country. That, in my opinion, is the main question for Ireland, and here I am led to notice a subject with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt, and with regard to which I will endeavour to give him such limited assistance as is in my power. I mean the question of land purchase. The right hon. Gentleman is very desirous of dealing with that question; but he feels, and he justly feels, that his prospect of dealing with it in a legislative sense during present Session depends upon his being able to keep it out of that category of contention which would be, at the present moment, to such a Bill political death. I may tell him that which appeared to us necessary on this subject, and it will enable him to judge how far—in relation, at least, to us—he may be able to keep his Bill from assuming a contentious character. It appeared to us that, as regarded the clause which related to land purchase and its just extension to a state of efficiency, there was no great difficult)' in the way: but when we came to consider the financial questions connected with the wide operation of a Land Purchase Bill, the dangers which would arise out of any plan which goes to make the State upon a largo scale the immediate or virtual creditor of the people of Ireland became apparent, and the greatest difficulties arose. In my own opinion, and I think also in that of my Colleagues, to a large extent the ultimate solution of the difficulties of the situation is to be found in the question of

  1859
  good and adequate local institutions. Consequently, the plan which we contemplated was this—we contemplated clauses which, as far as the terms of the transactions are concerned, might have been permanent in their operations; but we intended lo ask Parliament to provide a sum of money adequate only to carry the Bill into operation for its first year, so as not to raise any large political question in connection with the creditorship of the Imperial Exchequer in our relations with the people of Ireland. We should have done that, believing that this question of local institutions for Ireland is the great, and immediate necessity of Irish legislation, and believing that the next Session of Parliament cannot fail, humanly speaking, to afford a proper and even necessary opportunity of dealing with that subject, as it would afford the only solution of the financial difficulties of the case. Our object would have been to place Parliament in a position to resume, with a free hand, the consideration of the case in the view of such institutions as it might propose for Ireland, and thereby to bring about what would be an extensive operation of the Land Purchase Clauses in Ireland, and, at the same time, to provide against the very serious danger which any needless tampering with that question as regards the Imperial Exchequer might involve. We should have left it to the next Parliament to consider how far the local institutions might be made available for providing security in connection with the pecuniary supply which it would be requisite to propose. The right hon. Gentleman will now be able to judge whether we can march together or not in the endeavour to deal with this question; and I must say I would not have gone so far—I would not have given this explanation—had I believed that I was proposing anything from which it would be incumbent upon the right hon. Gentleman to dissent. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned various other Bills, and upon these I can touch very shortly indeed. The right hon. Gentleman has also spoken of the Intermediate Education (Wales) Bill; and, upon the whole, I must in fairness accept the plea he has made. I do not believe, though I greatly regret it, that the Government can be expected, under the circumstances, to go forward with that Bill at the present moment.
  1860
  He has also spoken of the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland; Bill, and upon that I must say one word. He says it is a contentious Bill. Well, I do not know to what extent that is true. It is true there are those who would wish to go further; but I never heard that there were any who intended to oppose the late Government in going so far, or that they intended to reject the plan that we offered. On the other hand, I believe there are those who sit on the right bon. Gentleman's side of the House who have well considered this subject, and who, either being wholly, or to a very great extent, cognizant of the facts of the case, are disposed to accept the provisions of that Bill. But the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Bill was not, on our part, a piece of amateur, or even mere volunteer, legislation. We took up the subject as a question of grave public urgency for the peace of the country; and the question arises whether this Bill be even in some respects contentious—although I am inclined to hope it may not be so; whether it be or be not urgent, we thought it was urgent, and it was represented so to us from every portion of the House when the subject was debated. There was not a single voice raised in any other sense. In my opinion, this question clearly comes under the same category as the question of replacing the Prevention of Crimes (Ireland) Act It was for the maintenance of the peace of the country that my right hon. Friends near me (Sir William Harcourt) and the late Lord Advocate devised this measure for the consideration of the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman will therefore forgive me for saying it is his duty to take into consideration whether he is prepared to be responsible for the peace of these districts, and for the regular working of the social machine without legislation in regard to the subject of the crofters. The right hon. Gentleman does not incur here a responsibility of the same kind as that he incurs in respect of the Prevention of Crime Act in Ireland. For without the provisions of the Act, if, in that case, it be found that public order is not compromised, and that the recovery of civil rights remains effectually secured, then the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, will stand justified; but I am not so sure that he

  1861
  will stand justified in refraining from prosecuting a piece of remedial legislation, if it should unhappily prove that something is required to improve the condition of these crofters, not only on the general merits of the case, but even in order to maintain the primary conditions of peace and order in the land. I urge this the more because, in the case of the Irish Bill, the question was one of dropping a repressive measure. I certainly am desirous, as far as I can, without assuming undue responsibility, to give all the encouragement I can to the Government in dropping any repressive measure whatever; but this is a question of dropping a remedial measure, not only as in gent as the Irish legislation in the views of some might be, but beneficial in an eminent degree to the holders, the cultivators of the soil, and, therefore, having the very highest claims upon the consideration of the Government, even under present circumstances. I must, therefore, upon this one subject, reserve some discretion, I hope, to my Friends and myself. I hope we shall be allowed to consider this matter further; and I even hope that it will be considered further by Her Majesty's Government; and, if the necessity should arise, we should not scruple to ask for some opportunity of stating our views to the House. Undoubtedly we have always stood to this proposition—that not only was the measure we proposed a beneficial measure, but it was one eminently of an urgent character in the highest sense, in reference to the primary duty of the Government as to the maintenance of peace and order. On the other subjects I can speak with great satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman has made two exceptions—the Parliamentary Elections (Medical Relief) Bill and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill—in a spirit as liberal as I could possibly have expected. There is just one other point, and one only, on which I find it necessary to say a word. It is not a Bill, but a Resolution. There now stands on the Notice Paper of this House a Resolution, I think, for this day week, relating to the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts. This Motion which we are now going to carry will displace the Resolution, and I am not going to ask for an exception on behalf of it. It is an abstract Resolution. It could not be acted upon in the
  1862
  present Session, and it would be unreasonable, I think, to ask the right hon. Gentleman that lie should waive the application of his Motion on account of the Resolution being on the Paper. But there is another side to the case, which I think lie will admit it is quite equitable to approach. There is, at the present moment, an intermediate provisional state of things adopted by the late Government upon grounds which we felt to be sufficient and intelligible—that is, the established state of things now—and if the right hon. Gentleman says, as I think ho will probably say, or the right him. Gentleman the Secretary of Slate for War (Mr. W. II. Smith) may say, that he cannot legislate upon this subject, that he must refer it to the consideration of Parliament in another Session, I conclude it would be a fair request to make to ask for an assurance that no substantial change—I do not speak of changes of detail—will be made in the state of things now provisionally established, which amounts in the main, and for most purposes, to a complete suspension of the operation of those Acts. That point I wish to press, and I think the suggestion I make is a fair one. Well, Sir, I have been obliged to detain the House for a considerable time; but I hope the explanation I have made will not be thought to have been made in a narrow and grudging spirit. I wish to fulfil literally the declarations made outside—that every reasonable assistance shall be given, so far as we are concerned, to Her Majesty's present Government in their efforts rapidly to wind up the Business of the Session, to discharge them from all unnecessary subjects, and, above all—and here I give a special promise for myself—to discharge them from all unnecessary speeches and debates. To that great end, either by persuasion, or, what is more important, by good example, I shall give my assistance. I now sit down, and, trusting them, in matters wherein Her Majesty's Government are going to act upon the principle of trust in the people and are going to maintain the undoubted interests of the Empire in a calm and wise, but at the same time perfectly firm spirit, I heartily wish them success in their endeavours.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): I think the House and the Government

  1863
  and my right hon. Friend will be of opinion that, after the valuable and exhaustive remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it would not be at all consistent with the high position which he occupies in the House if those remarks were not immediately acknowledged and commented upon respectfully by some Member of the present Administration. I am sure I am only speaking the sentiments of those who sit near me when I venture to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the considerate, and, indeed, I may say magnanimous, treatment which he has given to the proposal of my right hon. Friend. I will only say that, as far as the right hon. Gentleman was concerned, not one of us ever expected anything else; and although, owing to certain events which immediately followed the fall of the late Government, Lord Salisbury, with the full assent and approval of all his Colleagues, found it necessary to ask for some kind of guarantee against unnecessary disturbance, in the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman assumed in the negotiations which then took place, I do not think that any one of us was inclined for a moment to assert that his attitude was not perfectly Constitutional, and one which might not serve as a valuable precedent when the Government of this country changes for the future. Perhaps the House will allow me to make one or two brief remarks upon the observations which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to what fell from him as to the Frontier of Afghanistan, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to suggest some doubt as to the absolute and literal accuracy of the statement made in the House of Lords on Monday by Lord Salisbury—that the British Government had promised the Ameer security for the possession of the Pass of Zulfikar. Well, Sir, having seen all the transactions that have taken place, and having seen also the subsequent telegrams from the Viceroy of India, I am of opinion that that statement was literally and accurately true, and that the Ameer of Afghanistan placed himself entirely in our hands—that he offered to accept any Frontier which we might think advisable for his interests and security provided that we secured to him three places, one of which was the complete possession of the Pass of
  1864
  Zulfikar. And I can also say that Lord Dufferin considers himself absolutely bound to the Ameer on that point, and that, in so considering himself bound, he also considers that he has acted with the entire support, knowledge, and approval of the late Government. But, Sir, I wish particularly to acknowledge with much gratitude the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman confirming Lord Salisbury's statement that the Russian Government are under a promise to concede the Pass of Zulfikar to the Ameer. Such a declaration from the right hon. Gentleman cannot fail to have the most marked effect upon the negotiations which are now going on. I know no reason why those negotiations should not terminate in a manner satisfactory to the country; but they will, at any rate, have this advantage—that they will be supported by a practically united House of Commons. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that none of the Members of the Government think it necessary to withdraw in any way from the criticisms which they felt it their duty to make on the negotiations as conducted by the late Government up to the time they left Office. We certainly apprehend the nature and the drawbacks of the inheritance which we have received from the late Government in that part of the world. We shall try to the utmost of our power to bring it to as satisfactory a conclusion as is possible; and in this work undoubtedly the support of the right hon. Gentleman, which he has stated he is prepared to give us under certain circumstances, is literally invaluable. I am sure that the earnest words which fell from him with regard to the immense value of the security of our Indian Frontier will bring that fact home far more to the minds of the people of this country than anything that Her Majesty's present Ministers could say, and will do much to tranquillize the apprehensions and to rejoice the minds of our fellow-subjects in India. With regard to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of Egypt, I do not propose to make more than a very brief remark. We took note of the words of wisdom which fell from the right hon. Gentleman; but one reason why I do not wish, on this occasion, to go into the question of

  1865
  Egypt is because I do not wish in any way to be the cause of any contention, and of course that remark would specially apply to anything that may be said about the Soudan. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not believe there was any intention on our part to come into sharp conflict with the views of the late Government with respect to their late Soudan policy. I do not wish that remark to pass without comment, because it might be taken that the present Government approved the evacuation of the Province of Dongola. That is going a great deal too far. It is not necessary to say positively whether we approve or disapprove of the evacuation; but this we may say—that it entails upon Egypt the loss of a fertile territory to which Egypt was undoubtedly entitled; that it reduces that fertile territory to a state of utter uncultivation; that almost the entire cultivating population is withdrawing northward with our army, and that which for many years has been a smiling and prosperous land is now totally devastated. I should be sorry if anyone were to think that the present Government approve of the evacuation of Dongola, especially when it is borne in mind that such evacuation was carried out in the teeth of the most remarkable opposition—in the teeth of the advice of Lord Wolseley, Sir Evelyn Baring, General Buller, and NubarPasha; and, that being so, I merely wish to guard the present Government from any responsibility for the evacuation of Dongola. No departure from the policy of the late Government, however, is possible, for when we came into Office the decision to evacuate Dongola had been carried out too far for U3 to alter it. Turning now to the question of Ireland, I was surprised to hoar the right hon. Gentleman charge my right hon. Friend with having made controversial remarks on this subject. I am sure my right hon. Friend would never have thought of making any observations in regard to Ireland of a controversial character if it had not been for the rather mocking interruption which greeted him when making a very serious and deliberate declaration of the policy of the Government in regard to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman declared that when the Tory Party introduced coercion they trusted to it alone, and that when the Liberal Party introduced coercion it was
  1866
  always accompanied by a remedial measure. Well, supposing the Tory Party did so, which I do not admit, who was the Member of the Tory Party who in 1833 objected when the Church Temporalities Bill was introduced? Might I respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in those dawning days of a career which has proved so illustrious, he set a bright example to the Tory Party?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I was then 23 years of age, and I admit I did not.
  THE SEORETARY or STATE FOR INDIA: Whatever the age of the right hon. Gentleman may have been, I am sure that so remarkable is his genius now that it would not be extraordinary if at the age of 23 he had been able to set an example to the Tory Party. I desire to point out the difference between the position of Ireland in 1880, when the late Government decided to do without extraordinary powers, and the position of Ireland now. Lord Beaconsfield's letter has been the object of many a bitter sarcasm from hon. Gentlemen opposite; but, at the time it was written, Ireland was suffering from one of the severest famines that ever visited the country, and the people were tortured by starvation and want. Have you ever heard of any country suffering under calamities so widespread and grievous where you have not had a rapid increase of crime? Not only was there at the time a severe famine, but crime was actually increasing—and increasing largely; and it was under these circumstances that the late Government determined to rely on the ordinary law. What are the circumstances now? Since 1883 crime in Ireland has been steadily diminishing. There is no famine in any part of Ireland, and I am not aware that there is any abnormal distress. These are the very different circumstances, the essentially normal circumstances, under which the Tory Party consider it to be their absolute duty to endeavour, at any rate, to govern Ireland by the ordinary law. The right hon. Gentleman found fault with my right hon. Friend for having described the Land Act of 1870 as "abortive." But, having regard to the fact that the utmost the right hon. Gentleman could say for the Act of 1870 was that it had continued in opera-

  1867
  tion for seven years, I do not consider that the epithet was uncalled for. If I wanted to excite controversial feelings, I might refer to the bitterness with which the late Government and their supporters evidently regard the action of the Tory Party in resolving to attempt to govern Ireland without coercion. I might boldly say that I believe that if Lord Spencer had been given SO Coercion Acts he could not have governed Ireland successfully or peacefully for any length of time. I do not make that statement, but it is one which I might have made. I want to show my extraordinary moderation in refraining from making any Party attack. I desire to enter my caveat against the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman that the right of holding special previous inquiries before the arrest of a prisoner should be incorporated into the general law of the Kingdom.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I mentioned it as the suggestion of a high authority. I am myself no authority upon this fitter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Well, I would certainty protest against any such provision. The right hon. Gentleman commented on my right hon. Friend's statement that he thought he saw certain indications in the state of Ireland which showed that the change of Government was not altogether unacceptable to the general population of that country. The right hon. Gentleman almost insinuated that that was due to some specific understanding or agreement with certain special parties in this House. For all I know, indeed I may say I do know, that statement refers to nothing more than to certain incidents which have recently taken place in Ireland—the tenor of the Irish Press; hut, more than that, to a remarkable incident which took place only the other day when Lord Carnarvon, after having been sworn in as Viceroy, rode to the Viceregal Lodge, and on the following day rode to the Westland Row Station in a manner totally unprecedented for four years in Ireland. During four years no Viceroy in Ireland had been able to move about without an escort. On this occasion dragoons and mounted police were conspicuous by their absence, and their absence did not seem to excite any dis-
  1868
  pleasure among the Irish people. I hope in the policy we have decided to pursue we shall receive the support and assistance of the Irish people. We know perfectly well what we have undertaken to do; it has been perhaps one of the most deliberate and carefully considered decisions any Government ever came to. We know well that it is our duty to protect life and property, not only in Ireland, but all over the United Kingdom. I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for the support he so generously promises, and for the good wishes he evidently desires to bestow upon us in our efforts; but if we fail, you may depend upon it we shall plead no excuse either as regards Parliamentary circumstances at the present moment, or as regards the fact that we are in a minority, we have come to this conclusion, to endeavour to govern Ireland by the ordinary law, because we believe it to be a Constitutional doctrine that special legislation must not be applied except in times of great emergency. We believe it was the duty of the Tory Party to adhere to that Constitutional doctrine. We believe that, taking all the circumstances of Ireland together at the present time, weighing the one against the other, the times are not exceptional; and, that being so, we decided for good or evil to abide by the ordinary law of the country. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Land Purchase Bill. His remarks on that subject will be most carefully considered, not only on account of their merit, but also on account of the quarter whence they come. If by any chance the Government can see an opportunity of making legislative proposals which secure the support of the light hon. Gentleman, and which are especially agreeable to the Representatives of Ireland in the direction indicated, we shall most eagerly avail ourselves of it. With regard to the Crofters' Bill I have only one remark to make. I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman for his consideration whether the Crofters' Bill is not eminently a question for the new Parliament. I suppose any Government legislation on the Crofters' Question at this time could not be final. Can you by any possibility attain finality on the question when the crofters themselves are not directly represented in this House? It is more than probable that

  1869
  in the now Parliament the crofters will I be strongly represented, and any proposals on this subject will be discussed by their Representatives and decided upon by them; and it is, therefore, clear that more of finality would surround such legislation than any attempt to deal with the question now. With reference to the Contagious Diseases Acts and the Resolution of the light hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), I imagine that no public object of any importance can be secured by setting aside a day for the discussion of the subject. The opinion of this Parliament on the question is known. It has been ascertained three or four times, and the question was one eminently fitted to be relegated to the consideration of a new Parliament. But I am authorized by the Secretary of State for War and by the First Lord of the Admiralty to say that there is no intention on the part of the present Government to interfere in any way with the provisional arrangements of the late Government, though we were no parties to those arrangements. I thank the House very much for the great indulgence it has extended to me on this, the first occasion I have addressed it from this position. In conclusion, I would say that I believe the policy of the Government as regards domestic legislation is to clear up and get out of the way of the new Parliament certain arrears of legislation upon which no great controversy arises, the settlement of which may confer great social and political boons upon the people of the country, and to reduce the great number of subjects which will have to be dealt with by the new Parliament. Their policy in foreign affairs will be, as far as they may and as far as they can, a policy animated by one object only, that they may by a firm, vigorous, intelligent, and consistent policy so extricate our country from the numerous foreign difficulties, anxieties, and complications which now beset us, as to bring about a state of foreign order and freedom from foreign alarms that the new Parliament from which we, as well as those on the opposite side of the House, hope great things for England, may be able to concentrate its attention on the political and social future of our people unembarrassed, unimpeded by any foreign danger.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he concurred in the claim which the Leader of the House had made in general terms with respect to the general Business of the House. Ho thought it was their duty towards the present Government to support them in the application which had been made for the time of the House. He thought it was for the public interest that the affairs of this Parliament should be brought to a conclusion without any unnecessary delay; but he wished to call the attention of the Government to his position with regard to the question of the Contagious Diseases Acts, and to its position in the House itself. He had a Notice referring to the question standing on the Paper for that day week. The agitation to which he had been a party, and which had been conducted with immense sacrifice of time and labour on the part of numerous men and women, had now lasted for 18 years. A Resolution had been carried by a large majority in the House practically condemning those Acts. Two-and-a-quarter years had elapsed since then, and no endeavour had been made by any hon. Member to procure the reversal of the Resolution. The late Government took the strong measure of suspending, to a great extent, the operation of the Acts in deference to the decision of the House of Commons. It could not be justified except on the grounds of the impossibility of legislating on the question during that time; and this was the ground taken by the late Prime Minister and his Colleagues. But the consequences of the action of the late Government had been, so far as he was concerned, to leave the Acts on the Statute Book fur the present Government, when it chose to do so, to re-enforce them. In the circumstances he felt he should be within his right if he endeavoured to ascertain the point of view of the Government before they wore all dismissed to a General Election. It was true that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India concluded his speech with an expression of opinion; but that expression of opinion was unsatisfactory to himself, and also, he believed, to the bulk of hon. Members on that side of the House. The noble Lord told them that Her Majesty's present Advisers would not upset or interfere with the determination of the late Government to suspend to a large ex-

