Sitting of 30 July 1885

Preamble
MINUTES.]—Supply—considered in Committee Resolutions [July 29] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee— Resolution [July 20] reported.
RESOLUTIONS IN COMMITTEE—Reported July 29 —Navy and Army Expenditure, 1883–4.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Considered as amended —Belfast Central Railway (Sale).
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading — Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).*
Committee—Criminal Law Amendment [159] —R.P.
Committee—Report — Telegraph Acts Amendment [121]; Expiring Laws Continuance* [247].
Committee — Report — Third Reading—Crown Lands (re-comm.) * [51], and passed.
Considered as amended — Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) * [251].
Considered as amended — Third Reading — Revising Barristers * [237], and passed.
Withdrawn — Licensing Laws Amendment *! [226].

QUESTIONS.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— THE SCHOOLMASTER OF STRANAGOMIS NATIONAL SCHOOL, CO. TYRONE.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the case that the salary due to the late schoolmaster of Stranagomis National School, District 13, county Tyrone, has been withheld from him; what cause has been assigned for withholding it; has the late manager opposed the payment, and given any reason founded upon the rules of the Board for such opposition; is the teacher's salary for the quarter ending September 30th 1883 legally due to him; if so, will it be paid; and, if it be not paid, what remedy has the teacher?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The salary is withheld in this ease because the teacher, after his resignation, locked up the school-room, which is parochial property, and has refused to give up possession of it. He has been repeatedly warned by the Commissioners that his salary cannot be paid until he gives up possession of the room.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—EXTRA POLICE AT PORTADOWN.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, "Whether it is a fact that head constable Egan, of Portadown, upon the 10th instant, telegraphed to Armagh for extra police to be sent to Portadown, without consulting the resident magistrate of Portadown or the district inspector of constabulary?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): It appears that in the temporary absence of the District Inspector, the head constable, who was acting for him, telegraphed for extra police assistance. He did not obtain the advice of the Resident Magistrate, though he endeavoured to do so. An unexpected disturbance had arisen in the town, and the head constable was quite justified in the course he took.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884 —THE PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (SCOTLAND)—CROFTERS UNDER £10 RENTAL.
  MR. D. J. JENKINS (for Mr. FRASER-MACKINTOSH)asked the Secretary of State for tie Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a report that certain assessors in Scotland are acting under the belief that Crofters paying under £10 of yearly rent are occupiers of land merely, and not householders within the meaning of the Act, and consequently do not intend to enter such persons on the roll of voters; and, whether an interpretation of the statute, such as that referred to, is not erroneous?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS),in reply, said, this was a matter to be disposed of by the Sheriff in the Registration Court. If anyone was erroneously omitted from the assessor's list of voters, he could claim to be entered or retained upon the roll, and the Sheriff had power to put the mistake of the assessor right. In regard to the latter part of the Question, he was advised by the Lord Advocate that it was simply hypothetical, and he was, therefore, not obliged to answer it.

  LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)— ILLEGAL IMPOUNDING OF CHILDREN.
  MR. D. J. JENKINS (for Mr. FRASER-MACKINTOSH)asked the Secretary of
  506
  State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstance of a party of men, including several estate officials, violently driving thirty-three head of cattle, with fifteen children, many of tender age, who were tending them off a grazing near South Shawbost, in the Island of Lewes, on the 21st April 1885, into a pound constructed of stone walls 0 to 8 feet high, belonging to the tenant of Dalbeg; whether the children were so impounded for several hours, and when released by their relatives forcing the gate, found in a state of alarm and great exhaustion; and, whether any investigation was made by the Procurator Fiscal; and, if not, whether he will cause inquiry now to be made?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS),in reply, said, he had received a telegram from the Procurator Fiscal at Stornoway in reference to this Question. It was to the effect that some Shawbost crofters last winter demolished a fence separating their grazing from a tacksman's farm, and, contrary to the tacksman's remonstrances, placed their cattle upon ground which had been in his occupancy for many years. In April last, 33 head of cattle were penfolded, but the children who were herding the cattle were not interfered with. The children followed the cattle of their own accord. At night the owner of the cattle and others forcibly released the cattle from the pen-fold. The Procurator Fiscal went onto say that the case was reported by him to the Crown Counsel, who directed that no further proceedings should be taken. The tacksman sued the crofters in the Small-Debt Court, and obtained decrees for trespass money and damage to grazing; but no complaint was ever made to the Procurator Fiscal on behalf of the children.

  CORPORATE BODIES (METROPOLIS)— THE CITY FELLOWSHIP OF PORTERS.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware of the present unsatisfactory condition of the Fellowship of Porters of the City of London, and in particular of the facts following, viz.:— That, in spite of a new Act of Common Council passed in 1884, the expenses of the management of the body are out of

  507
  all proportion to its resources; that the capital funds are being reduced owing to the relatively largo amount of the annual expenditure; that the state of the accounts has caused the greatest dissatisfaction to members of the body; that, by a recent decision in a court of Law, the bye-laws of the Society have been held to be invalid; and that the Court of Common Council have been more than once petitioned with a view to thorough reform of the Fellowship, but without avail; and, if he will consider whether some means may be taken to remedy these abuses, and a full and impartial inquiry instituted into the state of the body?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS),in reply, said, the matter was now receiving the attention of one of the Corporation committees, to which it had been referred on the petition of the porters themselves. No doubt, owing to the altered times and circumstances, the state of things was not what it might have been expected to be; but the Corporation had no control over the Fellowship, which, managed its own affairs. He was informed that the last two allegations in the Question were inaccurate.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)—INDIAN MIDLAND RAILWAY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, in the present depressed condition of Indian trade and difficulty in regard to Indian finance, he has given a Government guarantee to a third through line of Railway from the North West Provinces to Bombay, which will compete with two Government lines already in existence, and will connect with and feed a guaranteed line (the Great Indian Peninsular) which has taken the lead in resisting the cheapening of the rates for the carriage of Indian produce to the sea coast?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): The Question of the hon. Gentleman contains assumptions and inferences to which I cannot reply within the limits of a Question, but which I content myself by generally traversing. The actual fact is this. The line to which the hon. Gentleman alludes is the Indian Midland Railway, of which the Secretary of State in Council has sanctioned the construction, giving
  508
  the promoters a Government guarantee of 4 per cent. This course has been adopted by the Secretary of State in Council principally in consequence of the urgent and reiterated advice of the Viceroy and Government of India.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— EXTRA POLICE AND HUT AT LISDOONVARNA, CO. CLARE.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Government now propose to remove the hut and police from Kilmoon, near Lisdoonvarna, county Clare; and, if he is aware that no outrages have occurred in the district for a very considerable time, and that there is no apparent necessity for the retention of this constabulary post?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): It is contemplated to remove this hut in about a month's time, should the state of the locality continue peaceful.

  BANK CHARTER ACT, 1845—THE IRISH BANKS—NOTE ISSUE.
  MR. GRAYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that the average value of the notes issued by the Bank of Ireland is more than a million less than that authorised by the Act of 1845; and that the average issued by the Provincial Bank is about one-quarter of a million less than is authorised by the same Act; while the average of the Belfast Banking Company is £100,000, of the Ulster Banking Company over £200,000, the Northern Banking Company about £100,000, and of the National Bank is £300,000 more than is authorised by the Act of 1845, against which these four latter Banks are required by law to keep gold in their vaults; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will take into consideration the propriety of amending the Act of 1845 so as to bring the authorised issue more into proportion with the actual issue used by the public of notes of each Irish Bank, and so as to give to the Banks which have not now authority to issue notes power to do so under proper restrictions and safeguards?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Without endorsing completely the figures of the hon. Member, I am aware that there is a considerable varia-

  509
  tion in the if sues of the privileged banks in Ireland, the two tanks named by him issuing less, the others issuing more, than the unsecured circulation permitted to them by Sir Robert Peel's Act; but I am not prepared upon this fact alone to disturb the arrangement made by Sir Robert Peel, which has, on the whole, worked satisfactorily for a period of 40 years. The matter is, of course, one of very great importance and difficulty, and if the present arrangements were disturbed other questions would be raised beyond that which the hon. Gentleman has in his mind.

  THE NAVY LIST—WARRANT OFFICERS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether there is any objection to retaining the names of retired Warrant Officers on the Navy List, in the same way as those of other Officers?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): There would be no objection to this proposal being adopted for warrant officers retired in future; but it could not be made retrospective without a great deal of difficulty, and therefore I think it would be advisable to leave the Navy List as it is.

  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) ACT, 1883.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will inform the House whether, in the Orders in Council confirming the presentments of Grand Juries for baronial guarantees under "The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, lfc83," the provisions required by the 10th Clause (sub-section;3) of the Act, with respect to the inspection of the works, have been inserted; if he will state how many Tramways and light Railways are in course of construction under the Act referred to; and, if any inspections have so far been made; and, if so, whether the reports of the inspectors will be submitted to Parliament?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The Rules of the Privy Council under the Tramways Act make due provision for the inspection of the works by the County Surveyor, a copy of whose Report must be sent to the Board of Works. The Board inform me that they have not yet re
  510
  ceived any such Reports, and until they do, or until they have before them the accounts which the Act requires them to be furnished with, they have no means of knowing what lines are in course of construction.

  INLAND REVENUE—STAMPS STAMP DISTRIBUTORS IN DUBLIN.
  MR. GRAYasked the Postmaster General, Whether the discount of two shillings on each £10 of postage stamps, formerly enjoyed by the stamp distributors in Dublin has been discontinued; whether the discount on bill stamps, which used to be ten pence on each £1 sterling, is now only four shillings on each £10; and, if so, whether he is aware that these facts, in conjunction with the fact that the Inland Revenue Department has undertaken the sale of law stationary' at the Four Courts, Dublin, at a mere shade over cost price, constitute grievances amongst the stamp distributors upon which they have petitioned the Postmaster General; and, whether he will consider the desirability of removing or mitigating those grievances?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The noble Lord has asked me to answer this Question. The discount on postage stamps has been discontinued for some years throughout the United Kingdom, and that on bill stamps was reduced as stated from the beginning of 1878. These changes were made in pursuance of a general policy of saving for the Revenue the amount of such discounts wherever this can be done without inconvenience to the public. The sale of unstamped forms at the Four Courts was undertaken for the convenience of the public and the Legal Profession, as was explained by my Predecessor on the 5th of March last. I can hold out no hope that these arrangements will be departed from.

  THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS —TAXATION OF LEGAL EXPENSES.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked, Whether the costs, charges, and expenses of the Solicitors and Surveyors employed by the Ecclesiastical and Church Estates Commissioners, and whether charged against the Commissioners or other parties concerned in the Church Estates,

  511
  are submitted for taxation to the proper officers of the Supreme Court?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS),in reply, said, he had received a Memorandum from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to the effect that from 1842 to 1867 the bills of costs and charges to be paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to solicitors were taxed by one of the Masters in Queen's Bench; but in 1867 he refused to undertake the duty, as it was not covered by the official salary. Up to 1873 they were taxed by an officer of the Court, and since that time by Mr. Bush Cooper.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not advise the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to pay solicitor and surveyor by salary?
  [No reply].

  COURT OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND)— COPYING CLERKS.
  MR. FINDLATERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, The reason why the copying clerks in the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland are paid much less for their services in writing and comparing than their brethren in the several Divisions of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, and are otherwise placed in a much worse position by the non-allowance of service-pay which is granted to the copyists in the several Divisions of the High Court upon a graduated scale according to the length of service; and, will he make inquiry into the matter, and, if is satisfactorily proved their grievances do exist, will he take steps to redress them?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The copying clerks of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland are paid on a scale suggested by the Judge of that Court in 1874, under which they can earn about £100 a-year. The fees paid by the public for the copying do not quite cover the amount thus paid to the copyists. In the Supreme Court the fees, being on a higher scale, are sufficient to meet the cost of the copyists on a higher scale of remuneration. The Treasury have already suggested to the Lord Chancellor that the fees for copying in the Bankruptcy Court should be increased; and they would be prepared to concur in any order in this sense made by him
  512
  under the Bankruptcy Act of 1872. It would then be possible to consider whether the pay of the copyists ought to be increased.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (IRELAND)—THE COUNTY DOWN ELECTION—THE BALLOT ACT.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a statement of Mr. Brown, the defeated candidate for county Down, which was published in The Daily News of the 14th instant, that—
  "It is a fact that in the polling districts of Newry, Castlewellan, Downpatrick", Killkeel, and Rathfriland, there was a majority for Lord Arthur Hill of no less than 649 votes;"
  and, whether the arrangements connected with the taking of votes under the Ballot Act render it impossible for it to be known to whom the votes of any particular polling districts are given?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reply to this Question. The Rules under the Ballot Act provide that before the Returning Officer counts the votes he shall, in the presence of the candidates' agents, count the number of papers in each ballot box, and that while this is being done he shall keep the papers with their faces upwards. I think that in doing this it would be impossible to know the number of votes given in any particular polling-district for the respective candidates, but a quick-eyed agent would probably be able to form a pretty accurate opinion as to which candidate had a majority, especially if such majority were large. I may add that I have been informed by my hon. Friend the elected Member that he knows nothing of the figures given by Mr. Brown, and that he believes that his statement does not rest on any adequate foundation.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would not issue some sort of Circular to prevent what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had just said was easy—namely, that agents standing near a box could see whether there was a majority for or against a candidate in any district?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS),in reply, said, he would inquire into the matter; but the Question ought to be addressed to his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford.
  MR. GRAYasked whether the sharp-eyed agent referred to, who might form a guess as to which candidate had the majority, was outside or inside the booth; if the latter, whether he was not sworn to secrecy, and whether the disclosure of his guess would not be an offence under the Act?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, the agent was authorized to be in the booth. As far as regarded the disclosure, he rather thought that the offence under the Act was the disclosure of the vote given by a particular voter.

  THE INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE—AGE OF CANDIDATES.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Governor General of India communicated a despatch to the India Office on the age at which candidates for the Civil Service of India are admitted for competition in England; and, if so, whether he will lay the same upon the Table of the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL),in reply, said, no despatch had been received from the Governor General of India exclusively confined to the subject; bat despatches dated the 1st of October, 1882, and the 12th of September, 1881, had been received at the India Office, in which this subject was incidentally touched upon. He should be very glad to lay those on the Table, together with a selection of the opinions of local officials. He could not pledge himself to lay all the opinions in their entirety upon the Table, as some were confidential. He agreed that the subject was one of much interest and importance.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE DEPRESSION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRIES.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can now state the terms of the Royal Commission on Trade Depression, and the names of the Commissioners?
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would include
  514
  Ireland in the scope of the Commission, or grant a separate Commission?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must ask the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to give me Notice of that Question. In regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), I have to inform him that the terms of the Royal Commission are "to inquire into the extent, nature, and probable causes of the depression now or recently existing in various branches of trade and industry." My noble Friend Lord Iddesleigh, the Chairman of the Commission, proposes to lay a Memorandum before the Commissioners at the first meeting, which u ill indicate the scope and manner of inquiry at greater length, and that Memorandum will be laid before Parliament. As to the composition of the Commission I cannot yet give a decided answer. It would not be well, I think, to state some of the names only. Some difficulties have arisen in the matter— delay winch is not duo to us; but I shall communicate the full list of names as soon as I can.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "CRUISER."
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, How many officers and men have been invalided or sent to hospital from H.M.S. Cruiser during the last twelve months, suffering from typhoid or enteric fever; whether there is any reason to believe that the sanitary condition of that ship is unsatisfactory; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made on the subject from the Naval authorities at Malta?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. RITCHIE),in reply, said, only one case of fever had occurred. A Report had been called for and received, and it showed that, so far from there being any reason to suppose that the condition of the Cruiser was unsatisfactory, the ease was quite the reverse.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE BIRMINGHAM ASSIZES — SHERIFFS' EXPENSES.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that, by the recent establishment of Assizes at Birmingham in addition to the usual Assizes at Warwick, very heavy additional expenses have fallen on the Sheriff of Warwick-

  515
  shire and his officials. That the two last Assizes at Birmingham lasted together 20 days, and occasioned additional expenses to the sheriff of about £400, which have been disallowed by the Treasury. That the establishment of these new Assizes (while the Bar of the Midland and Oxford Circuits is united at Birmingham) attracts at Birmingham many additional civil causes which would otherwise have been tried in Staffordshire and Worcestershire, thereby shortening the Assizes for those counties, and lessening the claims made on the Treasury by their sheriffs in respect thereof; and, whether Her Majesty's Government cannot grant to the Sheriff of Warwickshire, in respect of the Assizes at Birmingham, similar allowances to those granted in respect to the extra gaol deliveries at Warwick in the spring and autumn?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, no doubt additional expenses were incurred by the Sheriff of Warwickshire by the Assizes which were now held at Birmingham; but the Treasury could not take this into consideration without opening up the whole subject of allowances to Sheriffs in respect of Assizes. Upon the desirability of doing this he, at the present moment, expressed no opinion.

  NAVY—THE EVOLUTIONARY SQUADRON—TORPEDO CREWS.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Whether extra pay will be granted to the men who have been serving on board the torpedo boats engaged in the Evolutionary Squadron?
  THE CIVIL LORD (Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT): The duties performed by the officers and men employed on board the torpedo boats during the recent cruise of the Evolutionary Squadron were undoubtedly of an arduous and trying nature, and in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty confer a strong claim to extra pay. It is, therefore, proposed to grant the same extra pay to the officers and men in question as was granted last year on the recommendation of the Duke of Edinburgh for the exercises carried out at Portland.

  NAVY—DOCKYARD EXPENDITURE.
  MR. PULESTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he
  516
  will lay upon the Table the terms of reference under which the departmental inquiry into Dockyard Expenditure is to be made?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): There has been a good deal of misapprehension concerning this Committee, which was appointed by my Predecessor, though I have nominated the Chairman. The terms are to inquire into direct or incidental and establishment charges at Her Majesty's Dockyards, especially as to re-classification of items, and securing the economical expenditure tinder these items; the arrangements under which Dockyard expenditure is apportioned to ships; the nature of expenditure other than that charged direct to ships in the expense accounts; the present distribution of these charges to ships, and what are termed national charges; what system of accounts can be most advantageously adopted to insure these charges being subjected to effective supervision and local financial audit; and whether the payment by the Government of India of 10 per cent on the value of supplies to the Indian troopships is sufficient. The object of the Committee is not to investigate and report generally upon Dockyard management and expenditure, but to re-classify and simplify certain details connected with the expenditure with a view of subjecting them to effective supervision and audit.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether the terms of the reference would include an inquiry into the wages of the Dockyard employés?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, no such inquiry would be made by the Committee; but it was one of the functions of the Admiralty to look into such grievances, and any Memorials properly drawn up would receive their attention.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: They do not.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: They will.

  EGYPT—THE INTERNATIONAL GUARANTEED LOAN.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has official knowledge that his predecessor in office intended that the Egyptian Guaranteed Loan should be bought out by the Bank of England and by public

  517
  tender; why, seeing that the premium at which the Loan now stands shows that this would have caused a saving to the Egyptians of above £200,000, this arrangement has been altered; what is the commission paid to the issuing houses; whether any arrangement has been come to assigning a portion of the issue to Messrs. Rothschild and a portion to Mr. Bleichroeder of Berlin; whether he will see that, in order to preclude any advantage being given to the issuing houses and to their friends and clients in the allotment of the Loan, care will be taken to insure that all applicants for allotments below a fixed figure receive allotments in full should the number of such applicants not exceed the total to be allotted, and that, should such applications not cover the total amount required, other applicants shall each receive an equal amount of the Loan, provided that allotments distributed in this manner cover the total amount required; and, whether he will cause a list of the applicants for allotment, the amount for which each of them applied, and the amount of the Loan which has been allotted to each of them, together with their places of abode, their places of business, if any, and their professions or occupations, to be sent to the Treasury, in order that this list may be submitted to this House, should it decide that it is advisable?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am informed that my Predecessor in Office intended that the Egyptian Guaranteed Loan should be brought out by the Bank of England, and by public tender. I very much doubt whether this arrangement would have caused the saving stated by the hon. Member; but it has been altered mainly in consequence of questions of an International character having arisen with respect to the issue of what I must remind him is a loan depending on an International Guarantee. The commission to be paid to Messrs. N. M. Rothschild, who are the agents for the issue of the loan in London, is £500 per £1,000,000, and reasonable incidental expenses. MM. de Rothschild Frères are agents for the issue of one-third of the loan in Paris, and Herr Bleichröder is agent for the issue of one-third of the loan in Berlin. The allotment will, I presume, be made according to the usual practice observed in such cases. I do not see upon what
  518
  grounds I could call upon them to pursue the course indicated by the hon. Member, or to furnish a list of the applicants, especially in view of the fact already mentioned, that two-thirds of the loan is offered for subscription in foreign capitals.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the £500 per £1,000,000 to be paid to Messrs. Rothschild includes the brokers' commission; whether there is any arrangement by which Messrs. Rothschild have a right to take £15,000,000 of the loan at the price of issue, 95½; whether there is any further arrangement by which that firm have a right to be paid the £1,000,000 sterling which they have advanced at this 95½—thereby giving them a profit, taking the present premium, of £20,000 upon the original £1,000,000 advanced, and £40,000 if they choose to exercise their option as to the other £2,000,000?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must ask the hon. Member to put these Questions on the Paper?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Perhaps it will be more convenient if I call attention to the matter, and ask further Questions on the Appropriation Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think it would be well that the House should be in full possession of the facts. There has, of course, been a Correspondence on the subject between Her Majesty's Government and Messrs. Rothschild, and that Correspondence will be laid on the Table and printed as soon as possible.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will that Correspondence be in the hands of hon. Members in time for them to call attention to the matter on the Appropriation Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I will do my best to have it ready in time.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—MR. EDLIN, Q.C.
  MR. GRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Mr. Edlin, Q.C, has yet returned from his Continental tour; and, if not, when he may be expected; at what date he was granted leave of absence; for what period he was granted leave of absence; by whom he was granted leave of absence; and, on what ground he was granted leave of absence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): Mr. Edlin had been given leave of absence by the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was the only person competent to grant it. The leave was given on the date of the completion of the business of the Sessions which were held on June 4. Mr. Edlin has not had any leave since the autumn of 1883.
  MR. GRAY: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the first part of the Question.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE: He has returned.

  TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRELAND) BILL.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the honourable Member for county Cavan, Whether he will withdraw his notice of opposition to the Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) Bill, so as to allow that measure to be discussed?
  MR. BIGGAR,in reply, said, he had never known a case in which there was so much anxiety to have a Bill defeated as in regard to this particular Bill; and he did not feel disposed to withdraw his Notice of opposition, and thus assist Sir George Colthurst, who was a nephew of the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County, to rob the ratepayers.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—GALWAY AND ARRAN ISLAND DISPENSARIES.
  MR. T. R. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will authorise the Local Government Board to sever the connection between the Galway and Arran Island dispensaries in accordance with the unanimous and frequently-expressed opinion of the Galway Board of Guardians in favour of this change; whether the result of the amalgamation is, that Galway is compelled to pay £70 a-year towards the expenses of the Arran Dispensary, amounting to almost to shillings in the pound of the entire expenditure of the Arran Dispensary; and, if, when the amalgamation was originally agreed to by the Galway Board of Guardians, at the suggestion of the Local Government Board, any Intimation was conveyed that it would result in such a heavy addition to the already heavily burdened taxpayers of the Galway Union?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I do not see any reason to alter the decision arrived at in this matter. It appears that the amalgamation of the two districts involves upon Galway an additional rate of about 1½d. in the pound, which, however, is more apparent than real, as the Government recoup half of the medical officer's salary, and half the cost of medicines; while the creation of a separate district for Arran would, by reason of the small valuation of the island, impose on it a burden that it could not reasonably be expected to bear. I am informed that the probable financial results of the change were not discussed with the Galway Guardians when the amalgamation was effected.

  BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND)—EXAMINATION OF GIRLS.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that a circular has been issued, dated 6th July, by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, containing a list of proposed changes in the intermediate examinations for girls, and stating that the proposed changes will be taken into consideration early in November next; whether he is aware that, with a view to drawing up the rules and programme for 1887, it is necessary that a determination should be come to on this matter before the end of the present year; whether he is aware that the proposed changes involve the sanction of a different standard for girls and boys instead of the common standard at present existing; whether he is aware that similar proposals have been repeatedly made or circulated of late years by the Intermediate Education Commissioners, and whether such alteration, if carried into effect, would prevent women in many cases from being properly prepared so as to avail themselves of the facilities afforded them by the Royal University of Ireland by Act of Parliament; and, whether, in consideration of the facts of the case, he will advise the Lord Lieutenant to withhold his sanction from such a change in the standard?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The Board of Intermediate Education have issued a Circular inviting an expression of opinion from

  521
  persons engaged in the education of girls as to certain proposed changes in their programme of examinations. These changes, if adopted, would, it appears, come up for the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant next year, and would come into operation the year after. Their effect would appear to be that, while girls would still be able to compete in the same programme with boys, they would have the option of being examined in a course restricted to girls alone. It would obviously be premature for me to give such advice as that suggested in the last paragraph of the Question.

  FACTORY ACTS (EXTENSION TO SHOPS) BILL.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the honourable Member for Stockport, Whether be will remove the block which he has placed against the Factory Acts (Extension to Shops) Bill, and allow the House to consider in Committee a Bill to which thousands of young persons are looking with intense interest?
  MR. HOPWOOD,in reply, said, though the question was put to him in a sensational manner, calculated to put pressure upon him, he could not waive any means in his power to secure full publicity and discussion before the passing of such a measure.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: In consequence of the answer of the hon. and learned Member, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give me any facility for bringing on this Bill? There are only one or two Amendments of a purely verbal character; and though it relates to young persons who have no vote, that very fact will, I am sure, be admitted in itself to constitute a claim on the kind consideration of the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Whatever may be the merits of the Bill, I can express no opinion upon it; but if I gave the hon. Member the promise he asks for I should be subjected to similar requests from many other hon. Members. I am afraid, therefore, I cannot make any promise.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—THE CHOLERA IN SPAIN.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the ravages of the
  522
  cholera in Spain, and of the fact that there are large imports of fruit from Spain, during the latter end of August and in September, which are packed in sawdust, it is intended to take any steps to ensure that cholera germs will not. by these means, be introduced into this Country?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): English ports that are in frequent communication with Spain have received much recent attention from the Board's Medical Department. Hitherto we have no experience of cholera ever having been conveyed in the manner suggested; but, if indications of its possible transport by such moans should be observed, the Board will not fail to convey to local sanitary authorities such cautions as may be requisite.

  SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, under the Secretary for Scotland Bill, to transfer the permanent staff of the Education Office, who at present transact the business of Scottish Education, to the office of the new Minister?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): I think it is rather premature to give any opinion on this subject until we have heard the discussion on the Bill on the question of education.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.
  MR. GRAYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will be prepared to extend the Housing of the Working Classes Bill to Ireland?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR),in reply, said, the Bill was not a Government Bill, and it was not in his charge, but in the charge of the Home Secretary.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMEMT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the hon. Member would remember that the Commission which inquired into this matter, and on which he (Mr. Gray) took so important a part, did not inquire into the rural districts of Ireland. He did not know whether the Question of the hon. Member applied to towns.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)—THE CANDAHAR AND QUETTA RAILWAY.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Railway is being pushed forward in the direction of Candahar, and for what length and to within what distance of Cadahar it has already been authorised; and, what, if any, further length is contemplated?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): The continuation of the railway from Quetta has been sanctioned to extend 30 miles in a northwesterly direction to a place called Shebo. I have no knowledge of any further intention to continue the railway beyond that point at present; but I may tell the hon. Member that a very large accumulation of railway material is being concentrated at Quetta, so that if commercial and political interests should appear at any time to be favourable the line might be continued without any great delay in the direction of Candahar.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Will the noble Lord give any assurance that the House will be consulted before any sanction is given to extending the Quetta Railway beyond Shebo—that is, beyond the railway sanctioned in the Government of India's despatch of September the 22nd, 1884?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I am afraid I cannot make that promise. There is not the slightest probability of the railway being completed to Shebo at the earliest before 1886, and as to what may happen in 1887 I cannot tell the hon. Member.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—SWINE—THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, with reference to his reply of 13th instant, and in view of the fact that the Lords of the Council are now advised that Local Authorities have not the power, under existing Orders of Council, to compel the cleansing and disinfecting of premises used by dealers in swine, he will move their Lordships to issue an Order of Council to enable Local Authorities to deal effectively with such premises, and thus prevent the spread of disease?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Mr. CHAPLIN): My hon. Friend appears to be under some misapprehension in saying that the Lords of the Council are advised that Local Authorities have not the power to compel the disinfection of premises used by dealers in swine under the existing Orders in Council. That is a statement which applies solely to promises which are not connected in any way with markets, or sale-yards, or places of that kind. Where they are so connected the Local Authorities have ample powers under the existing Orders already. I should be very glad to go further, and to meet the views of the hon. Member if I could. But it appears to me that it would be exceedingly difficult to define who is and who is not a dealer in swine, and I do not see at present how his object can be attained without requiring private owners, however healthy their animals, to disinfect their premises all over the country; and that is a course which it appears to me would not be expedient.

  EGYPT—THE INTERNATIONAL GUARANTEED LOAN.
  MR. VILLIERS-STUARTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the present market value of French Three per Cents, is about 80 per cent.; whether that of Russian Four per Cents. is about 80; whether that of Italian Five per Cents, is about 99; whether that of English Three per Cents. is about par; whether the New Egyptian Three per Cent. Loan is to be brought out at 95½ per cent.; whether this issue price is determined, not by the National credit standard of any Foreign State, but by that of England; whether it is England that is ultimately responsible for the payment of the dividends and capital; and, whether the additional interest acquired in Egypt by England in consequence of her guarantee will be weakened by the nominal share taken in it by Foreign Powers, or his hand rendered less free in dealing with Egyptian reforms?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The prices quoted by the hon. Member are no doubt correct. I cannot undertake to say how far the issue price of the new Egyptian Loan is determined by the credit standard of England. Various other circumstances must be considered as elements in the determination of such

  525
  price. The responsibility of England is the same as that of the other guaranteeing Powers, except Russia—namely, a joint and several guarantee for the regular payment of the annuity of £315,000 required for the purpose of the loan. The question of the effect of a joint guarantee on the interests of England in Egypt involves matter of opinion rather than of fact. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know my opinions on the subject he will find them expressed in the debate of last spring; but this country being pledged to the Convention, of course it was our duty to carry it out.
  MR. VILLIERS-STUART: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give a re-assuring answer as to the effect of the joint guarantee upon the freedom of the hands of England in carrying out reforms.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay on the Table the Correspondence with foreign Governments on this subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot answer that Question without Notice.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering the great interest taken in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, he will make that Bill the first Order after the Report of Supply?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid that I find myself in a difficult position in this matter. Twice, at least, I have given a distinct promise to the House, and especially to the right hon. Gentleman the late Postmaster General, that the Telegraph Acts Amendment Bill should follow the Report of Supply. I do not think that I can fairly depart from that promise.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I quite recognize the desire to proceed at once with the Criminal Law Amendment Bill; but the difficulty I have felt in postponing the Telegraph Bill until next week is that there may be but few Members left in the House to discuss it. I would suggest, however, that the Government should put the Telegraph Bill down as the second Order for to-
  526
  morrow, and that if the Criminal Law Amendment Bill is not concluded by 12 o'clock Progress should be reported.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir; I cannot agree to that suggestion. It might be that the House would be in the middle of a discussion on important points in the Bill, and we should have to report Progress in order to proceed with the other measure. There is a universal feeling that, at any rate, the Telegraph Bill should not be used to delay the progress of the other Bill; and if the House is willing to consent to it I should suggest that we should proceed with the Committee on the Telegraph Bill to-night, on the understanding that whatever happens it should not be continued, say, beyond 9 o'clock.

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER (LORD MAYOR): I should like to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, When he proposes to bring in the Indian Budget? If the noble Lord cannot answer me I will put the Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): I should be greatly obliged to the right hon. Baronet if he will obtain that information for me from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I cannot answer the appeal.

  THE COASTGUARD (IRELAND)—THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AT DUNDALK.
  MR. O'BRIEN (for Mr. HARRINGTON): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that the Divisional Officer of Coastguards in Dundalk, when visiting the stations in his district, compels the Coastguards to groom and attend his horse; and, whether, on the occasion of these official visits, he is in the habit of raising religious controversies with the Catholic coastguards under his command?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON),in reply, said, he had received a communication from the Divisional Officer of Coastguards in Dundalk altogether denying the allegation contained in the Question of the hon. Member.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any further information with regard to the course of Business, especially with regard to the taking of Saturday Sittings?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have made some inquiries as to the taking of Saturday Sittings; but I find that the objections are so considerable that I cannot promise to take them. I cannot make any further statement as to the progress of Business until we see our way more clearly.

  PARLTAMENTARY ELECTIONS—EYE ELECTION.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that the returning officer in the recent bye election at Eye has charged £131 10 s. 4d. for the official costs of taking 808 votes, or an average of nearly 3s. 4d. per vote; whether he is aware that this charge averages per vote a larger amount than has been charged at any previous election since the passing of the Act limiting the expense of returning officers; and whether the charge is legal?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER),in reply, said, he believed the amount charged by the Returning Officer was accurately stated in the Question; but he would remind the hon. Member that all these charges were fixed by the Schedule in the Returning Officers Bill, 1876. The question whether the charges were legal depended on whether the items were in accordance with the Schedule, and he had no means of arriving at what these items were.
  In reply to Sir HENRY JAMES,
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had only looked at the Schedule summarily; but he would obtain the information, add up the items, and see if they were in accordance with the Schedule.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [29th July] reported.
  Resolution 1.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that before this Estimate was adopted by the House he
  528
  wished to declare emphatically that in his opinion, and in the opinion of those who from their election were concerned in the affairs of Ireland, the Department of National Education did not merit the confidence reposed in it, and did not use the power in its hands, either intelligently in furtherance of public education, or fairly in the interests of the teachers themselves. They had good and sufficient reasons for entertaining this opinion, some of which were stated yesterday. There were others which could not be outlined within the compass of an ordinary debate. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had yesterday excused himself from expressing an opinion on the subject, as he had not had time to examine into the question. He would, however, ask the Head of the Government what they were going to do during the Recess? He would ask them, would they specially investigate the constitution, rights, and methods of the Department in Ireland? He would inform them that one of the first claims of the Irish Party was a demand for the abolition of this Department, and the establishment in its place of some Board more reasonable in its constitution and more satisfactory in its effects. In order that the Government should be in the position next year to deal with the subject from information obtained during the coming winter, he believed that a thorough investigation should be made into the working of the present Board of Education; and he would undertake to transmit to the Government a Memorandum setting forth the grounds upon which he and his Friends held that that Department, as now constituted, ought not to be invested with the great trust involved in the primary education of the country.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he wished to draw attention to one point upon which he claimed that they were entitled to the consideration of the Government—namely, the grievance of Irish National School teachers. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had hold them very fairly that he was not very well acquainted with the subject; but it was one with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was acquainted. In Committee the previous day there had been nobody on the Front Opposition Bench to speak on the subject on behalf of the late Government, as all its Mem-

  529
  bers were conspicuous by their absence. He believed that it was admitted by all sections of the House that the Irish schoolmasters were wretchedly paid, as were also the schoolmistresses; and he believed that he was justified in asking the Government to provide some remedy for them in the next Parliament.
  MR. LEWISsaid, that the opinions as to the inadequacy of the pay of the teachers were not confined by any means to the Benches opposite. In Committee in this House, and otherwise, Members sitting on his side of the House, over and over again, had stated their belief that the condition of these poor teachers was pitiable in the extreme. The subject was one which, as a matter of common justice, demanded the earnest attention of the Government.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman replied he wished to say a very few words. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), in his remarks with regard to the Education Department, voiced the opinions of every single Member from Ireland. It would be rather too much for them to have to state all the causes of complaint which they had against that Department. It was a Department which had distinguished itself by two leading characteristics—secrecy and despotism. There was one point upon which he believed they would have to ask either the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them an immediate assurance. The inspectorships of schools in Ireland had been one of the highest and most valuable prizes which were open to the teachers under the competitive system. He had received recently a letter informing him that the Board of Education proposed to abolish the competitive system for those valuable appointments, and to substitute a system of nomination, thereby doing a great and flagrant injustice to the great mass of the Irish teachers. He believed that such a step should, before being carried into effect, be submitted to the judgment of the House. He would warn the Government that were such a retrograde and revolutionary change made it would, on very many occasions, form the subject of discussion in the House.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when Chief Secretary for Ireland, had known something of the subject of education in Ireland,
  530
  and he regretted that he had not held the Office for a greater length of time, as he believed that if he had he would have modified a great blot which was presented in the case of the National system of education in Ireland. These schools cost the country £36,000 a-year, and out of this only £3,000 was devoted to the benefit of the students. He also complained that some of the schools in Ireland which were intended for poor children were entirely occupied by the children of the upper classes, who sometimes drove to and from the schools in carriages. He believed that the funds devoted to the National Schools should be used for the purpose of converting them into Technical Schools, for the purpose of teaching the children how to be able to engage in various industries.
  MR. CORRYsaid, the Model Schools had done a great deal of good in Ireland, and he believed that it would be a very great pity if they should be abolished.
  MR. BERESFORDsaid, he had received deputations on many different occasions from the teachers complaining of the smallness of their pay. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to see his way to making some improvement in their position.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, there was a consensus of opinion in favour of a now Irish law with respect to the Model Schools and of the subject of education in Ireland.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I think there is no disposition on the part of the House to resume at any great length the debate of yesterday. I can only express my regret that as the Government are not now in a position to deal with the question of Irish education, I am not able to make any very definite reply to hon. Members; but I can thoroughly endorse the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary yesterday. Though, as a matter of fact, we are perfectly aware of the inadequacy of the pay of the National teachers, I would remind the House that there are other points to be considered beyond increasing the pay of the teachers. There is the question where the money is to come from, and the further question whether, if we increase their pay, we ought not also to take some security that they shall be better able to perform their duties. These matters, as

  531
  hon. Members must admit, require very careful consideration by the Government and the House of Commons. A Bill was introduced this year by the late Government which dealt to some extent with these matters; and I can only repeat that the whole question, and not only the teachers' remuneration, will receive the most serious consideration of the Government, and we shall endeavour to make some proposal in regard to it in the next Session of Parliament. If the Memorandum mentioned by the hon. Member for Sligo, with regard to the manner in which the National Board of Education performed its duty, should be received by my right hon. Friend, that Memorandum will also receive our most careful attention.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked for an answer to his question with regard to the subject of Inspectorships.
  [No reply.]
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution 2.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies (Colonel Stanley) had given the House some information on this subject yesterday; but he hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would give them much more before the House rose. The action of the Boers in the defence of their country, which led to the fight at Majuba Hill, would go down to posterity as a great action; but he hoped that action would not prejudicially influence Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had praised both Sir Charles Warren and Sir Hercules Robinson; but he (Sir George Campbell) held it was totally impossible for the Government to approve of the course pursued by both, for nothing could be more diametrically opposed than the opinions of Sir Charles Warren and Sir Hercules Robinson. For his own part, he thought that Sir Hercules Robinson could be relied upon as a "canny" administrator, whereas Sir Charles Warren had been guilty of great indiscretion. Passing, however, from that matter, it was his opinion that after the Government of this country had taken on themselves so much responsibility in regard to the affairs of Zululand, and wrought so much evil there, they ought now to do
  532
  some good, and for that purpose should take Zululand under our own protection. There was also a good deal to be said in favour of establishing a great South African Dominion, if the taxpayers of this country were willing to find the men and money required for the purpose. Such a scheme, if put forward by any Government, would deserve every attention. He could see no signs of any settled policy in South Africa having been adopted either by the late or the present Government. They had simply drifted along, though no doubt the present Government were right in interfering as little as possible until they had laid down the lines of a firm and settled policy. If the Government were prepared to act in accordance with the recommendations of Sir Charles Warren a great deal of good night be effected, but much expenditure would be incurred. The Government must seriously consider whether they were prepared to establish a great Dominion in Central Africa. Whatever their determination might be he trusted that they would adhere to a settled policy, and would discontinue the practice of temporizing.
  MR. WODEHOUSEsaid, that at that late period of the Session every minute of time was precious, and he would not detain the House for many moments; but seeing that the discussion of yesterday in Committee upon this Vote was confined within very narrow limits of time, and that the subject was a very important one, he hoped he might now be allowed to make a few observations, especially with reference to what was the main question for the moment—namely, whether the administration of the Bechuanaland Protectorate should be transferred to the Cape Colony, or be retained by the Imperial Government. Hon. Members had expressed alarm and dissatisfaction at this extension of Imperial responsibilities; and he did not pretend to think that a Protectorate in the heart of South Africa, far away from the coast, was a light matter. He admitted it to be a very serious undertaking; but the thing was done now, and it was too late to draw back. To recede now, to abandon Natives whose claims to our protection had been formally recognized, to suffer extensive territories to relapse into the anarchy and bloodshed from which Sir Charles Warren was sent to extricate them, to

  533
  waste all the fruits of his Expedition, to repeat, in short, on a smaller scale, the tragic fiascos of the Soudan, would not only cover us with the merited scorn and derision of the world, but would also add another instance—perhaps the most flagrant on record—to that long series of vacillations and contradictions of Imperial policy which all knew and confessed to have been the direct curse of South Africa. He would remind hon. Members who objected to this Protectorate that it had been founded, so to speak, under the auspices of a Prime Minister than whom no statesman had ever been more keenly sensible of the burden of Empire, and of a Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, of all the men that ever presided over that Office, was probably the most averse to accept fresh responsibilities, and the least impulsive or adventurous. Surely, then, there must have been reasons of extreme cogency for its establishment. He might, however, be told that it was the wish of Her Majesty's late Government that the Cape Colony should undertake the management of the Protectorate without delay; and that, undoubtedly, was their wish on the 28th of May last, as was evident from Lord Derby's despatch of that date. But if that were the wish and aim of the late Government throughout their Bechuanaland proceedings, they certainly made a most singular selection of officers when they sent out, first Mr. Mackenzie, and then Sir Charles Warren; singular, because both those gentlemen were known to hold definite and decided opinions about the proper methods of administering Native territories. Seven or eight years ago they were in Bechuanaland together; they had exchanged ideas, and worked out schemes of administration, and the vital essence of their schemes was Imperial, rather than Colonial, control. Moreover, both those gentlemen had submitted their schemes to the Colonial Office before they left England; and seeing that Lord Derby had approved the policy distinctly sketched in Sir Charles Warren's Memorandum of the 29th of October last—a policy whose foundation stone was Imperial control—it would be no surprise to him (Mr. Wodehouse) to learn that Sir Charles Warren had been a good deal disappointed by Lord Derby's subsequent action. If Lord Derby dis-
  534
  sented from the policy indicated in the Memorandum, why did he not say so at the time, rather than let Sir Charles Warren go out to South Africa with misconceptions in his mind? And he (Mr. Wodehouse) could not but think that the unhappy differences which had arisen between Sir Charles Warren and Sir Hercules Robinson were, in large measure, due to the ambiguous attitude of the late Secretary of State upon the fundamental question of Imperial or Colonial control. He hoped that the present Secretary of State would take warning, and make up his mind on this point with as little delay as possible, because until it was settled nothing would go right. For his own part, he had not the slightest faith in the capacity of the Cape Colony—even if it had the will, which he greatly doubted—to govern the Protectorate properly. The Colony had failed miserably in the far easier task of governing Basutoland. While under the Imperial Government the Basutos had not cost us a penny of money, nor an hour of anxiety and trouble. They were the best tribe in South Africa, the most peaceable and the most susceptible of civilization; but a few short years of Colonial management had half ruined and wholly demoralized them by drink and fighting; and in that condition they were handed back to the Imperial Government. When, therefore, thousands of Bechuanas and other Natives had actually been invited by Imperial officers to invoke the Queen's protection, he would strongly deprecate a transfer and delegation of responsibility which might prepare for them the fate of the Basutos, or something worse. Besides, he very much doubted whether these Natives would have anything to do with the Protectorate when they were told that they would pass under the control of the Colonial Government. Did anyone suppose that Montsioa and the other Chiefs in his neighbourhood had already forgotten the civilities exchanged at Rooi Grond, in November last, between the Cape Ministers, Mr. Upington and Mr. Sprigg, and the freebooters, including, perhaps, the murderers of Mr. Bethell? He (Mr. Wodehouse) believed that the Chiefs would reject the Protectorate if it were transferred to the Colony; and then, with a bankrupt Transvaal, chaos would reign again in those regions. If

  535
  the management of the Protectorate were undertaken by the Colony, the very magnitude of the task, and the very weakness of the Colony to execute it, would drive Colonial Ministers into such a Native policy as would shock enlightened opinion at home, and then it would be impossible to resist a demand for the renewed intervention of the Imperial Government. What, for example, was the cardinal point, the sine quâ non condition of the settlement of Bechuanaland which the Cape Ministers had proposed to Her Majesty's Government? It was the recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the validity of those Treaties which the freebooters forced on Mankoroane and Montsioa in July and October, 1882. In other words, the Cape Ministers insisted that Her Majesty's Government should formally recognize and sanction the system of filibustering in South Africa. He did not at all undervalue Colonial co-operation; but he believed that all that was best and most enlightened in Colonial opinion, whether it were English or Dutch, would deprecate the transfer of the Protectorate to the Colony, and would be glad to see it administered by the Imperial Government in a spirit of liberality towards White settlers, but with every safeguard for the territorial and other rights of the Native Tribes. It would be a mistake to suppose that all the Dutch farmers were in active sympathy with the freebooters, or actively hostile to the Imperial Government. A certain proportion, no doubt, of the Boers were men of extreme opinion and violent feeling, and these men were wont to come to the front in times of agitation and disturbance; but the majority of the Boers were quiet people, who cared above all things for peace on the Frontier—peace to cultivate their farms and sell their produce. And under a Government that gave them tranquillity to make money they would be loyal and contended. He must now refer to a very important consideration, which probably had more than anything else to do with the establishment of the new Protectorate; he alluded to the German appropriation of Angra Pequena and the adjoining coast. He would not dwell upon the humiliating incidents of the story of Angra Pequena; but whatever wounds had been inflicted on National pride, and whatever detri-
  536
  ment had been done to National interests in those transactions by procrastination and reluctance to face responsibility, we had at least secured command of the trade routes which met near the capital of the Chief Khame, and we had placed ourselves between the German and the Transvaal Boer. So far, so good; but if the Protectorate were handed over to the Cape Colony, the Frontier relations between Great Britain and Germany in South Africa would virtually be left in charge of a Colonial Ministry, and he (Mr. Wodehouse) would regard that as a most hazardous experiment. A quarrel might arise any day on a question of Customs Duties, or the importation of arms and ammunition, or on the treatment of a roving German trader; and when the quarrel had arisen it would not be open to Her Majesty's Government to shelter themselves behind the Colonial Government. In one of those speeches which Prince Bismarck made last year, and which attracted so much attention, he drew a distinction between the Imperial Government of Great Britain and her Colonial Governments, and it was of the action of the latter that he especially complained; but he added, and rightly added, that it was to the Imperial Government alone that he could look for explanations and redress. He (Mr. Wodehouse) would, therefore, absolutely decline to provide the Colonial Government with opportunities for quarrelling with Prince Bismarck. And now he had one entreaty to address to Her Majesty's Government—namely, to entreat them to take care that the Residents or other officers stationed in the Protectorate should have at their disposal sufficient mounted police or other armed force to insure obedience, and make their authority respected within the limits, and especially on the borders of their jurisdiction. He urged this point, because he knew not how many pages of our South African experiences teemed with warnings of the risks and mischiefs of leaving our officers in helpless positions, when they were inadequately equipped with executive resources. He should have liked, had there been more time, to speak of Zululand; but he would not abuse the patience of the House. He would content himself with saying that the spirit of the observations which he had ventured to make