  1871
  tent the operation of the Contagious Diseases Acts; but he added that the present Government must not be held to approve that course. That was a statement with which he could not be satisfied; and he trusted, therefore, that someone sitting on the Treasury Bench would be able to inform the House that the present Government frankly accepted the conclusion arrived at by the late Government in reference to suspending the operation of the Acts.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he thought he should have no difficulty in satisfying the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld) on the points to which he had drawn attention. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in deference to a Vote passed by the House in 1883 the late Government virtually suspended the action of the Acts of Parliament, and that that was a course much stronger than the introduction of a Bill to repeal those Acts. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. It was a strong exercise of power on the part of the Government to suspend the operations of Acts of Parliament simply in deference to a Resolution passed by one House in circumstances of considerable emotion. The present Government must not be held to approve of the course adopted by the late Government; but he had no hesitation in giving an assurance that the course pursued during the present Session by the late Government would not be altered by the present Government. The late Government had not thought it their duty to folio y the procedure of last year, and had, in making their arrangements, omitted any provision for enforcing the Acts to which objection was taken, and it was certainly not the intention of the present Government to give life and vitality to those Acts. The right hon. Gentleman would understand, however, that while the present Government respected the status quo in -which they found themselves they could not say what legislation might become necessary in the next Session of Parliament.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that he had never considered the Crofters' Bill which had been introduced as one entitled to be regarded as a final settlement of that question. He himself had put down an Amendment on the subject;
  1872
  but his right hon. Friend was mistaken in supposing that he did so in opposition to the Bill. His object was to improve the Bill, and not to destroy it—[a laugh]—and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench who had laughed at that statement that on the night on the second reading of the Crofters' Bill was to have been taken he had received an assurance that if he altered one word of his Amendment he would have received the whole support of the Conservative Party. He therefore regretted the decision of the present Government not to proceed with the Bill; for though he had not regarded the Bill as a very valuable one, he did look at it in this light—that if the present Government had brought it in as a skeleton Bill the Liberal Party in the House would have clothed it in Committee with flesh and blood, and made it a valuable measure. He was now going to make a practical proposal, for he looked upon the Crofters' Bill as lost. He believed that when the reformed House of Commons came back there would not be two or three Members representing crofter districts, but that nine-tenths of the whole representation of Scotland would be pledged on the question; for it was one which had been recognized as affecting the interests of towns quite as much as the country. Therefore it was that he did not deplore very grievously the loss of this Bill. He should say that the result of the unbiassed consideration by the people of the late Bill had been its rejection by them. There was in the Order Book a Bill, consisting of six lines, introduced by himself, for the purpose of suspending evictions in Scotland pending the settlement of this question. The Prime Minister had denied that the urgency of this Bill was a matter which affected the peace of the country; but experience had clearly shown that the sooner this question was settled the better, and that, in the meantime, the only way by which the peace of mind of the people could be assured was by suspending the power of eviction. It had been stated that the landlords did not want to evict. Well, if so, the suspension of this power could do them no harm, while it would reassure the minds of the people, for he could assure the right hon. Gentleman there was a great deal of alarm on that point, and the public opinion was so

  1873
  acute on the subject that if there should be anything in the shape of public eviction there would be an outbreak of the public. Such would certainly be the case if the landlords exercised to any extent the power of eviction which the present state of the law gave them. Therefore, he would appeal to the Government to have this small Bill of six lines passed into law during the present Session, and he would guarantee that they would have peace and quiet, and rest, and law and order throughout the Highlands.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREdesired to say a few words on the subject of the Telegraph Bill. From what had fallen from the noble Lord that evening he had gathered that it was the intention of the Government to drop that measure. The announcement that the Government did intend to drop that measure would cause surprise and regret throughout the country. For many months past the expectation had been held out that a considerable change would be effected in the telegraph rate during the late autumn; and he desired to bring under the attention of the Government the financial effects of dropping that measure. He could not help thinking that the Government had not sufficiently considered the fact that £500,000 had been spent upon new plant which would be necessary in case the cost of telegrams was lowered from 1s. to 6d. Moreover, a very large staff had been taken on at the Post Office with a view of introducing the new tariff during the coming autumn. Twelve hundred persons had been taken into the service of the Post Office within the last few months in view of the reduction of the tariff and the increased work which that would throw on the Department, and their salaries would amount to £61,000 per annum. Those persons, who were now learning their business, could not be utilized in any other way in the Post Office; and as they could not be dismissed the money expended upon their salaries would be altogether thrown away. The noble Lord had given two reasons for abandoning the Bill. In the first place he had misdescribed the Bill, because he had said it was a Bill for charging the addresses. That was a misdescription of the measure, which was a Bill for altering the tariff and for enabling a short telegram to be sent for
  1874
  6d. instead of for 1s. In order to confer this very great boon of 6d. telegrams upon the public it had been found necessary not to allow the addresses to be free. If free addresses were allowed it would involve a very great loss to the Revenue, which, taken together with the reduction of price, would amount to some £200,000 per annum. Among the other reasons which the noble Lord had given for abandoning the proposals contained in the Bill was that he had received information from the Department that if the change was carried out in the manner proposed by the Bill the increase of business which would result from it would occasion an expense of an additional £1,000,000 to the country in the course of the next three or four years. For his own part, he thought there must be a misunderstanding on this point, as he had received no information from the Department to that effect. He was under the full impression, in consequence of the information which he had received from the Department, that the £500,000, which had been asked for during the current year would amply suffice for purchasing the plant rendered necessary by the anticipated increase of business which would be caused by the reduction of the tariff. It had been calculated that that increase of business would amount to about 30 per cent on the present business; and he believed that the new plant which had been provided would be amply sufficient to meet that increase in the amount of business. Should there, however, be in successive years a still greater increase of business than that now anticipated, there would also be a corresponding increase in the profits of the Department, which would amply suffice to meet any additional charge for plant that might be rendered necessary by the increased business. If the Bill were to be now dropped all the expenditure which had already been incurred during the present year would be lost to the country. He suggested that the noble Lord should proceed with the Bill, and introduce in Committee any alternative tariff which ho might desire to propose; but he must say that he did not believe that within the financial limits which would be sanctioned by the Treasury the noble Lord could propose any other tariff than that set forth in the Bill. Should, however, the noble

  1875
  Lord think fit to propose any alternative tariff ho could promise him that it should receive his most favourable consideration. He was satisfied that there was a general desire on the part of the House that the Bill should become law, and that the reduction in the tariff to 6d. should be made as soon as possible. He thought it would be desirable that the Government should give one day to discuss this Bill in. Committee. He rather thought, however, that now the noble Lord was responsible for the Department, and had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the very able officers at its head, he had discovered that it would be impossible to comply with the rule that the Telegraphic Department should be a paying one and at the same time to propose any alternative tariff. There was only one other argument—namely, that in the General Election it would be a great boon if this reduced tariff should be brought into effect. There would then be a good opportunity of testing it, and he believed the system would be enormously availed of.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS)said, that he wished to remove an erroneous impression from the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. He had no intention whatever of removing the Bill from the Orders. He proposed to let it remain on the Orders, so that the right hon. Gentleman could bring it forward if he could get an opportunity, and then the Government would state their views.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked would the noble Lord give him an opportunity of proceeding with the Bill?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERALsaid, upon that point he must consult his Colleagues; but as ho had no wish that the Bill should be withdrawn, he should do all he could to give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity he desired. He recognized the value of the suggestion that if he, in the short time now at their disposal, could not succeed in preparing a scheme that would be satisfactory to himself and the Treasury, they should then fall back on the tariff suggested by his right hon. Friend, and see whether that could not be adopted. But it had taken the late Government two years to prepare their tariff, now under discussion, and it was hardly to be expected that in about as many days
  1876
  he should be able to prepare an alternative one. He reminded hon. Members that he took objection formerly, not to the tariff, but to the abolition of free addresses. He had said that whatever was suggested the addresses should be free. He was still of that opinion, and that the abrogation of free addresses would be a very serious loss and inconvenient. The right hon. Gentleman had again spoken of the introduction of 6d. telegrams. But the Bill would do nothing of the kind. It would introduce an 8d., a 9d., or a 10 d. telegram. No doubt that would be a very good and useful diminution; but he protested against it being spoken of as a Sixpenny Telegram Bill. As to the outlay, the right hon. Gentleman was aware that it was not the practice in the Office to prepare Estimates for three or four years in advance. When he came to inquire into the question on the basis of the increased business which the right hon. Gentleman himself anticipated, he found that it was calculated that at the end of three or four years an outlay of about £1,000,000 for underground wires and other matter would have to be incurred. That was the statement he had before him, and it came upon him with great surprise; but he never supposed or suggested that the right hon. Gentleman was in possession of those figures when he made his statement to the House. He thought it well, however, when the question arose as to proceeding with the Bill in the' present Parliament to state the facts to the House.
  DR. CAMERONdesired to refer to one or two observations of the noble Lord the Postmaster General. The noble Lord had told them that he did not mean to remove the Telegraph Bill from the Order Book, but that he left it open to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Beading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to take charge of it; although, at the same time, he would not afford him any facilities for doing so. Well, that was the precise course which the Government in "another place" had told them they intended to take with respect to the Secretary for Scotland Bill. Now, ho should say that that was a very bad course. As to the Scotch Secretary Bill, he thought the House ought to be told specifically whether the Bill was to be pressed by the Government, or was to be given up when

  1877
  they came forward to ask hon. Members to give up all their time to the Government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)explained that the hon. Member was under a mistake as to the statement of Lord Salisbury. When the Secretary for Scotland Bill reached the House of Commons the Government would take it up, and in the other House the Government would afford it every facility.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that was so far satisfactory. As to the Telegraph Bill, he thought the proposals of the noble Lord and the ground for abandoning it were not adequate. It did appear to him a very questionable policy to render useless an annual income of £75,000 for the purpose of avoiding a future possible expenditure of £1,000,000 which, however, would only be required in the event of our developing an enormous, but a paying, increase of business in that Department. As to the Secretary for Scotland Bill, it would have been very advantageous to the House had they been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government proposed to do with that measure. There was no use shutting one's eyes to the fact that there were two opinions with regard to one point in it—namely, whether the Minister for Scotland should have charge of the system of primary education in Scotland or not. He (Dr. Cameron) was under the impression that the difficulty in the Cabinet as to making up their minds on the subject was one of the objects which had actuated them in leaving charge of the Bill in the House of Lords to Lord Rosebery. Now that the Government meant to take it up in the House of Commons themselves, he (Or. Cameron) trusted they would tell the House whether they intended to deal with it in the manner it was supported by some of their (the Government's) Friends in that House and "elsewhere," or in the spirit advocated by others of their Party. Upon the information which the House should receive on this point would depend the fact whether the measure introduced by the Government would be regarded as of a contentious character or not. The right hon. Gentleman(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was aware, no doubt, that there was considerable difference of opinion as to whether the Secretary for
  1878
  Scotland should he intrusted with the charge of primary education; but Lord Rosebery supported that view in the other House of Parliament and in Scotland. The Bill had been introduced by the late Government in various shapes, and they were driven to accept it in its present form in consequence of their inability to make progress with it when education was left out of it altogether. Considerably less difficulty would be felt if the Bill were adopted by the Government in its present shape, pure and simple, than if they attempted to cut and carve it, or excise from it a provision which was regarded by a large section of the people of Scotland as its most valuable one. As respected the Crofters' Bill, the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) had stated that he regarded it as necessary for the preservation of peace in Scotland. Well, some legislation on the subject he (Dr. Cameron) believed was necessary—absolutely necessary—for the preservation of the peace in the Highlands, unless they were to have constant recourse to military expeditions to that part of the country. But if anyone imagined that the Crofters' Bill introduced by the late Government would have been accepted as a final settlement of the question, the sooner such an idea was banished the better. He was not particularly sorry that the Bill should have been dropped, although if it had been persevered with he would have given it his hearty support. The fact of its having been dropped would create a terrible amount of indignation in the Highlands of Scotland, and would rouse that feeling to which expression had been already given in many places that the measure on the Table of the House was utterly inadequate for the purpose which it professed to accomplish, and that the next Parliament must deal with the matter in a much stronger fashion. He had no doubt that the effect would be to educate the candidates before the constituencies up to a robustness in dealing with land questions which was unknown to the present Parliament. Therefore he would say that his regret at the abandonment of this Bill was not altogether un-mingled with hope for the future. The measure was a small one, and would have been chiefly valuable because it would place on the Statute Book a certain great and valuable principle. It was

  1879
  gone, but at all events this remained of it—that the introduction of that principle on the Statute Book had been sanctioned by the great Liberal Party when in power, and that its introduction in a more practical, workable, and valuable form, and its being placed in the Statute Book in that form, could not, in his opinion, be much longer deferred. He trusted they might receive some further information and some assurance from the Government that should their Party remain in power after the next Election they would deal with the matter, and that in a spirit which would justify the words of a Member of the Government, that the Bill had been put aside not from any dislike of it, but from a desire to facilitate in some near time in the future the introduction of a Bill which would be really worthy of Parliament, and of the important question which it was designed to settle.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, that it was impossible to over-estimate the importance of doing something to settle the Crofter Question—an importance which had been added to by the agitation in the Highlands, and by the Report of the Royal Commission. Now, as far as he could gather, the present Government objected to going on with the measure on the ground that there was no finality about the Bill, and also because it should be dealt with by the next Parliament, when the crofters would be represented by their own Members. He admitted that the Bill was not one that could be regarded as final. There was certainly one important point that was not dealt with in the Bill—namely, the demand of the crofters for an extension of their holdings. But if the matter were put off till the next Parliament, and if the present Government found themselves in the majority, would they then be prepared to bring in a Crofters' Bill that would be final in that sense, and would contain a provision with that object in view? He hoped the Government would reconsider the matter, and that they might be able to make arrangements to go on with the Crofters' Bill. He also wished to know what course the Government intended to take in regard to the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, which was now before a Select Committee of the House of Lords? He desired further to ask the Government
  1880
  whether they could state how they proposed to deal with the Scotch Universities Bill, a measure of very great importance? Certainly, many objections had been taken to the financial portion of that Bill, and there were also objections to other parts of the measure; but these might possibly be got over, and it would be very acceptable if the Government could see their way to forward that Bill with the necessary modifications and Amendments.
  THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. DALRYMPLE)said, he must demur to the expression the hon. Member who had just sat down had used as to the abandonment of the Crofters' Bill by Her Majesty's Government. That was not a correct description of what had occurred. The question had been of the adoption of the Bill of the late Government; but there was no abandonment. For his own part, he wished it could have been possible for the Government to have seen its way to take up this Bill, and he was yet in hopes that they might see a Bill dealing with this question under the discussion of the House this Session, as the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the late Government had stated that he intended to push forward the subject. Before passing to the other subjects mentioned, he would refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane), who on this occasion posed as the friend of the Crofters' Bill. He (Mr. Dalrymple) held the hon. Member was chiefly responsible for the impression that the Crofters' Bill would be strongly opposed, not merely by the Amendment upon the Paper, but because of the tone ho had adopted all through in reference to the subject, which appeared to indicate that he would oppose the measure on the ground that it did not go far enough. That being so, it would not do for the hon. Member to profess regret at the fate of the Bill, when the hon. Member, as much as any man in the House, had been responsible for the delay in reference to legislation. His hon. Friend (Mr. Buchanan) had referred to the Burgh Police Bill. He was very glad that his hon. Friend was so much interested in the progress of that Bill; but he recollected that he was not as favourable to it last Session as he seemed to be now. That Bill was now before a Select Committee of the House of Lords, which had thought right to

  1881
  take evidence from some of the burghs interested. After that, the Bill, as he understood, would be turned out in some amended form; but whether it would be possible to proceed with it this Session or not he could not say. Although the Bill was of enormous proportions, he should be glad if it were possible to deal with it this Session, as there was much in it of extreme value to Scotland. He also believed that many of the objections raised to it last year had now been removed. A widespread interest, he knew, was also taken in the Scotch Universities Bill, and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would be extremely glad to have the opinion of the Scotch Members as to that measure; and if it was true, as he was inclined to believe, that the points of contention in regard to it had become few in number, he still entertained a hope that the Bill might pass this Session. That, however, would really depend on the attitude taken by the Scotch Members.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he felt bound to vindicate the hon. Member for Carlow from the charge of throwing obstacles in the way of proper legislation in regard to the Scotch Crofters. The hon. Member had taken immense pains and trouble on that question for years past, his exertions having done more than those of any other man to bring about the appointment of the Royal Commission which had inquired into the subject.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, he must protest against the arrangement by which it was proposed to sacrifice the rights of private Members, especially in respect to the Wednesdays. He had had the good fortune to secure one of those days for bringing forward the subject of women's suffrage, which was no longer a Patty question; and ho appealed to the noble Lord the present Postmaster General, who had so consistently supported a measure for the removal of the disabilities of women householders, to assist him in obtaining an opportunity for the discussion of that important proposal. He hoped that before the close of the Session an opportunity would be afforded to the House of expressing its opinion on this important question. He admitted the force of what had been said by the Leader of the House, and that this subject was still one of a contentious character. If he could not secure next Wednesday week for a dis-
  1882
  cussion, he trusted that another opportunity would be found.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON,in rising to move, as an Amendment—
  "That this House, not having confidence in the present responsible advisers of Her Majeety, declines to entrust the Government with the disposal of the time of the House,"
  said, that in no place were men more friendly and kindly disposed in giving up rights than in the House of Commons, and that disposition was shown by the attitude of the Liberal Party on this occasion. The late Prime Minister had said that it was not right to thwart the Government before they had done either good or evil. But he contended that it was an evil to be a Tory, and it was a great evil that a Tory Government should have the welfare of the country in their hands. Of course ho had, to use a vulgar expression, brought on this question "on his own hook." No one had incited him to do so, and he did not know whether anybody was going to support him, or 'even second him; but he trusted that an independent Liberal, one who really was a Representative of the people, would do so. He knew from the cheers behind him that the Irish Members were not going to support him. It was said that he ought to have waited till he knew what the policy of the new Government was to be. But he knew their policy perfectly well. He had watched them for five years, and he had read almost all their speeches. Everybody ought to know what their policy was. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be surprised that he was the person to bring forward this Motion, for what was it that stirred the arm of the right hon. Gentleman when he overthrew the late Government? It was the beer interest and the Radical teetotaler. Now, the right hon. Gentleman met the Radical teetotaler face to face. He thought the House of Commons stood in a very peculiar position politically, for, contrary to all established maxims, the minority were in power, and the majority were in Opposition. His hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had last winter preached a crusade in favour of the representation of minorities; but nobody would say that it was desirable the minority should rule. It was proper that the majority should rule; and as