  537
  with regard to Bechuanaland was equally applicable to Zululand; and that he, for one, should rejoice if, by a fuller recognition of Imperial responsibilities in that quarter also, Her Majesty's Government were able to bring about a more satisfactory state of affairs among a people to whom we had meted very hard measure, and whose present condition was a blot on the name and fame of England.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had expressed most forcibly the arguments in favour of making Bechuanaland a Crown Colony. It had been said that too much prejudice had been shown against the Boers; but he had said before, and he still felt, that if any war waged by this country was a just and righteous war it was that carried on against the Boers. If this country gave up the Cape Colony it would be a great blow to the position of the Colonial Empire; and, therefore, it seemed to him that we must not be too much afraid of being involved in a certain amount of expense, and he thought that money spent there would be very well spent. Of course, if, as had been done in the case of the Cape, one policy were initiated to-day and another tomorrow it must lead the way to great expense, and therefore one policy ought to be settled on and adhered to. At the same time, he thought his right hon. and gallant Friend, having so lately come into Office, had acted very wisely in reserving those questions for his own consideration; but he did hope that the decision he would arrive at would be the course recommended by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Wodehouse) both with regard to Zululand and Bechuanaland. They not only had to look on this question as an Imperial question, but also as a question of humanity; and he hoped the country would not consent to abandon these unfortunate Natives to the tender mercies of their enemies.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would warn the Government not to hurry into an annexation of territory from which the more prominent force of national opinion might compel them to withdraw. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Wodehouse) always spoke on these subjects with knowledge and experience; but, at the game time, he must dissent from the
  538
  policy the hon. Member had put forward. The late Government did not adopt this Protectorate over Bechuanaland in the absolute sense that had been inferred. It was quite true they adopted the Protectorate, but it was not done with a view to the assumption of the control of Bechuanaland by the Government of this country, but by the Government of the Cape Colony. That was the policy recorded in the last despatch of Lord Derby, and the question before the present Government was whether they intended to maintain that attitude, or whether they would resolve to maintain the Protectorate in their own hands. He believed that the force of circumstances would sooner or later compel this country to abandon the policy of extending its responsibility with regard to the government of these territories. It was impossible to draw a line beyond which the force of circumstances would not compel them to go. Wherever the line was drawn, there were outside it the same elements of disorder, and a further advance would be necessary, and the prospect of a continuous advance was one of the greatest arguments against an advance at all. A good deal had been said about Sir Charles Warren, and free reference had been made to his differences with Sir Hercules Robinson. Whatever might be said of his success, he declined altogether to recognize his immense virtue in restoring peace in Bechuanaland. Any man could govern in a state of siege. Sir Charles Warren had a large armed force at his command, and he proclaimed something very like martial law. Under those circumstances it was not surprising that he did restore peace; but in restoring it he had irritated the opinion of Cape Colony. In his (Mr. Courtney's) opinion, if the present Government were not prepared to assume the Protectorate of Bechuanaland they would find it necessary to send out someone with a more statesmanlike appreciation of the situation than Sir Charles Warren. The whole of our recent difficulties had been aggravated, if not entirely caused, by the intervention of the Home Government. This had done all the mischief. It had been said that the Cape Government were responsible for the Basuto troubles; but these were really due to the action of Sir Bartle Frere, who forced the Cape Government to carry out a policy which

  539
  was popular at home, though unpopular at the Cape. The same might be said of our difficulties in Zululand. There never would have been a war, the scheme of government which had been successfully maintained would not have been broken up, and the attempt to set up 13 princelings would never have been made, but for the pressure from home and the advice dictated from home. We were betrayed into errors by want of knowledge of the actual facts, which could only be obtained on the spot. The object which the Lord Mayor had so much at heart—namely, the welfare of the Natives—would be far better secured if intrusted to the heads of the local Government. No doubt there was a higher morality at home in regard to the Natives than there at present existed at the Cape; but we at home were without adequate information and knowledge, and were, as a consequence, constantly led into errors which inflicted on the Natives far greater evils than if matters were left to the control of the local authority. For instance, our action towards Montsioa, however well-intentioned, had produced adversity for him and the Natives on the borders of the Transvaal far greater than if we had never interfered at all. If the present Government were to adopt the policy of their Predecessors and establish a Protectorate over Bechuanaland, they would, in the present state of public opinion, possibly meet with approval. That, however, would not last long, the Cape Government would soon re-assert its claims, and the confusion that would attend on our rule would compel us to withdraw from Bechuanaland. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian had said, we had been lying uneasily on one side, and then turning uneasily on to the other. For many years a policy of increasing our responsibility had prevailed. It was reversed in 1876, but was again revived. In 1880 the issue before the country was that of withdrawal from responsibility, and that withdrawal from responsibility was approved by public opinion. He was not sure that that issue would be determined in the same way now if placed before the country; but he believed that in the long run the balance of public opinion would be definitely against the increase of responsibility. In a recent despatch the Secretary of State stated
  540
  that public opinion approved of the course pursued by Sir Charles Warren. Those who sat on the Treasury Bench and the Front Opposition Bench should consider what public opinion was. Public opinion was a great force to which it was necessary to bow, although it seemed to hurry us now in one direction and then in another; perhaps on many subjects it might be necessary to let it flow over us; but there were questions as to which it ought to be the ambition of the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Ministerial and Front Opposition Benches to create a public opinion—for public opinion on these subjects depended upon what they said and what they did—and to maintain it in its proper course, instead of giving way to that which so constantly caused our humiliation. In the present case, public opinion seemed to be evidenced by the fact that some hysterical newspaper screamed out that Sir Charles Warren was the saviour of the world. He hoped that an attempt would be made to guide public opinion rightly on the subject of South Africa, and to follow the course which that correct public opinion pointed out.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, he did not desire to enter into the general subject raised by this Vote; but he wished to express his gratification at the statement made by the Colonial Secretary that the Estimate made by the late Government of £675,000 for the Bechuanaland Expedition was not likely to be exceeded. He was sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would bear him out in saying that there was no country in regard to which it was more difficult to make an accurate Estimate of the probable expense of an Expedition. He had been told that in regard to the Zulu War, when the present Secretary for the Colonies was Secretary for War, it was found almost impossible to gauge beforehand the expenditure, owing to the distances and the wildness of the country. He was very gratified to hear that the recent Expedition had been successful, and that its cost would be covered by the Estimate that had been made by the late Government in November last. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that the military force should be replaced by armed police, he could certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that he would find abundant facilities in

  541
  this country for recruiting such a force. At the time it was proposed to send out the Expedition those who were charged with the duty of raising it were literally besieged by men who were anxious to join, and there were also numbers of officers who were desirous to be of service to their country in the matter. He considered that the policy which had been indicated of reducing the force at present under Sir Charles Warren and substituting for it a kind of Frontier Police Force was a right policy to pursue.
  MR. RATHBONE,in contradiction of what had been said by the Lord Mayor, said, that he had had occasion to meet an officer who was in charge of the Natives during the Transvaal and Zulu War. He had been told by that officer in the strongest terms that our interference between the Boers and the Natives had been productive of much misery to the latter, and that, if we had but left them alone, they would have taken better care of themselves than we took of them, and would have settled many of their quarrels among themselves.
  MR. M'ARTHURsaid, he believed that if we had left the Zulus to themselves they would have gone to war with the Boers, and would have shown themselves the stronger party of the two. This country went to war with them, and conquered them; and now they were in a defenceless state, and in a much worse position than when we found them. The Boers violated every Treaty into which they entered, and no confidence could be placed in any Treaty which they made. The most terrible cruelties had been committed by the Boers on the Natives, and some of the atrocities which had been perpetrated were so great that it was almost impossible that they could have been committed by such a partially civilized race. He believed, however, that both parties had made a mistake with regard to the Transvaal. When the Transvaal was annexed, he believed that the state of things existing was very bad indeed. The Transvaal Government was known to be almost insolvent, and at the present time it was well known that the Government had become bankrupt. The greatest dissatisfaction existed at that time, and the people of the Transvaal were in favour of their country being
  542
  annexed by England. Opinions differed I in regard to the propriety of annexing the Transvaal. At the time when the subject was under discussion, he consulted a man who knew more of the condition of South Africa than, perhaps, any man then living—he referred to the late Dr. Moffat. The rev. gentleman told him of the terrible atrocities which he had seen in that country, and he stated that it was impossible for him to describe the pleasure he felt when he heard that the Government were about to annex the Transvaal. Another mistake which had been made had consisted in the patching up of a peace. He believed that tin's country did it from the best of motives, and in the anxiety to avoid the shedding of blood. What had been the result? To this day the people of the Transvaal believed that they had defeated the British Army, and that they could do so again. A good deal had been said with regard to the extension of our territory in this region. Although he was averse from the extension of territory if the desire was simply to extend our Dominions, he believed it was a commendable proceeding if such extension of territory was taken in defence of our own interests, and in defence of our position in the country. He was glad that the trade route had been secured; the loss of it would have been a great calamity not only to the interests of South Africa, but to our own. He did not believe that the annexation of those territories, although at the outset costing a good deal of money, would become a permanent source of expense to the ratepayers of this country—on the contrary, he believed it would conduce to the greater development of the trade of this country. We had incurred responsibilities in South Africa, and we had given pledges to the people which, he believed, we were in duty and in honour bound to fulfil. He trusted that the Government would not allow themselves to be influenced by motives and arguments brought forward with the intention of lessening their responsibilities in this respect. He hoped we would be prudent and circumspect, and he believed that justice and humanity and every right feeling induced us not to violate the pledges we had given, but that they induced us to do our best to carry them out,
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel STANLEY)said, the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) had spoken of the Natives and the Boers, and he recommended a policy that they should have been allowed to fight out the question between themselves. Without wholly agreeing with the remarks of the hon. Member, he should be incurring some blame if he did not at this stage make some comments on the subject before them. He must, however, ask the House to allow him to limit himself to that which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had rightly called a negative statement. At this period of the negotiations, at the time when the Expedition in South Africa had, to a certain extent, terminated its primary duties, when there were other important matters on which negotiations were going on, and when important information reached them from day to day, he hoped that it was making no undue demand on the patience of the House to ask that they might be allowed time to consider the general aspect of affairs in South Africa, and to endeavour to arrive at that calm and dispassionate view of the situation, which would enable them, if possible, to mark out some line of procedure which would afford some guarantee that their future proceedings there, by whomsoever conducted, should not be characterized by that vacillation which had been found fault with by so many hon. Members. He did not desire now to go into the past, nor, for obvious reasons, would he enter on the field to which he had been invited, and discuss how far the various acts of the late Government, as connected with South Africa, were entirely consistent with themselves, or even with the statements of some of their principal Members. As to that he thought it bettor to "let the dead past bury its dead." He now desired to look forward and to view the situation as it lay in front of them, and to endeavour, further, to take such a course as might, on the one hand, allow them to afford all due protection to those who were subject to their dominion, and, on the other hand, as might leave to be determined, under convenient circumstances, those other details of administration and government upon which, at the present moment, he felt himself unable to pronounce an opinion.
  544
  In regard to not going back upon the past, he would make one exception in consequence of a remark that fell from the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). The hon. Member spoke of Zululand, and he charged a good deal of that which happened to the Home Government. So far from its having been the case that the Home Government was answerable for what took place in the Zulu War, he wished distinctly to enter his protest against any such statement, and to say that, as far as he was aware, not only was that not the case, but that diametrically the opposite was the fact; for the Home Government being opposed to any advance into Zululand, that advance was made before they knew it was intended.
  MR. COURTNEYexplained that he did not attribute it to the direct action of the Home Government, but to the emissaries they sent out. ["No, no!"]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel STANLEY)said, he accepted the correction of the hon. Gentleman; but he had not understood him in that sense, nor did it appear that the House had. The hon. Member had told them further about the vacillation that had existed, of the desire for the extension of territory shown at one time, and the desire for retrenchment and economy evinced at another; and, although the country in 1880 pronounced against the extension of their responsibilities, yet the very Government which strongly denounced that policy of the extension of their responsibilities incurred at a later period larger responsibilities than any that they had undertaken before. Now, he ventured to claim, not on behalf of the Government, but on behalf of the country, time for the Government to consider carefully those great problems. They had undertaken the maintenance of order and of safety among the subjects of the Queen. They did not share the view of the hon. Member for Liskeard, who thought that Montsioa would perhaps have been able to conduct his own affairs, and that if no interference had taken place on his part and on that of the other Chiefs by the Government, he would have been in a better position. Well, he supposed that the hon. Member must have forgotten a good deal that appeared in the Blue Books. For himself he thought it was more than

  545
  open to doubt whether, if that course had been taken, Montsioa would even have been in existence at present. That was a policy the advocacy of which was left almost exclusively to the hon. Member for Liskeard, who, however, had the courage of his opinions, and was always ready to express them. In conclusion, he did not know that he had any further remarks to make on the subject, except to say that if hon. Gentlemen speaking in many cases with further knowledge than he could pretend to possess so disagreed on all questions as they had done in that debate, surely there was much to be said in favour of the course which the Government intended to pursue—namely, to examine carefully into those great questions, to obtain the best information they could, and to act on it, he hoped, without fear on the one hand and without prejudice on the other; and acting in that spirit they hoped to fulfil the duties which they owed to the country in respect both to the Colonial Government and to those with whom the Colonial Government was concerned.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution 3.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he desired to call the attention of the Postmaster General again to the condition of the mail service between Dublin and the West of Ireland. That service was conducted at only about one-half the speed which was attained over the general mail service in every part of England and Scotland—in fact, it was the worst in the Kingdom, and the reason was that the Midland Great Western Railway Company, which carried the mails, only received half the remuneration given to the other Railway Companies in Ireland for carrying the mails. The reason given for refusing to place this Company in the same position as the other Companies was that the returns for the service were not sufficient to warrant the increase; but the Province of Con-naught was the object of special legislation for the relief of distress there, and he thought it was plain from that that, in this important matter of the transmission of the mails, its very poverty ought to be an additional reason why the public Revenue should be applied to give it a helping hand. Somebody must lose, and he did not think it was fair to ask the Railway Company to lose. The
  546
  Railway Company were willing to give an improved service at the lowest rate that would not involve loss to the shareholders; and he did not see why, under those circumstances, such a Department as the Post Office, which made an immense profit, should not give an efficient service without expecting the Railway Company to lose by it. Would it be believed that the whole question in dispute in this important matter was a small sum of £3,000 a-year, and because of the refusal of the Post Office authorities to spend that sum, the people of the West of Ireland were left with a mail service which was a scandal to modern times. Only the other Session the Government agreed to a mail contract for the West Indies which would involve a loss of £49,000 a-year, and he did not see why such a sum should be spent on a distant Dependency whilst the claims of 1,000,000 of people in a Province of what was called the Sister Country were disregarded. He appealed to the noble Lord to do the Province of Connaught justice in this matter. If the present Government hesitated to give a pledge on this subject, Irish Members, who next year would be much stronger in the House, would make it their business to retaliate upon the Department, to prove that this gross disregard of the interests of a whole Province would no longer be tolerated.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Postmaster General to the danger to which the public in the Metropolis was exposed by the Parcel Post vans and the mail carts being unprovided with lamps at night. Several accidents had already occurred.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to enter his protest against the continued use of the plural number in the title of the "Parcels Post," pointing out that in the case of the book post such an inaccuracy, as he regarded it, was not committed. He also thought that some alteration of the scale for the Parcel Post was desirable, the unit of 1 lb. being very inconvenient. As it was, 1 lb. or more of any article would just weigh over the scale by reason of the package in which it was wrapped. He would further suggest the desirability of a system of insurance for small parcels.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDdesired to call attention to a grievance increased of late by the introduction of official Post

  547
  Parcel carts. In these carts the drivers were often seated under a hood or cover, so that they could only see straight forward; and he suggested that provision should be made for so seating the drivers that they could see freely to the right and left, and avoid the danger of coming unawares with other vehicles, or driving over pedestrians at the crossings of the streets.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERSS)said, he had really nothing to say against the statement made by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He believed it was a statement of facts; but whether he could say that he agreed with the conclusion drawn from these facts was a matter which he thought, perhaps, had bettor stand over for the present. When he came into Office, he found that his Predecessor had gone closely and impartially into the question, feeling honestly anxious to do what he could for the Province of Connaught in the matter; and he himself since did not see his way to go beyond the offer which his Predecessor had made. The hon. Member for Sligo now, however, pointed out that Connaught was a neglected Province; that the Legislature, recognizing this view, had given relief and assistance to the Province; and that the present Government, recognizing these facts, might apply to Connaught a more generous and liberal rule than usually enforced by the Post Office. He was sure the hon. Gentleman would not expect him suddenly to give any answer upon that question as now raised; but he would say this to the hon. Gentleman, that he would promise carefully to reconsider the whole question, and see whether terms and arrangements might not be come to between the Railway Company and the Post Office. Beyond that he did not think it would be right for him to go now; but he would promise the hon. Gentleman that at least he would do that. With regard to the question of giving lights to the mail carts, he would, now that his attention had been drawn to the matter, see whether an alteration could be made in the desired direction; and with reference to the suggestion that the limit of weight in the Parcels Post system should be raised, the matter was under consideration, and he hoped that ere long the grievance complained of would be remedied.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he thought the answer of the Postmaster General was satisfactory as far as it went. He did not speak there on behalf of the Railway Company. He spoke in the interests of his constituents, who did not care about the railway, and on whom the present mail service pressed very hardly. He wished to inform the noble Lord that before the Session closed the hon. Member for Sligo would put a a Question on this matter, and he trusted by that time he would have made up his mind upon it.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution 4.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): Sir, as the Committee last night were good enough to allow me to take this Vote without discussion, I then promised I would explain it at this stage. I will endeavour to do so as briefly as possible. This is a Vote for £500, part of a sum of £4,000, to defray the expense of erecting a statue at Trafalgar Square, Charing Cross, to the memory of the late General Gordon. The House will remember that about a fortnight ago a Question was asked in this House by the Lord Mayor of London as to whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose a Vote for this purpose? My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that the Government believed that it would be in accordance with a very general feeling, both in this House and in the country, that such a memorial should be raised to General Gordon, and that, when there had been time to consider the question of the position and the precise character of the memorial, he should be prepared to propose the necessary Vote to the House, and my right hon. Friend immediately directed me, as Chief Commissioner of Works, to inquire into the subject. I have lost no time in doing so, and I have been favoured with many valuable and interesting suggestions from various quarters, for which I desire to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks; but I feel I am especially indebted to the kindness of three of our most distinguished living artists—Sir Frederick Leighton, Sir John Millais, and Mr. Watts—whom I particularly consulted. I hope to be able to take advantage on almost every point of the most valuable

  549
  advice which they were good enough to give me; but there is one respect in which I am sorry that I am not able to give effect to their opinion, but to which I desire for one moment to refer. These three distinguished artists were unanimously of opinion that this memorial should take the form of an allegorical group of sculpture rather than of a simple statue, and, no doubt, there is much to be said in favour of that suggestion; but, on the whole, after careful consideration and consultation with many persons whose opinions on such subjects are entitled to great weight, I have come to the conclusion that it is a statue reproducing as nearly as may be the man—General Gordon—that the people of this country at the present time, and for all time to come, will most desire to have among them. Perhaps, however, I may be allowed in one sentence to express my own entire concurrence in the opinion of the three eminent artists to whom I have referred, that this great and wealthy Metropolis is lamentably deficient in works of Art sculpture, except so far as regards statues, and I am afraid some of them are not very good. There is enough of young and rising talent, as they assure me, in the Art of sculpture in this City well able to adorn our public places with worthy works of genius of the kind that they suggested should be produced on the present occasion. I must, however, speaking for Her Majesty's Office of Works, say that, in view of the many demands that we are obliged to make upon the Treasury for public buildings and other expenses, we really could not have the face to apply to the Treasury to give us anything for these groups of sculpture for the purpose of generally beautifying this City; and I may add that I have not a doubt, if we did make such an appeal, what the nature of the answer would be. But I fully recognize how great would be the improvement which a few really well-executed groups of statuary would be to London; and, if I may venture to say so, I think London is rich enough to indulge itself with such a luxury. At any rate, I throw out the suggestion for consideration merely on my own responsibility as a Member of this House; and I have only to add that if the public wishes for it, and will spontaneously find the money for such a purpose, I should be delighted to undertake to find ad-
  550
  mirable sites; and if they wish it, and will trust me with the choice. I will find, besides, artists to whom I believe can be safely confided such a high and noble task. And now, as to the statue of Gordon, for which I am asking this Vote, it is not necessary, nor would time permit me, to speak at any length. Certainly, I shall not say one word that can awaken oven an echo of the stormy controversies which have lately raged over the romantic adventures and melancholy death of the late General Gordon; for I hope, and I feel sure, that the Vote I am now asking for will be given with absolute unanimity. Whatever any of us may think of his views upon political and other public questions, there can be no doubt that the character and career of General Gordon had seized on the imagination not only of his own countrymen, but also of foreign nations, as practically illustrating many of the greatest and noblest qualities of Englishmen—of the kind of Englishmen who have made England what she is. His fame is the common property of all English-speaking people, and must for ever remain their proud inheritance. It is impossible for us at this time to say what kind of reward General Gordon himself would wish to have desired. Modest as he was brave, gentle as he was gallant, probably he cared as little as any man for the ordinary houours and the usual rewards which even brave and distinguished soldiers are proud to wear upon their breasts. Although we know that during the siege of Khartoum he endeavoured to encourage his followers through the dangerous vigils and the terrible monotony of that long trial by distributing among them such decorations as it was possible for them in their straitened circumstances to produce, still I do not think that he himself was a man who set much store by that kind of distinction. But no one can now doubt that all through the immortal siege his own mind ever and again went back to his own country beyond the desert and beyond the seas, and that his thoughts were constantly at home while "the last sad hours of valour's task moved slowly by." All that is over now—
  "The soldier's hope, the patriot's zeal,
  For ever gone, for ever crost.
  Oh! who shall say what heroes feel
  When all but life and honour's lost?"
  Gordon has lost his life, but his honour

  551
  shall remain bright for ever in the minds of his countrymen. His fame shall be set among many proud and melancholy memories, adorned by the noblest of all decorations—the simple dignity of self-devotion. But we think it is right—and I am sure all will agree with us—that here in the centre of the Metropolis of this great Empire, close to the Memorials of Nelson, of Napier, and of Havelock, should be placed the statue of another great Englishman, who in the fulness of his fame, in the prime of his manhood, gave up his life freely at the call of duty, and in what he believed to be the service of his country.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that the House of Commons, in encouraging English sculptors, had a right to expect the fullest benefit from the money expended. While agreeing with the idea of a statue to General Gordon, he must say he had never heard of such a sum as £4,000 being taken without one word being said to the House as to the form the memorial should take. The work of erecting this statue was no ordinary matter; and he therefore thought that some right hon. Gentleman upon the opposite Bench ought to give the House some information as to the intentions of the Government as to the site in the first instance, the material, and the mode in which they hoped to obtain the best work of Art under the circumstances. If it were simply to be left to the Board of Works as a matter of taste, he should protest against the Vote. In any case, he trusted the work would be given to a native artist.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of depreciating General Gordon's character, for they all knew he was one of the bravest of men, and that also he had absolutely no fear of death. What he wanted to ask the House was, what great services to the State or to the world had General Gordon done that should make the House of Commons vote money for a statue of him, for he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) supposed that statues were not voted to men simply because they were good and honourable? It was true that General Gordon had heroic qualities; but he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) himself did not think that General Gordon did any good to the State while at Khartoum. ["Oh!"] In the first place, when he was sent out to the Soudan his orders were to set the
  552
  Natives free; he was ordered to come away from Khartoum, but he disobeyed orders and remained, and instead of setting them free he spent his time in fighting against and trying to coerce the Soudanese, a people described by the late Prime Minister as rightly struggling to be free. Then, again, General Gordon had at one time destroyed the irrigation works on the river, an act of war which would not have been permitted by a Mahommedan Power. He did not think Gordon's actions were creditable to this country; and we had got not honour, but disgrace, from this Khartoum business. General Gordon, in his opinion, cost this country millions of money, and he believed if Gordon were alive now he would be the first person to object to money being spent for this purpose.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he entirely agreed with what the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had said. He (Mr. Labouchere) thought when they were asked to vote money for a statue to General Gordon, they ought to have some more distinct statement from the Government as to why they should pass the Vote. It must be remembered that General Gordon came before them as one who went to Khartoum for the specific purpose of making peace. No doubt he fought very gallantly; but he fought in a cause which, in the opinion of some hon. Members, was a wrong one. In that manner he did not carry out the instructions or intentions of those who sent him out. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members said "Oh, oh!" but if they looked at Gordon's diaries they would find that he railed against his Government, and the instructions they gave him. As he understood, they were asked to vote this money on account of what Gordon did at Khartoum. Well, he objected to what Gordon did at Khartoum, and, therefore, he was opposed to the granting of this money.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that if the two hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken (Sir Wilfrid Lawson and Mr. Labouchere) divided the House on the question, they might possibly find a brace of Tellers; but they would find no one else to follow them into the Lobby. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) wanted to know why they were asked to vote £500? His right hon. Friend had not stated what he was going to do with that particular sum. General Gordon was essentially a British hero. He went to Khar-

  553
  toum and Egypt, and sacrificed his life to British interests; and, therefore, he hoped his right hon. Friend would select a British sculptor to carry out the work of his statue. No doubt General Gordon was also a great hero; but they ought to know how this £4,000 was to be expended. In that country, as well as in any other, he contended that where public works had to be carried out, British artists should be employed in preference to foreigners; for there was no doubt whatever that they would prove themselves worthy of the patronage bestowed upon them. He hoped his observations would receive the consideration of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works. He objected to trusting this matter to the Board of Works, which, in many ways, had shown its incapacity for dealing with questions of Art. Let them look, for instance, at Hyde Park Corner, where the Board had removed the Triumphal Arch, and set it in a hole where it now stood, on an inclined plane, a disgrace to the Department and to the Metropolis.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he could not fail to enter his protest against the manner in which Ministers came to the House, asking for a specific sum for some public work, and, without affording the House any particulars of the object for which the Vote was required, expecting the House to grant it without demur.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET)said, that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would perceive, on looking at the Estimates which were laid upon the Table yesterday, that the particulars of the Vote for providing a statue to General Gordon at Charing Cross were duly given. This Vote of £500 was merely asked for as a preliminary step, so as to obtain the sanction of the House to the proposed statue, and so as to enable him to enter into negotiations with regard to it, so far as related to the selection of an able sculptor to carry it out. It was not usual to state the names before the negotiations were actually commenced, and, indeed, he could not now state who the artist would be; but he could say that the statue would be of bronze, and would be placed at Charing Cross.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether it would be an equestrian statue?
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, it would not.
  Resolution agreed to.

  TELEGRAPH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Hibbert.)
  TELEGRAPH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

    [BILL 121.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, it was of great importance to the trading community of the country that the Bill should be passed without delay. He was anxious that the sole benefit of 6d. telegrams should not fall altogether to the rich and powerful, but that small tradesmen and others should derive equal advantages there from. He must, however, be allowed to express his strong disapproval of any plan which would abolish free addresses. That would be a departure from the principle on which the telegraph system was established when it was taken up by the State. When the telegraph service was in the hands of different Companies there were different rates of charges for telegrams to different places—some telegrams costing only 6d., while others, such as telegrams to Ireland, were sent only at a minimum charge of 2s. The State resolved to buy up the telegraphs, and to have a uniform charge for telegrams to all parts of the Kingdom, allowing 20 words to be sent for 1s., and in all cases allowing addresses, whether long or short, to go free. It was now proposed to alter that system by counting in the words of the addresses as part of the telegram. That would be tantamount to inflicting a fine on long addresses; and, having regard to the fact that in London it was frequently very necessary to add the name of another street to define where the first-named street was, a charge for addresses would be especially hard on poor people in London. Thus, there were 37 High Streets in the Metropolis, and these had to be further described by the name of the district in which they were situated. He must be allowed to express his surprise that the Post Office authorities should say that the average address of telegrams numbered 10 words. He had compared the number of words in the addresses of letters which he had re-

    555
    ceived from all parts of the Kingdom with the number of words in his own address; and he found that the smallest number of words in his own address was seven, doing away with any prefixes or affixes, and simply confining the address to the name and the direction. That he believed to be the average of the addresses of most hon. Members in the House; but, no doubt, there were a large number of addresses which reached eight, nine, and 10 words. He was convinced that many telegrams contained at least 14 words in the address, and the probability was that the average number was higher than 10. With regard to the step which was proposed to be taken in regard to the curtailment of addresses, he believed it to be a downward movement, and that it would be breaking up that principle of the uniform rate irrespective of distance or the number of words in an address, and breaking down the system which had been established at tire taking over of the telegraphs. He had proposed that there should be 6d., 9d., and 1s. charge for telegrams; but the Department was opposed to any system suggested by an outsider. He could not understand whether the Post Office wished to increase the service of telegrams among the mass of the people, or whether they simply wished to extend its use among those classes who at present used it. He believed that if they abolished free addresses much disappointment would be caused, believing, as he did, that the proposition of a free address was a good one. It had to be borne in mind that when it was said the Department would lose by continuing the system of free addresses the loss thus estimated was simply a speculative one. There could be no doubt that the telegraphic system was capable of extension in a manner which the Post Office authorities had not the slightest conception of; and therefore, in the interests of the Post Office and for the benefit of the great mass of the people, he would support the proposition that the addresses should be free. Personally, he was in favour of a tariff of four words, including free address, for 6d.; and he would be prepared to move an Amendment to that effect in Committee.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he was concerned to hear from his hon. Colleague in the representation of the City
    556
    of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) views which, were exceedingly heretical with regard to political economy. His hon. Friend had stipulated for a fixed price—for what? Why, for a variable quantity, a course of procedure directly contrary to political economy. The right hon. Gentleman the late Postmaster General had made a proposition which he considered to be fair and reasonable, and clear and distinct in its operation. In this case, when they had a fixed price for a fixed quantity, no one could have any doubt as to the construction of his message. With regard to the desire which had been expressed to meet the wishes of the humbler classes, he must point out that telegrams were a luxury of the rich, and that the poorer classes only used them in circumstance of extreme emergency, when questions of economy could not be permitted to enter into their calculations. For instance, in the case of serious illness or urgent business the humbler classes might have recourse to the telegraph, but scarcely otherwise. They must look upon this as a question of the State conferring a great boon on the public; and, in that view, it ought not to be compelled to do its work at less than a fair equivalent. Therefore, inasmuch as the rates of postage for letters and parcels varied according to the weight of the missives, so it was equitable and right that the cost of telegrams should vary according to the length of the messages that were wired. The right hon. Gentleman the late Postmaster General had done all that could be done in the way of concession. The proposition of ½d. per word was perfectly definite and clear, and he hoped it would be carried into execution.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he hoped that as no Amendment had been made to the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," the House would now allow the Bill to get into Committee.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Construction and citation of Acts) agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Postmaster General to make regulations for conduct of business and to fix charges).
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS),in rising to move the following Amendment:—In page 1, line 24, to leave out Sub-section (1), and insert—
    "(1.) The charges for the transmission of written telegrams throughout the United Kingdom shall uniformly, and without regard to distance, be at a rate not exceeding sixpence for the first three words of each telegram, or for each telegram of less than three words, and not exceeding one halfpenny for each additional word.
    "(2.) The names and addresses of the senders and receivers of written telegrams shall not be counted as part of the words for which payment shall be required,"
    said: It will be necessary for me to occupy the attention of the Committee for a short time while I explain the objects I have in view in bringing forward this Amendment. I regret that the necessity which was imposed upon us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), in moving the second reading of this Bill on the very afternoon on which the House adjourned for the Easter holidays, rendered it impossible for me to raise the question involved in my Amendment at that stage of the measure. I would much rather have introduced it as a question affecting the principle of the Bill than have bad to propose it, as I am now compelled to do, in Committee. But the matter is one in which I have now no alternative; and, therefore, I have to ask the Committee to decide the point at issue between the right hon. Gentleman and myself at this stage. I shall endeavour to restrict what I have to say to the point immediately at issue, and that is the abolition or continuance of free addresses. In what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) I entirely agree. I object as strongly as he can do to the proposal to abolish free addresses, and I am about to ask the Committee to come to a decision upon that point. Both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading and myself are under the same financial restriction in dealing with this question. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that he might have proposed a scheme of a more liberal character but for the necessity imposed on him by the Treasury of not exceeding the estimated loss of £180,000 a year, which is the anticipated effect of his
    558
    proposal, and I may state that the Treasury have also imposed, and, I think, very wisely, the same restriction on myself; and I have therefore had so to arrange my scheme for obtaining for the public the great boon and privilege of free addresses, as not to exceed the estimated loss of £180,000. The experienced officers of the Department have assured me that the scheme I have now to propose will meet that Treasury requirement. Therefore, as regards the financial result, my scheme and that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite will stand on a footing of perfect equality, and the only thing the Committee will have to decide is the question of the respective merits of the two schemes. And here I may say that I wish the Committee to decide this question, not with reference to the effect of one scheme or the other on any one particular class, or upon certain classes of the community, but with respect to the interests of the general body of the telegraphing public. I agree with the worthy Alderman opposite (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) that we ought to extend our view a little further, and that we should not have regard merely to those individuals or classes who are at present in the habit of using the telegraphs, but that, as we are about to make a great change for the first time in 16 years in the general system of telegraphy, we ought to endeavour to arrange the charges so as to induce those classes who have not hitherto been in a position to avail themselves of the advantages of the telegraphic system to come in in the future. Now, I say that the scheme proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not fulfil these conditions. I admit that, with respect to certain important classes of the community, they might see their way to obtaining an advantage under that scheme. I admit, for instance, that the rich or well-to-do merchants, traders, stockbrokers, and so on, who have fixed, and, what is still more important, registered addresses, might be gainers by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. And, further, I admit that a class of whom I wish, as Postmaster General, to speak with every respect and consideration—the betting fraternity—might also gain advantage under that scheme. But my contention is that the State did not give £11,000,000 for the purpose of taking over the tele-

    559
    graphs from private companies, in order that the influential class of merchants and traders, and still loss the betting fraternity, should be favoured at the expense of all the other classes of the community. That is the position I take in regard to this matter, and I hope the Committee will not be induced to give its sanction to any scheme which cannot be shown to be advantageous to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. Now, in the first place, I have to point out that the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman opposite depends entirely on what I cannot but regard as an assumption—namely, that those who use the telegraph can conveniently and safely cut down the number of words in their addresses from an average of 11 to an average of five. That, I assert, is a pure assumption, and I am not disposed to think that because the extremely Cleveland ingenious officers of my Department have assumed that this great reduction can be safely effected in the number of words used in addresses, that, therefore, this saving could be safely or conveniently effected by the great body of the telegraphing public. If, when a person goes into a telegraphic office to send a message, he always had one of those experienced and highly skilful officers of the Telegraph Department at his elbow to say how many words he might safely excise from the addresses he wished to give, then I should admit the contention of the right hon. Gentleman; but as that is not the case, and as the great body of the telegraphing public will have to decide for themselves how many words it is necessary or expedient they should use in the addresses they give, they must, in the last resort, be the best and only judges of what is and what is not a safe and satisfactory address for the telegram required to be delivered, and whether it is one that will insure that the telegram shall be delivered, not only with certainty, but with speed. On this point I notice that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), in one of the speeches he made recommending his scheme to the House, mentioned the fact that in his Office he had failed to discover any record of a decided opinion on the part of his distinguished and lamented Predecessor on the subject. I confess that I am not very greatly surprised that the late Mr. Fawcett did not leave at the
    560
    Post Office any record of what he thought on this subject. But if he left no such recorded opinion at the Post Office, he did express an opinion, and I think a very decided opinion, on the point in this House. I will, if the Committee will allow me, read the words used by Mr. Fawcett on that subject. Speaking on the 28th March, 1883, he said—
    "There is no doubt much force in what the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) has stated, and that the abolition of free addresses would bear most heavily upon the poor."
    And here I must, in justice, interpose the remark that the theory of maintaining freedom of addresses has always been one that I have held upon the ground here stated, and that I entertained it quite as strongly when I was not Postmaster General as I do now, and so expressed myself when the hon. Member for the City of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) moved his Amendment to the proposal of the late Government. Well, Mr. Fawcett went on to say—
    "A well-known man's address is generally a short one, and in many cases would be simply the name of the town in which he lives; whereas a poor person's address would often have to name the court and the street in which he lived. It would be found that the poor person's address was often several words longer than rich persons'; and, therefore, to charge for the address at one halfpenny per word would undoubtedly press somewhat heavily upon the poor."—(3 Hansard, [277] 1011.)
    So far as I know—and I had several conversations with that lamented Gentleman after the debate just referred to—Mr. Fawcett never changed his opinion that the abolition of free addresses, or, at any rate, of the receiver's address, would be a great detriment to the poorer class who might be anxious to use the telegraph. I believe that Mr. Fawcett, as far as is known, retained that opinion to the last. But I would suggest that there are several classes who even already have expressed in public their opinions upon the matter. I have mentioned those classes who, in my belief, would gain by the abolition of free addresses; I should now like to put before the Committee a record of the views held by those persons who may be taken to represent a large class of the community, and who entertain a different opinion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Heading is probably familiar with the recorded opinion of a very

    561
    important constituent of his own—I allude to Mr. Sutton, the great seedsman. He is a gentleman who has, I believe, something like 70,000 customers belonging to a very important and influential class of the trading community, and he has expressed his opinion on the matter in the following terms. Writing to The Times upon the subject, Mr. Sutton said—
    "A very considerable portion of our business transactions is carried on by wire, not with other houses of business, but with agriculturists throughout the length and breadth of the country. I have to-day had our books examined, and find we have 1,060 customers of the name of 'Smith,' of which no less than 323 are 'John Smith;' 465 'Jones,' 96 of whom are 'John Jones;' 450 'Browns,' 87 'John Brown;' other surnames, such as 'Williams' and 'Robinson,' joined to other Christian names such as 'Richard' or 'Robert,' showing a similar relative proportion of identical appellations. Under such circumstances, I think you will not be surprised that we should be of a different opinion to the Postmaster General as to the address of the sender, except in the most abbreviated form, being more surplusage. The name in such cases being of little use alone, the address of the sender is practically the only means by which he can be identified. A country resident's postal address seldom corresponds with, or even indicates, his nearest telegraph office. The postal address is often the only one with which we are acquainted, and as it would not be likely to occur to any one of the 323 'John Smiths' that we had another customer of the same name within 10 miles of him, any inducement such as that it is now proposed to hold out to him still further to curtail his address would make the identification of the actual sender of the telegram in question well nigh impossible. It thus appears to us that the system of charging for the address of the sender, leading, as it certainly must, to the omission of essential details, will be open to most serious objection."
    It may be said that Mr. Sutton somewhat exaggerates the inconvenience of the change suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but again I say that I think that people who use the telegraph are the best judges in matters of this sort. Mr. Sutton insists that the address of the sender, no less than that of the receiver, should remain free. There can be no doubt that, if free addresses are abolished, the public will in many cases, without much consideration, cut off words from their addresses; and the change will cause increased complaints, numerous delays, irritation, vexation, and agitation. They will, therefore, discard any attempt to curtail the addresses, but will continue them at what they believe to be the necessary length. Let me take another class whose claims ought
    562
    not to be disregarded in the consideration of this question, and which is entirely opposed to the abolition of free addresses. Miss Anne Bromhead, the Lady Superintendent of the Institute for Nurses, Lincoln, a very well-known lady, has written to the editor of The Times, and what does she say?—
    "Sir, will you allow me to add my protest to that of Messrs. Sutton and Sons against the doctrine of the Postmaster General, that 'the name and address of the sender of a telegram are, except in the most abbreviated form, mere surplusage?' I am quite sure that those who have the management of institutions for sending out trained nurses—of which there are now, happily, a large number throughout the Kingdom—would be very far from agreeing with him. A large part of our business is conducted by telegrams from quite unknown senders, generally requiring answers by telegraph; and any inducement to curtail the information given in the addresses would be productive of the greatest trouble, and often of serious delay."
    I should think that these are cases which ought specially to commend themselves to the favourable consideration of the Committee. I cannot imagine any class of cases to which the House of Commons should pay more attention than those connected with the sending of medical relief and assistance to patients. Miss Bromhead does not stand alone. Only the other day a Petition was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell) from the Faculty of Physicians of that city, which in the strongest terms contends that the freedom of addresses should be maintained. This is a copy of the Petition presented by the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow—
    "That your Petitioners, as representing the largo body of the Medical Profession in the West of Scotland, and having also numerous licentiates practising in other parts of the United Kingdom, are deeply interested in any measure tending to cheapen and afford increased facilities for telegraphic communication. That a Bill is at present depending in your Honourable House, intituled 'A Bill to amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1868.' Your Petitioners approve the provisions of the said Bill so far as providing for increased facilities in the transmission of telegrams by Her Majesty's Post Office Department, aad tending to a lessened charge therefor. Your Memorialists would respectfully, however, point out that by the enactment of the provision contained in Subsection (1) of Clause 2 of said Bill that 'the names and addresses of the sender and addressee of the telegram' shall be counted as part of the message, the practical reduction in the existing charge for telegrams will be greatly minimized. They would further respectfully

    563
    submit that it is in the interest of the Postal Telegraph Service that the name and address of the person to whom the telegram is sent shall be full and distinct, so as to save time and trouble in the ascertainment of the proper person to whom it is deliverable. Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Proviso to Sub section 1 of Clause 2 of the said Bill be not enacted, but that the names and addresses of the sender and addressee of the telegram be as heretofore allowed free of charge, and that the said Bill with this and such other Amendments as to your Honourable House may seem meet may pass into law."
    That is the representation made by the Medical Faculty of the West of Scotland. I have also a letter from an eminent physician, whose opinion, I am sure, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) will be disposed to regard with the greatest respect. Professor Gairdner, of Glasgow, writes to the following effect:—
    "My experience as a physician leads me to believe that very considerable inconvenience will result to the Medical Profession and to their patients from the introduction of cheap telegrams unless the rule in operation at present that the addresses go free can be maintained. Merchants, lawyers, and others have their noted correspondents, and rarely communicate hurriedly with previously unknown persons; to them, therefore, this view of the case does not so readily occur. But medical practitioners are liable to be summoned at any time to the assistance of persons of whose mere existence they have never before heard, and cases may easily occur where a message of the greatest possible emergency may be transmitted without forethought as to the embarrassments arising from an imperfect address. In such cases the omission of even one or two words, either from undue economy, or from the habit acquired of using an unduly short form of address for telegraphic purposes, may cause the recipient of a telegram a very great deal of trouble."
    I will not trouble the Committee by reading the whole of the letter; but I think the passages I have read will show that nothing can be stronger than the view of Professor Gairdner upon the subject. I am afraid that I may be wearying the Committee by reciting these opinions, and I will only refer to one more class to whom the abolition of free addresses would cause great inconvenience, and those are the officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers in Her Majesty's Service. I cannot conceive any class which deserves greater assistance on the part of the House of Commons than the soldiers who serve the Queen. We have all been thrilled with the accounts of their noble endurance, of the hardships they have
    564
    gone through, and of the courage they have displayed in Egypt and in other countries. I have asked for information at Aldershot and the Curragh, in order to see what use is made of the present freedom of address. Some hon. Gentlemen say that one word would be sufficient for the address of the sender, and four words for the address of the receiver; and if people will not accommodate themselves to that system, then so much the worse for them. I do not take that view of the matter. What do the Committee think is the average length of the messages sent from three camps, 1,263 in number, during the last 12 months? The average is 16 words. Will anybody tell me that those soldiers, who found it necessary to send these long addresses, will be able in future to condense them to four words? I do not for one single moment believe it to be possible. Let us consider what a soldier has to do in order to identify himself. He has to send not only his own name, but the name of the regiment and of the company to which he belongs, as well as his number. And to whom are these telegrams sent? Soldiers' messages are usually sent to relatives in an obscure station of life, living probably in tenement houses, or small back streets, or courts in the large towns of this country and in the Metropolis. The address, therefore, is necessarily long; and to tell a soldier to cut down addresses which now average 16 words to four or five, or to require him to pay for it, is not, I contend, a proper and legitimate mode of reforming the existing system of telegraphic communication. I do entreat the Committee to reflect very seriously before they inflict so onerous a duty upon these people. In the same manner the messages sent to soldiers by their relatives require a large amount of description in order to identify them, and the claims of that class ought not to be overlooked. It is very difficult to cut down addresses with any degree of safety, and if any hon. Member doubts that let him try to do so with his own telegrams. There are many hon. Members who have had considerable experience in sending telegrams, and I would ask them, with their superior education and status, with the knowledge possessed of that status by the Telegraph Department, how they could reasonably cut down the address, as a general rule,