  1883
  the majority were on the Liberal side of the House, he contended that the majority should be true to their Party and to their principles, and assume the Government of the country. He presumed the Tory Party were what they had always said they were. Ho had heard no Liberal speaker get up and say that it was the duty of Liberals to keep a Tory Administration in power; and therefore he had been obliged to look in the daily Press to see what the reasons were why a majority of Liberals were called upon to support a minority of Tories in power. He had not seen any arguments in favour of that proposition; but in Tie Daily News of that morning he saw a very strong argument against it. The Daily News said that the Tories had no moral right to be in power, and they scarcely had any technical right. If that were the case, surely he had the right to attack the Government. It was said the late Government had ridden for a fall. It certainly looked very like it. It was funny that one man should have caught a cold, that another should have lost the train, that a third should have got wet—outside, of course—and that a fourth did not know a division was going on. But there was no proof of actual collusion, though the removal of the late Government did remind him of the verdict which was once found by an intelligent Dorsetshire jury—"That the deceased died by the visitation of God under very suspicious circumstances." It was said the Tories came into Office because the Liberals were unable to form a Government. The recent negotiations between the late and the present Prime Minister showed that was not the reason. It would be much nearer the mark to say that the Tories took Office because they thought that if they did not the late Prime Minister might be prevailed upon to return. There were people who considered it only just that the Tories should stew in their own juice. That might be desirable, but he was afraid that they would stew somebody else. Other people contended that it was only fair the Tories should have a chance as well as the Liberals. That would be an excellent argument if politics were merely a game of cricket got up for the amusement of the public outside. But he took a more serious view of politics, of which, in his view, to use the
  1884
  words of Mr. Disraeli, the sole duty was to provide for the social welfare of the people. The two great curses of the country were lighting and drinking—fighting abroad and drinking at home. So far as he had read, the Tories would do little to counteract those tendencies; and, speaking politically and not personally, he feared that the Government would be a fighting and a drinking Administration. The country that had fighting abroad and drinking at home would never enjoy the blessings of prosperity. He hoped some independent Liberal would get up and explain why they ought to support the Government. He did not like the aspect of a case of harmony which the House presented at this time, and to his mind it indicated that there was something wrong. If the Tories had not changed their policy—and he did not think that they had in their hearts—then it was the duty of those who sat on the Opposition side of the House not to support them, but to oppose them, and to displace them at the earliest opportunity. There could be no appeal to the country until about the middle of November, and that was given as a reason why the Tory Government should not be disturbed. In his opinion, that was the very reason why they ought to disturb them, because alter the House rose in August hon. Members would have no control whatever over the Government, who would be able to do anything they liked. Knowing what the last Tory Government did, he was not disposed to leave them to themselves for three months. He might be told that he could do no good by pursuing that kind of argument, because there was no Government to take the place of the present Tory Government. He knew nothing about that; but he was quite sure that if they could turn out the present Government, Providence would provide a new one somewhere or other, and it would probably be a much better one than the last Liberal Government. For the majority to keep a Party in power from whom it professed to differ was a most undesirable, and, he might almost say, an unusual state of things, and went far towards making representative institutions a farce. He would not further detain the House, but would conclude by moving the Amendment which stood in his name.
  MR. HEALY: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that on a former occasion, when a Motion was made by the late Government to take certain days, my hon. Friend the Member for Athlone (Mr. Sheil) objected to particular days being taken; and the rule was then laid down by the Chair that on the Motion to take days no Motion after the word "That" could be proposed. My hon. Friend was therefore ruled to be out of Order. The hon. Baronet the Member fur Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) now proposes to move a Vote of Want of Confidence on the proposal of the Government to appropriate certain days; and I myself cannot see on this occasion any distinct difference between the Motion submitted now and the Motion of my hon. Friend, which on the occasion I have referred to was ruled to be out of Order. I wish to ask, therefore, whether, according to the ruling of the Chair in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Athlone (Mr. Sheil), who desired to exempt from the operation of the Resolution proposed by the late Government a Motion in reference to the Irish National Schoolmasters, the hon. Baronet is not out of Order in submitting the Amendment which he has just proposed?
  MR SPEAKER: Before I reply to the question of the hon. Member a preliminary question arises—namely, whether the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has a Seconder?
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYseconded the Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. Baronet is not on the face of it an Amendment which may be called a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government; but it indicates that in the opinion of the hon. Baronet the Government are not such as he can trust with the distribution of the Business of the House in the way they propose so far as the interests of private Members are concerned. There is nothing on the face of the Amendment, so far as I can see, which raises any difficulty, or anything to warrant me in debarring the hon. Baronet from moving it.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House not having confidence in the present responsible advisers of Her Majesty, de-
  1886
  clines to entrust the Government with the disposal of the time of the House,"—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. JESSE COLLTNGSsaid, he wished to express his acknowledgments to the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the position he had taken up with regard to the Medical Relief Bill. He also shared the feelings of the Radical section of the House is regard to statements made by the right hon. Baronet as to other questions. Two sections of the House must have had their feelings somewhat mixed during the delivery of the right hon. Baronet's speech. He referred to the old Conservative section and the old Whig Party. He fancied that these sections hardly know where they were, or whether they existed at all, when listening to the right hon. Baronet; and they must have been very much astonished, he would not say at the Radical state of things, but at the most revolutionary state of things which existed on the Treasury Bench. The Radical section of the Hous3 had cause for great thankfulness that the present occupants of the Ministerial Bench had cleared away very many of the difficulties which afflicted Members on the Opposition side of the House; and when the Liberal Government did come back to Office, it must be with a Radical policy, or not at all. He was a long way from being downcast at the existing state of things, because the Liberal Government would be able to come back with a lean slate with regard to many matters which had embarrassed them. All things worked together for the good of those who held sound Radical principles, and would persevere in them. If the state of things which had lasted for the past three weeks would teach anything to future Liberal Governments, it was this—that they must inside the House, as they would, no doubt, outside the House during the next few months, trust to their own real supporters, and not be led away by the loud claims and the fancy and fictitious strength which the so-called Whig Party had advanced. He was quite sure that a Whig policy could not be possible in the future. He

  1887
  had had a great deal of experience so far as the rural constituencies were concerned—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must call the hon. Member to Order, and remind him that his remarks are not relevant to the subject of the Amendment.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he begged to apologize to Mr. Mayor. [Laughter.] He assured Mr. Speaker that in this mistake he did not intend to be disrespectful. He would only add that he simply rose to express his acknowledgments to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the manner in which he had dealt with the question of medical relief and other matters, and to say that, as far as the Radical section of the House was concerned, they were not at all dismayed by the course which events had taken.
  MR. LEWISsaid, he very much regretted that, in consequence of the observations which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, it was absolutely impossible to allow the discussion to close without saying something on behalf of persons who, like himself, felt strongly that neither Party in that House had done its duty to Ireland in respect of the Crimes Prevention Act. Whatever might have been the statement made by the late Government before going out of Office, or which had been made to-night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), all must come to the conclusion that the renewal of the Crimes Act had been practically abandoned by the late Government. If they had had any real intention to renew the Act, it was idle to suppose that they would have played with the subject as they had done during the Session. So much for the late Government. But what was the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) that night on behalf of the present Government? Had he told the House that the Government had consulted, as they were bound to do, the leading authorities who were capable of giving them information and advice before they took upon themselves such a grave responsibility? Nothing of the kind. Neither from the statement made in that House that night, nor from the statement made "elsewhere," was it pos-
  1888
  sible to come to the conclusion that, in this most serious matter, they were acting upon the advice of persons competent to give it. Was this a question on which the Government were entitled to act upon their abstract judgment, or was the possession of Office for the last week or 10 days, during which the Chief Secretary had made two journeys to Ireland, staying in Dublin for a few hours on each occasion, enough to convince them that they could do without the Crimes Act? Or were they making one of those "leaps in the dark" for which Conservative Ministries had been too famous in times past? What had been the one cry heard in the House and out of the House, on every platform of the United Kingdom during the last few years by the Conservative Leaders, but a condemnation by them, in the most extreme terms, of the late Government for their conduct in 1880 in relying upon the ordinary law for the preservation of life and property in Ireland? The result of that reliance, as admitted by the late Government, was a disastrous failure. And now the House was told by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Ministerial Bench that the present Government had taken the same course advisedly. Surely the same result would follow from that fatuous proceeding as followed from the action of the late Government. They ought to have considered, before adopting such a course, the lives that might be sacrificed, the property that might be destroyed, for which there was no ransom and no recompense. In Ireland, within the last six weeks, there had been the dreadful murder of Cash-man, near Millstreet, in the County Cork, and though the murder had been committed in broad daylight there had been no conviction for the crime. A week or so before The Freeman's Journal described a dastardly crime committed in the neighbourhood of Tullamore, when a party of men went to the house of a caretaker and fired revolvers at him. And so late as the 16th of June The Times contained an extreme case of Boycotting, and another attack by armed men near Killarney. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say when justifying the course of the Government? He said—"We object to such legislation unless we are assured that it is necessary for the protection of life and

  1889
  property." That was an abstract proposition which they all understood; but the policy of the Government ought to depend, not upon abstract propositions, but upon the history and experience of the last few years. It should be remembered that there was a considerable responsibility on the present Government for acting regardless of the views of their Predecessors, as there was on the late Government for having done the same. It was true that they had not now the powerful letter of Lord Beacons-field to the Duke of Marlborough; but they had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, when Prime Minister, getting up in his place and telling the House that it was necessary to renew some of the valuable and equitable provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act. Could anyone doubt that that was a conclusion opposed to the wishes and the political prospects of the right hon. Gentleman, who would have been delighted if, as a responsible Minister, he could have informed the House, after an experience of five years in Ireland, that he had come to the conclusion that it would be safe, in the interests of law and order, to allow the Act to expire? Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say that the present Government relied upon the general feeling in Ireland, owing to the change of Government. Now, he had read, during the last month, many speeches of Irish Members; and he was bound to say that their maledictions and denunciations were most impartially applied to Whig and Tory alike, to the Government that was, and the Government that had been. Unless he was greatly mistaken, there was not the smallest ground for the assertion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, because a Tory Government had come into power, there would be a greater disposition on the part of the disorderly classes in Ireland to respect life and property. The right hon. Gentleman would very soon find himself disabused. For a long time past the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (Lord Randolph Churchill) had openly expressed the opinion that it was for the interests of the Conservative Party that coercion should be thrown overboard, and that a good system of local government should be given to Ireland in order to win the affections of the Nationalists.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB INDIA (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): The hon. Gentleman says that I have expressed these opinions openly. Will he oblige by quoting the particular passage in which I have done so?
  MR. LEWISsaid, he did not bring passages with him; but if the noble Lord told them ho had never said anything of the sort he would apologize and withdraw. But the noble Lord knew perfectly well that he openly, in and out of the House, had advocated opinions as to Irish affairs directly opposite to those held by the majority of the Conservative Party. If the present Government were to be maintained in power by the repetition, even on a small scale, of the Kilmainham Treaty, he thought the Conservatives of the country would have preferred that the Conservative Party should not have entered into power at all. What was the position of those who maintained that the Crimes Act should not be allowed to expire? They said that the perpetrators of the Phoenix Park murders and of other atrocious crimes would never have been discovered had the Act not given magistrates the power to hold inquiries without having the prisoners before them. It was only by the operation of the clause conferring that power, and of some other clauses of the Act, that the administration of justice was rendered possible after the time when witnesses refused to give evidence and juries would not convict. The clauses to which he referred were not coercive; they were clauses requisite for the due administration of justice. If the abstention of the Government from renewing these clauses resulted in a repetition of the deplorable events which took place after the accession of the late Government to Office, Her Majesty's present Advisers would not be able to plead as an excuse that there was no time in which to pass a Bill this Session. They would not be able to do so because they had shown no desire at all to submit the matter to the House. They surrendered this legislation, in fact, because they thought that there was no necessity for it, and that they could rely on the ordinary law. No one would be more pleased than himself if the view of the Government should turn out to be right. No one would wish the Government more fervently "God speed." The Government did not say they were

  1891
  acting on the advice of those who were the permanent Irish officials, and who were best able to know the requirements of Ireland. On the contrary, it was a well-known fact that the advice of those officials was that the Prevention of Crime Act should be renewed. Supposing the Conservatives had still been in the cold shade of Opposition instead of occupying the distinguished Treasury Benches, and the late Government had proposed not to re-introduce a Crimes Bill or to renew the Crimes Act, what would have been said from the Front Conservative Bench? Why, the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) and his Colleagues would have been going from Dan to Beersheba condemning the conduct of the wicked Government of 1885. lie represented an independent constituency, which desired that on all such subjects he should act free from mere Party views. He know it was not a popular thing for a man to stand up when a new Ministry had come into power and stand aside from his own Party.
  MR. HEALY: What have they refused you?
  MR. LEWISsaid, that those who knew him knew that ho did not attempt to curry favour with any Party, and that what his constituents expected from him and received was 1he expression of honest opinion. Unfortunately, the small minority whom he represented had nothing to thank Her Majesty's Government for. He contended that, inasmuch as the late Prime Minister expressed the opinion, when sitting on the Front Treasury Bench, that it was necessary to renew the Crimes Act, the judgment of the House should have been sought on this important question. It was the duty of the Government to face any difficulty arising out of the situation, and to propose the necessary measures—it was all that they could do—for the protection of life and property in Ireland.
  MR. LABOUCHEREremarked that misfortune made strange bedfellows. He certainly never thought that he should arrive at the same conclusion with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last; but he entirely agreed with him so far as to feel an entire want of confidence in Her Majesty's present Advisers. It was perfectly true they had arrived at that conclusion by different roads, for the hon.
  1892
  Gentleman opposite complained of (he abandonment of the Crimes Act, while he himself considered that the only bright spot in the present juncture was that they had both the present and the late Government insisting that they hated, abominated, and abhorred the hateful incidents of a Coercion Bill. He was very much surprised at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, though he had observed that whenever a Ministry came into Office, the outgoing Ministry considered it a point of etiquette to praise and laud them as much as they could. He was surprised, too when the right hon. Gentleman had said that the House had decided against his Government. The House never decided anything of the sort, though there was a sort of snap division. Some Gentlemen on that occasion had headaches, some missed their trains, and one said he was wet; but it was only by a mere accident that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian found himself in a minority. The right hon. Gentleman had said they ought to act in a conciliatory spirit, because they had consented to the arrangement which had placed hon. Gentlemen opposite in power. But he really was not aware that the House had ever had the chance of expressing its opinion on the subject. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Law-son) had moved an Amendment which he considered an excellent one. He was a Radical, and believed it to be part of the duty of a Radical Member of the House to keep hon. Gentlemen opposite out of power when they were not in power, and to turn them out when they were is. Why should they have confidence in the present Government? The country had sent a Liberal majority to Parliament at the last Election because it had no confidence in the Gentlemen who formed the present Administration. They were in power for five or six years; but during that time they committed so many mistakes that they left the country in a pretty muddle. Cries of"Oh!"] That was the opinion of the country at the last Election, or how was it that hon. Gentlemen opposite found themselves then in a minority? Why should that opinion of the country be reversed? Hon. Gentlemen opposite had never lost an opportunity of bringing forward Votes of

  1893
  Want of Confidence in the late Ministry. What did they say of things abroad? They said a little while ago, when they heard that war was not going to break out with Russia, that it was terrible news; and the present Prime Minister spoke of Russia, a country with which this country ought to endeavour to live amicably, as either a bankrupt or a swindler. [Cries of "No!"] Well, of course he spoke of it as a commercial illustration. How, then, was it possible to have confidence in these Gentlemen FO far as foreign affairs were concerned? When the late Government proposed proper and legitimate taxes hon. Gentlemen opposite, without bringing forward any counter scheme, voted against those taxes. How, then, could they have confidence in their management of internal affairs? Let them look at the composition of the Cabinet. No doubt the individuals in it were able and wise; but no less than 13 Members of the Government were Peers, or the sons of Peers. Let it go out to the country that that was the outcome of their Tory Democracy—that a simple Committee of the aristocracy, representing a majority in the House of Lords and a minority in the House of Commons, were to be the Rulers and Governors of the country for goodness knew how many months. What had hon. Gentlemen done to inspire the House with confidence during the past crisis? The first tiling they did was to quarrel among themselves, and the next episode was to attack their own Leader, and drive him into the House of Lords. They next demanded specific guarantees from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian as a condition of their taking Office. Those guarantees were not given, and yet these hon. Gentlemen were on the Treasury Bench. It was perfectly true that while Parliament was sitting the House could exercise some sort of control over the Government. The Liberal majority in the House were a Committee of Public Safety, and it was their business to see that the Government did not carry out their own political views, but those of the majority. But the proposal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the Government should have facilities fur finishing off the Session as soon as possible; but on occasions like the present the Members of the House ought to sacrifice their pleasures and sit there
  1894
  until November. For what might nottake place during the four months between August and November? During that time the Ministers in power would be absolutely without control, and he would ask reasonable men whether they ought to leave such power in the hands of men in whom they had no confidence? He did not know if his hon. Friend intended to divide the House. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: Certainly.] He was very glad to hear it, for he considered it, to be their bounden duty either at once to turn the present Government out, or at least not to give them facilities to finish the Session, and to make the interregnum as short as they possibly could, and to remain in the House as a Committee of Public Safety, and keep a watch over hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that it was not his place to answer the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). Still, he must congratulate him on his very appropriate comparison of the Opposition to a Committee of Public Safety. He rose, however, to express a free and independent opinion on the Irish policy of the Government. No one who knew him would, he thought, accuse him of having attempted to conceal his opinion of the late Government for having allowed Ireland to lapse into the state of anarchy into which it fell. He had expressed his opinion pretty freely at many meetings which he had attended in England. He was one of those who was the first to congratulate the Government, when at last they had the courage to grasp the nettle boldly; but he was never one of those who believed that Ireland could be kept in order for ever by means of drastic measures of coercion alone, or that coercion would be permanently necessary to secure peace and order in that country. He did not think he had made a single speech during the whole of the time when the matter was under discussion in which he did not express his confidence in the noble qualities of his countrymen, and his belief that after the time of excitement had passed away, and the wave of agitation had ebbed, they would be found to be as peaceable and law-abiding as any people in the United Kingdom. Whether that time had now come was, of course, a matter of opinion. He bad himself lived in one of the most disturbed districts in the