    565
    upon every telegram they send to five I words? I trust hon. Members will not vote for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite until they have tried this experiment, both in regard to sending and receiving. The right hon. Gentleman complains of the cost of this system of free addresses, which has been in operation for 16 years. Who else complains? Does anybody complain? I have heard no complaint by anyone outside the Department, though, no doubt, the officers of the Department think that the addresses are unnecessarily long, and that they impose unnecessary trouble and expense upon the Department. But I say that no complaint whatever as to addresses has come from the public outside, and the right hon. Gentleman bases his argument upon that. That being so, the question comes to this—is the Department created for the public, or the public for the Department? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the foreign system, basing his arguments on the allegation that a charge for addresses prevails in nearly all foreign countries. It is said that foreign countries are a-head of us; but, as Englishmen, there are other things in which we are much a-head of foreign countries, and I claim that in giving free addresses we are a-head of, and not behind, foreign countries. Does any hon. Gentleman who has had experience of sending telegrams when abroad think that the method of charging for addresses is more convenient? My opinion, I confess, is to the contrary, and I regard it as a retrograde and a reactionary movement. How would the question of the addresses affect the people in many parts of Ireland, of; Scotland, and especially in the Principality of Wales, where the same surnames are largely repeated in certain districts of the country? It is quite clear that unless there is a full, clear, and distinct address you could not distinguish one Jones, or Williams, or Macdonoly, or Daly from another, and great uncertainty would arise in the delivery of telegrams. Reference has been made to the number of streets of the same name in this Metropolis. Now, that is a very important consideration. I have had a Return drawn up of the number of streets of the same name in the Metropolis, and how many Albert Terraces are there? 61. How many
    566
    Albert Villas? 54. Then there are 42 Albert Places; 34 Albert Roads; 34 Albert Cottages; 38 Avenue Roads; 60 Cambridge Terraces; 75 Charles Streets; 59 Church Streets—showing the great hold of the Established Church; 60 Cross Streets; 52 Elizabeth Places; 49 George Streets; 87 High Streets; 44 Hope Cottages; 64 John Streets; 43 King Streets; 58 Park Places; 65 Park Terraces; 70 Park Villas; 79 Prospect Places; 89 Rose Cottages; 60 Victoria Cottages; 66 Victoria Terraces; 54 William Streets, and so on throughout a very long list. I think I have said enough to show the necessity for the exercise of very great caution indeed before we proceed to abolish free addresses, under which I take leave to say that the telegraph system has extended in the most satisfactory and astonishing way, against which I believe there is no complaint or protest upon the part of the public, and no demand for the abolition of so easy, so convenient, and so satisfactory a system. There is one further consideration which I would entreat the Committee to reflect upon. It is this—that if we now, on this very specious calculation, abolish free addresses, we shall never get them back again. On the other hand, if the Committee is pleased to adopt the alternative scheme I suggest, there is nothing which would prevent its further application in the granting of more words for 6d. than I now propose, if more favourable estimates are hereafter realized than those which the admittedly clever officers of the Department anticipate. If the sanguine views of the hon. Member for Glasgow are correct, and if the telegraph revenue should improve, nothing would be easier than to allow five or six words for 6d. with free addresses, the maintenance of which would add to the contentment and satisfaction of the great mass of the telegraphing community of the country. Put if you once abolish free addresses you may whistle for them afterwards. I have nothing further to say. I have felt it only right to express my views, entertaining, as I do, strong opinions on the subject. I will not detain the Committee further; but I will ask them to vote for the maintenance of the system of free addresses, in order to concede a 6d. telegram even if there be a complaint in the first instance that we give only a few words in the

    567
    body of the telegram. There is very great elasticity in my scheme, because you can add words for every halfpenny; and, at any rate, it would work well until the anticipations of the hon. Member for Glasgow are fully and completely realized. I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 24, to leave out sub-section (1), in order to insert the words—"(1.) The charges for the transmission of written telegrams throughout the United Kingdom shall uniformly, and without regard to distance, be at a rate not exceeding sixpence for the first three words of each telegram, or for each telegram of less than three words, and not exceeding one halfpenny for each additional word;
    "(2.) The names and addresses of the senders and receivers of written telegrams shall not be counted as part of the words for which payment shall be required,"—(Lord John Manners,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question Proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The course pursued by the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) with reference to the Bill now before the House has been entirely satisfactory to me, and I have to thank him for the consideration he has shown both to the Bill and to myself. Holding, as the noble Lord does, so strong an opinion on the subject of free addresses, and objecting so strongly to the abolition of them, it was not to be expected that he would adopt the Bill in toto. I think, therefore, that the noble Lord has taken an extremely wise course in leaving the conduct of the Bill in my hands, and in proposing an alternative tariff to the scheme which is contained in the Bill. The noble Lord has admitted that my financial propositions are sound and fair. The Committee will recollect that on introducing the Bill I stated that in the very critical state of the finances of the telegraphic services, in my opinion, and in that of the Treasury, it was not possible to incur a greater loss than was proposed by the Bill, and which is estimated at £180,000. The noble Lord is now in a responsible position. He is responsible for the finances of the Department, and subject to the control of the Treasury; he finds himself under precisely the same rigid limits with regard to finance which I did. He has admitted that I was cor-
    568
    rect in my estimate, and he feels himself unable to propose to the Committee any alternative plan which would impose upon the Department a greater burden than I propose. Therefore, the two alternative plans, so far as the Department is concerned, are identical; and all the Committee has to consider is, whether the alternative of the noble Lord, or the scheme contained in the Bill, will be most convenient for the public. The noble Lord will, perhaps, excuse me for saying that the speech he has delivered to-night must have been prepared for delivery upon the second reading of the Bill. While objecting to the abolition of free addresses, the noble Lord has abstained from saying much in favour of his own proposal, and he has not quoted a single authority in support of it. I should like to know if any one of the persons he has quoted, either lady superintendent, physicians, or private traders, have really had under consideration the alternative scheme of the noble Lord? Can he produce a single authority, either in his own Department or outside of it, who will say that the alternative proposed by him is a satisfactory solution of the difficulty? I venture to maintain that there is not in the Department itself, throughout the whole telegraphic service, a single individual who will say that the proposal made by the noble Lord is satisfactory, or who will deny that it would lead to great dissatisfaction on the part of the public, and give rise to new agitation. I shall not follow the noble Lord in the precise line he has taken. What I propose to do is to compare the two alternatives before the Committee, which are admitted to have the same financial results. It will then be for the Committee to consider which is the better one. The noble Lord proposes to retain free addresses, and to charge 6d. for three words. My proposal is to give 12 words for 6d., abolishing free addresses, and rising by 1d. for every additional two words; but I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for. Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and substitute ½d. per word. Therefore, from 6d. upwards, the tariff of the two schemes would be practically the same. The only question is, what it is to be given for 6d.—three words, with a free address, or 12 words with-

    569
    out. The calculation I received from the permanent officers of the Department was that, if free addresses were abolished, five words, on the average, would be required for the address, and seven would remain for the contents of the message. Therefore, my seven words would compare favourably with the three words of the noble Lord. The noble Lord meets this by saying that the number of words required for a free address is altogether unknown. That I deny; I have had an investigation made of a large number of telegrams, which show that the addresses could be reduced, if necessary, to five words or four, and even to three; but that the average would be five words. That, of course, is subject to the concession made to the hon. Member for Glasgow, that figures up to five in number should be counted as one word, and that the name of the sender need not be transmitted. I repeat again, that the result of a very long investigation of telegrams showed conclusively that the average in future would be live words, and not 11, as is now the case. The Committee can hardly be aware of the great waste which now takes place in telegraphing addresses, and the large number of unnecessary words used in addresses. This waste cripples the energies of the Staff of the Department, causes delay in the transmission of telegrams, and entails a large cost on the Department. I should like to give the Committee two or three illustrations of the waste of words used in telegrams. I called upon the officer of the Department to give me some examples of wasted and superfluous addresses. He produced three cases. The first was that of a milliner at Dover who used 32 words in describing her address. The next was that of a noble Earl who had gained some advantage upon a Bill in Parliament, and in telegraphing the result of his success to a Justice of the Peace in a distant county he used 46 words in describing his own address and that of his friend. The third instance was from a person who ought to have known better; in point of fact, it was the late Postmaster General—myself. I had telegraphed from the House of Commons to the head of the Telegraph Department, informing him that this Bill would not come on, and I used 11 words for the two addresses, It was
    570
    pointed out to me that three would have been amply sufficient, and probably if I had had to pay for the addresses I should have saved eight of them, or otherwise 4d., and should have confined myself to the three alone that were necessary. I would undertake to say that, having gone through a considerable number of telegrams, there is not one of them which does not contain waste and superfluous verbiage in the shape of addresses. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary, in the interest of the senders of telegrams themselves, to impose some limit in order to prevent the transmission of superfluous and unnecessary words, and I think that the only way of doing this is to give the senders of telegrams an interest in curtailing their addresses. According to the view of the Department, the average number of unnecessary words used in telegrams is six. If, in future, there are six unnecessary words in every telegram, and if they are multiplied by 30,000,000, the number of telegrams which it is expected will be despatched annually when this Bill becomes law, they would amount to 23 per cent of all the words sent over the wires by the Post Office. It follows, then, that if 23 per cent of the words telegraphed through the Post Office are useless and unnecessary, the very lowest estimate I can make of the cost of telegraphing these useless and unnecessary words is £250,000 a-year. Is it not worth while to make some effort, even at the sacrifice of convenience to some classes of the community, for the purpose of saving so large a sum as £250,000 annually, which would otherwise be paid, not by the Department, as the noble Lord appears to think, but by the senders of telegrams? That is the real proposition before us. The noble Lord proposes, in his alternative scheme, to give free addresses and three words for 6d. Why does the noble Lord limit himself to three words? It is on account of the great cost of the superfluous words sent in the addresses. He is necessarily limited to three words of the text, because he does not like to interfere with free addresses. If the noble Lord could reduce these superfluous words and add them to the text and message, he would be able to give more words for 6d. Three words in the text are insufficient for almost any message,

    571
    and I have come to the conclusion that not one message in 40 would be sent for 6d. under the noble Lord's tariff. Inasmuch as there would be the same inducement under the noble Lord's tariff as there would be under mine to cut down the words in the text as much as possible, I have come to the conclusion that under the noble Lord's tariff the senders of telegrams would have to pay in every case for four additional words. The transmission of those four additional words, if multiplied by 30,000,000, would cost £260,000, which almost exactly meets the cost of telegraphing superfluous words in the addresses. Therefore, I believe my contention is right, that the charge of £260,000 a-year caused by telegraphing superfluous and unnecessary words, in the shape of addresses, will fall on the senders of telegrams, who will have to pay for it by telegraphing four additional words. Allow me to make a comparison between the two tariffs. Under the noble Lord's tariff, according to the best calculation I have been able to make, certainly not one telegram in 40 would be sent for 6d. The average cost to the sender of telegrams, in consequence of the necessity of sending four extra words in the text, would be 2d. Therefore, every telegram sent under the noble Lord's tariff would cost 2d. more than the average telegram sent under mine. Under my tariff it is calculated that 40 per cent of the telegrams would be sent for 6d.; whereas under the tariff of the noble Lord only one telegram in 40 would be sent for 6d. This is not an assumption, but is founded on a careful investigation of a large number of telegrams. The Committee will recollect that when I introduced the Bill I met the argument that the tariff was likely to fall hardly upon the working classes by the statement that I had obtained as many telegrams as I could which had been sent by working men. It was rather difficult to collect them; but I succeeded in collecting about 157 telegrams sent by working men. I had them examined and compressed within reasonable limits, and it was found that by compressing them, not in a very scientific manner as the noble Lord appears to think, but in a reasonable manner, 71 of those telegrams could be sent for 6d., and that the average charge for each of the 157
    572
    telegrams would be 7½d. I have lately applied to the same telegrams, compressed in the way I have described, the noble Lord's tariff, and the result was that not 71, but only four could be sent for 6d., and that the average charge on the whole of the 157 telegrams would be 1½d. more than under the tariff of this Bill. I wish, then, to ask the noble Lord when he pleads the cause of the working man, which of the two tariffs the working man would prefer? Would he prefer the one under which only four out of 157 could be sent for 6d., or the tariff under which 71 out of 157 could be sent for 6d.? I should like to take the opinion of the working men themselves as to which of the two tariffs on the whole they would think the best. I venture to say that the tariff of the noble Lord in this respect is not to be compared with mine. It appears to me, therefore, that the tariff introduced by the noble Lord can be in no sense called a 6d. telegram. The telegrams that would be sent under it for 6d. are so few in number that, practically, it cannot be called a 6d. telegram; but although there would be a large number over 6d. under the tariff of the Bill, still the number sent for 6d. would be very considerable, and therefore would be a great boon to people who make use of the telegraphs. The noble Lord has quoted various classes of people who object to the tariff of the Bill, and amongst others he has mentioned a very important firm from the town which I have the honour to represent—Messrs. Sutton, of Beading. No doubt, Messrs. Sutton have written to the newspapers objecting to the tariff I have proposed; but I have reason to believe that if the whole of their telegrams could be examined at the Post Office, I should be able to give a complete answer to the statements which have been made. I asked for permission to peruse their telegrams for that purpose, promising not to make use of the contents; but Messrs. Sutton have not had the fairness to allow the examinations to be made. I will not trouble the Committee by referring to the arguments the noble Lord used m reference to the cases of noncommissioned officers and soldiers. I apprehend that it is not very often that a non-commissioned officer or a private in the Army makes use of the telegraph service at all, nor do I pretend to say

    573
    that there may not, in some cases, be an inequality in the waste arising from the nature of the address; but I would ask the House to consider what is the difference between the cases mentioned by the noble Lord of streets in London where it is necessary to give the name of a second street in order to define the address accurately. Two words would cover all the difference. Even conceding an extra two words, and comparing the tariff of the noble Lord with my own, I believe that mine would be a better one for the public than that of the noble Lord. After all, there is bound to be a certain inequality in the addresses. A very large number of addresses would require only three words; others would require four; but the average. I believe, would be five. And with this average there cannot be a question that the tariff of the Bill would be much more favourable by comparison than that of the noble Lord. Let me point out to the Committee, assuming I am right in regard to the average number of words contained in the address, what the difference is between the tariff of the noble Lord and my own. In all cases where the addresses are under nine words the sender of a telegram would be better off under my tariff than under that of the noble Lord. By the noble Lord's scheme a message of 15 words would cost 1s.; whereas under my tariff, assuming the average number of words in the address tube five, 19 words in the text of the message would only cost 1s. Therefore, on all these points my tariff compares favourably with that of the noble Lord, and from whatever point of view the Committee look at the question I think they will come to the conclusion that the tariff of the noble is an unsatisfactory one, and that the tariff proposed in the Bill is a far better one for the public. I will not detain the Committee any longer upon this question; but there is one other point I wish to call attention to if the noble Lord will give me his attention. It is a point to which I know the officers of the Department attach very great importance; and it is that, if only three words are conceded in the text, there is very great danger that the senders of messages will use part of the address as a code. I have heard from a merchant of Glasgow that already addresses
    574
    are occasionally employed in that way, for the purpose of saving money in the body of the message itself. To some extent, I am told, that is already done, and the permanent officers of the Department have every reason to believe that the practice would extend. I am quite sure that the Department has informed the noble Lord that considerable danger will arise if the tariff he proposes be adopted. Putting all things together and taking a broad view of the case, I will conclude by summing up what I consider to be the superior advantages of my scheme over that of the noble Lord. By the noble Lord's tariff only three words are conceded; secondly, every sender of a telegram would be required to pay for four extra words as compared with the tariff in the Bill; thirdly, the average charge for each message would be from 1½d. to 2d. more than under the Bill; and, lastly, no less than £250,000 a-year would be expended by the senders of telegrams in useless addresses. That sum of £250,000 would have to be paid by the public in consequence of the limited number of words allowed in the text. On the other hand, the tariff I have introduced in the Bill is a very simple one, and the Department would be saved, the cost of telegraphing 23 per cent of useless words and addresses.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that however much the country and the Committee had to congratulate themselves on other accounts on the change of Government, he thought it would be unfortunate if the scheme of the Government were carried out in its entirety. The granting of free addresses was not for the purpose of restricting the service of the public, but for increasing it. He infinitely preferred the plan of the late to that of the present Postmaster General. The Committee were called upon to decide upon the proposition of the late Government, which the noble Lord opposed when it was introduced, on the ground that it did not give the people sufficient facilities, and yet the scheme now proposed by the noble Lord himself would give them less. Between the two propositions the Committee were called upon to decide whether they ought to have the number of words proposed by the late Postmaster General without free addresses, or the limited number of

    575
    words proposed by the noble Lord with free addresses. His (Mr. Gray's) opinion was that they should have the number of words given by the late Postmaster General, together with the free addresses proposed by the noble Lord when he was untrammelled by the cares of Office. He was inclined to think that, if the Department were more carefully managed, a message of 12 words and free addresses might be given for 6d. without incurring any loss at all to the Revenue. He thought he was in a position to give an instance, for the consideration of the Committee, to show how expensively the entire Department was worked. When the telegraphs were taken over by the State in 1870, an arrangement was in existence with regard to Press messages. The old Telegraph Companies were in the habit of supplying the Press with news at a certain rate. The Telegraph Companies collected the news themselves and transmitted it to the newspapers at a fixed annual sum, which was estimated to cost, upon a number of words transmitted, about 4d. or 4½d. per 100 words. After a careful investigation, it was decided that about one-half of that cost was incurred in the collection of news, and the other half was due to the transmission of news. Of course, it was impossible for the Government Department to undertake the collection of news; and, therefore, when the Government came into possession of the wires, they entered into an arrangement with the representatives of the Press of the United Kingdom, by which Press messages were to be sent at the rate of 2½d. per 100 words. He believed the Department asserted that the Press service now involved a loss to the country of something like £150,000 or £200,000 a-year. As one who was connected with and deeply interested in the Press, he failed to see why the Government should subsidize the Press of the United Kingdom to the extent of £200,000 a-year; and if it were the fact that the Press service cost the country so much money, he did not see why the late Postmaster General and the present Postmaster General should have avoided that subject, and not dealt with the question of Press rates. It would have been easy to say that the Press were receiving from the Government more than they were entitled to; and if
    576
    it were found that the Government were carrying on a Press system at an unremunerative rate, Parliament might be asked to revise the tariff. He therefore asked the noble Lord to tell the Committee whether that was the fact or not. The officials of the Department alleged that the Department was now under a heavy loss arising from the transmission of Press messages. The reason why he alluded to that point was not that he had any strong desire to see the charge for Press messages increased, but to point out that if the old Telegraph Companies found it remunerative to send Press messages at the rate of 2d. for 100 words, the Committee ought to be told why the Government were unable to do the same without incurring an enormous loss. If it were really the fact, it was quite evident that the cost of the service under Government management had been enormously increased. If the profit which the Telegraph Companies were able to make had been converted into a loss of £200,000 a-year to the Government, it was only fair and reasonable to conclude that the Telegraph Service under the control of the Post Office was carried on at an extravagant rate. If that were so, they had arrived at the real cause why a telegraphic service equal to the Continental service could not be given to the public of this country. What cost 2d. on the Continent cost 4d. in this country. He entertained a strong opinion that a service for which 1s. was now charged could be carried on properly for 6d., and he certainly thought that the present 1s. telegram, with free addresses, might be sent for 6d. if the Department were worked as economically as the old Companies performed the same service for the benefit of their shareholders, seeing that the old Companies were able to conduct the service and realize a considerable profit from it. He had no doubt that the proposal of the noble Lord would be much less advantageous to the public than that which was at present contained in the Bill. Without intending any disrespect towards the noble Lord, he could only suppose that it was simply a desire to be consistent which made the noble Lord now propose free addresses at the expense of the message itself. The present proposition was absolutely ludicrous. What the public wanted was free ad-

    577
    dresses and an adequate number of words in the message itself. He trusted that before the Committee ceased its labours, the question he had put to the Government in reference to Press messages would receive elucidation. It was quite evident that if a Service which was originally carried on at a profit, now involved a loss of £200,000 a-year, there must be something radically wrong with regard to it, and that it must be carried on at an extravagant cost.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Government could certainly not agree to give, as the hon. Member suggests, a larger number of words and free addresses. I must repeat the words of my Predecessor in the Office I have now the honour to hold, that we cannot impose upon the Treasury a larger burden than it is now called upon to bear. The choice lies between the scheme of the late Postmaster General and that of my noble Friend, and the Government are prepared to carry out whichever of those alternative proposals the Committee prefer. More than that I cannot say; and I can now only appeal to the Committee, considering the hour at which we have arrived, to go to a division at once.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 108: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 256.)
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that in pursuance of the arrangement which had been entered into, he would now move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
    THE POSTMASTER GENERALsaid, that after the result of the division he did not propose to move any further Amendments.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining Clauses agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported, without Amendment, to be read the third time To-morrow.