  1895
  country. During the whole of the disturbed time he and his family lived there in peace with their neighbours; they did not run away, and they had not been interfered with. They stayed at home, and spent money among the people, and he was prepared to do the same when Her Majesty's Government dropped the Coercion Act and resolved to govern the country by the ordinary law, though if anyone was to suffer in consequence he was the most likely man. He would go back, however, with an undiminished sense of security and a greater sense of enjoyment than before. He did not believe the Irish people thought the worse of him, though he did not much care whether they did or not, for having had the courage to speak out against them and their leaders when the country was in a state bordering on civil war, and he did not believe they would think the worse of him when he said he thought they might be trusted without a Coercion Act. He believed that the people were weary of outrages—that the leaders who led them on to crime had mostly left the country, and that those who remained were mistrusted, and that the people would be glad of the opportunity of living in obedience to the laws of humanity, reason, and religion. There was no doubt an undercurrent of conspiracy; but the returns of crime did not show any necessity for a drastic measure of coercion. Therefore it was that he thought the present a favourable opportunity of offering them the right of living as people ought to be allowed to live in a free country. If it should, unfortunately, be proved that he was wrong the Government could still return to the Coercion Act. Force was only necessary as a remedy where there was disease; and he did not believe in continually drenching a man who was in perfectly good health because the doctor happened to be called in.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Sir, I hope I may be permitted to say a few words before the debate closes, and they will be only a few words; for although the debate has travelled over a great deal of ground it would be unbecoming in me to follow it closely. I think that for any man undertaking an Office as arduous as my own he could find no better tonic to brace his nerves than to
  1896
  listen to criticism such as I have heard from my hon. Friend behind me the Member for Derry (Mr. Lewis). He is, it seems, rather hard to please. He is satisfied with no Government—neither the past nor the present. He joins with myself and many others in dissatisfaction with the Irish policy of the late Government. At this hour I will not discuss that policy, except to say, as I have often said, that during the disastrous time which led to the Crimes Act which has been so much discussed to-night, I am of opinion, and many of my hon. Friends beside me are of opinion, that an efficient and energetic administration of the ordinary law might have prevented the necessity for that Act. With reference to the case as it now stands, my hon. Friend the Member for Derry has brought a serious charge against the present Government. He says that they propose to take the most serious step that any Executive could take without due consideration, or without having taken due steps to investigate the facts of the ease. My hon. Friend has alluded to some journey of mine to Dublin and back, and has announced to the House of Commons that this is the hurried and scamping way in which a new Government just returned to power deals with vast and difficult problems. I am afraid he is not quite accurate as to the facts. Yesterday week I left London for Dublin, returning from Dublin on the Friday night following; and, so far from the facts urged by my hon. Friend having any semblance of truth, I am bound to tell him from the time I left England on the Monday till the time I returned on the Friday the one thing uppermost in my thoughts, and in which my investigations were steadily pursued, was the endeavour to find out the position of Ireland exactly in regard to the state of crime, and the necessity or otherwise of renewing the Crimes Act. My hon. Friend forgets that there is, at all events, a vast amount of information for any willing man with reference to the state of affairs in Ireland. I have been in daily and constant communication with a much respected Member of this House who has gone to '' another place," the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in regard to this and other matters. I also received intelligence from some of the ablest men in Ireland in reference to these matters; and it was

  1897
  after due consultation with them, and due investigation of the facts, that I, for one, came to the conclusion that it would be for the benefit of Ireland that the Crimes Act should not be renewed. My hon. Friend seems to think that we are not aware of the responsibility under which we find ourselves. I say most freely to the House that there is no man who feels the weight of responsibility more than I do. It is a great matter for any man to deal with; and with regard to Ireland, I feel that I have some special interest in the country, for it is now 30 years since I paid a visit to Ireland, and on all matters connected with Ireland I feel most strongly that if the great mass of the English people, and especially the middle classes of Englishmen, were more interested in Irish questions and took a deeper interest in the success and welfare of the country we should be able to deal with Ireland in a more practical, just, and successful manner. I do not intend to detain the House longer on this point; but there is one question referred to by the hon. Member for Derry to which I should like to allude. He compared the time when the late Government came into power in 1880 with the present time; but I contend that there is no strict comparison between 1880 and now as to the condition of Ireland. In 1880 there were, no doubt, signs of growing discontent and difficulties in Ireland. The letter of Lord Beaconsfield has been referred to; I pass it by; but I say that the state of affairs, so far as I have been able to learn them, during the past week or 10 days is entirely different from that time. Having taken the greatest pains to investigate the matter, I maintain that there is no parallel between the state of affairs now and the state of affairs in 1880. I will give a practical reason for not detaining the House longer. However anxious a man may be to fulfil the duties of the post which I have the honour to hold, he would show a want of common sense if he were to attempt to discuss the difficult and complex problems connected with the future government of Ireland. I yield to no man in this House in my honest desire and hope for a better future as to the condition of Ireland. So long as I hold this Office I shall consider it as of very little importance, almost as a drop in the ocean, what may
  1898
  happen to me or to my reputation, as to whether I am successful or not, compared with the vast and difficult problems to be solved as to the future condition and prosperity of that country.
  SIR FARRER HERSCHELLremarked that he and his hon. Friends who sat on that side of the House had been much gratified to hear the speech which had jus 'been delivered by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It had long been insisted upon by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that when the late Government took over the administration of Irish affairs, after it had been exercised for five or six years by the Government of the Earl of Beaconsfield, it was in such a condition that it was absolutely criminal for the new Government, as one of their first acts, in 1880, not to have brought in a Coercion Bill for Ireland. Since 1880 there had been five years of Office by a Liberal Government; and according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite the condition of Ireland had been so completely changed, and was so different from what it was then, that it was now positively criminal for any Government to bring in a Coercion Bill. He wished to ask the House what could be more gratifying as a contrast between five years of Tory and five years of Liberal Government? What had been the cause of that difference? The Liberal Government had introduced, during the present Parliament, not only a Coercion Bill, but remedial measures, dealing with the improvement of land tenure in Ireland. The House had been told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that those measures were of no use for the pacification of Ireland. They wore told that, although they might bring in the best Land Bill which it was possible to construct, Ireland would be as rebellious as ever, and would require repressive legislation just as much as before. Now, however, they had the confession of those who had succeeded the Liberal Government, when they came into the calm sense of responsibility, and examined into the real condition of Ireland, how mistaken they had been. How often had they heard from Members of the Conservative Party, and especially from the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, that coercion was absolutely necessary? And yet, now that a Conservative Government came to inquire into

  1899
  the real condition of Ireland, they said it was not the Prevention of Crime Act which had pacified Ireland, and that no coercion was necessary for the pacification of Ireland, but that the legislative measures which had been passed by the late Government had produced such a change in the condition of the country that no repressive legislation was now necessary. That change of view could not fail to be most gratifying to those who had always been of opinion that the best remedy for Irish wrongs was remedial legislation to remove those wrongs and to redress existing evils. Liberal Members were confirmed in their views by what had taken place that evening. They had learned that their contention was successful, and that the result of their legislation had been to render a Coercion Bill unnecessary. He would remind the House, however, that whenever Liberals pointed out that the Land Act had produced a pacifying effect they were told that the pacification was due, not to the Land Act, but to the Prevention of Crime Act. Whenever they pointed to remedial legislation as the real source of improvement in Ireland, they were told first of all by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the correctness of that contention might be doubted, and then they were told that it was not the remedial legislation, but if the Prevention of Crime Act ceased to be in force for one moment they would find out their error, and that remedial legislation would be found to have been of no use at all. They now had a recantation of that view, and it was fully admitted that remedial legislation had been-of much use after all. They welcomed hon. Members opposite as converts to 1he view that, after all, remedial legislation was the best means that could be devised for insuring the peace of Ireland.
  SIR WHITTAKER ELLISsaid, ho felt bound to join issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) in his contention that coercive measures had had nothing to do with the pacification of Ireland. It must not be forgotten that upon the accession of the late Ministry to power they declared that the warning they had received from their Predecessors was futile and unnecessary, and they proceeded at once to allow the existing Acts which had
  1900
  hitherto been of great service in controlling affairs in Ireland to lapse. But what ho wished to point out, and what he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken with so much force to recollect, was this—that in the Guildhall of the City of London the Lord Chancellor declared that law and order were to be observed, and that the Government, of which he was a Member, at once refused to enforce law and order by means of the ordinary law, in consequence of which the subsequent confusion in that country was brought about. He maintained that the late Government had been guilty of dereliction of duty in not enforcing the ordinary law, and in allowing a state of anarchy and chaos to be produced. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who had been a legal functionary of the late Government—[Cries of "Withdraw!"]—contended that it was the remedial legislation, and not coercion, which had produced a satisfactory state of affairs in Ireland. He hoped the remedial legislation would prove as effective as the hon. and learned Member seemed to anticipate; but it must not be forgotten that it was the Prevention of Crime Act which had brought about the existing state of quietude in Ireland. [A laugh] Hon. Members might laugh; but could they deny the fact? Was it not the fact that the quietude of Ireland at the present moment had been created by the measures of coercion which had been passed? He agreed in, and was prepared to accept from the Front Bench, the assurance that the worst thing which could be done for England and Ireland would be to re-enact the Coercion Bill. He had had occasion to speak many times on this question of Ireland, and hon. Members could not find a single instance in which he had not denounced that Coercion Bill. It was the most unjust and oppressive Bill ever enacted in that country. But what he maintained was that if the declaration of the Lord Chancellor on the part of the late Government had been carried out, the Common Law of Ireland would have been quite sufficient to maintain law and order. It must not be forgotten that at a time when Ireland was in a state of disorder the City of London stopped forward, and, with the assent and support of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), took

  1901
  measures with regard 1o their own tenantry in the North of Ireland, which were so successful that it was declared that it was the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London who would in future govern Ireland, arid thereupon the late Government took measures for sweeping them away altogether. The hon, and learned Gentleman opposite said it was the remedial legislation of the late Government that had brought about the pacification of Ireland. Now, what was the result of that legislation? He had had a long experience of Ireland, and it had often been said if they only got rid of the middleman Ireland would be happy. The middleman had, indeed, been got rid of; but he had been recreated in another form by the granting of leases for an indefinite term of year, and they would find the middleman stronger than ever. That was a question which had yet to be considered. He unquestionably agreed, however, with the suggestion of the Front Bench, that the Prevention of Crime Act should not be re-enacted. On the whole, he was satisfied that the ordinary law was sufficient to maintain order in Ireland, and he was full of hope that the trust reposed in their Irish fellow-countrymen by the Government would be heartily responded to. Ho was satisfied that the Irish people would decline to raise a flag of violence when they knew that the English people were prepared to received them in a full spirit of friendliness and brotherhood. For those reasons, he was satisfied that it was not necessary to proceed with the Coercion Bill; but it would be a mistake if the Irish people were allowed to believe that the Government would not be prepared to carry out in that country, most thoroughly, the Common Law which ought to govern the Three Kingdoms.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 2: Majority 149.—(Div. List, No. 211.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That the Committee of Supply have precedence this day of all other business; and that, for the remainder of the Session, including this day, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesdays, Government Orders having priority; that Government Orders have priority on Wednesdays; and that the Standing Order of the 27th November 1882, relating to Notices on going into Committee of Supply on Monday and Thursday, he extended to Tuesday and Wednesday.

SUPPLY—MARRIAGE PORTION OF HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCESS

  BEATRICE.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Sir Arthur Otway, the proposal which I have now to submit to the Committee—namely, that the sum of £30,000 he granted for the marriage portion of Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice—is not only one which is in itself in complete accordance with a considerable course of precedents, but I think it will be felt by the Committee that it is dependent on and governed by the reasons which induced the House to give its sanction, by an overwhelming majority, to the larger proposition for an annuity of £6,000 to Her Royal Highness on the auspicious occasion of her marriage. Therefore I do not propose to trouble the Committee with a repetition of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister placed before the House in making that proposition. I will only express my belief that this proposal will be received by the Committee as the necessary and customary complement of the other, and will be welcomed generally with the same cordiality with which the proposal of an annuity was received. And I may even express a hope that those hon. I Members whose feelings of duty in- this matter induced them to oppose the grant of an annuity will, en this occasion, consider that they have sufficiently protested against the principle to which they object, and that they will not now press their opposition to a division.
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the sum of £30,000 be granted to Her Majesty, for the marriage portion of Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice Marie Victoria Feodora."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR LABOUCHEREsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had employed a somewhat singular argument against any opposition to this Vote. The right hon.

  1903
  Gentleman said that he hoped those who opposed the grant of £6,000 per annum to Her Royal Highness would be content with having opposed that Vote on principle, and would not oppose this additional grant. Now, this was not only a question of principle, but also a question of finance, and it seemed to him that there was no valid reason why they should vote £30,000 to Her Royal Highness to-day because they had voted an annuity of £6,000 to Her Royal Highness a short time ago. In his opinion it was rather the reverse. When they voted the annuity of £6,000 nothing was said about a lump sum of £30,000 in the form of a dowry; and he confessed that he and other hon. Members had been under the impression, at the time the annuity was proposed, that the sole amount they would be asked to give would be £6,000 per annum, and they were, therefore, much surprised to hear afterwards that a further demand was to be made for £30,000. He thought an indication to that effect ought to have been made on the previous occasion, and he certainly did not remember that any suggestion of another grant had been made. He had opposed several of those grants to the children of Her Majesty, and he had done so because he had been told on more than one occasion that a bargain was made with Her Majesty which implied, in some sort of way, that those grants should be given to the children of Her Majesty. He had asked over and over again where he was to find any such engagement; but he had not received an answer. In point of fact, there was no such engagement at all. On the contrary, when the Civil List was voted to Her Majesty the amount was calculated to cover everything required by Her Majesty. In addition to that the sum of £60,000 a-year was voted from the Privy Purse, and a sum of £40,000 per annum was received by Her Majesty as the revenue of the Duchy of Lancaster, and there was also an unappropriated balance of about £8,000 in addition. It was obvious, therefore, that Her Majesty received a sum amounting to more than £100,000 in excess of all that was considered requisite to maintain the state of the Sovereign, and out of that sum there must have been very considerable accumulations. It was not denied by the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister,
  1904
  when he proposed the Vote of £6,000 per annum to be granted to Her Royal Highness, that Her Majesty had very large accumulations. He asked what those accumulations were? and he maintained that they ought to be applied in making provision for Her Majesty's children. Her Majesty's received the revenue of the Duchy of Lancaster and an annual sum from the Privy Purse for the very object of doing what the House was asked to do now—namely, providing for Her children. He contended that they had provided for Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice. They had given her £6,000 a-year, and it was monstrous that they should be asked to give, in addition to the sum of £6,000 a-year, a lump sum of £30,000. He did not understand what those large sums were asked for. It was stated in the public journals that Her Royal Highness and Prince Henry of Batten berg were going to live with Her Majesty, and he presumed that they would inhabit one of the Palaces which was kept up at the expense of the country, but which belonged to Her Majesty. What he objected to, therefore, was that this sum of £30,000 was intended, not only to provide for Her Royal Highness, but Her Royal Highness's husband, and to give him and his heirs a perpetual pension of £900 per annum, which was the equivalent of Consols to the amount of £30,000. He strongly objected to provide a perpetual pension to the heirs of His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Batten berg. He sincerely hoped that in this matter hon. Members would pluck up a little courage. At present Parliament appeared to be too ready to accept whatever the Ministry chose to propose. That had not always been the case. In former times Parliament had not been so subservient as they were now expected to be in matters of this kind. During the Reign of George III. there had been frequent Motions to reduce the amount of the grants proposed to be given to His Majesty's children. He thought he could remember three such Motions; but certainly two. In the first or second Parliament of the present Reign a proposal was made to give a large sum per annum to the Prince Consort; but the proposal was opposed by an independent Member who sat on the Conservative side of the House (Colonel Sibthorpe), and the reduction in amount

  1905
  which that hon. and gallant Member moved was agreed to by the House. The House of Commons in former Reigns did not consider it their duty to vote large sums of money merely because they were asked to do so by the Ministers of the day; but they looked into the matter fairly and honestly for themselves, and if they considered the sum asked for too much they refused to grant it. That was not the case now. He had opposed the grant of £6,000 per annum to Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice on the ground that the Royal Family were already amply provided for, and it was a mistake to give more. But the case against the grant now asked for was much stronger, inasmuch as they had already voted £6,000 per annum for the maintenance of Her Royal Highness; and, therefore, there was no necessity for calling upon them to vote an additional lump sum of £30,000. He had read the argument against the opposition to this grant by the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright). The right hon. Gentleman said that when they were expending millions upon war they ought not to stop at the expenditure of a few thousands for the maintenance of the Royal Family. The right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that it would be far better to put a stop to the larger expenditure of money on war instead of interfering with so small a matter as these grants to the Royal Family. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that they ought to put a stop to the expenditure upon war; but because they threw away millions upon war, that was no reason why they should throw away thousands without asking why and wherefore. He was of opinion that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman would not hold water. lie had stated that the Royal Family were amply provided for, and that the House of Commons ought not to be called upon to make any further provision for any Member of the Royal Family. What he asked now was whether the money was wanted? Had Her Majesty the means at her disposal to make provision for her children? If Her Majesty had—and ho did not think it would be denied—ample means of providing for her children out of the sum now voted by Parliament annually as provision for Her Majesty, then he
  1906
  thought this demand ought not to be made upon the House. At any rate, after voting an annuity of £0,000 they ought not to be asked to vote a lump sum of £30,000. It might be said that it was a proposal on the part of the late Government, and that he and other Liberal Members ought, therefore, to support it. But the money which had been asked for by the late Government it had been intended to meet by taxes. The present Government had refused to vote those taxes, and they were now going to undertake to borrow the money to meet the deficit in the taxation of the year. The country, consequently, was not paying its way, and under such circumstances it was undesirable to add to the deficit of the year. They had fallen into arrears, and they had a Government in Office who refused to meet the expenditure by taxation, and that Government now came forward to borrow money, not only to meet the deficit, but to meet also this sum of £30,000 as a gift to a lady to whom they all wished a happy life, but for whom there was no necessity for granting the sum now asked for. He therefore begged to move the rejection of the Vote.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERsaid, he was not aware whether the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) proposed to waste the precious time of the House for the benefit of himself and a fellow-Teller by going to a division; but he must say that the hon. Member rarely missed an opportunity of showing his dislike to the Throne and the Constitution. It would be in the recollection of many Members of the House that the hon. Member for Northampton took the chair on one occasion at a meeting which was addressed by Mr. Henry George, who passed a gross insult on our gracious Queen, which insult remained unrebuked by the chairman.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Allow me to contradict that statement. Mr. Henry George did nothing of the kind.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I rise to Order. Mr. Henry George, Sir Arthur Otway, is a gentleman with whom I am acquainted.
  THE CHAIREMAN: That is not a point of Order.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: My point of Order is this—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must call upon Sir Frederick Milner to proceed.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERsaid, that undoubtedly those discussions had had a bad effect upon certain sections of the community of the country, as was shown by certain Petitions which had been sent from certain Radical clubs to Her Majesty, praying her not to ask for a grant for Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice. He thought that Petitions of that kind were a gross outrage and insult upon the Queen, and that they ought not to pass mi-rebuked. Most people in this country would, be prepared to admit that the Royal Family was one of the least expensive in the world. No doubt the hon. Member for Northampton would be gratified if the money spent on the Royal Family could be expended in finding salaries for himself and certain other Members who sat near him for the very questionable services which they rendered to the country in that House. Such a proposition would not, however, find much support during the lifetime of the present House of Commons. lie felt certain of this—that if this question were placed before the country, it would vote by an enormous majority that this money should be given to a Royal lady who had already earned the affections of the people, and who was the daughter of a Queen who had always shown her own sympathy with the people, and who had always displayed the greatest wisdom in ruling the country in critical times. He trusted that the Committee, if the hon. Member went to a division, would, by an overwhelming majority, show what its feeling was with regard to the contentious and obstructive Amendment which had been moved.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he did not intend to detain the Committee, especially after the specimen the hon. Member for York (Sir Frederick Milner) had given of the manner in which the time of the Committee might be wasted. He thought, however, that he would be justified in making a few remarks. The hon. Member for York evidently appeared to imagine that it was his function in life to appear as the champion of the honour and dignity of everything and everybody. Only a short time ago the hon. Member, as the Committee would recollect, undertook to maintain the honour and dignity of the House of Commons, a task which the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamber-
  1908
  lain) proved very conclusively the hon. Baronet was by no means in a position to perform. To-night the hon. Member had taken on himself the duty of maintaining the dignity and honour of the Royal Family. He (Mr. Redmond) congratulated the Royal Family of England in having won to their side the services of a redoubtable champion so eminently qualified to waste the time of the Committee himself, and then to accuse other people of doing it. The hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was actuated in his opposition to this Vote by an idea that the public money might be better devoted towards paying himself and other hon. Members who agreed with him in opinion for the very questionable services they rendered to the State. Now, he (Mr. Redmond) thought it would be a very advantageous thing if it could be put forward in support of the Vote that Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice, or her husband from German)', performed any services to the country at all. As far as he was aware, they did nothing whatever to promote the interests or honour of the country; and he was certain of this fact—that the vast bulk of the people, not only of Great Britain, but of the Empire generally', were thoroughly adverse to this unnecessary squandering of the public money. The hon. Member for Northampton had spoken that night in the consistent manner which ho had always adopted in exposing the fallacies upon which public giants of this character were made. The hon. Member had pointed out that the Vote could not be supported on the ground of its necessity. In the first place, Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice had already had voted to Her by Parliament an annuity of £6,000; and, in the second place, the Princess Beatrice's Royal Mother was notoriously possessed of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000. He did not believe that Mr. Henry George, at the meeting presided over by the hon. Member for Northampton, had ever spoken in disrespectful terms of Her Majesty; but it was notorious that she was possessed of this large amount of money. It was all very well to be sentimental and superstitious about Royalty—and, undoubtedly, a great amount of sentimentality and superstition did exist about Royalty—but he did not think that

  1909
  the people of England, who sent Members there to represent them, and to take charge of the money that was levied in the shape of taxes, would he satisfied that this lady should not give to Her daughter enough to support her when she married. The Queen of this country was even described as a lady who, in every respect, and in every walk of life, was the model of a mother, as well as of a Queen. Now, what was the first duty of an honest man or woman who was a father or a mother? laugh. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would pull themselves together, and listen to what, he said, they would see that he had spoken in a perfectly correct manner. Her Majesty was supposed to be the model of what a woman ought to be. But what did the poorest mother in the country do when her child was leaving her home in order to get married? Even if she pinched herself, and stinted herself of the necessaries of life, she invariably gave to her daughter something to maintain her in her new sphere of life. Even a washerwoman gave something or other to her child under such circumstances as a dowry, and the wife of a costermonger did the same. Was it, then, to be said that the Queen of England, with her £8,000,000, failed in that duty towards her child, which the commonest of her subjects did not omit to perform, because she found it much more convenient to squeeze money out of the hard-worked people of this country? ["Order!"] He was not out of Order; and what he ventured to say was literally and accurately true. If hon. Members would be good enough to examine the state of the case, they would see that what he said was absolutely true. He desired to say nothing disrespectful or untrue in regard to Her Majesty. He merely stated that if she refused to provide her daughter's dowry, she failed in that duty which the commonest person in the Realm invariably performed. She had her £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 put by, and yet she refused to make provision for her daughter, nor would she do so as long as she could get Parliament to pay what the Chancellor of the Exchequer told than was a customary complement. He congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon having invented for the poor working people of England so nice a phrase as "customary complement" for that grant
  1910
  of £30,000; but he was very much mistaken if the time would not very soon arrive when the people of England would come to the conclusion that they could do better with their money than pay "customary complements" of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had omitted to put forward the only decent argument used by the late Prime Minister in moving the grant of an annuity of £6,000 to Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) had brought forward as his only argument—an argument by which ho (Mr. Redmond) was certainly struck at the time—that if the House consented to vote the annuity of £6,000, it would probably be the last time that such a request would ever be made in that House. That was the only decent argument that could have been put forward to justify the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman said in substance—"Pray, Gentlemen, do not discuss this proposal, for it is the last time that it will ever be made. Therefore, do not let us have a fuss about it. Let us give this to the Queen's child, and when it is all over it will never happen again." That was the only argument the late Prime Minister put forward; but it was not the argument put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He rejoiced that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had followed a consistent course. The hon. Member was unlike a good many of his Radical brethren, who went down to large centres of civilization, and talked to the Democracy about the rights of the working classes, and who, when they got elected, came to the House of Commons and seemed to care nothing whatever about the taxes which were imposed upon the people. Ho should only be glad to see mauy others of those so-called Radicals as consistent as the hon. Member for Northampton in this matter. If they were consistent, they would come forward and oppose the present Vote. The Leader of Her Majesty's Government, who had expressed an expectation that the Vote would not be opposed, would find himself very much mistaken, for a considerable number of Members, both English and Irish, would go into the Lobby against the Vote in order to place on record their opinion that grants

  1911
  of this nature were nothing more nor less than absurd superstition and humbug of the grossest kind to keep up the semblance of Royalty. He did not think that persons who voted for money being taken out of the country in this way were the true friends of Royalty; but there were many others who were doing their best to bring about the day when the people of England would arrive at the conclusion that the cost of Royalty was far too great. He should certainly vote with pleasure against this grant, and so long as he remained a Member of the House he should continue to do so.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDregretted very much that the hon. Member for York (Sir Frederick Milner) should have set the bad example, of which they had now seen the consequences, of making this proposal of a dowry to Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice a matter personal to Her Royal Highness. He would remind the Committee that the best mode of approaching the consideration of a subject of this kind was that which was suggested many years ago by one of the most Radical Members who ever sat in that House—Mr. Grote—who stated that those were not the best friends of the Monarchy who approached the consideration of a proposal of a grant of money to the Crown without thinking, in the first place, of the effect which would be produced on the minds of the taxpayers of the country. His (Mr. Arnold's) special object in rising was to make a further appeal to the right hon. Baronet, who was now the Leader of the House, in regard to a matter of very great importance which had occurred earlier in the evening at Question time. He referred to the proposal which, after due deliberation among the Members of the late Cabinet, had been made on the responsibility of the First Minister of the Crown a short time ago, and communicated to the House when the grant of an annuity to Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice was made. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. I Gladstone) said on that occasion that the Cabinet had arrived at the conclusion that early next Session they would propose the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the question of secondary provision for Members of the Royal Family. He had hoped that
  1912
  upon a plain, simple, and straightforward question of that nature, it would have been one of the first duties of a responsible Minister of the Crown to have expressed a distinct and definite opinion; and he must confess that he had been greatly disappointed with the reply which had been given by the right hon. Baronet earlier in the evening. He hoped that even now, upon a matter which would certainly affect his vote, and probably that of many other hon. Members, the right hon. Gentleman would assure the Committee that, in face of the promise which had been given—for it amounted to a promise—in regard to the future provision of Members of the Royal Family, he adhered to the wise and moderate proposal of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. The right hon. Baronet had told them that evening that he was likely to be in power in the next Parliament. He (Mr. Arnold) admitted that it was possible, and in view of that possibility he hoped the right hon. Baronet would not think him importunate if he said that it was his duty to have a distinct policy on this subject. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give some assurance to the Committee that he would adopt the course which the late Prime Minister had indicated.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I do not at all underrate the importance of the question which was raised at an earlier period of the evening; but what I do venture to say now is this—that though, no doubt, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to form a definite opinion upon a question of such importance, it is impossible to form that definite opinion until we have had time to consider it fully, and at present we naturally have a multitude of matters to occupy our attention, considering the short time we have been in Office. I would remind the hon. Member who had just spoken that the late Prime Minister did not, as far as I could gather from what fell from him, give any very definite promise. [Cries of "Yes!"] If the right hon. Gentleman gave any definite promise, it only amounted to this—that if he was at the head of the Government he would propose a Select Committee to consider the subject next Session. It will be the

  1913
  duty of the present Government to consider the matter between this time and the next Session of Parliament. I think that the hon. Member has spoken with some want of fairness with regard to the hon. Baronet the Member for York (Sir Frederick Milner) in accusing him of making this a personal question to Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice. I would venture to say, in answer to that accusation, that those who make it a personal question to Her Royal Highness are rather those who object to a grant which is proposed merely in order to place Her Royal Highness upon an equality with the other Princesses of her Family. Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 153; Noes 32: Majority 121.—(Div. List, No. 212.)

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
  (2.)£71,135, to complete the sum for Law Charges.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he rose to ask for some information with regard to the fees paid to the Attorney General and Solicitor General. The sum charged for the Law Officers of the Crown under the head of fees for non-contentious business was severally £7,000 and £6,000 per annum. He wished to ask the Attorney General what was the amount paid last year to the Attorney General and Solicitor General in respect of business that was of a contentious character; and what other fees were payable to those legal Gentlemen over and above the contentious and non-contentious business? Then there was another point on which, if possible, he desired to have some information. A very large sum was annually paid for the Public Prosecutor, and he should be glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman would state how many public prosecutions there had been during the last 12 months. Further, he would like to have some explanation of the item printed in italics—"Editor of Irish Ante Union Statutes £400"—how far the work had been carried?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he regretted that he must plead ignorance in respect of almost the whole of the questions raised by the hon, Member, a circum-
  1914
  stance due to the fact of his having for so short a time held his present Office; but he did not doubt that some other Gentleman on the Treasury Bench would be able to give the hon. Member the information he desired.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND),in answer to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Molloy), said, the Committee would probably be aware that an important change had been made with respect to the Office of Public Prosecutor, which was now merged in the Solicitor to the Treasury. Ho was unable to state how many public prosecutions had taken place within the last 12 months, but would make inquiry and communicate the result to the hon. Member. He was informed that the number of such prosecutions in the last three years was about 8,000. An increase would probably arise under the new Act of Parliament and Regulations, which would make it the duty of the authorities of police districts to furnish an account of offences committed in each district to the Public Prosecutor in order that he might decide what cases should be taken up or not, and keep some kind of chock upon the work. He was informed that the work of editing the Irish Statutes referred to by the hon. Member had been completed, and that, therefore, no change was necessary.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.)£109,135, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions, Sheriffs' Expenses, &c.
  MR. WESTsaid, he observed by the Estimate that the amount of charge for criminal prosecutions in the shape of repayments to counties and boroughs was for the forthcoming year £140,000, as against £145,000 in the year 188–. It would be extremely satisfactory to the Committee to find that there was some diminution of charge in this respect, and he might remind hon. Members that there was also a diminution of charge in the previous year 188–. He had taken the opportunity last year, when this Vote was under discussion, of calling attention to a matter connected with the Vote from a financial point of view; and he had pointed out that the cost of prosecutions at the Sessions, as compared with the cost of prosecutions at the Assizes, was about one-half. But after discussion had taken place on the

  1915
  matter he had had the advantage, by the kindness of his hon. Friend the then Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), of seeing a Return which stowed him that his own experience in this matter had led him to a wrong conclusion, and he found that the real difference was as between nearly one and three, instead of one and two, the difference between the two descriptions of trials being, of course, due to the heavy expenses at, the Assizes which did not arise at the Session0. Although it was, of course, gratifying to find that there was a diminution in the charge, ho did not think that diminution was at all proportionate to the number of cases tried this year as compared with the year before. He could not help thinking that the reason why the diminution was not very much greater arose from an evil which Her Majesty's Government might remedy—that was to say, the unfortunate practice which had lately sprung up of the Judges trying Sessional cases. The expense occasioned by that to the country was very great; and he would, with the permission of the Committee, give an instance from his own experience of what took place. The Judges, for their own convenience, went down to places and held Assizes without any regard to the public convenience at all. At the last Winter Assizes at Manchester the Judges who went there had 72 cases for trial, 56 of which were Sessions cases. That practice had been adopted to a very considerable extent. Of course it might be said that eases might be better tried by the Judges than by Recorders, and other Judges of an inferior status. But he objected to this new rule of the Judges trying all the prisoners in gaol, whether committed for trial at the Sessions or at the Assizes. He thought that another course ought to be adopted. Either the jurisdiction should be taken away from the Sessions, or the Judges should not be allowed to try this vast number of Sessi6onal cases as they did at present. He was glad that they had in the present Home Secretary a Gentleman familiar with those matters, and he was sure that they would all be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would turn his attention to this practice. Everyone connected with the Northern Circuit would recognize that the right hon. Gentleman was extremely
  1916
  well qualified to deal with it; and he trusted that he would be able to apply same remedy to an evil that was, he believed, generally admitted.
  MR. ARTHOR O'CONNORsaid, he wished briefly to point out that the delay of legal business in London was very great, in consequence of the Circuit arrangement of the Judges. He had intended to go into that matter more fully; but, understanding that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken intended to deal with it at a later stage, and feeling that the question would he better handled by him, ha should postpone the remarks he had to make upon it.
  MR. HICKSsaid, he ventured to detain the Committee for a short time while he drew attention to the Petitions presented to that House from many counties complaining not so much of Sessional cases being tried at the Assizes, but of the very great hardship which all those connected with the administration of the Criminal Law were exposed to by there being four Assizes every year, at which grand jurors, common jurors, and witnesses had to attend, although, as was very frequently the case, there were only two or three cases to be tried. He himself, last Thursday, was on the Grand Jury for the county he had the honour to represent (Cambridge), and within three days of the Assizes there were only two cases for trial; and of these two, one was a Quarter Sessions case. He considered it a very great hardship that jurors and witnesses should be called from long distances at all times of the year. He thought that a smaller number of Assizes, as was the system before the last change, would be sufficient to meet the exigencies of the Criminal Law in nearly all the counties of England.
  THE ONDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)said, that the cause of the arrangement complained of by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) was the rule under which the Judges had to try a very large number of Quarter Session prisoners. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. West), it would not be easy to remedy it without legislation.
  MR. BULWERsaid, he had not quite understood what was the precise objec-

  1917
  tion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich. His hon. and learned Friend had pointed out that the expenses of trial at the Assizes were greater than the expenses at Quarter Sessions, and he had given an instance of the Winter Assizes at Manchester, in which case the Judges, out of 72 cases for trial, had 5G Quarter Session cases; but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman below him (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) had pointed out, that was due to the Act of Parliament, which required the Judges to deliver the gaols every quarter. Everyone was aware that a trial at the Assizes cost more than a trial at Quarter Sessions, because witnesses had to remain longer in attendance, and the trials, as a rule, occupied more time. But if the present arrangement were changed, and if the Judges did not try Quarter Session cases, the result would be that the prisoners would have to remain in gaol until the next Session, and he did not know that that would be a saving to the country. He did not know how the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. West) made out his case by showing that the prisoners who were not tried at the Sessions were tried at the Assizes.
  MR. WESTsaid, he had intended to give an answer on a subsequent Vote; but, with the permission of the Committee, he would raise the question on this Vote as well as on the subsequent one. He would give an explanation of what his views were as to the existing evil and the remedy that ought to be applied to it—a remedy which ought to be applied to this evil, but which would also prove a remedy for other evils even greater than that of expense. As he had said, he had intended to wait for a subsequent Vote, but—
  THE CHAIRMAN: As the hon. and learned Member has given Notice of a Motion in reference to this subject under a subsequent Vote, it would be more in Order for him to wait for that Vote.
  MR. WEST: Certainly, Sir; I will abide by your ruling and wait for the subsequent Vote.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he should like to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) on a subject which the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Solicitor General, whom he saw in his place opposite (Sir Farrer
  1918
  Herschell), would remember was raised last year. He wished to know whether steps had been taken to insure the 1rial of all the prisoners awaiting trial when the Judge opened the Assizes in a town? He believed that the Judge had gone down to Lewes to try prisoners. Having sat several days, although there were still several prisoners untried, the Assizes were adjourned, and the remaining prisoners were sent back to gaol to be tried on a future day. It had been stated by the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James) that this state of things was going to be remedied. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would ask whether provision had been made so that when a Judge went to try prisoners at an Assize in any town he would try all who were there before going to other towns?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON GROSS): I was under the impression that a Judge was bound to try all the prisoners awaiting trial. I cannot understand how a case such as that referred to by the hon. and gallant Baronet can arise, and I will promise to make inquiries in the matter.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £291,673, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature as are not charged on the Consolidated fund."
  MR. INCEsaid, he rose to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £5,000. He did that because he took that to be, roughly—he did not pretend to have the right amount—the sum that enabled the Government to employ one of the chief clerks and his staff in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. He desired, in moving this reduction, to call attention to the unsatisfactory, and, as he thought, wasteful mode in which the business of the Chancery Division was in this respect conducted. The Committee were, no doubt, aware that the Chancery Division consisted of live Judges. All of those Judges had attached to their Courts a staff, consisting of a chief clerk and his officers. Well, the Judges had different degrees of aptitude. They were all very eminent and

  1919
  very learned men; but one Judge would, unhappily or happily, as the case might he, go through his work a great deal faster than another Judge. He (Mr. Ince) was not talking entirely without warrant. He had looked into the matter and had ascertained—and here he might say that, for obvious reasons, it was not possible for him to give names—that at a period in the present year, whilst one Judge was disposing of 11 witness cases, another had got through 30 or 40. And, so far as he could discover, the cases, which were not tried by witnesses in Court which came before those two Judges were in about the same ratio. The result of that, and other causes combined, was that in some of the Chambers of the Judges there was a large amount of work, and in others a smaller amount. This difference in the amount of work from time to time did not arise from temporary causes, and yet every Judge had precisely the same staff and precisely the same number of clerks and assistant clerks. Now, he ventured to suggest to the Committee that a much more rational and reasonable plan would be to make the chief clerks chief clerks to the Court generally without being attached to any particular Judge. In that way the business would be distributed equally amongst them; and here, again, he would give the Committee an instance to show that he was not speaking without book. Again, he would ask them to excuse him, for obvious reasons, for not mentioning names. There was lately, in one of the Courts of Chancery, a nuisance case, which, he believed, affected, in some way or other, the private residence of one of the chief clerks—at all events, he was very much interested in the case. To his (Mr. Ince's) knowledge, this hard-working gentleman contrived to be 18 days in attendance in Court in order to be present during the hearing of this case. No doubt, suitors were not damnified by this gentleman's absence from his official post. Doubtless, someone else did a little more work in order to supply the place of this chief clerk; but the moral of the thing was this—that sometimes in one Division they had too many men to do the work, whilst in another Division they had not men enough. If they equalized the work, so to speak, and appointed a certain number of clerks to the Chancery Division
  1920
  of the High Court of Justice without attaching them to individual Judges, no one would be overwhelmed with work, and no one would be underworked. They could not do that at once; but he was sure that, in course of time, they would be able to reduce the present staff. The course he suggested would enable the Government of the day to effect another and a greater improvement, which there could be no doubt, as regarded the actual trial of cases and final disposition of matters in dispute between plaintiff and defendant in each particular case, was very much delayed in Chancery. It was clear that they could not dispense with a single Judge. On the contrary, he was of opinion that they needed an additional Judge. If they adopted the course he suggested they would derive from it this advantage—that they would be able to always spare a Judge to sit in Chambers and to keep control over the officials there. This system would, furthermore, enable them to hand over to Chambers many matters now disposed of in Court—matters which now came on in the shape of motions, and which cost a vast sum of money. Those matters, instead of costing many pounds, could be settled for a few shillings. He would give an instance of what he meant. The Attorney General would, he was sure, accede to the accuracy of what he was about to say. There was a class of cases that many Members of that House were acquainted with which were known as "patent cases." When a patent case came on the first thing done was to move for an injunction. The Court invariably granted that injunction unless the patent in question was an old one, or one that could be easily established. But yet they always had, solemnly, a motion for an injunction, and on that motion a leading counsel was briefed, a junior counsel was briefed, and there was brought in a sort of expert counsel on one side which necessitated the bringing in of an expert counsel on the other side. Well, the point to be decided by all this array of legal talent was one which could be settled by two lawyer's clerks in Chambers at a cost of a few pounds. Under the present process a motion for an injunction cost something like £100 or £200. If they had a Judge constantly sitting in Chambers they might relegate to him a great