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

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS and Mr. HOPWOOD rising together, Mr. SPEAKER called upon the former.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): I rise to move, Sir, that you do leave the Chair, and I will not detain the House more than one or two minutes. I simply want to say that this Bill deals with questions of a very grave character, and though I regret that some time has elapsed between its second reading and the Motion that you, Sir, do leave the Chair, yet, as the right hon. Gentleman beside me (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) has stated to the House to-day, we shall go on with the consideration of the measure from day to day until the Committee is closed. This is a question which has stirred England from one end to the other. ["Oh, oh!"] An hon. Member expresses dissent; but I am bound to repeat the statement which I have already made—that there is nothing more sacred to the English people, and there is nothing which they are so determined to maintain, as the purity of their own households. The feeling has gone abroad that the purity of their households and the honour of their daughters has been and is liable to be violated, and they have made up their minds that this shall no longer be the case. I do not know what reasons the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) and others who intend to oppose your leaving the Chair can possibly bring forward upon this question; but I am surprised that any Amendment should have been put upon the Paper against the proposal, and they will have to answer to the public and to their constituencies for their action in this case. All I, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, can say is that, as far as we are concerned, we are determined, as far as we can within ordinary and proper limits, that the purity of the households of this country shall be maintained, and that those who wish to violate them shall be punished. I beg to

    579
    move, Sir, that you do now leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Secretary Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    MR. HOPWOOD,in rising to move the following Amendmont:—
    "That, in view of the fact that there already exists much legislation of the kind, little known or resorted to, and that besides much of it is of a contradictory character partly for the regulation and partly for the repression of vice, it is expedient that further inquiry and more deliberation be given to the subject before proceeding with the said Committee,"
    said, that he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) had interfered with the ordinary course, and interposed between the House and the Motion of which he (Mr. Hopwood) had given Notice, unless it were for the indecent purpose—[Interruption, and emphatic cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: That is not a proper expression for the hon. and learned Member to use——
    MR. HOPWOOD: I withdraw—["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: It is out of Order, and I hope the hon. and learned Member will withdraw it.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, that he had, at once, withdrawn the word; and he would say, with leave, instead, that it was an unbecoming attack on those who, like himself, were as much moved by a sense of duty as the right hon. Gentleman, and who were doing their duty to their constituencies quite as much as the right hon. Gentleman, who, though now riding upon a storm created by sensational statements of a filthy character in a public journal, many of them being untrue, while others only dealt with well-known phases of immorality, common to every large city in the world, nevertheless had for years acquiesced in the state of things he was now so anxious to amend. He (Mr. Hopwood) could show that the right hon. Gentleman himself was one who had resisted on a former occasion the raising of the age of protection. It was possible that he should find himself alone in the course which he was following. He should, nevertheless, continue in it, because he deprecated any change in the law, ex-
    580
    cept where it was shown and proved to be necessary; and, secondly, it should then be discussed calmly, for there were dangers to be considered in the Bill which were of such a serious nature that before the Bill was allowed to come into law they should carefully consider what its effect was likely to be. If the House of Commons was not to keep its head clear, and preserve a dispassionate coolness in a time of clamour and panic like the present, upon what institution could the country rely for advice and guidance? Whom else could they look upon as their saviour? He deprecated all talk about the purity of homes and the inviolable sanctity of the family as inflammatory. He considered he had a perfect right to discuss the question; and with regard to those, if there were any, who doubted whether he took a wholesome interest in this subject, he would remind them that the very last Act passed for the protection of childhood was drafted by him and passed through the House by him with very little help, indeed, from other hon. Members. As his character seemed now to be impugned, he would call evidence in support of his statements from that undeniable source, the Statute Book of the Realm. He referred to the Act which declared that consent on the part of a child to participation in filthy practices should no longer be a valid defence. Those hon. Members who were ready to hurry the present Bill through the House at all hazards, knew nothing about the evils of which they were making so much ado, and would have taken no steps except for the publication of some sensational and inflammatory stories in a public print which they were innocent enough to believe. There were full-grown men in the House who now, forsooth, were so shocked with what they had read and heard that they could rest neither by day nor night until this Bill was passed; but, for his part, he thought it was discreditable to them to pretend not to have known that much depravity had existed in London in all times. Had hon. Members who were in such a fume about the passing of this measure ever practised before a Judge and jury and seen a wretched man in peril in consequence of a false accusation? Writings of a sensational and scandalous nature had been circulated abroad, and those who pretended to take

    581
    the matter up under the plea that their own ignorance had been shocked by the disclosures contained in them did little service to the community by encouraging the further publication of such offensive stuff. If the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), whom he regretted not to see in his place, had only published one-half of that which had appeared in The Pall Mall Gazette, the cry would have been, "Prosecute him, prosecute him!" When they were told that it had been clone in the service of humanity, he wondered at the innocence of those who put it thus. It was not the language of truth. It was sentimental, inflammatory language, written with a spice "to make it read" as attractive as such vile filth could be made. The greater part of the publication was untrue, and that part of it which was true hon. Members already knew, and it was hypocrisy for them to pretend that they did not know of the existence of such crimes in London and other cities throughout not only England, but the Universe, before they saw it proclaimed under the voucher of the Editor of The Pall Mall Gazette. But before introducing fresh legislation the promoters of the Bill must prove that the existing law was not sufficiently strong to deal with the matter. The Law of Rape would not be improved by the passing of this Bill. What they wanted was detection of crime, and not a multiplicity of Acts of Parliament which could be of no practical service. The laws as to rape and the offence of decoying girls under 14 were applicable to more than nine-tenths of the cases which had been brought to the notice of the public. The real agitation came to this—a very sen-sentional newspaper had taken up the cause of morality, and had argued it from motives of its own; and a large Society in the country, which also traded upon the weaknesses of mankind while it professed to direct its higher aims towards religion, had also taken it up. He referred to the Salvation Army, which, in this matter, provided that religion should be served, combined with a good investment of its funds, for the purpose of gratifying personal ends. If this Bill were carried forward, he wished its promoters joy of their success; but he was sure that they would live to rue it. The House should be careful not to relieve women of their indi-
    582
    vidual responsibility, while paying no regard to the dangers from designing females to the young of the other sex. It had been said publicly by a benevolent friend of his, to whom society owed a great deal (Mr. S. Morley), that with reference to this matter there was one law for the rich and one for the poor. Great caution ought to be observed before using inflammatory language of that kind. The law was perfectly equal both for the rich and the poor. It might, perhaps, be said that the protection of the Court of Chancery could not be taken advantage of by the poor man; but he (Mr. Hopwood) contended even that might be secured by investing some £20 to £100 and making a girl a ward of Court. It was, therefore, most unjust to make use of expressions which would work upon the mind of the poor man by leading him to believe that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. One great evil—one upon which he must address a solemn warning to the House, as likely to be the result of such legislation as this—was the increase of the danger of extortion by means of false charges. If such a measure became law there would practically be no protection for youths and the sons of persons of position. There were cases in which girls were steeped in depravity at the ages of 13 to 16 years; and he believed that if the Bill were allowed to pass there would be great danger of young men and even boys being betrayed by designing creatures, whose object was to levy "black mail." Such cases of extortion had occurred in the past, and they abounded, he regretted to say, under the present law. It might be said that because such cases of extortion abounded under the present state of the law, such a contingency would be inseparable from all law; but he would point out that the peculiar danger of such a measure was that there was no other law under which a party to the act complained of was allowed to be a complainant and a witness against the other party. Abandoned and profligate fathers and mothers, as well as girls themselves, might make the provisions of this Bill a means of extortion. Then, again, he could not conceive why protection should be afforded to one party alone; and he asked those who heard him whether there was not something in the Bill that struck home

    583
    to them as affecting their own sons, which might well make them cautious how they passed the Bill? False charges were even made under the present law, as was shown by the case of the Rev. Mr. Hatch, recorded in The Annual Register, 1860, which was one of the most appalling instances of the depravity to which children could fall. This gentleman had two little girls of 11 and eight years of age, whose names were Plummer, consigned to his care to be educated. They were taken away after a few days by their mother, and a very short time afterwards the rev. gentleman learned that a most revolting charge had been made against him of committing indecent assaults upon them. The offence was alleged to have been committed in the presence of his wife. The story was told with such a clever simulation of artless innocence, that a jury, in the Central Criminal Court, convicted him, and he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on each of two indictments. His wife was by law, of course, precluded from giving evidence in the case. Six months afterwards the case was further investigated, and the eldest of these young girls was convicted of perjury; and after enduring for this period all the indignities and humiliations consequent upon his conviction, he was pardoned for an offence which he never committed. This was a striking illustration of the dangers that might arise, especially from abandoned girls of older years. There was certainly a very strong feeling out-of-doors on this subject at the present time, and he believed that it was a revulsion of feeling caused by the administration of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Women had been so exasperated by that insult to womanhood that they would not stop short of reprisals. There had been a great deal of talk which plainly showed how little those who were taking the lead in clamouring for the passing of this Bill knew of what the present law was. He contended that the ordinary law contained all that was necessary in order to deal with cases of abduction and the offence of procuring females up to the age of 21 years. By Statute it was a crime to procure the defilement of any girl under that age, and to decoy a child under 14 was also a felony. In the case of heiresses there was also a severe penalty imposed upon those who, for
    584
    the purposes of lucre, took them away from their guardians. No case had been made out for this storm of indignation and this loud demand for the amendment of the law. They had heard a great deal of noise made in the country concerning alleged revelations made by an evening newspaper. He, however, desired proof of these sweeping assertions before he would believe them, and he maintained that they ought to be subjected to the consideration of a Select Committee. They should promise the persons who made them a hearing for everything they should urge in support of their case, and next Session an inquiry ought to be instituted to find out whether the statements were true or not. The editor of this paper, however, said he could not tell the public his authority for the statements he had published, because he had promised not to tell their names; but he (Mr. Hopwood) would ask why these statements were produced to a so-called Commission of Prelates and Cardinals, and yet could not be made public? If the seal of secrecy was broken for the one, it ought to be broken for the other. Why were statements of this kind, assailing the character of England and Englishmen, allowed to go broadcast over the Continent of Europe and the United States of America? Let them have an inquiry into them in order to see whether they possessed one-tenth part of the foundation which was claimed for them. He denied that the law of other countries was essentially different from the law of England. After a comparison of portions of the French and German law with the existing English law framed for the protection of minors, he said that in none was 14 years exceeded, and in the vast majority a younger age was the limit. The only thing which he noticed was that while upon the Continent they were always logical in their legislation, in England they were not. He had another reflection to make. He had described to the House the case of the Rev. Mr. Hatch, and he wished now to refer to the extraordinary proposition in the name of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to administer the vulgar and commonplace punishment of flogging. He said so because it was always the remedy to which the rash and thoughtless resorted. Well, he would ask the House what would they think if, in

    585
    such a case as that of the Rev. Mr. Hatch, he had had, in addition to the many indignities which he had been compelled to suffer innocently, his hack torn, gashed, and bleeding by the cruel thongs at the bidding of some zealous Member of Parliament? Why, it would be a disgrace to the House of Commons to pass the clause. All he could say was that he hoped it might not be considered an uncharitable wish that some of those Gentlemen who seriously joined in the support of such a provision might some day be the objects of a false accusation, and might be enabled to know in the hour of trial what it was to suffer personal pain inflicted by brutal and horrible torture. In former years for almost every offence the lash had been tried as a moans of repressing crime; but he would like to ask what had ever been gained by flaying the naked backs of unfortunate people? In connection with this subject he felt bound to condemn, in the strongest possible language, the Contagious Diseases Acts, which, he maintained, deprived a woman of her liberty, reducing her to the position of a mere human chattel. In conclusion, he would apologize to the House for the plainness of his language, and the length of time which he had occupied in discharging a duty, with the gravity and importance of which he was fully impressed, and would now move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in view of the fact that there already exists much legislation of the kind, little known or resorted to, and that besides much of it is of a contradictory character partly for the regulation and partly for the repression of vice, it is expedient that further inquiry and more deliberation he given to the subject before proceeding with the said Committee,"—(Mr. Hopwood,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was sure that everyone would respect the motives that had induced the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hopwood) to express what he (Sir William Harcourt) had no doubt were his sincere convictions. At the same time, they must feel that the desire of the House was to proceed with the Bill, and not to embark on
    586
    a long and protracted discussion upon the Speaker leaving the Chair. A good deal of what the hon. and learned Member said was a suggestion that this Bill was the offspring of a sudden panic due to recent occurrences. This was not so. This Bill was framed three years ago, when there was, and had been for some years before, a great and well-founded complaint of traffic in girls taking place abroad, especially in Belgium. Soon after he (Sir William Harcourt) came to the Home Office, five years ago, he had ordered an inquiry to be made into the matter, and the Report of that inquiry, which was prepared by Mr. Snagg, be came the foundation for the Committee of the House of Lords, and their Report in turn became the foundation of this Bill, which had been several times introduced. The Bill had been taken up, after due consideration and with the conviction that there was a great evil which required a remedy. The Bill had been carefully considered by the other House of Parliament; it came down to the House of Commons after several years' consideration, and the time had now come when the House of Commons was determined to deal with the question. He thought the sooner they got into Committee and considered what Amendments ought to be made in the Bill, the better it would be for the thorough discharge of their task, and that the more especially as it seemed that the House were evidently not in favour of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he, for one, whatever time it might take, intended to express his opinion on the Bill. He considered it a duty and a right to speak—a duty, because he felt strongly upon the question; and a right, because he had been one of the persons who had been foully slandered by an evening paper, The Pall Mall Gazette. That was a newspaper which had lived on sensation. It had been saved from ruin by the "Amateur Casual;" it had invented the "dog fight;" and now it had invented this story about the streets of London. With reference to the Committee which had been appointed to consider the statements published by that newspaper, he begged to enter his protest against a Committee so constituted. It was composed of three ecclesiastics, the hon. Member for Hereford, and the

    587
    hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Samuel Morley), and nearly every one of those Gentlemen, with the single exception of the Archbishop of Canterbury, had been distinguished as a fanatic in one shape or another, and he protested against those Gentlemen constituting themselves a Committee on such a serious question as this. They had given the go-by to the names of individuals; they had refused to enter into the accusations against the police; and yet they had said that, on the whole, the statements were substantially true. No man in his senses could doubt that there must be in a City like London, with its millions of population, some men who were thoroughly depraved in their morals; but that vice of this kind was so prevalent as stated was not to be believed for a moment. He had said that his (Mr. Warton's) name had been brought into this abominable production. Not only was he libelled in The Pall Mall Gazette, but even the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) did not escape. The object of the promoters of the Bill—ill-conditioned Democrats and Salvationist sentimentalists—was to set class against class. Look at the audacious and reckless mendacity of that abominable newspaper. It said that a certain house in St. John's Wood was resorted to by one Prince and one Cabinet Minister—that, of course, could not refer to the present Cabinet, as it was written before the Conservatives came into power. He strongly complained of the sensational articles published by that journal being allowed to be sold promiscuously in the streets of London, whereby, he ventured to say, more demoralization would be caused than could possibly be prevented in the next 10 years by the legislation now under discussion, even if the House should consent to adopt it. He also commented severely on the attempt which was being made in connection with that question to sow a bitter feeling between different classes of the community. With that view, it was scandalously alleged that the daughters of the working men were to be the victims and slaves of those above them in rank; for there was nothing more congenial to the ill-conditioned Democrat than to cast foul slanders and aspersions on the higher orders of society. He reminded those who thought they might stop the
    588
    mischievous agitation now on foot by adopting any moderate compromise on the question of age, that meeting after meeting of fools and fanatics had been called to pass cut-and-dried resolutions on that subject, got up in a very questionable manner, the movers and seconders of them not even knowing their own minds or understanding in the slightest degree the subject with which they were dealing. For instance, in one case where it was proposed to raise the age of protection to 18, a man shouted out that the age should be 21, whereupon the meeting unanimously came to a vote in favour of the latter age.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would not have troubled the House in the matter, were it not that he had lately received a large number of anonymous letters, professing to come from those who agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). To the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) denying that they were asked to legislate under the influence of panic, he desired to give the most absolute contradiction. He wished to know why, if the measure was so necessary for the preservation of a proper state of society, and for the protection of women and girls, the late Home Secretary did not propose it to the House at a more reasonable time of the Session, when it could have been properly discussed? Last year they heard nothing about it; and this year the Motion for the second reading was brought on just before the rising of this House for the Whitsun Recess. Why was his (Mr. Bentinck's) right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary not in his place on that occasion? The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) knew that the Bill was likely to come on for second reading, and yet he ran away. He (Mr. Bentinck) did not object to the Bill; on the contrary, he was most anxious that proper protection should be afforded to women and girls, so long as extortion by women on the male sex was not promoted. But he believed that this matter was now brought forward as an electioneering cry, and attempts had been made to use it as a means of irritating the humbler classes against those above them in circumstances. The present Home Secretary

    589
    had allowed the sale of publications to go on unchecked which ought to have been stopped. The late Home Secretary also had been guilty of grave official negligence in not bringing the Bill on at an earlier period of the Session, when it could have received a discussion which was at present impossible. But for the publications to which reference had been made, he did not believe that the House would have been so full as it was on the present occasion. The conduct of the Government in allowing abominable newspapers to be sold about the streets was a disgrace to civilization—it was a disgrace to the Home Secretary. When he (Mr. Bentinck) was at a public school, if he were found with a copy of such a paper as that in his pocket, he would be soundly flogged; and when he was at the University, he might have been rusticated for the same offence. He would like to read some of the opinions which the late Home Secretary gave on the subject years ago; but, of course, there was no greater master of the political morality of public men than the right hon. Gentleman. ["Oh, oh!"] He had no intention of opposing the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill; but he desired that there should be a full discussion of the clauses of the measure, unwarped and unprejudiced by the reprehensible agitation which had been going on out-of-doors, the result being that the deliberations of the Committee would result in wise and beneficent legislation.
    SIR FREDERICK MILNERsaid, with reference to the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that the measure had only been proceeded with by Her Majesty's Government in consequence of the publications and agitation that had taken place, he could undoubtedly assert that it was the intention of the present Government, as soon as it came into Office, to pass this Bill into law. He would also remind hon. Members that the House of Lords had on three different occasions provided for the better protection of the unfortunate children of the poor in this country. He was of opinion that legislation was necessary to deal with the state of crime which had been revealed. It was true that the accounts might have been exaggerated; but if one-tenth part were true, it was
    590
    necessary for the House to deal with the evil. He believed that the law also required amendment by the institution of a Court of Criminal Appeal and by altering the Law of Evidence so as to make it competent for married women to give evidence against their husbands in cases in which they were the accused parties.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he would not put the House to the trouble of a division.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

  PART I.
  Protection of Women and Girls.
  Clause 2 (Procuring woman to be a common prostitute or to enter a brothel).
  MR. ELTONsaid, he hoped the Committee would approve of the principle of the Amendment he was about to move. It was as follows:—
  In page 1, after line 9, insert the following sub-section:—"(1) Procures, or by persistent persuasion or other importunity, or by offer or holding out of reward or hope of reward, endeavours to procure any woman or girl not being a common prostitute, to have unlawful connexion, either within or without the Queen's dominions, with any other person or persons; or."
  The object of the Amendment was twofold, and was intended to punish two distinct offences. The first was the offence of procuring young persons to have illicit connection; and the second was to punish the persistent or aggravated attempt to procure persons to have connection, even although such attempt did not result in the commission of the offence. He thought that they ought to extend the punishment under this clause to those persons who were guilty of persistently luring and debauching the minds of young girls, even although the actual act was not carried out. They did not wish to punish the mere suggestion or licentious talk of young people; but they wanted to meet the case of those professionals who committed the offence habitually, and therefore might be taken to make it into a profession. In fact, the people they wished to attack were those whose proper place would be

  591
  at the cart-tail—the pimps and bawds they had heard of of old. Besides those there were those professional procurers and rascally kidnappers who lurked at ports and stations and thievish corners of the streets, in order to entrap the ill-protected daughters of the working classes to houses of ill-fame at home, or to send them for evil purposes abroad. One of the best results of this Amendment, he anticipated, would be the retirement of those sly and quiet procuresses who kept on the safe side of the law. They were always anxious to know what the law was, and evidence showed that in a way they were law-abiding people. They wanted to keep on the right side of the line. Now, he (Mr. Elton) thought they would catch them by making their profession illegal; for when they found that it was illegal they would come to the conclusion that "discretion was the better part of valour," and retire from their business. As to the rest—the sterner and more abandoned culprits—they might have to be punished once; but he still thought the Amendment would do much to put down this public nuisance. He would like to know how far these things that he was dealing with were illegal under the present law, if done openly, because he did not desire to introduce anew species of crime. He believed they were illegal at present; but he would qualify that opinion by saying that it was almost impossible to find any punishment that would apply to them. Conspiring to obtain people to commit illicit intercourse was, undoubtedly, a penal offence, so that they might, with great difficulty, succeed in catching these very unpleasant people when they went about in groups, or hunted in couples. If, however, these kidnappers went about single-handed, it was very difficult to catch them. Taking a child away from home was an offence also against the peace of the Realm, according to a decision in the time of Henry VII.; but, probably, the offences were punishable in the Ecclesiastical Courts, the jurisdiction of which was now obsolete and was never well-defined. With regard to the expression "persistent persuasion," which, no doubt, some hon. Gentlemen would speak about, all he could say was that there was no doubt, from Howell's case, that although it might not be an offence which was punishable by their
  592
  Statutes it was unquestionably unlawful, and that was why he had put the words into the Amendment. The warm and over-excited speech they had heard from the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) was exceedingly interesting; but he (Mr. Elton) would point out that they had heard the same thing with regard to every amendment of the Criminal Law for many years past, and, notwithstanding the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, he hoped the Committee would support his Motion. The Amendment which he felt it his duty to move was based on the Reports of various important Inquiries which had sat before any statements on this subject were published in The Pall Mall Gazette. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, after line 9, insert the following sub-section:—"(1) Procures, or by persistent persuasion or other importunity, or by offer or holding out of reward or hope of reward, endeavours to procure any woman or girl, not being a common prostitute, to have unlawful connexion, either within or without the Queen's dominions, with any other person or persons; or."—(Mr. Elton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the clause was one directed against the offence of procuring. He took it that the object of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Elton) was to prevent anyone procuring or endeavouring to procure, under the circumstances he had specified, any woman or girl to become a common prostitute. He, therefore, intended to support the Amendment, which sought to prevent a girl taking the first step towards an immoral life.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he did not wish to be considered a critic of the Bill or of any Amendment which would strengthen it; but he thought the Committee would agree with him that they must be very careful in what they did. The Committee must look at the effect of this Amendment. They would observe that there was no limit as to age whatever, and that the Amendment was so drawn that any person who carried a message from a woman to a woman might be liable to two years' imprisonment. Let him put another case in

  593
  which the Amendment would apply. Suppose a man married abroad his deceased wife's sister. Any cohabitation between them in this country would be an unlawful connection. He had known a woman in such a position consult a professional man as to whether she should remain in the man's house. The advice given was that, under the circumstances, she should. It might be contended that the person who gave such advice would be liable to two years' imprisonment, if this Amendment became law. Now, there was an Amendment standing on the next page, in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart), which, if it could be discussed and slightly altered, would get rid of the objection he (Sir Henry James) had pointed out. The hon. Gentleman's (Mr. J. Stuart's) Amendment was to insert—
  "Procures, or endeavours to procure, any girl under the age of twenty-one years, not being a common prostitute, to have unlawful carnal intercourse with any other person, either within or without the Queen's dominions."
  If they could adopt some such proposition, they would avoid the difficulty of a definition, which they must have, of "persistent persuasion or other importunity."
  MR. HOPWOODasked what was meant by "endeavours to procure?" The law did not know "an endeavour;" but it did know "an attempt," and an attempt to commit a crime was punishable. If they adopted the word "attempt," the term would be thoroughly understood. How were they going to define "endeavour?" He earnestly asked the repositories of legal science in the House to protect them against this sort of legislation.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that this was a highly penal clause, and, therefore, the Committee should be very careful what they did. It appeared to him the clause itself, as well as this particular Amendment, required the most grave consideration. It w7as quite clear that the Amendment, if not the clause, involved the greatest difficulty of judicial construction. Those who had to deal with cases under the clause would have to consider what was the meaning of "procuring," what was the meaning of "persistent persuasion," and what was the meaning of "other importunity," and what was the meaning of "by offer or
  594
  holding out of reward or hope of reward." There was no doubt there would be conflicting opinions as to the meaning of all these phrases; and in the case of a law of this kind it was most essential to avoid conflicting decisions. He confessed he disliked the words "procures or endeavours to procure." the clause might be open to the construction that the very seduction of a woman led her into prostitution. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) undoubtedly mitigated to some extent the severity of the clause, because it confined the operation of the clause to cases of women under 21 years of age. To apply the clause to women of all ages was simply ridiculous. But even the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney would require very serious attention when it came before the Committee. He hoped the present Amendment would be withdrawn with a view to the consideration of that hon. Member's Amendment, which he (Mr. Gregory) considered much preferable to the subsection under notice as it stood.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he thought it would be very convenient to discuss the Amendments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) and of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) together. He would like to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James) and the Committee generally of what the object of both these Amendments was. The object was to prevent any attempts to get a woman or girl to have unlawful connection with any other person. The Amendments were aimed at the horrible and ghastly trade of procuring, and had nothing to do with any vice between man and woman. That being so, let them consider for a moment whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General was right in the view he took of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton). He (the Attorney General) ventured to think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not right in the view he took. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) proposed the adoption of the words "procures or endeavours to procure." There was no