  1921
  deal of business, and thus relieve the Court of Chancery which, nine times out of ten, was occupied with interlocutory proceedings, and endeavouring to see how not to decide the matter in hand. Those cases would, by Judges being liberated from these matters, go as quickly as possible to trial by action. He commended those views to the Committee, as he believed that a vast saving might be effected in connection with Chambers and the internal arrangements of the Courts. There were many details that it would not be right for him to go into, and which he would not go into—there was a vast deal of technical matter which would have to be gone into in order to render the matter intelligible to the Committee. He would content himself with saying this—that, having taken some pains to investigate the matter, from his knowledge he could say that there was a vast amount of saving to be brought about by the system he advocated—that was to say, if the whole of the chief clerks were made one body, and Chambers were left for a particular Judge. They would improve their administration of justice by allowing one Judge to be always sitting in Chambers disposing of interlocutory matters cheaply and easily. In that way they would do that which he confessed, to his regret and shame, was greatly required in the Chancery Division—they would be expediting the hearing of cases. He moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £286,673, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Ince.)
  SIR FARRER HERSCHELLsaid, he thought it would save time if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Ince) would allow him to interpose for a minute, because the question raised was undoubtedly one of considerable importance. It was whether chief clerks should be engaged for all the Judges together, or remain, as at present, attached to particular Judges, one Judge retaining a cause with his chief clerk throughout. There was a deal to be said for his hon. and learned Friend's
  1922
  view, and there would be, in one way, a great deal of advantage in appointing chief clerks and their staffs for the whole of the Judges. But, on the other hand, there was a great deal to be said for the other system—for a Judge having the same chief clerk, who would be familiar with the business which had been brought before him, and would be able to remind him of circumstances attending cases. He (Sir Farrer Herschell) did not wish to express an opinion one way or the other; but he thought it would save time if he stated that the question had been under the consideration of a Committee appointed by the late Lord Chancellor, over which the Master of the Rolls had, for a considerable time, presided. He felt sure that the Committee would think that, until they had a Report from that Committee, they were not in a position to discuss the subject.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Amendment, as the matter was one of much difficulty, and his proposal would give rise to a good deal of confusion, and, if he did, great antagonism would be caused. He (Mr. Gregory) was not wedded to the system the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed. He thought it was more desirable to keep chief clerks in touch with the Judges to whom they belonged than to associate them with the Judges collectively. One thing which made the Court of Chancery efficient was that the Judge had control over his chief clerk, and that the suitor had ready access to him.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that, before the Vote was put to the Committee, he wished to ask whether there was any prospect of certain items, which he would mention, being either omitted or reduced? He saw, under the heading "Personal Officers of the Judges," such items as "Secretary of Presentations, £400;" "Secretary of Presentations for Expenses of Office, 3 and 4 Will. IV. c. 84, s. 4, £50;" "Secretary of Presentations for Expenses of Office of Clerk of Dispensations and Faculties, 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 84, s. 4, £50." Who were those Secretaries of Presentations—what were their functions? Then there was an item, "Pursebearer and Clerk of the Chamber, £400." Was he a necessary official—what did he do?

  1923
  There was another questionable item, "Trainbearer, £200;" another, "Messenger of the Great Seal;" and another, under the head of "Chancery Division," "Clerk of the Petty Bag." Other items were for "second-class clerks" and "third-class clerks." Surely they should have modern phraseology for appointments entailing payments of this kind. There should be something, at any rate, to account for what appeared to him to be a mass of medieval rubbish. He did not know who those appointments were reserved for—whether, for instance, such a man as the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was going to be made "Messenger of the Great Seal."
  MR. WESTsaid, he rose to move a reduction of the Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member for Hastings (Mr. Ince) has not withdrawn his Amendment.
  MR. INCEsaid, he should perhaps be voted a nuisance by the Committee if he pressed his Motion to a division. He must say, however, that he was not satisfied with the explanation that the matter was "under consideration." To his own knowledge, it had been under consideration nine months, and he did not know how much longer it was likely to remain so. The recent change which had transferred the Liberal Party to the Opposition side of the House would not tend to hasten matters, and there would doubtless now be fresh meetings of the Judges and reconsiderations. His hon. and learned Friend opposite the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) would have to be taken into counsel, and he was afraid it would be some considerable time before any result would be arrived at. If he thought he could do good thereby he should certainly go to a division. As to the statement made by an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gregory) with regard to the chief clerks being "in touch" with the Judges, he thought there was a great deal of superstition talked about that. The hon. Gentleman must remember that a Judge in Chancery had not merely one or two or a dozen cases to attend to. He had scores of cases to dispose of; and to suppose that in his leisure moments he was always thinking of the matters he had to dispose of in his Chambers, and discussing those matters with his chief clerk, was
  1924
  to suppose him to be a much more simpleminded man than one generally found by experience that he was. The active superintendance of a Judge over a particular case was one of those nonsensical ideas which were handed down from time to time, and were not worth consideration. It was absurd to suppose that the Judges were in the habit of talking over cases with their chief clerks for the purpose of refreshing their minds and keeping themselves alive as to the progress of certain cases; and even if they did that his contention was that the plan he recommended would be the better, inasmuch as a Judge would be likely to reap more advantage from having fresh minds and fresh intelligence brought to bear upon the matters he was considering. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. WESTsaid, the Vote the reduction of which he was about to propose was a comparatively new one. It was one which the Committee was not familiar with, as it had only arisen within the past few years, and he thought it required some explanation. On page 198 they would see the item, "G. Circuit Allowances and Expenses, £16,680." One part of this was new, and this year was £6,500 as against £2,500 last year, a substancial increase, which, no doubt, could be easily explained in some way or other. It was not to that part of the case which he wished to call attention. He desired to direct the attention of the Committee to this new Vote. The way it had arisen he believed to be this. No doubt, the Committee were aware that in former days the Judges were paid from the ordinary revenues of the Crown; and that in the Reign of William IV. an Act was passed fixing their salaries. Those salaries had since that time been in several instances considerably reduced; but the salaries of the ordinary puisne Judges had been fixed at £5,000, at which sum they, nominally, remained at the present time, for none of the intermediate changes which had taken place bore on the question of the salaries of what were called the puisne Judges. The salaries were fixed at that sum on the understanding that each of the Judges appointed at that time should go two Cir-

  1925
  cuits a-year and pay his own expenses out of his own pocket; and it had been calculated as a rough kind of estimate that that would cost him £500 a-year, and, therefore, that his net salary would be £4,500 a-year. After that, as many hon. Members were aware, the number of Circuits was increased from two to three, and then from three to four, in the course of the year. Then it was thought desirable that as the salaries of the Judges had been fixed on the calculation that they were only to go two Circuits a-year, their salaries were so fixed by Parliament—in 1876 he thought—as to cover the expenses they were put to in the two extra Circuits. After that the Judicature Act passed. It was considered necessary that all the Judges should go on Circuit—one or two exceptions being made with which he need not trouble the Committee. That arrangement was carried out for some time. It was found to be extremely inconvenient, however, for gentlemen of great experience at the Chancery Bar who were appointed Judges; though very good Judges for Chancery business, they were not so well able to deal with criminal matters or Nisi Prius cases, as gentlemen of experience in those branches of the Profession. It was, therefore, found to be advantageous that Common Law Judges should go on Circuit and that Equity Judges should not. Then there arose this difficulty. Common Law Judges naturally said—"It is rather hard that we should be compelled to go on Circuit and receive only £5,000, without having our expenses paid for us, whilst the Chancery Judges, who do not go on Circuit, receive the same salary—virtually £500 more than we." An arrangement was made with these Common Law Judges, the nature of which he would explain. It did not seem to occur to the Judges, when they came to consider the question of these salaries, that one way to equalize them would be to reduce the salaries of those who did not go on Circuit to £4,500 and keep the salaries of those who did at £5,000. They took the other view and said—"Do not level down, but level up, and let the Common Law Judges have the expenses of all the Circuits paid for them." He could not help thinking that that ought to have been done openly and in an Act of Parliament, if done at all. He did
  1926
  not think it consistent with the character of the Judges to make a bargain with the Secretary to the Treasury for the time being by which they obtained an addition of £500 a-year to their salaries. That, however, was what they did. Those old enough to remember Lord Denman and the Judges of his day, would not be able to understand the possibility of any of them going privately to the Government to arrange for an addition to their salaries. No doubt, in the ease he was referring to, the addition to the Vote necessary in consequence of the increase was discussed in the House of Commons; but it was not brought forward in the regular way in the form of a Bill. He thought it would have been better if the additional payment had been made on a distinct footing. An arrangement, of which he could not approve, had been made, whereby a certain sum per day was now paid to the Judges on Circuit for their expenses. He did not complain of the expenditure on the administration of justice. He did not think they should administer it too cheaply, or should attempt to administer it too cheaply; but what he did say was that he should be able to show to demonstration that the public had lost considerably in the conveniences accorded to them by the Judges in consequence of this arrangement. In the first place, it was not a dignified way to pay the Judges to pay them by the day. In the first place, it led persons of vulgar minds, who believed that Judges were liable to the same temptations as ordinary mortals, to think that they prolonged the Circuits unnecessarily. There could be no doubt, whatever the cause of it might be—and he should be corroborated on this point by Members on all sides of the House—that the Circuits had become extraordinarily prolonged since those daily allowances were given. He would give an illustration of that. When he was young, and when his two hon. and learned Friends opposite first went on Circuit, the Judges always sat at 9 o'clock in the morning. Well, he would call attention to the Assizes held at Manchester last winter—for one example was better than 1,000 general statements. The Judge there had been in the habit of sitting at half-past 10 o'clock in the morning, a circumstance which had increased the length of the

  1927
  Assizes, and had put all the parties brought together to great inconvenience. He knew very well there was an answer to that—the answer that Charles Lamb gave to his employers when he was employed by the South Sea Commissioners—he being a clerk in the office of the Commissioners. Lamb had become extremely irregular in his hours of attendance, and at last the Commissioners felt themselves bound to call upon him for an explanation. Those gentlemen liked him—as we all liked the Judges—and were reluctant to find fault with him; but his irregularities were so serious that they felt bound at last to take notice of them. They said to him—"We are obliged to complain to you about your attendance, it is so irregular; we must call your attention to it." In a way that was characteristic, he replied—"I must confess I do come down very late indeed in the morning; but, then, I always go away very early in the afternoon." The Judges had that excuse, no doubt. As they now sat later in the morning, they rose much earlier in the afternoon than they used to do formerly. Let him show the Committee how that system operated. Before he did that he would quote a great authority for the proposition he would make, which he thought should be adopted. After the Judicature Act was passed, Earl Cairns—whose loss all law reformers deeply deplored—thought that a great object would be gained if all Circuits and local sittings of Courts could be fixed at the commencement of the year, and included in a Calendar. The noble and learned Earl had been unable to carry the good object he had in view into effect. The late Government wished to carry it out, and, therefore, under several Acts of Parliament they advised Her Majesty to pass an Order in Council on the 26th of June in last year. In the observations he was about to make on that Order in Council, he did not wish it to be supposed that he thought that Order was a well-considered or a wise one. He did not think it was a good scheme, but it had become the law of the land. What did it say—and he would here, again, beg pardon of the Committee if he happened to speak of one part of the country only. He believed that other parts could be referred to, but he limited himself to that part with which he was specially
  1928
  familiar. With regard to the Order in Council of the 26th of June, he especially drew the attention of the Attorney General to the matter, because, though, he was not going to ask him to give an opinion against the Judges, he could not help thinking that they had rendered themselves liable to an indictment for breach of the Order. No doubt his hon. and learned Friend, who would defend them, would find some words at the end of the Order which would defeat any indictment which might be brought against the Judges for having violated the Order. The Order said—
  "The Assizes shall be held at Manchester and Liverpool at times to be fixed, as far as may be practicable and the business to be done may allow, according to the scheme of the second Schedule hereto attached for the Summer and Winter Assizes."
  That Schedule stated that these dates should be February 15th at Manchester and March 1st at Liverpool. There was a note at the end stating that the dates might be altered by the Judges at a meeting held for the purpose of fixing dates. He was sure his hon. and learned Friend, whose candour he relied upon, would not for a moment contend that it was for the convenience of the public that the dates of the Assizes in Manchester and Liverpool contained in the Schedule of the Order in Council were altered in the way he was about to mention. The dates were altered in direct opposition to and in violation of that Order in Council. The Judges were determined not to obey that Order in Council, which he supposed had been prepared by persons for whom they had no great respect. The Judges deliberately met together, and, instead of fixing the Assizes as they were bound to fix them according to the Order in Council, they fixed them quite differently. The consequence of that in South Lancashire was that the public experienced very great inconvenience. The public naturally assumed, in the absence of any reason to the contrary, that the Assizes would be held in accordance with the Order in Council—would be held on the days appointed in that Order. He (Mr. West) himself, even with his experience of Judges and the law, had certainly thought that on the first occasion on which the new law came into operation it would be obeyed by their Lordships. He had the honour

  1929
  of holding several Courts of some importance in Lancashire, and he had fixed the dates of his sittings in accordance with the Order in Council. He was sorry to detain the Committee, hut this was really a most important matter as affecting the administration of justice throughout Lancashire. On the 22nd of December—and he hoped hon. Gentlemen would mark the date—there appeared in the newspapers an announcement to the effect that the Judges had decided to hold Assizes at Manchester on the 24th of January—in direct violation not only of the words of the Order in Council, but of the meaning of that Order, which was that the Judges who went on the Northern Circuits should not start until the other Judges had finished their Circuits, so that the whole of the Judges might not be away from London at the same time. What was the consequence? Why, as everyone familiar with the matter was aware, the 22nd of December, the date on which the announcement appeared, was on the eve of the Christmas holidays. How was it possible that people could be ready to go on with cases on the 24th of January? He ought to add that his Court was appointed to be held on the 9th of February, in order to enable the Judges to hold their Assizes, which should have been held on the 15th of February, and so have enabled him to clear the gaol for the prisoners who came to be tried before the Judges. As it was, he had been unable to clear his Court. When the Judges came down, only 56 out of a total of 72 prisoners had been tried, and the Judges managed to spin the period of their stay to over a fortnight. Naturally enough, that circumstance excited a considerable amount of attention and discussion in Lancashire, and he was given to understand that it had been alleged by someone in defence of the Judges that they had acted for the convenience of the public, and not for their own convenience. For that reason he had taken the trouble to investigate the matter. The Judges who thus altered the law and made this change would, one would have thought, have consulted some person capable of giving an opinion on the question of public convenience. As he said, he had made inquiries on this head, and he had been informed that the Chairman of Quarter Sessions in Lancashire
  1930
  was never consulted, nor was the Recorder of Liverpool. He (Mr. West), holding two Courts in Manchester, was never consulted, and the Mayor of Manchester was never consulted. He understood that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) was consulted, as well as another gentleman, but their advice was not taken. So far as he could learn, that was all the consultation which took place. More than that, the Assizes sat on Saturday, and the Grand Jury and the Petty Jury being summoned on that day enormous inconvenience was occasioned to the public. All that inconvenience, so far as he knew, was wholly and solely occasioned out of consideration for the convenience of particular Judges. He hoped that in making those observations it would not be supposed that he was referring to all the Judges. He was very much obliged to the Committee for allowing him to address them at such great length; but he did think that there were no more ill-used people in the country than the unfortunate litigants. They never knew when the Assizes were coming on, or when they were likely to be called upon to try their cases. He considered that to be an injustice, and he hoped that a settlement would be arrived at some way or other. He was quite sure that if the Judges were not paid those large sums for Circuit expenses, and were not paid at all unless they fixed the Circuit to suit the convenience of the public rather than their own personal convenience, much good would come of it. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £4,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £287,673, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. West.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not think that any useful purpose would be served, certainly at that time, if they followed his hon. and learned Friend through all the various matters he had gone into. The hon. and learned Gentleman was no doubt aware that, as far as the system which he had complained of was in force, it was in consequence

  1931
  of the Treasury Minute of June, 1884, and he could not think that that Minute was made without due consideration. The present occasion was not the time to go into the general question as to the grounds upon which the Minute was made. With respect to the particular transactions of last February, to which his hon. and learned Friend had referred, he did not think there was any real grievance to complain of. He had no doubt that after consultation amongst the Judges it was found necessary to fix certain days, and that that was done to the best of their ability and with a view to the convenience of all parties. He did not think, therefore, that attacks should be made on Her Majesty's Judges or on a particular Judge, in this manner, for having made certain fixtures, or that it should be suggested that the arrangements were made solely with a view to the personal convenience of any Judge.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, if that was not a proper occasion to bring on a matter of this sort he did not know what was. All those Rules and Regulations for the guidance of the Judges were based on Treasury Minutes. The hon. and learned Member seemed to think that the salaries of the Judges should be cut down; but he (Mr. A. O'Connor) did not think so at all. He did not consider that the Judges were too highly paid when the nature and the importance of the offices they filled were taken into consideration. For instance, an Attorney General received more than the Judges, and a minor Secretary of State got as much as any of them. Some time ago, Mr. Digby Seymour proposed in the country a system which seemed to him to be a very reasonable one. He proposed that the country should be divided into districts, and that a Recorder, with similar powers as those possessed by the Recorder of London, should be appointed over each district, thus saving the expense and inconvenience of the periodical departure of the Judges into the country. By that means the Judges would get rid of those small cases for which at present the suitors at the Law Courts suffered. Under the present system, it was impossible also for a suitor to know when his case was coming on. If anyone looked at the list, they would see that there was a miscellaneous sort of business before
  1932
  each Judge which went on each week. On one day there would be petitions, on another cases with juries or cases without juries. Then, again, it sometimes happened that 50 witness cases were transferred from one Judge to another, and later on they were transferred back again to the first Judge. By that process it might occasionally happen that cases which stood very low down on the list, came on first, in consequence of those cases which were before them having been transferred. He knew of one particular case in which a cause was listed and transferred backwards and forwards in that way for many months. The grievance was that the amount of expense which suitors were put to by those delays was out of all proportion to the interest involved. Under the present system, moreover, great expense was caused in regard to motions. As the senior members of the Bar had certain rights of priority in bringing on motions, younger men had no chance, and the consequence was that the whole of the work came into the hands of a few men, and ridiculously high expenses were charged for the simplest matters. If each Judge took motions every day for a certain time, that absurd custom would be got rid of, and those eminent lawyers would be able to be occupying their time with work more worthy of them. Last year the then Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had promised him to make inquiries into the delay which occurred in the Taxing Office; but he was not aware if anything had been done in the matter.
  SIR FARRER HERSCHELLsaid, an extra Taxing Master had been added to the Office.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked that, however that was, nothing seemed to have resulted from the additional appointment, and the delay was the cause of much expense and annoyance to solicitors.
  SIR FARRER HERSCHELLthought it only right, after the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved the reduction (Mr. West), that he should make a few remarks as to the departure from the scheme regulating the days of the departure of the Judges for Circuit. On the whole, the regulation had worked well; but it was only meant as a temporary arrangement, and not intended to be a cast-iron rule. It was not in-