  595
  limit to the endeavouring to procure. [Sir HENRY JAMES: Twenty-one years of age.] He quite admitted the question of age was one the Committee should consider; but he was, for the moment, dealing with the governing words "procures or endeavours to procure." He wished to keep that point distinct from the question of age. It was said, and, no doubt, said very truly, that there might be some such case as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General put—a case of a man marrying his deceased wife's sister, and some sort of persuasion being used. That, however, was a very uncommon case. It. was not an exceptional case for a man to marry his deceased wife's sister; but it was very exceptional for there to be persistent persuasion or importunity of some other person to get the man and woman to marry. He did not say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might not be right in using the case as an argument for limiting the age to which the clause should apply; but he did not think it was a case to be used as an argument in dealing with the other parts of the clause—namely, "persistent persuasion or other importunity." The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had complained of the elasticity of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Somerset. He had said the words of the Amendment would necessitate legal construction; of course they would, and with regard to their meaning there might be differences of opinion. The elasticity of the Amendment was just what was wanted. It must be a question of fact, it must be a question for the jury under the direction of the Judge; but he thought it was desirable to adopt some words which would make it clear to the tribunal that what was intended to be aimed at was the persistent endeavour to get a woman or girl to have illicit connection with some man. He, therefore, asked whether it would not be prudent to insert in the clause some such words as the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset suggested? In any case, he hoped the spirit of the Amendment would be adopted, so that the clause might really point at the evil they desired to cope with. He had no particular view on the question of age; that was a question which had better be
  596
  raised by those who had more experience on the subject than he himself had.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there seemed to be little or no difference in the Committee as to the object of this Amendment—namely, that it was to prevent the trade of procuring. But he confessed it was rather dangerous to go into details as to the method of procuring, as they would do if they adopted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Elton). It appeared to him (Sir William Harcourt) that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) raised the question in what might be called the neatest form, though he agreed with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hopwood) that they should say "attempts" instead of "endeavours." The clause would then read—" Procures or attempts to procure any girl, not being a common prostitute; "and then he should like to put in the words which had been suggested by an hon. Gentleman opposite," or of known immoral character, "for the clause was clearly not meant to apply to a woman who had been in the keeping of one man and then passed into the keeping of another man. He thought that if they took the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney as a basis, and altered it in the way he had suggested, they would come to a satisfactory conclusion.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he entirely sympathized with the view taken by the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), as to the meaning of the clause. As the hon. and learned Gentleman stated, the object of the clause was to strike a blow at the trade of the procurer or procuress. He believed the whole of the Committee were agreed as to that object; but it appeared to him that this clause, while having that very laudable and desirable object, really lost that object in one point of view and went far beyond it in another point of view. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) ought to have moved his Amendment on Clause 3. Clause 2 was directed at a different class of offences, and Clause 2 was that clause which dealt with the trade of procuring. If they adopted this Amendment on this clause, the effect of Clause 3 would be weakened. That, however, was a more

  597
  objection of form, and one which could easily be got over. But he should like to ask the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset what he meant by "any other person or persons?" Did he mean any person or persons other than the procurer; or, did he mean any other person or persons other than the girl or woman? [Mr. ELTON: Other than the procurer.] Then that would lead to a remarkable state of things. A man might seduce a girl and yet not be liable to punishment; but if he assisted a friend to seduce the girl, and persuaded the girl to submit herself to his friend's desire, he would be liable to two years' imprisonment. It seemed to him that in the desire of the Committee, in which he absolutely and entirely shared, to put down the trade of the procurer, there was a danger of introducing into the Bill the most illogical and absurd anomalies.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, it was expressly intended that this Amendment should not deal with the offence of seduction; that offence was dealt with in another part of the Bill. This Amendment was only intended to deal with procuring for other people.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he wished to point out to the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Elton) that the word "procures" covered the words "by persistent persuasion or other importunity, or by offer or holding out of reward or hope of reward." These words, therefore, were quite unnecessary. "Procures or attempts to procure," would, no doubt, be better, and would meet the whole case.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he wished to direct the attention of the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) to a point which appeared to have escaped consideration. The Amendment, as well as the Bill itself, referred to offences which were to be committed within or without the Queen's Dominions. He would like to ask whether, in case a foreigner who procured a foreigner hi a foreign country without the intervention of a British subject came to this country, he would be chargeable with misdemeanour? This Bill was very carelessly drawn; he did not suppose that a more carelessly drawn Bill was ever presented to a Committee for consideration. He had heard that
  598
  one of the causes was that the Bill was interfered with by the Bishops in the other house. Now, if it were the fact that a foreigner, procuring a woman or girl abroad, would be liable, on coming to this country, to be imprisoned for two years with hard labour, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) could foresee that there might be intervention by Foreigu Governments, and that a great deal of inconvenience might result. He would be glad if the Law Officers of the Crown, would afford the Committee some explanation upon this point, and consent to introduce words which would relieve any ambiguity on the subject. Having said so much on the question, he wished to ask his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General whether he would introduce here a limitation as to age, as suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), because, if he did not, there would be a vast amount of difficulty?
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he trusted that, after the opinions which, had been expressed, there would be no difficulty in settling this sub-section. He appealed to the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) to adopt the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), and which were perfectly clear.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, there was a reason for adhering to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton). He quite agreed that "attempts" would be a better word than "endeavours;" but it seemed to those who supported the Amendment that they ought to indicate the class of attempts they desired to make an offence. He should also be willing to adopt 21 years as the limit of age, and also the words "or of immoral character."
  MR. WARTONsaid, it was perfectly clear, from the little discussion they had had, that there was great difference of opinion on this point amongst the eminent lawyers of the house. Some were in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart), and others in favour of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for

  599
  "West Somerset (Mr. Elton): opinion seemed to sway backwards between the two Amendments. He was astonished the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset had adopted the word "endeavours," because the word was not known to the English law. He was still more astonished that it should be proposed to accept the words "or of known immoral character." The word "known" might be taken in the sense of being known to the person who committed the offence, and the criminal might therefore escape. Although he objected strongly to the Bill, he thought it was his duty, when the clauses came up for consideration, to make them as perfect for their object as possible. Some hon. Members seemed to be under the impression that the words "by persistent persuasion or other importunity" made the sub-section more vigorous. He was inclined to think that they were words of limitation. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Richard Webster): No.] He was sory to differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he had compared the Amendment with that of the hon. Member for Hackney, and he was inclined to think that though the words looked grand, they were words of limitation, tending to weaken instead of to strengthen the clause.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he hoped the Committee would not waste time by proposing verbal Amendments to the Amendment before the Committee. He would propose to leave out "endeavours" and insert "attempt," and also to insert after the words "woman or girl" the words "under twenty-one years of age."
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had been struck with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir "William Harcourt), which had been corroborated by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), with regard to the inconvenience of putting the clause into the Bill. It was only too probable that these words would give rise to much discussion between Judges and juries. He would, therefore, propose to amend the Amendment by leaving out all the words from "by persistent persuasion" down to "reward."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
  To leave out the words "by persistent persuasion or other importunity, or by offer or
  600
  holding out of reward or hope of reward, endeavours," in order to insert the word "attempts."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had listened to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Assheton Cross), and he thought that the Committee ought to adopt the Amendment of the sub-section which he had proposed to move. Although he (Sir William Harcourt) had pointed out an objection to the words of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Elton), he thought if they were to go on with the Bill they ought not to continue to propose verbal Amendments like this to that Amendment.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he wished to point out that this was not a question of verbally amending the subsection; it was a question of very substantial importance. It was a question of the expediency of narrowing the operation of the Bill, which would be the effect of allowing these ill-advised words to remain within the Amendment. The effect of these words, which were new to lawyers, had been pointed out— namely, that they would cause difficulty of interpretation. He did not believe in the filthy fables of The Pall Mall Gazette; but he and his hon. Friends desired, if the Bill was to operate at all, that it should operate on all the forms of vice which could be interfered with. Hon. Members would observe that it was proposed to repeal the 49th section of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100. He did not believe that the procuration of young girls was done in the way indicated by the Amendment—that was to say, by habitual importunity upon them. Probably, the most usual way was when a young girl was met at a railway station by a woman who told her that she—the woman—kept a lodging house; and the girl by mere false pretences found herself in some place of vicious resort. If the Committee adopted the clause and did not strike out the words relating to the 49th section of 24 & 25 Vict., they would leave that offence unprovided for. The Act provided that—"Whosoever shall by means of false pretences, &c, &c, shall be guilty of misdemeanour." He agreed with the

  601
  right bon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) that this clause would be most effective, if it contained the words "procured or attempts to procure;" and inasmuch as no one objected to those words, he hoped the Committee would agree that this was not a matter of triviality, but of importance.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, Her Majesty Government were willing to take the larger view of the question, and strike out the words proposed to be omitted by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney).
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, there would be some difficulty in using the word "endeavours" instead of "attempts." The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Elton) could not, he believed, use the word "endeavours," because it was not in the Bill.
  SIR. FARRER HERSCHELLsaid, he wished to point out that the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke") was mistaken in supposing that the Bill loft the offence of using false pretences undealt with.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'attempt' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to add, after the word "girl," the words "under twenty-one years of ago."—(Sir Henry James.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WARTONsaid, he objected to the word "girl."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, in that case, the only thing to be done would be to put in the word "female" instead.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he objected to the word "female." It was much better to keep to the old phraseology, and let the word "girl" remain.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that the clause, as amended, was not free from ambiguity. It might be questioned whether the restriction of the age referred to "woman" or to "girl" only.
  Question put, and agreed to; words added accordingly.
  Said proposed Amendment further amended by inserting, after the word
  602
  "prostitute," the words "or of immoral character."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Amendment, as amended, stand part of the Clause."
  MR. WARTONsaid, the words "immoral character" only tended to weaken the clause, and he should move to substitute the words "known immoral character."
  Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, after the word "of," to insert "known."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Amendment negatived.
  Question again proposed, "That the Amendment, as amended, stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: said, he wished to know whether the words "unlawful connection" were to stand part of the sub-section? They were of doubtful meaning, and the act had been described differently under various Acts of Parliament. He suggested that the expression used in the Amendment should be made to agree either with the Bill or with previous Acts of Parliament.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he had no objection; but the two expressions seemed to him to be the same in effect.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, they did not, in that part of the House, hear all that was said on the Treasury Bench. He had understood the Home Secretary to move the words "or of known immoral character." He was at a loss to see how they could adopt those words in the Act. Who could say that a person was a known immoral character? Some modification of the phrase ought, in his opinion, to be made; and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who took so much interest in the Bill, would give his attention to the point before the Report stage came on. The expression might be popular, but it was not legal.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 10, leave out "procures or," said, before the Committee of which he had the honour of being a Member, and which sat to take into consideration the

  603
  Contagious Diseases Acts, three witnesses were introduced to prove that there was no definition of the term "common prostitute." Those witnesses were men of great learning; and the Committee were told, over and over again, that the term "common prostitute" was not to be found in any Act of Parliament that they had been able to discover. One witness said that a common prostitute was a woman who was known to go about the streets, earning money in a certain way. Under the circumstances, he would do everything to prevent procuration; but unless they knew what common prostitution was, it seemed to him they were introducing into the Act what was absolute nonsense. How could a person procure anyone, whether woman or girl, to do these separate acts — it would be necessary to follow her about, day after day, inducing her to follow this avocation? He would point out the great carelessness which had been exhibited by the framers of the Act in leaving it undecided what a prostitute was; and he would ask whether it was not possible settle this matter for good and all, so that when the discussion progressed, they might know what a prostitute was? It was not his intention to divide the Committee, although he looked on this part of the Bill as pure nonsense. Was it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to define what was a common prostitute?
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "procures or."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he wished to know what was the Question before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is to omit Sub-section 1 of Clause 2—or all but the three first words. It is to omit, after the word "endeavours," in line 10, all the words down to the word "to," in line 13. The Question, however, has been put in such a way as to enable the hon. Member to move his Amendment.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, it would save a great deal of time if they were to leave out this sub-section altogether. It was already punishable for anyone to
  604
  procure a woman to have unlawful connection; they went further, and said it was unlawful for a woman to be a common prostitute. Surely what had been already done included this sub-section.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he had an Amendment of no insignificance to propose to this clause, which would come in after line 12; and he wished to have the ruling of the Chairman whether, if the present Amendment were put, his Amendment would be excluded from consideration?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have said that I will so put the Question as to enable the hon. Member to propose his Amendment. His competence to move the Amendment depends upon the manner in which the Question is put. It is proposed to leave out all the words after the word "endeavours," in line 10, to the word "to," inline 13. The Question is, that the words "procures or" stand part of the Clause.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had a right to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it was their intention to define the term "common prostitute," and in common courtesy he was entitled to a reply. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen would perhaps allow him to ask a question. He had pointed out why the term, as it at present stood, was objectionable. Unless something was done in the direction he had indicated, the magistrates before whom these people might be brought would have a difficulty in deciding who was a common prostitute and who was not. He asked the Government to settle the point for ever in the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): No words are needed to define the term "common prostitute."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there was an Amendment on the Paper to insert, in line 10, after the word "girl," the words "under the age of twenty-one years." He presumed the Government accepted it?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Whoso name is it in?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: In that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). I would, however,

  605
  move it myself if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after the word "girl," to insert the words "under the ago of twenty-one years."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped those words would not be inserted. The object of the clause was to prevent a trade in prostitution within or without the Queen's Dominions. The clause, therefore, ought to be universal, applying to females over as well as under the age of 21 years. He hoped no indication would be shown in the clause of a desire to restrict its operation.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, these words had been inserted in the sub-section previously dealing with, the trade in prostitution. This was just the same thing. ["No, no!"] "Well, that was his opinion, and it was open to hon. Members to go to a division on the matter. The object of the Bill was to protect young girls—all the outcry had been for that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary knew perfectly well; and to say that they would punish any person who procured or endeavoured to procure a woman of 30, 40, 50, or goodness knew what ago, to become either within or without the Queen's Dominions a common prostitute, appeared to him to be perfectly absurd. He must press the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 2; Noes 223: Majority 221.—(Div. List, No. 257.)I
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had another Amendment to move to the subsection, and whether or not the Committee would agree to it he did not know. The object of the following sub-section was to punish anyone who procured
  "Or endeavoured to procure a woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom, or to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, with intent that she might become an inmate of a brothel either within or without the Queen's dominions."
  The object of his Amendments—and one was consequential on the other—was to provide for the punishment of any person procuring or endeavouring to procure a girl under or over the age of 21
  606
  to be a common prostitute without the Queen's Dominions, but confining the punishment in regard to such procuration within the Queen's Dominions to cases where the girl was under the age of 21. The reason he wished to draw the distinction was that, in English brothels, it was obvious that women above 21 would be able to get out if they desired, and unless they were imprisoned, in which case the Common Law would deal with the persons detaining them. Abroad, as they were aware, it often happened that women were not able to get out, however much they might have passed the age of 21. The residence of girls and women in foreign brothels was something very like imprisonment. These unfortunate women did not know what was about to happen to them when they went into foreign brothels. It was very proper to give this protection to women and girls who might be taken abroad and put into foreign brothels; but he could not think it was necessary to give it in the case of girls in English brothels. He begged to move the omission of the words "either within or."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "either within or." —(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Gentleman's object was to make a distinction between the operation of the clause in cases occurring within Her Majesty's Dominions, and cases occurring without those Dominions the hon. Gentleman wished to limit the operation of the clause in cases occurring within Her Majesty's Dominions to procuration affecting girls of under 21 years of age. Well, the Committee had already decided the point against the hon. Member, having refused to limit the action of the clause in cases occurring within the Queen's Dominions to girls under the age of 21.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. I understood we had reached the Amendment on the next page.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I do.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment to make the sub-section apply to cases of procuring a woman or girl to have "unlawful connexion with any particular man or generally;" but he did not now propose to move it, as the cases could be met by words in the Home Secretary's clauses.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that, in accordance with a Notice he had placed on the Paper, he wished to move the insertion of the following subsection: —
  "(2.) While carrying on an otherwise lawful business, knowingly facilitates, in premises of which he is the occupier, an immoral connexion between such women as reside there, and are in his employ, and male visitors to them, or."
  This Amendment was intended to deal with an entirely new kind of offence— an offence which, he believed, was not already provided against by the existing law. Upon that, of course, he might be ill-informed; and if that should be the case, he was entirely prepared to be sot right. He might say that if there had been any Act of Parliament which was intended to extend — quite apart from the present excitement on the subject, and quite apart from any real or reputed revelations which had been made —or increase the penalty of the law against offenders who were, generally, covered by this Bill, such as were indicated by his clause, he should not have brought forward this proposal. He had it on very credible authority that houses of the kind referred to in his Amendment really existed; houses in which, downstairs, businesses of a lawful and legitimate kind were carried on, such as milliners, drapers, and fancy dealers, and the windows of which displayed a variety of goods, whilst the upstairs rooms were let to single occupants, those occupants being informed or instructed, or having it hinted to them, that they had private use of the apartment with a private key, and that, under the circumstances, they could admit their male friends or whom they pleased, without any questions being asked. He was informed that this kind of practice was carried on very extensively; and if that were so, it seemed to him that it ought to be met by the strongest action of the law. It was the worst kind of brothel life he could conceive. If, on the other hand, the report
  608
  was untrue, he admitted that the clause was mere brutum fulmen. He heard the other day—a friend of his had told him —[Laughter.]—he saw the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary laughing; he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman was not fully aware of the depth of the depravity of human nature, notwithstanding his experience in the Home Office, which was a great place for becoming familiar with it—but, as he was saying, a friend of his, a Member of the house of Commons, had told him that a short time ago one of his constituents had related this circumstance to him. A relation of his—a niece or cousin— [Laughter.]—he did not see any ground for laughter here—the incident seemed to him a very tragic one. This niece or cousin answered an advertisement in a newspaper, under which she was invited to become a milliner at the wages of the house—a house engaged in supplying people of station and not persons of a humble class with clothing. She came to the establishment, having been apprenticed to the millinery business. She inquired what the wages would be, and was told "so much." She replied that she could not live on the sum named, whereupon the person addressing her said—" You do not understand the business; you will have a room to yourself; no one will ask questions as to when you come in or when you go out." He ventured to say that this incident was true. It was told to him by a gentleman who had easily detected what this arrangement was—who saw at once the meaning of the statement "and no questions will be asked." It was a temptation, perhaps worse than a temptation, that was involved, and, that being the case, the house in question was the worst kind of brothel that could be conceived. If such a state of things did exist, it was the duty of the Committee, and of everybody who wished to protect young persons from the risk of being debauched by fraud or violence, to accept some such proposal as that contained in his clause. He did not mean to say that he had framed the clause in such legal language that no right hon. or hon. Gentleman on either side of the house could find fault with it. He knew little about that, and cared little or nothing about it; but the Amendment appeared to him an averment of what was necessary to protect

  609
  young people under or over the age of 21, and he was bound to say that it ought to be taken seriously. If these words were objected to, the subject ought to be dealt with as those hon. Gentlemen learned in the law knew how to deal with it. He was only concerned in the vindication of what appeared to him to be a great principle—namely, the prevention of what he believed to be a very great wrong. He knew that clauses of this kind were constantly said to be unworkable; but he contended that it was the duty of the Government, particularly of the Law Officers of the Crown, in case the Committee decided to accept the principle, to discover for them the words in which the Amendment could be framed. With these words, and stating that he did really believe that in this new subsection he had fixed upon a genuine grievance, a wrong and a mischief which ought to be remedied, he put the Amendment in the hands of the Committee.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, after line 12, to insert the words— "(2.) While carrying on an otherwise lawful business, knowingly facilitates, in premises of which he is the occupier, an immoral connexion between such women as reside there, and are in his employ, and male visitors to them, or."— (Mr. Thorold Rogers.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he must oppose the Amendment, because he thought it was not desirable that they should encumber this Bill by endeavouring to deal with every conceivable case. He did not think it was impossible at all that such a case as his hon. Friend (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had suggested might occur; but there were many hundreds of other cases which might occur, and by which illicit connection might be brought about. Now, it appeared to him that such a place as that described by the hon. Member was either a brothel or it was not; and if it was a place where women prostituted themselves as part of the business, it would come under the Bill. It was not desirable that they should endeavour to meet every case.
  MR. PICTONsaid, he hoped the Committee would reflect before they rejected this Amendment. A situation was offered to a young woman in an apparently respectable house of business,
  610
  She was offered a low salary, and then she was induced to prostitute herself, in order to increase her earnings. That was a very wrong and wicked state of things. The offer of the situation was used to induce young women to go to places of this sort in order to debauch them. He would certainly vote for the Amendment.
  SIR FARRER HERSCHELLsaid, the case which had been mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester would come under the sub-section which they had already passed. In the case of a man inducing a young woman to accept a situation in order that she might have illicit connection, that would come under the 1st sub-section. He did not quite see what cases would be met by this sort of provision which it was proposed to insert in the Bill. If a man did not procure, then there was no necessity for dealing with him; and, if he did, they had hit him already.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he would not withdraw his Amendment. He would certainly take a division upon it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Noes 152; Majority 100.No. 258.)
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 13, after "girl," insert "under the age of twenty-one years," said, that on the Question of the Speaker leaving the Chair on the Bill he had endeavoured to express to the house his strong desire to do everything that could be done to protect women and children from crimes of this sort; but, at the same time, he expressed his fear that many of the provisions of the Bill might lead to extortion, and interfere with the public safety. He knew of no portion of the Bill which was more calculated to do that than this sub-section. His Amendment was aimed at that fact, and it proposed to limit the misdemeanour of inducing women to live in ill-conducted houses to the case of girls under 21 years of age. The hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis) had illustrated his point very well the other day when he put the case of a man bringing a lady of 35 years of age to London from the country, and staying at one of those houses where there was a good deal

  611
  of freedom. Under the clause as it stood, that man would be guilty of misdemeanour. It appeared to him that, unless some Amendment was effected, men might be induced to go with women into houses of ill-fame, and then a threat might be made that, if they did not pay a sum of money, a criminal prosecution would be instituted against them under this clause. He wished to point out also that, at the present time, there was no precise definition in the Bill of the word "brothel." Unless that term was defined, and unless the clause was limited as he had suggested, it would open the door to unlimited extortion upon the youth of this country. It often occurred that the youth of this country was lured into these sort of places; and now a threat would be held out that, unless a certain amount of money was paid, a charge of misdemeanour might be brought. He would like the hon. and learned Attorney General to tell the Committee what was "a brothel within the Queen's Dominions." They knew that in France and Italy all the houses of this sort were licensed by the authorities, and no one could come into them without the knowledge of the authorities. What he wanted to know was whether this term abroad was to be accepted according to the foreign definition, or according to an English definition, whatever that might be? He wanted to know what sort of a house they had in view? If they took the foreign acceptation, then there would not be much harm done; but if they were going to deal with houses like that referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis), then it became a very serious matter. ["Divide!"] Did hon. Members wish to stifle this question? They wanted to stifle it because they could not answer it; and they were afraid of meeting any responsibility. He had been a Member of that house for a great many years, and he had always taken an independent course, and he was going to continue to take an independent course to the end of his chapter. He was doing his duty to his constituents, and he was not to be put down by this clamour. He wished to place these points very calmly before hon. Members, and there was no doubt that, if this Amendment were accepted, it would meet the case he had set forth. What he wished to show was, that this
  612
  clause, as it stood, would render liable many in this country and also abroad to extortion; and unless the term "brothel" was very clearly defined, therefore, great ambiguity would arise and consequent danger. While on this subject he wished to point out to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary line 17, which would hardly make sense. The whole sub-section was governed by the word "person;" and unless some definition were put in, and the person happened to be a woman and a procuress, she would escape unpunished. He thought he had shown that, unless the clause was very much changed, it would lead to very great extortion against Her Majesty's subjects.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 13, after "girl," insert" under the age of twenty-one."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, there could be no doubt that the word "brothel" had a meaning according to the English law. There was no difference between "brothel" and "bawdy house," and the term occurred in many legal documents.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked if the sub-section applied to foreigners? The effect of the clause could only be shown by reductio ad absurdum. The hon. and learned Attorney General had said that the meaning of the word "brothel" was understood in law—that was to say, as it was understood in England. But that was no definition at all. As the clause stood, it would mean that if a foreigner induced another foreigner to enter a house abroad which in England was called a brothel, the foreigner who induced the other to enter the house was to be punished if he or she came to England.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) appeared to forget that the question had been twice answered. The words "Either within or without the Queen's Dominions" referred to the place where the brothel might be.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. ACKERSsaid, he had not proposed to move the Amendment he was about to submit to the Committee, in relation to the first sub-section, because it would not be applicable; with regard to a person contemplated by that part of the clause who had become a prostitute there could be no such reservation as that proposed by the Amendment he was about to move to sub-section 2. With regard to that, he thought the Amendment most important, and he trusted that it would be inserted. He reserved to himself the right of raising the question with regard to the Amendment which had been agreed to of the hon. and learned Member for West Somersetshire (Mr. Elton), if it should be shown by the discussion which followed that the words he proposed to introduce into this sub-section were applicable to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 13, after "girl," insert "other than a common prostitute, or person of known immoral character."—(Mr. Ackers.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would point out that the object of the clause was not only to prevent women being induced to become prostitutes, but to prevent the trade in prostitution being carried on as between this country and foreign countries. The character of the woman ought, therefore, to make no difference.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) wanted to get rid of this traffic, and he (Mr. Hopwood) would point out that this sub-section was one of the most laudable parts of the Bill. But, as had been suggested, if a man removed a woman already a common prostitute from one house to another, even for the sake of continuing her calling, but possibly as an act of charity, according to the clause he might come within the law, because he did so within the Queen's Dominions. If his right hon. Friend wanted merely to interfere with the traffic in question, the meaning of the clause would be clear enough; but with regard to England, he (Mr. Hopwood) thought some sensible Amendment was required in ac-
  614
  cordance with the view expressed in the previous sub-section.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that the Government were prepared to accept an Amendment which the hon. and learned Member for Stockport was about to move, to add the words "for this purpose of prostitution." He was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was a lawyer, did not see that the words "with intent, &c." governed the case he had suggested. If they were going to deal with this particular evil he did not think they ought in any way to limit the operation of the clause by the insertion of such words as the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Ackers) had proposed. He submitted that the Committee should not agree to that Amendment.
  An hon. MEMBER said, that the object of the Bill was to protect women and girls, and not, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) had said, to prevent the transfer of women from one place to another.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, there were many women who, having been common prostitutes, were induced by clergymen and other philanthropic persons to enter reformatories. It was known that immediately they left those reformatories they were exposed to the attempts of those with whom they had formerly been associated to get them to return to their former courses. He (Mr. T. C. Thompson) said there was no class of women around whom the protection of the Bill ought to be thrown more than the class he had referred to. He asked the Committee to protect them by saying that those who sought to get them tore-turn to their former mode of life should be punished under the clause.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he would put the case of a woman or girl moved from one place in London to another out of charity, in which case he would point out that the person who induced her to go would be liable as the clause stood at present.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, it appeared to him that if this sub-section was allowed to remain without qualification they would be placed in an awkward position. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) had put the case of a woman removed from one place in London to another, perhaps from mo-