  1933
  tended to fix absolutely the dates at which the Judges should go on Circuit, but to fix dates which would indicate the period about which they would take their departure. When the Rule was made, he knew that there were a great many complaints from the members of the Circuit which included Liverpool and Manchester, and with whom he had come in contact. It was in consequence of the difficulties of the work in London that it was thought well to depart from the scheme in some cases. The scheme was really departed from because it was believed that the work could be done very much better by such departure, and not for the convenience of the Judges, as his hon. and learned Friend seemed to believe. Any one day might have been altered for the convenience of an individual Judge; but the alteration in the scheme was certainly not done by one Judge, but with the consent of all the Judges, and it was acquiesced in by the Lord Chancellor. If they were to propose legislation on the subject, they would be met by all sorts of difficulties, and possibly those gentlemen who now complained would be loudest in their criticisms. In the meantime, until they could get a Bill through Parliament, no better arrangement could be made than that which had been made.
  MR. WESTentirely agreed with what had fallen from the late Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell); but his point was this, that this Order ought to be adhered to, or repealed if it was not of any use, and not absolutely set at defiance as it was. With regard to legislation, he did not think that any was necessary for it, for if another Order in Council, properly drawn up and considered, were issued, all the difficulties would be got rid of. He was much obliged to the Committee for having listened to him. He did not desire to detain them further, and would not put them to the trouble of a division. He wished to withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had pointed to several sinecures included in this Vote, on which he hoped to receive some explanation from the Government. He asked the Attorney General whether he would do
  1934
  his best to suppress the offices to which his hon. Friend had alluded—namely, that of Trainbearer, Pursebearer, and Clerk of the Petty Bag? It was all the more essential that that should be done now, because they had a new Lord Chancellor who would probably be enjoying a pension of £5,000 per annum after the next three months. He did not ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain to the Committee what a trainbearer was, but only that he would look into the matter in order to see what offices of that kind could be suppressed. Then there was the charge of £225 for the Preacher of the Rolls Chapel. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman say who the preacher was; whether he preached to the Master of the Rolls, and why they were called on to pay for these religious duties in connection with the Master of the Rolls? Then there was the Clerk of the Petty Bag. It was thoroughly admitted that that clerk had nothing to do, and that he would disappear from the Estimates; but instead of that, it appeared that the charge had increased. Perhaps the Attorney General would excuse him for saying that "a new broom sweeps clean," and for again expressing the hope that he would sweep away some of the sinecures in those Offices.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.
  MR. SEXTONrose to Order. He understood the Clerk to read the third Order of the Day, the second Order not having been disposed of.
  MR. SPEAKER: In consequence of the Resolution passed this evening, the third Order has precedence, and the remaining Orders follow in their proper sequence.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [6th July] reported.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he should like to have some information with regard to the Secret Service money. He pointed out that there was no audit in respect of the Vote from the Consolidated Fund. The balance of that money that was not used was surrendered; but although for many years the Secretary of the Treasury had been drawing these £10,000 on his receipt,

  1935
  he had never rendered any accounts. It appeared, therefore, that there was probably a large amount of unexpended Secret Service money in the hands of the Treasury; what the amount was, of course, none but the authorities could tell. But the balance had to be surrendered when a Government went out of Office, and he presumed that the present Secretary to the Treasury would be able to inform the Committee what was the amount at present in the hands of the Treasury. He did not ask for a scrap of information as to what was done with the money which was handed over to the Department for application. In the old days it was used for the purposes of corruption; but it was, of course, impossible to suppose that anything of the kind took place now. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury to say whether there was any reason why he should not state what was the amount of the unexpended balance at present in the hands of the Treasury?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)said, the hon. Member was probably aware that the subject was before the Public Accounts Committee, one of the points which they had to consider being whether there should be an audit, and to what extent, of this £10,000. It was, of course, impossible that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be made acquainted with the details of the expenditure of the Secret Service money; it stood to reason that if he were it would no longer be Secret Service money; and it was, therefore, only a question what was the nature of the voucher with which the Comptroller and Auditor General should be satisfied under the Exchequer and Audit Act.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORexplained that he did not ask for any information with regard to the expenditure of this money. But the Public Accounts Committee had reported last year that the amount received by the Patronage Secretary was not audited at all. His question did not, however, refer to that, but to the amount of unexpended money in the hands of the Treasury. Did it, or did it not, amount to the sum of about £140,000?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: That is, of course, a question which I am unable to answer.
  Resolutions agreed to.

BEER ADULTERATION BILL.— [BILL 14.]
(Mr. Storer, Mr. Hicks, Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
BEER ADULTERATION BILL.— [BILL 14.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. STORER,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was a very short Bill, but it had excited approval in many parts of the country. It proposed to remedy a grievance which had been long felt by the consumers of beer. He need not say that it was a very important measure, inasmuch as beer had been held by no less an authority than the late Prime Minister to be a necessary of life to the working man. No doubt, brewing of beer had not increased at all of late years; but in spite of the efforts of toototallers, beer still held its own. In the opinion of the great majority of the people of the country—[Cries of "Move!"] He merely wished that some little reason should be given why the Bill should be read a second time. The Bill provided that persons who sold beer brewed from or containing any ingredients other than hops and malt from barley, should show that the beer was so brewed, and that in default of giving such notice they should be subjected to certain fines. Some of the ingredients now used made very inferior beer, and it was to prevent adulteration that this Bill was introduced.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Storer.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Bill at that time. He sympathized with the object the hon. Gentleman had in view, which was to prevent the adulteration of beer; but the Bill appeared to go on the assumption that beer which was composed of other materials than hops and malt was necessarily adulterated. Different opinions were held on the point, and he believed that by an existing Act of Parliament the use of sugar in the brewing of beer was already allowed. Moreover, it was not possible by any test known at present to detect whether sugar had or had not been used in the production of beer. He thought that those facts would cause his hon. Friend

  1937
  to pause before he asked the House to accept the second reading of the Bill. Besides, the subject was one of a controversial character, and therefore it was questionable whether it should be considered at that time of the morning (1.45).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORmoved that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  MR. HICKSsaid, he thought he could adduce reasons why the debate should not be adjourned. The question had been before the House and the country for some time; it had arisen in consequence of the action taken by the late Prime Minister in the year 1880 in changing the Malt Duty into a Beer Duty. It was perfectly true, as was said by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour), that sugar had been allowed to be used in the production of beer.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate, and therefore the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to discuss the Main Question.
  MR. HICKSsaid, he was endeavouring to show the House that in consequence of the importance of the subject it was desirable that the debate should be continued; but, if he was not allowed to do that, he could only say, representing, as he did, a large agricultural constituency, and knowing how very much that interest suffered by the very Bill which was professedly brought in for its benefit—for the price of barley had fallen 3s. to 4s. a-quarter in consequence of that Bill—he hoped the Government would undertake to consider the question most seriously during the Recess, and at the beginning of the next Parliament to bring in a Bill of their own to relieve the agricultural interest from the great injury which had been inflicted upon them, and to protect the consumers of beer from having deleterious compounds imposed upon them.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARDsaid, that as he gathered that his hon. Friend (Mr. Storer) was quite ready to drop the Bill if the Government would promise to consider the question, and if they would bring in a measure of their own, he
  1938
  thought the best course to pursue would be to give such a promise.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Original Question again proposed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Bill withdrawn.

MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 130.]
[Dr. Lyons.)
MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 130.]

  SECOND READING. [ADJOURENED DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [30th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate returned.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that on the 30th of April the Bill came on at a very late hour of the morning, and hon. Members manfully endeavoured to get an explanation from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons). The hon. Gentleman, who was in charge of the Bill, was totally unable to afford the explanation desired, and that led certain Members to oppose the measure. At that period of the Session, and in consequence of the understanding that no contentious Business was to be taken, he hoped the Government would not give any support to the Bill. He begged to move that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Healy.)
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET)said, that the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) made some observations in moving the second reading of the Bill on the 30th of April, and therefore the hon. Gentle man could not, on the present occasion, give the explanation which was very naturally desired by the House. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) would allow him (Mr. Plunket) to explain, in a very few words, what the nature of the Bill was. He was not—
  MR. SEXTONasked if it was competent for the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) to explain the Bill on a Motion for the adjournment of the debate?
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must address himself to the Question of adjournment.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKSsaid, that he did not desire to speak as a Member of the Government, but as a Member of the House who was interested in this very simple Bill. He thought he could explain the object of the Bill in two minutes. It was not a Bill of any great importance except to the people concerned, and therefore he hoped the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy) would not press his Motion.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he had no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's powers of explanation were exceptional. However, the Bill was not so simple as seemed to be imagined. The only reason why hon. Members had assented, to sitting till that late hour (1.50) was that the Business to be taken was urgent. He trusted there would be no further opposition to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, because it was quite clear that at that hour of the morning there could be no satisfactory discussion of the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate farther adjourned till Thursday.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (TRANSFER OF REGISTRY, &c.) BILL— [BILL 179.]
(Mr. Holms, Mr. Chamberlain.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING (TRANSFER OF REGISTRY, &c.) BILL— [BILL 179.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short title and construction).
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, he should like to have some explanation of the Bill. It seemed a very simple measure, providing merely for the transfer to the Board of Trade the registry of shipping. But he thought the general feeling was that the Board of Trade had already more than they could manage, and therefore he did not know why it was proposed to transfer to that Board from the Customs the registry of shipping. So far as he knew, the present system had given satisfaction to the mercantile community, and therefore he should like to hear why that change was proposed?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, it had been found that the present system did not work satisfactorily; and, therefore, in order to simplify the regis-
  1940
  tration of shipping, it was proposed by this very short Bill that in future the Board of Trade should be alone responsible for the registration. The Bill was brought in by the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain); it passed the second reading without opposition; and he (Baron Henry De Worms) trusted that it would not now be opposed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not think the hon. Gentleman was quite right when he said that the Bill passed the second reading without any opposition. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) had some recollection of having objected to it himself. The fact was this Bill extended to Ireland a jurisdiction which did not at present exist. The Board of Trade was in Ireland only concerned with the Irish Board of Lights; but this Bill would introduce the Board of Trade into Ireland in a very different character. The people of Ireland had not a very satisfactory experience of the Board of Trade; and they had, therefore, no reason to desire an extension of the Board's authority to the other side of the water. It had not by any means been proved that the Bill was likely to improve matters even with respect to England. Seeing that in Ireland there was now a tendency to decentralize matters, it seemed to be a rather backward step to propose legislation which would centralize matters still; more, at any rate in one respect. Would the Government consent to the limitation of the Bill to Great Britain, leaving matters in Ireland as at present?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)thought that, under the circumstances, the better plan would be to report Progress.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

TITHE RENT CHARGE REDEMPTION BILL.— [BILL 181.]
(Mr. Sampson Lloyd, Mr. Cubitt, Mr. Monk, Mr. Vivian.)
TITHE RENT CHARGE REDEMPTION BILL.— [BILL 181.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDsaid, he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time. By existing Act a of Parliament permissive power

  1941
  was given to the owners of certain lands to redeem tithes. The object of this Bill was to extend the permissive power to redeem tithes to all those lands which were excluded from the operation of the existing Acts. The thing was purely permissive in its character; and if it was right to give the privilege of redeeming tithes to one person, there was no reason, he submitted, why it should not be given to another person. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now road a second time,"—(Mr. Sampson Lloyd,)—put, and agreed to.
  Bill committed for To-morrow.

RIVER THAMES (No.2) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 203.]
Mr. Story-Maskelyne, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Elton, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Sellar, Colonel Makins, Mr. Molloy.)
RIVER THAMES (No.2) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 203.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Provision for preventing annoyance to riparian owners).
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNEproposed to omit the words "thirty days," in line 37, and insert "forty-eight hours."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 37, to leave out the words "thirty days," and insert the words "forty-eight hours."—(Mr. Story-Maskelyne.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there was a great difference between 30 days and 48 hours. He did not know whether there was any objection to the adoption of the Amendment, but he should certainly like a definition of a "pleasure ground." According to the Bill, a steamer or house-boat could not anchor off a pleasure ground or garden for 30 days; consequently, a pleasure ground was not a garden. What was it? Perhaps there was some legal Gentleman present who could tell the Committee specially what a pleasure ground was. A pleasure ground might be a park—something between a park and a garden.
  1942
  If a park were included in the words "pleasure ground," the house might be half-a-mile or a mile from the river, and therefore it would be a monstrous thing if the owner of a park were to have the power to prevent a houseboat anchoring for more than 48 hours outside his property.
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNEsaid, that the terms used in the Bill were legal terms. They were introduced in Committee by hon. Gentlemen of considerable legal eminence. The words "pleasure ground" were intended to include the ground around the house in which, for instance, there might be paths, but not flowers grown. They were not meant to include the whole of the ground which might be occupied by the riparian owner, such as a park or pasture ground, but merely the ground within the immediate neighbourhood of the house used, say, for purposes of recreation. He thought the words as they stood would be quite safe as excluding the idea of a park, which his hon. Friend was afraid would be included in the clause. The words in the clause had been very carefully considered in the House, especially by hon. Gentlemen who represented the riparian owners. He hoped, therefore, hon. Gentlemen would accept the Amendment.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there was one important point. The hon. Gentleman had said that the Committee was composed of lawyers, and that they understood what was a pleasure ground; but the hon. Member had not shown what it was to the House. The hon. Member said also that the riparian owners were satisfied, and that might be so; but there were many others to be satisfied besides the riparian owners. If the hon. Member did not alter the phraseology of the clause, he (Mr. Labouchere) should move to leave out the words "pleasure ground."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would suggest to the hon. Member who had just spoken, and also to the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill and moved the Amendment, that perhaps the best course would be to leave the words "pleasure ground" in, and to substitute "a week" for "forty-eight hours." He thought that, from the evidence given before the Committee by those who had considered the Bill, it would be well not to exclude "pleasure

  1943
  grounds." The reasons given for these words were very strong. The period of 48 hours would be a very short time, and he would suggest to substitute for it "a week."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that he is not able to move to omit the words "pleasure ground," as that would be going back.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he understood the point of the right hon. Gentleman's observation. He should be willing to assent to "a week" being adopted in place of "forty-eight hours." If the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would agree to that he would not move to exclude the words "pleasure ground."
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNEsaid, that if other hon. Gentlemen did not object, he would withdraw his Amendment and propose "a week," instead of "thirty days."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 37, to leave out the word "thirty," and insert the word "seven."—(Mr. Story-Maskelyne.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MOTIONS.
  BANKRUPTCY (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Bill to enable the Treasury to provide, out of surplus funds arising under "The Bankruptcy Act, 1883," Office Accommodation for officers appointed under, the said Act, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY HOLLAND and Baron HENRY DR WORMS.
  POLEHAMPTON ESTATES BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Bill to provide for the application to charitable purposes of such portion of the property subject to the will of Edward Polehampton as is now vested in the Crown, and for the management and application of the said property, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY HOLLAND and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  ARTILLERY AND RIFLE RANGES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary SMITH, Bill to provide for the regulation of land held by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State or a Volunteer Corps for an Artillery or Rifle Range, or a School of Gunnery or like purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary SMITH and Mr. GUY DAWNAY.
  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR BALEOUR, Bill to continue certain Turnpike Acts, and to repeal certain other Turnpike Acts, and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR and Mr. STUART-WORTLEY.
  POOR LAW UNIONS' OFFICERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE, Bill for enabling allowances to be made to the Officers of Poor Law Unions in Ireland on abolition of office, ordered to be brought in by Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
PLURALITIES BILL.

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. ACLAND be nominated a Member of the Select Committee on the Pluralities Bill."—(Mr. Acland.)
  MR. ILLINGWORTHventured to make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill that he would not attempt to proceed with it at that hour of the morning. It had been an understanding that contentious Bills, especially those connected with ecclesiastical matters, should be dropped for the remainder of the Session. There were objections to the proposal now made generally; but he (Mr. Illingworth) went beyond that and objected to the scheme which the hon. Gentleman had embodied in the Bill he called the Pluralities Bill. The question was brought forward at an untimely hour; it was an important question, and he would venture to move that the Committee be nominated on that day six weeks. He would point out that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had shown very scant courtesy to a great number of Members in the House by the particular form of Committee he

  1945
  proposed. The hon. Member had violated a sound Rule laid down for the setting up of Committees. What was it he proposed? Why, to make very important changes in connection with one of their great National Institutions; and, under the circumstances, he (Mr. Ming-worth) wished to ask why any class of Members in the House was to be excluded from the Committee? Every hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member had selected to be put on the Committee was an adherent of the Church of England. The hon. Member might say, as many others said, that when the subject to be inquired into was something affecting the management of the Church of England, Nonconformists had nothing to do with it; but he objected to such a doctrine being adopted by Members of that House. Take the case of Wales, for instance. The Church of England affected that country in every corner; but was it to be expected that 29 out of 30 Members of the Principality were to be excluded from the Committee, and one put on it who happened to be the minority Member for Wales? From that sole illustration, it would be seen that it would be an unseemly thing at that period of the Session—just on the close of the Business, and under very changed circumstances from those attending the commencement—to be asked to proceed with the Bill. Then, he would ask, how was it that English Nonconformists were not to be on the Committee? Were they to take it for granted that the Church was a National Institution when they saw that when anything affecting it was brought in a large class in the House and the country were told that they had nothing to do with it? He maintained that so long as the Church of England was a National Institution it was a gross injustice and very offensive to exclude from a Parliamentary Inquiry one class of Representatives of Her Majesty's subjects. Therefore, on the question of the character of the Committee which his hon. Friend had set up, he thought the hon. Member would be well advised in withdrawing the Committee for the present time, and resolving upon dealing with it in the new Parliament on different lines. But he (Mr. Illingworth) would go very much further than that. ["Divide!"] If he could only be sure that his hon. Friend would respond to the
  1946
  appeal he (Mr. Illingworth) was making, he should be satisfied, and would not go on further. When they had agreed that all contentious Business should be abandoned for the rest of the Session, the Bill of his hon. Friend should not be made an exception to the rule. He begged to move that the Select Committee be nominated that day six weeks.
  MR. SPEAKER: The course the hon. Gentleman probably proposes to take is to move the adjournment of the debate. The Question before the House is that Mr. Acland be a Member of the Committee.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: Yes, Sir; I will move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Illingworth.)
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he was very loth to take up the time of the House at that hour of the morning (2.20 A.M.). He would, however, remind his hon. Friend that the Bill had been read a second time after some discussion in the House. The hon. Gentleman was not present on that occasion; but Notice of opposition was given by one or two hon. Members below the Gangway who agreed very much with his hon. Friend's views. He (Mr. Acland) had invited one of them to become a Member of the Committee, but he had declined. He should be very glad, and he knew that those interested in the Bill would be very glad, to add to the Committee any names that his hon. Friend might wish to add; but after having had a second reading without a division, he thought it would be extremely unfair to those who were interested in the measure if they did not proceed with the proposal before the Committee.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  MR.ILLINGWORTH: The "Noes" have it.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is too late. He will have an opportunity of taking a division on the next name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Lord EDWARD CAVENDISH be nominated one other Member of the Committee."—(Mr. Acland.)
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Illingworth.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 35: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 213.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Metropolis Management Acts Amendment* (162).
Committee—Report—Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment* (128).
Report—Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (136); Water Provisional Orders* (137); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 1)* (149); Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Birmingham, &c.) * (80).
Third Reading—Commons Regulation (Ashdown Forest) Provisional Order * (141); Commons Regulation (Drnmburgh) Provisional Order* (142); Commons Inclosure (Llanybyther) Provisional Order * (143); Local Government (Gas) Provisional Orders* (144); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 4)* (145); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (146); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5)* (152).

NEW PEERS.
Edward Charles Baring, Esquire, having been created Baron Revelstoke of Membland in the County of Devon—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Right Honourable Sir Robert Porrett Collier, Knight, a Member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, having been created Baron Monkswell of Monkswell in the county of Devon—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Sir Ralph Robert Wheeler Lingen, K.C.B., having been created Baron Lingen of Lingen in the county of Hereford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

REGENT'S CANAL, CITY, AND DOCKS RAILWAY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª."
  THE EARL OE RAVENSWORTH,in rising to move that in respect of this Bill the Standing Order No. 128 be suspended, said, at the outset he desired to state clearly that ho did not intend to call in question the value of that Standing Order. He believed, indeed, that it contained a most salutary principle, and that it was a considerable check on reckless railway speculation. It had been in operation for 36 years, and had been of great benefit to the country. He wished, however, in passing to observe that it was not quite equal in its operation as between the old Companies and the new Companies that desired to raise funds. All he intended to do by his present Motion was to ask their Lordships to take an exceptional view of the scheme contained in the Bill now before their Lordships, and he urged that exception on the ground of the vast interests, national, commercial, social, and financial, which were involved in it. The total share capital under the borrowing powers conferred by the Act of 1883 was, in round numbers, £10,500,000, which showed the greatness of the financial interests concerned. As a national and commercial undertaking the railway would be of vast importance; and it was also a very large scheme of Metropolitan improvement. On these two grounds he thought it was justifiable to ask their Lordships to take an exceptional view in regard to the prohibition contained in the Standing Order No. 128. This Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, and on the 1st of May, in spite of a strenuous opposition, the second reading was carried by 187 votes against 117. It then received a searching investigation at the hands of a Select Committee, which reported unanimously in favour of it. He now wished to describe the unsatisfactory position arising from a discrepancy in the procedure of the two Houses in the matter of the prohibition of the payment of interest out of capital. At the instance of the Chairman of Committees, the other House amended its Standing Order No. 167 relating to this question by adding these words:—
  "And except such interest, if any, as the Committee on the Bill may, according to the circumstances of the case, think fit to allow,"

  1795
  So important was this alteration that the noble Earl at the Table felt it his duty to call the attention of that House to it on June 26, 1883. A debate ensued, and the noble Earl ended by moving to alter the Standing Order of their Lordships' House. That Motion was negatived, and an Amendment moved by a noble Lord opposite (Lord Auckland) to the effect that it was inexpedient to modify the Standing Order was withdrawn. The result was that the question remained in statu quo, and he thought that was rather an inconvenient position for so important a question to remain in. He would now state why he thought this great national scheme was entitled to be dealt with exceptionally. The proposed line would follow almost exactly the present course of the Regent's Canal, with one or two divergencies at the City end. It would be, in fact, a continuation of the Great Western Railway as far as the Victoria and Albert Docks, and the Midland and the Great Northern Railways would also obtain direct access to those docks. Those docks contained an area of 192 acres and had 40 miles of railway siding and tramway lines, while they afforded accommodation in 1881 for 6,367 ships, having a total tonnage of 2,569,000 tons. This accommodation was increasing and improving every day. One very important advantage that would result from this scheme would be that the Welsh smokeless steam coal would be brought to the steamers without transhipment, whereby great loss by breakage would be prevented, and the efficiency of the Mercantile Navy would be largely increased. The scheme would also involve a cheap railway service for the working men, who would be conveyed at the rate of one farthing per mile—one penny for four miles from the East and North of London Westward, where there were many admirable sites for the erection of workmen's dwellings. The line, in consequence of its proximity to the Canal, could be constructed at a comparatively cheap rate, and it would interfere in a very slight degree with house property, streets, or roadways, or with the mysterious underground system of gas mains, sewers, and water pipes. The strongest argument in favour of the Bill was that there was practically no opposition to it, Petitions having been signed in its favour
  1796
  by representatives of a population of 1,092,148. He had taken up this as a national and a commercial question, and he appealed to their Lordships not to allow artificial barriers to stand in the way of carrying on such a scheme as this. It might be asked, why could not the promoters find the money? The answer simply was, because they could not. He had no hesitation in asking the House to assent to his Motion.
  Moved, "That Standing Order No. 128 (which prohibits the payment of interest out of capital) be dispensed with."—(The Earl of Ravensworth.)
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he must make an earnest appeal in opposition to the Motion of his noble Friend (the Earl of Ravensworth), and he hoped that appeal would be the more forcible because it should be conveyed to their Lordships in a few sentences. His noble Friend desired to suspend a Standing Order which had been framed and supported by a great a weight of authority for one special object—namely, to secure, as far as possible, that commercial undertakings of this kind should be conducted upon sound financial principles. What his noble Friend and the promoters of this Bill wished was this—that if an undertaking was estimated to cost £80,000, Parliament should be asked to sanction the raising, not of £80,000, but of £100,000, in order that the odd £20,000 might be paid back to the subscribers in the shape of interest during the time of construction. But, surely, it was far better for those subscribers that their £20,000 should remain in their pockets from the first, instead of being paid back to them in driblets as interest, and the fair, open way was to ask only for the £80,000 which the work would actually require. There was one sure test of the necessity of the proposed alteration—namely, had legitimate enterprize been retarded or prevented in consequence of the existing Standing Order? Certainly not. During the last 40 years the capital spent upon railroads had risen from £200,000,000 to £750,000,000, and during the last 10 years there had been an average annual sum of from £18,000,000 to £20,000,000 expended upon railway construction. It was clear, therefore, that there was not the necessity for altering their Rule. His (Lord Brabourne's) noble Friend

  1797
  had dwelt at length upon the importance of the proposed scheme. But the more important it was, the more national its object, the more certain was it that it would attract the notice of the investing public; and if the promoters had been unable to obtain their money, it must be because investors—who could scrutinize these matters more closely than their Lordships could do in debate—saw something faulty or doubtful in the scheme, or distrusted its management. He (Lord Brabourne) spoke of investors who were able to look into and understand these matters; but there were a large class of investors who came within a different category, and who would be attracted by the assurance of 4 or 5 per cent during construction, and could not understand the unusual finance by which that would be paid out of their own money. It was for the protection of this class that the Standing Order operated, and it was universally admitted to be based upon a sound and salutary principle. His noble Friend spoke of old lines being placed by the law under more favourable conditions than new lines for raising capital. But ought it not to be so? Was it not reasonable that an old line, which had established itself, was in working order, and had conferred benefit upon the public, should be allowed facilities which it might not be well to give to a new line which had not yet proved that it was required to satisfy a public want, and might turn out to be altogether a failure? He (Lord Brabourne) would not speak of competing lines, or the injustice to thorn of allowing greater facilities to their new rival. He took his stand upon the general principle of the Standing Order; and as to the discrepancy between the Rules of the two Houses, if it was necessary to change, let that change be effected by legislation introduced by the authority of the Government, and not by making a particular exception in a particular case. He had promised to be brief, and he would keep his word; but this he must say—if their Lordships agreed to this Motion, it might indeed be that they would encourage enterprize; but what kind of enterprize would it be? Not that legitimate enterprize which flourished under the existing system, and did not require the fostering hand of their Lordships, or any other body, but an enter-
  1798
  prize produced by clever engineers, crafty contractors, and professional promoters, who were checked by this Standing Order. Their Lordships would give an impulse to bubble Companies and insecure speculations, and would strike a blow at a sound financial principle, which it was most desirable to uphold in the interests of sound commercial enterprize.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he held that if the general Standing Order was right, and, as he believed, it rested on a sound principle, it ought not to be dispensed with in this case, for no special reason had been shown for any such exception. The noble Earl had not rested his case upon any special and peculiar difficulties which had arisen in this undertaking, or upon any particular public advantage which was to be gained by relieving it from those difficulties. The argument was that this was an undertaking of national importance, and had only to be considered for people to see how valuable it was, and that at the present time people did not like to lock up their capital for four or five years without receiving interest for it. These might be very good reasons why the undertaking should be sanctioned on equal terms with other undertakings, and also why it should receive the support of the investing public; but they were not arguments in support of the application that the measure should be treated in an exceptional manner. It might be inconvenient that there should be one Rule in that House and another in the other House of Parliament. But what was now proposed was not the way to remedy that inconvenience. Let one House alter its Rules, or, by a conference between the Houses or by general legislation, some approach might be made towards that uniformity of procedure which might be wished for. He objected to the present proposal as a mere delusion.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Duke of RICHMOND and GOKDON)observed, that in the other House of Parliament the Bill had been brought in with a provision that interest should be paid out of capital, and after some discussion the subject of paying interest out of capital was referred to a Select Committee. That Committee had reported that the prohibition which existed was financially

  1799
  sound in principle, and acted as a protection to the public, but that there were special cases in which payment out of interest ought to be allowed. They accordingly recommended that, subject to certain limits of time and rate of interest, a Bill should be passed to carry out their recommendations. This, however, had not commended itself to the Government or the other House of Parliament, and the matter remained subject to the Standing1 Order. On the second reading of this Bill in the other House, the then President of the Board of Trade had supported the Bill, and its second reading had been carried by a majority of 187 to 117. Ono of the special objects contemplated by those who had supported this Bill was that in the present condition of the poorer classes of the Metropolis it would find employment for a considerable time for a great portion of those who were now in a very depressed condition from want of labour. He had looked into all the matters relating to this proposal of the noble Earl, and had come to the conclusion that the views taken by his Predecessor on the subject were correct, and that their Lordships ought to give this measure a second reading.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he thought that no special circumstances had been shown in this case which justified the suspension of what was generally regarded as a salutary Standing Order. A large amount of extraneous matter had been introduced into the discussion, but nothing had been said in connection with this Bill which ought to lead their Lordships to suspend the Standing Order. During the three years since this Bill had been passed no attempt had been made to raise the capital in the ordinary way, and he thought that it was au extraordinary thing that they should be asked to give the promoters of this undertaking such unusual assistance as was now suggested. He had no wish that their Standing Orders should be quoted throughout the country as interfering with the possibility of relieving distress; but he could see no cause that had as yet been shown strong enough to justify the suspension of the Standing Order, and he would feel bound to vote against the proposal.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that this was no Party question; but it was one upon which
  1800
  he was unable to take the same view as the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell), although that was probably the view of the majority of the House. He confessed that he viewed with some alarm the tendency to make their Standing Orders unalterable as the laws of the Medes and Persians, which never must be touched no matter how much industry might be arrested or how much misery might he caused. This matter had been carefully considered in the other House of Parliament; and, although he was not disposed unduly to exalt the authority of the other House above that of their Lordships' House, he thought that no one would deny that it was in that House that they would find men who were most conversant with trade, commerce, and financial matters, and if they, after a considerable controversy upon the matter, had by a large majority come to the conclusion that that system should no longer be allowed to stand in the way of the industry of this country, were they not in their Lordships' House taking a rather large responsibility upon themselves in saying from their own knowledge that this particular Rule was an absolute necessity in order to protect legitimate industry? There was no doubt that this Rule discouraged the employment of capital, and that but for its existence work would go on which it now stopped. The Standing Order must justify itself. It was supposed to protect foolish investors, and to prevent persons from investing in any enterprize which would not yield them a good interest on their money. If he were asked which of two things he would choose, whether he would refuse to protect investors from the result of their own incaution, and set up an obstacle to the expenditure of capital in order that men might be able to invest their money without inquiring into the real character of the enterprize in which they placed it, or whether, on the other hand, he would incur the inconvenience of stopping the expenditure of money in support of labour at a time of extreme and almost unprecedented calamity and distress, he confessed that he would feel that the consciousness that he was sustaining a Standing Order of their Lordships' House would be no satisfaction to him when he reflected that by doing so he was preventing many an honest man

  1801
  from getting his living. He would go a step further. He did not believe in the system, of protecting the foolish investor at all. In his opinion, all of their Standing Order legislation erred grievously in that direction. It was the business of investors to protect themselves, and to examine for themselves the soundness of the enterprizes in which they embarked. If they failed to do so they were generally in a condition of life in which they might fairly be expected to take the consequences. It was wholly unreasonable to provide securities for investors at the cost of stopping the flow of that capital by which alone the life and prosperity of industry could be maintained. It was a general error in the Standing Orders of both Houses of Parliament that they had bound industry up too tight in order that improvident and careless investors should be protected. It might be said that, whatever the General Rule might be, it ought not to be relaxed in any case when the Rule itself had not yet been taken up for the purpose of alteration. He believed that the General Rule ought to be altered; but why should they wait until the formality and technicality of alteration were observed? A great obstacle was opposed by the Rule to the action of enterprize and industry, and he believed they would do wisely in dispensing with it unless they thought it should be maintained, and that it ought to be maintained against the decision of the House of Commons, in which all the special knowledge on this subject existed. Unless their Lordships were of opinion that the Rule should be permanently upheld, bethought they would do wisely by dispensing with a mere technicality for the purpose of benefiting industry and relieving the depression which existed in a particular place. The Rule was not only bad in itself, but it dealt very hardly with this particular case. For two or three years past he had been informed that the capital for this enterprize could not be raised on any other terms. It seemed ridiculous that people would not subscribe except on the terms of a certain amount of their capital being given back to them in the name of interest in the first two or three years of the enterprize, during which nothing could be earned; but they must take human nature as it was, and human nature was averse to arithmetic; and, as
  1802
  a matter of fact, in times of depression, when capital was not superabundant, they could not raise money for many a great and perfectly sound enterprize except by giving this inducement to investors. No one who was conversant with business in the City of London would deny that at the present time the fact was as he had stated, and he thought their Lordships would be inflicting great harm upon a number of innocent people if, for the sake of a mere technicality, they refused the Motion of his noble Friend.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSobserved, that he had every desire to forward the interests of working people in accordance with the principles of sound commerce, and in a sound and healthy way. Certain Rules had been laid down by the House to prevent bogus Companies springing into existence, and the noble Earl who had brought forward this Motion had admitted that they worked in a salutary manner in acting as a check upon reckless speculation. The noble Marquess who had just spoken disapproved the Rule; but, if it were wrong, the Rule should be suspended completely and as a whole. The noble Marquess, however, proposed simply to suspend the Standing Order in this particular case, and that on eleemosynary grounds, because there was, he regretted to say, distress in London. Had the noble Marquess considered whither such a precedent and principle might lead them? So, also, the noble Duke the President of the Board of Trade had said that he had, in assenting to the suspension of the Standing Order, only adopted the view of his Predecessor in Office. Now, he (the Earl of Wemyss) would like to know if he had adopted other views held by his Predecessor? How as to "ransom?" As a landowner, he was anxious to know if ransom was to form part of the Conservative programme? But he saw no reason why the Rule should be suspended in one case, only for the purpose, as it was said, of meeting temporary distress.
  LORD ARUNDELL OF WARDOURsaid, he should support the suspension of the Standing Order.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he wished to explain why he was going to vote against this Motion. The noble Earl who made the Motion was in favour of the Standing Order, while the noble

  1803
  Marquess opposed it altogether. There was a good deal to be said in favour of the Standing Order. One of its objects, he took it, was to prevent the statement of what was not in reality the actual fact. When people applied for an Act of Parliament, and issued a prospectus declaring that they would pay interest at 5 per cent, it was doubtless very attractive, and induced the public to think that the investment was a good one.
  THE EARL OF EAVENSWORTHpointed out that the rate of interest in that case was confined to 4 per cent.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that certainly 4 per cent was not so tempting as 5 per cent. He was not one who was disposed to protect people who really had not the good sense to protect themselves; but he thought that if the actual truth were told to [the shareholders in the prospectus, that they were to have a return of part of their own capital, they would not be attracted in the same way. The Standing Order, he believed, was valuable, in that it tended to prevent the passing of Railway Acts which were not really wanted, but which were only Contractors' Acts. He thought it was a good thing that it should have that operation, because, when a needless railway was made, so much of the national wealth was wasted. If they put two railways side by side, and the two carried no more than one of them did before, the money spent on the second railway might almost as well have been thrown into the sea. It had been said that that was not a matter for the nation, but that it only concerned the shareholders. But surely the wealth of the community was made up of the wealth of individuals. He did not believe that the Standing Order had ever prevented a line from being constructed that was really wanted. It was alleged that money could not be got for those enterprizes, and it was suggested that there was a lack of capital. That must be a mistake, because he read in the newspapers that bills were discounted at ¼ to ½ per cent, and the Bank rate of interest was about 2 per cent per annum. Capital was really seeking employment in every way, and why should it not be invested in that Company, unless it was that the capitalists felt there was no probability of its being a paying concern? It was said that at present there was a great
  1804
  want of employment among the working classes. He was afraid that that was so; but let them see what the argument came to. To this—that people should be tempted to join mischievous Companies in order to give work to labourers. If the Standing Order was a bad one, let them get rid of it. If it was a good one, he trusted that their Lordships would adhere to it.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of REDESDALE)pointed out that the vote which their Lordships were now called upon to give was not one on the second reading of the Bill, but whether they would maintain the Standing Order or not.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYobserved, that in the year 1883 the noble Marquess did not take the same view of that matter as he had done that evening. In 1883 a proposal was made to the House that they should adopt the same course as had been adopted in the other House, and then the noble Marquess did not show so much respect to the authority of the late President of the Board of Trade, but spoke rather hardly of his views. He said that the matter required the gravest consideration, and he thought it was not desirable to alter the Standing Order.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said not without consideration and inquiry, and there have been consideration and inquiry in this case.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that nobody would have supposed then that the noble Marquess regarded the getting rid of that prohibition as one of high policy, and the noble Marquess then spoke of "bogus" railways, and of the injury to the main lines by bringing into existence contractors' lines, which would not otherwise be made; and he brought forward many arguments in favour of the Standing Order. It certainly did greatly surprise him to hear the noble Marquess now express so very decided and extremely strong an opinion against the maintenance of the Order. What he desired particularly to point out, however, was that this was not a question of the ordinary general law, but of granting special privileges to Companies to take land for enterprizes of that kind, and Parliament was not precluded from looking into the question whether lines were promoted by real investors, or were only "bogus" lines.

  1805
  The question now before their Lordships was whether they were to put aside the Standing Order in that particular case. The arguments of the noble Marquess were no doubt worthy of consideration; but nothing could be worse than for their Lordships' House to have a Standing Order which was supposed to be for the protection of the public generally, and then, because a little popularity might be obtained thereby, to set it aside in particular cases.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNremarked, that the Committee to which the Bill would be sent would investigate the question whether the scheme was a sound one or a "bogus" one. If they should be satisfied that it was a good scheme, and their Lordships should then pass it, he believed that an immense benefit would be conferred on the toiling masses who were seeking employment.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 46; Not-Contents 37: Majority 9.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Then Bill read 2ª (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.