  615
  tives of charity. This was not a case of deception; it was not a case of inducing a woman or girl to enter a brothel for the first time; yet it was an offence if the clause remained unaltered. It was the case of a person being taken from one brothel to another by solicitation, which was intended to be met; yet he would ask if any one would suppose that the offence would be punished in the manner provided for in the Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he proposed to alter the language so as to make the matter clear.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he hoped these words would not be applied to women when removed to foreign places. The horrible character of compulsory detention in a foreign brothel was as much worse than that in the case of an ordinary brothel, as prostitution was than ordinary life.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he did not think that the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General would meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart). He agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that it was desirable to protect females in the circumstances mentioned.
  THE CHAIRMAN: We have not come to that yet.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he thought he was in Order. The Question before the Committee was, that the words proposed by the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Ackers) be inserted, and he had understood the hon. and learned Attorney General to propose to leave out certain words and substitute others later on. He was endeavouring to show——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member can show that when he comes to the part of the Bill proposed to be altered by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, with great submission, he thought that the Chairman had not heard what he had to say. He was endeavouring to show why the Committee ought not, in his opinion, to accept the words proposed by the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire. He did not agree with the construction placed upon the clause, that it would apply to taking away a woman from one brothel to another. The words "with intent that she may become an
  616
  inmate of a brothel" implied for the purpose of prostitution for the first time; and he did not think they were open to the construction placed upon them, and for which the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire was supposed to provide a cure.
  MR. ACKERSsaid, he wished to make a practical suggestion with regard to this matter. He did not feel able to accept, as he understood it, the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General; because he gathered that it would limit the application of the clause to cases where the removal was from a place that was not a brothel to a place that was a brothel. So far as the effect abroad was concerned, he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment; but he hoped it would be accepted in respect of England, and that it would be accepted in full, because he did not think it was a crime, although it was immoral, for one inmate of a brothel to say to another—"You had better leave here and go to another place." Therefore, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would be able to accept his Amendment so far as it applied to England, in which case he would be happy to withdraw it, and leave the wording of it to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he would point out, with reference to the question raised by the hon. Member, that the wording of the clause was—
  "Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom or to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the proposed Amendment of the hon. and learned Attorney General was a right one. The only objection of any force to it was that the clause ought not to apply to the case of a woman going from one brothel to another.
  MR. HORACE DAVEY MR. HORACE DAVEY rose to Order. He said that the Chairman had properly called him (Mr. Horace Davey) to Order when he proposed to discuss the words which the hon. and learned Attorney General said he would leave out. He presumed that the ruling which applied to one Member of the house would apply to another.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) is

  617
  not in Order in discussing the Amendment of the hon. and learned Attorney General.
  MR. ACKERSsaid, he would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, they must break up the sub-section into two, and put in the first part—
  "Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom with the intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel either within or without the Queen's dominions,"
  and in the second part—
  "Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom, or to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, such place not being a brothel, with intent that she may enter a brothel either within or without the Queen's dominions, whether or not he informs the woman or girl of such intent."
  Otherwise they would not deal with the two separate cases of a girl, whatever her character, being kidnapped or enticed away, and a girl leaving her residence in one brothel for another brothel. The Amendment ought not to be put in its present form, otherwise it would prevent their giving effect to what appeared to be in the mind of the Committee.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsubmitted that the point the hon. Member (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) wished to impress on the Committee had been dealt with in the previous part of the sub-section—
  "Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to become, cither within or without the Queen's dominions, a common prostitute."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he thought the following words would meet the difficulty:—
  "Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel without the Queen's dominions, or procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel either within or without the Queen's dominions," &c.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought those words were quite unnecessary, and that the case would be properly put by the insertion of these words—
  "Procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom, or
  618
  to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, such place not being a brothel, with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel either within or without the Queen's dominions," &c.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he should prepare a clause embodying the wish of the Committee and bring it up on Report. The only difficulty seemed to be as to a verbal Amendment, and it was hopeless to arrive at a settlement when such a difficulty existed, and Amendments were suggested from all sides.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, they might insert after "place of abode in the United Kingdom" the words "such place not being a brothel," and then they could decide before the Report what other Amendments were necessary.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 15, after the words "United Kingdom," to insert the words "such place not being a brothel."—(Secretary Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Mr. HOPWOODsaid, they must take into consideration the case of a girl who was residing in her own private apartments, though just as much a prostitute as a girl in a brothel, and who might be induced by some familiar friend to give up her apartments for the purpose of living in a brothel.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): We will consider the matter before the Report.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he should have thought the best course would have been to have agreed to report Progress, so that the matter could have received the attention, of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General during the night, and they could have started with a comprehensive proposal to-morrow.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he thought the Committee ought not to pass the Amendment. He felt certain, from what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said just now, when he endeavoured to show how the clause would run, that, on careful consideration, he would see that the mere insertion of the words would not carry out his intention. As he (Mr. Horace Davey) understood the matter,

  619
  two totally separate things were aimed at. One was to prevent the enticing of women or girls, whether of good or bad character—and, for his own part, he was desirous of protecting even women of bad character—to foreign brothels. The other thing it was desired to prevent was women or girls, who were not at present, at any rate, common prostitutes, from being enticed into becoming inmates of brothels. The Committee would at once see that there were two totally distinct things which it was sought to prevent. He was sure that if they endeavoured to prevent these two things by one common form of words, they would only get into error. He was sorry to have intervened just as the Chairman had been about to put the Question. His only desire was to see the wish of the Committee carried out; and he was sure the insertion of the words, after "United Kingdom," "such place not being a brothel," would not carry it out.
  SIR FARRER HERSCHELLsaid, it would be a pity to report Progress on this question. No doubt the matter required consideration; but he did not think there should be much difficulty in arriving at a settlement. He thought the proposal made did carry out the intention of the Committee, as the two things would be most distinctly dealt with in the sub-section.
  "Procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom … with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel either within or without the Queen's dominions,"
  assuredly covered the case of a girl enticed from this country into a foreign brothel; and the words
  "To leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel"
  quite as certainly covered the other case'—namely, that of enticing a woman to enter a brothel. The insertion of the words "such place not being a brothel" would, no doubt, meet a great many of the objections which had been mentioned. There was the case the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had put, and whether or not that should be dealt with was a matter for consideration. The best course would be to insert the words which would carry out the general views of the Committee.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) that a little alteration was required in the Amendment. What was required seemed to him the addition of very simple words in line 10. In the case of procuring a woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom, he did not think the words "either within or without the United Kingdom" should be used, and he would propose on Report to bring the clause up in an amended form. It might be well to say—
  "Procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel without the Queen's dominions, whether or not he informs the girl of such intent."
  Then, in another sub-section—
  "Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, such place not being a brothel, with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel either within or without the Queen's dominions, whether or not the woman or girl be informed of such intent."
  Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he wished, as an Amendment, to move to leave out the words "an inmate," in line 15, and insert "a resident for the purposes of prostitution," so that the sub-section might read—
  "Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom, or to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, such place not being a brothel, with intent that she may become a resident for the purposes of prostitution of a brothel, either within or without the United Kingdom," &c.
  If the Government would rather have the word "inmate," he would withdraw his Amendment; but he thought the words he proposed were better.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 15, leave out "an inmate," and insert "a resident for the purposes of prostitution."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, it seemed to him clear that what the Committee wished to do was to punish a

  621
  person for inducing a woman or girl to regularly take up her abode in a brothel for purposes of prostitution. A person might take a woman or girl to a brothel for one night, and that would technically render her "an inmate" under the section; but it was not meant to bring a person so acting under the penalties of the clause. To say that a person taking a woman or girl to a brothel for purposes of prostitution should be liable to two years' imprisonment seemed to him altogether ridiculous. The clause would apply not only to the procurer or procuress, but to the man who went to a brothel temporarily, as he might go to an hotel.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he would point out that the clause would also apply to a person living in a brothel who engaged a female housemaid or cook.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he should like the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to explain what legal construction he put on the word "inmate" as opposed to "resident."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, the word "resident" seemed to the Government too technical a word. He quite agreed, however, that the clause was not intended to apply to anyone taking a woman to a brothel temporarily as to an hotel. Though a casual visit of that kind would not constitute a woman "an inmate" of a brothel, yet a residence of a week or 10 days would do so. The reason why the word "resident" had been avoided was because there was a technical meaning given to it sometimes which they had thought it desirable to avoid. They had desired to hit the case of a woman going to a brothel and spending some time there, so as to become in the full sense an inmate.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITHhoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). It would defeat one very good effect that the clause would have in dealing with a well-known and common practice amongst brothel-keepers. One of the commonest devices for procuring prostitutes was the employment of girls in brothels as servants. They were often attracted as domestic servants, and then induced to lead immoral lives.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he would ask the Government not to alter the sub-section for the same reason. There was plenty of evidence that women were engaged in brothels as servants, and were afterwards trained up to be prostitutes. He would appeal to the Government not to omit the words which would protect this sort of women.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he quite appreciated the motives of hon. Gentlemen who had spoken; but he thought that if they allowed the clause to remain as it was, they would be providing legislation which would create difficulties— they would be falling into those pitfalls against which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir "William Harcourt) had cautioned them. They did not want to prevent these people from having cooks, and so on. They did not, by this clause, attempt to put down brothels; and if they adopted the advice of the last two hon. Members who had spoken, they would be giving the clause a wider scope than they desired.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I now beg to move, Sir, that you do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the Committee were now agreed upon all the points in the clause, save that of age. There were several Amendments on the Paper to limit the operation of the clause, or part of it, to girls under the age of 21 years; and these, he thought, they could easily deal with.
  Several hon. MEMBERS: Go on; go on!
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, the clause would require a considerable amount of amendment, because, in its present form, it would not deal with a female procuress.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)appealed to the Committee to make further progress

  623
  with the Bill. There was no serious point in dispute now.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg pardon, there is.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 125: Majority 94.—(Div. List, No. 259.)
  Clause 3 (Procuring defilement of woman by threats or fraud).
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, the first subsection said—
  "Any person who by threats or intimidation procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl…with himself or any other man," &c.
  This, in point of law, was rape; and he wished to know what was the use of encumbering the Statute Book with alternative modes of stating that which was already the law? He had in several instances marked that tendency in the Bill, and he hoped hon. Members would allow him to call attention to it here. Attempts to commit the offence dealt with in the sub-section were also provided against in the present law. An attempt at rape was an offence at law; therefore it was no use passing this subsection. He should very much like to know what reason there was for passing an Act of Parliament in this form, there being already in existence a well-known form of law, which was thoroughly comprehensible, to the same effect? He would move the omission of sub-section 1 of Clause 3.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, to leave, out sub-section (1.)—(Mr. Hopwood.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'By' stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he ventured to think that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hopwood) was not quite correct when he said that the clause was simply a repetition of the existing law. He did not mean to say that there might not be cases where threats amounted to rape under the existing law; but there certainly might be other cases where consent was obtained in that way without incurring the guilt of rape. There was another state of things which the sub-section dealt with; and he would ask hon.
  624
  Members to pay strict attention to the words. The sub-section said—
  "Any person who—By threats or intimidation procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl…..either within or without the Queen's dominions with himself or any other man."
  These words applied to cases which might occur without the Queen's Dominions. Of course, the words "with himself or any other man" would have to be altered, "person" being substituted for "man." There were at least two offences provided for which did not come under the existing law.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would boar with him (Mr. Hopwood) a little longer he would see that his (Mr. Hopwood's) contention was correct. The words were—
  "By threats or intimidation procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl to have unlawful carnal connection," &c.
  —that was to say, "procures or endeavours to procure a rape."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): Possibly, it may be so.
  MR. HOPWOOD: No; certainly it is. It was, by law, a rape and a felony, and by the sub-section they would make it a misdemeanour only. They were now enacting conflicting laws—he prayed them to take care that their guidance was correct on these legal matters. If they did not take care, all sorts of confusion would result. They were endeavouring to embrace in one clause that which was a felony, and that which was a misdemeanour, in a matter that was of supreme importance in all cases of drawing up indictments in Courts of Law; and it was obvious that the clause would require a great deal of careful handling before the hon. and learned Gentleman could fulfil all the purposes he had in view. He (Mr. Hopwood) would like, further, to put it to the Committee, if the clause was to have general application and deal with cases outside the Queen's Dominions, how could it be put in force? Supposing a case occurred in Prance, what right would they have to put the sub-section in force in that country? They might punish a person for an attempt made in the United Kingdom; but if the offender were a foreigner, and the offence were committed abroad, they might find themselves on the edge of some considerable legal difficulties.

  625
  Of course, he did not mean to say that they could not get at such a person for what he might do within the Queen's Dominions. He was afraid that when they came to have this clause strained and tested by legal decisions they would find it full of legal difficulties, and. would be greatly disappointed at the result of their Act.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he was afraid the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Hopwood) had not looked at the Amendments the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had put down to this sub-section. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to insert, after "intimidation," "or by false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means," and also to leave out "himself or any other man," in order to insert "any person." The offence which was pointed to in the subsestion would have to be committed in the United Kingdom. "Without the Queen's Dominions "to the had reference to the place to which the girl or woman might be taken.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, this showed the extreme difficulty of the matter they were dealing with. It was admitted that the words in the sub-section as they stood included the offence of rape. ["No, no!"] He thought hon. Gentlemen must agree that "procures or endeavours to procure any woman or gill by threats or intimidation" was rape. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General said there might be threats which were not sufficiently violent to constitute rape; but everyone who went on Circuit knew that of all cases in which they had to grapple with difficult points of evidence there were none which bristled more with difficulties than cases of rape. It came to this —that in a case where the evidence was not sufficient to convict a person of rape they were going to invite the jury to convict of misdemeanour, and they were not going to allow a man to give evidence on his own behalf. If there was a case in which a man ought to be allowed to give evidence, it was a case of rape or indecent assault. Yet it was positively suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) that where the evidence was not proof of rape the accused should be convicted of misdemeanour.
  626
  [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Richard Webster): No.] Well, but if a man "by threats or intimidation procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl" he was to be guilty of misdemeanour. It was admitted that there might be many threats, and when there was a small amount of threatening or intimidation the offence was to be a misdemeanour. Of course, if the woman was good looking and attractive her testimony would have great weight with the jury. Hon. Members who were in the habit of attending Assizes knew that very often charges of rape arose out of cases where there was practical consent—that some one coming up the woman had screamed to save her reputation, and a charge of rape had been preferred against the man the Committee ought to examine this subsection very carefully before accepting it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) in his objection to this sub-section. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) had very truly said there was not only a kind of intimidation — intimidation carried to a certain point—which amounted in law to rape, but that there was also intimidation, which even, if it were technically rape, would certainly not be found by a jury to be rape. It was felt that that sort of intimidation ought to be punished. Supposing a man threatened a girl with the dismissal of herself, or of her father, or some relative from employment, and because of that effected his purpose, he (Sir William Harcourt) doubted very much whether a jury would consider it rape. But surely a man who induced a girl to sacrifice her virtue by intimidation of that kind ought to be punished.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he thought the speech the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) had just delivered illustrated the extremely dangerous character of what the Committee were asked to do. This clause might be divided into two parts the first part dealt with intimidation. Now the law was perfectly clear. It was a question for the jury whether the connection took place with 1 the consent of the girl. If the girl was I only submissive, it was rape; if it was

  627
  submission to threats and intimidation, which were sufficient to overcome the resistance of the mind, and the jury found that the threats and intimidation reached that point, it was undoubtedly rape. But it was said there was a lower form of intimidation, and that a girl might be threatened by something which would not overbear the resistance of the mind, but might induce her to think, as a matter of calculation, that it would be better for her to submit to the connection than to put herself or relatives to an inconvenience which was threatened. He could not imagine a more terrible instrument of oppression than such a clause. There could be no evidence in contradiction, and a woman could say anything as to having had threats used towards her. So far as the rest of the clause was concerned, it was not required at all, because the 49th section of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100 was now on the Statute Book, subject to alterations. He certainly had a very strong objection to repealing a clause which had existed on the Statute Book for a good many years, in order to put a slightly different clause into an Act passed in 1885. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would seriously consider this matter. He certainly desired to enter his strong protest against this dangerous proposition.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON GROSS)said, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Edward Clarke) seemed to have forgotten that one of the main features of this clause was to provide punishment in England for something done outside the Queen's Dominions. It was quite true that the 24th & 25th Viet, did cover part of this clause; but it did not provide against girls being procured for foreign parts. This was not simply a question of rape, but it was—
  "Procures or endeavours to procure any woman or girl to have unlawful carnal connection, either within or without the Queen's dominions, with himself or any other man."
  Such an offence was not covered by the old Act.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, it was just as if two or three persons were present, and one held the woman while the foul purpose was effected by the other. Surely an accessory before the fact was a principal either in felony or misde-
  628
  meanour. A man who aided another to commit a rape was an accessory, and guilty of the crime himself.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he thought the Committee were indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) for having brought this subject forward; because it was plain, from the admissions of the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) and the Home Secretary (Sir E. Assheton Cross), that the clause required very considerable amendment. It now seemed to be generally admitted that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport was quite right in saying that this clause included various classes of crimes which were at present punishable as rape, and that it proposed to make a rape—which he (Mr. Horace Davey) was given to understand was at present a felony—a misdemeanour. Although the clause included rape, although it also included the accessories to rape, although it included, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) had pointed out, what was already made an offence, it included something more. Let the Government say what it was they meant by the clause. He was desirous of supporting the Government in carrying the Bill, and in carrying a clause which would aid in grappling with that which they all knew to be a great evil—namely, enticing English girls to brothels abroad. If that was what the Government desired to prevent, why did they not say so? Why did the Government introduce a clause which had the effect, as hon. and learned Gentlemen, who had far greater knowledge of the Criminal Law than he had—and there was no greater authority in the house on Criminal Lawthan the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke)—said, of including what was already a felony? At that hour of the morning (2.30) they were asked to enact that what was already a felony, according to the English law, should be a misdemeanour. That was a ridiculous position for the Committee to be placed in. It was evident that the Government did not understand their own clause, and had not thought it out; and he would, therefore, move to report Progress. Perhaps before the Committtee met again the Government would re-consider the clause.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Horace Davey.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he thought they ought to go on. The question had been argued for some time, and surely it was better to settle it at once. They would not arrive at a more satisfactory conclusion to-morrow than they would to-day.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, the last division was taken at 2 o'clock, and the Committee were then assured that this clause would lead to no contention. They had gone on now for half-an-hour, and the discussion had shown that the clause was much fuller of difficulties than the Government imagined. He thought they were entitled at that hour of the morning to take a division, if necessary, on the Motion to report Progress.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, the Bill was one huge jumble; but he did not blame Her Majesty's Government one bit, because, as a matter of fact, it was not their Bill. He thought, however, that as the Government had taken up the Bill they ought to bear the responsibility of it. He intended to support the Motion to report Progress, and hoped that before the next meeting of the Committee the Government would consider what they really did intend to pass.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) made a very powerful speech against the clause, but prevented any Member of the Committee replying to him by moving to report Progress. Of course, if the attitude which the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) had taken up was to prevail, and if the Bill was to be practically obstructed——
  MR. HOPWOOD MR. HOPWOOD rose to Order. He would like to know whether it was not un-Parliamentary to charge any Member of the Committee with Obstruction?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it would be out of Order for an hon. Member to charge another hon. Member with Obstruction; but he did not understand the hon. Member for Wolverhampton to do that.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he made no such charge. The hon. Member for
  630
  Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) hinted that this was a time of the morning when a minority of the Committee was entitled to insist on reporting Progress. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was about to say, when he was interrupted by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that if that course was to be adopted—he did not think the hon. Member for Oldham would adopt such a course—those who supported this Bill would be placed in a very awkward position. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) thought it would be hopeless to go on at that hour of the morning; and therefore he would not be displeased if the Government consented to report Progress, but not on the ground that this Clause was a jumble. The clause was perfectly intelligible, and he thought the opposition to the clause was perfectly intelligible too.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not wish to enter into the merits of the clause or of the Amendment; but he thought that at half-past 2 in the morning the Government might fairly consent to report Progress.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [The Lord Advocate, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    [BILL 115.] SECOND BEADING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Second Reading of the Bill be deferred till Monday next."
    MR. WEBSTERsaid, he must appeal to the Government to move that this Order be discharged. He had no intention, at that hour of the morning (2.35), of detaining the House by discussing the merits of the Bill; but he gathered, from an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday, that it was hardly meant to proceed with the Bill that Session. It was now the end of July. The Bill was of a contentious character; it would be opposed at every stage; and, therefore, it was impossible to pass it in the few remaining days of the Session. On Tuesday the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said

    631
    that looking1 to the list of Bills on the Paper, and the opposition of himself (Mr. Webster) and other hon. Members from Scotland to the Bill, he was afraid they could not proceed with it. After such a statement it was scarcely a right proceeding to put the Bill down for next week, of course to the great inconvenience of Scotch Members and of the house generally. He strongly appealed to the Government to consent to the discharge of the Order and the withdrawal of the Bill.
    MR. HENDERSONsupported the appeal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Webster). Many Scotch Members, relying upon the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday, had left town.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would admit the correctness of the quotation the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Webster) had made; but as this was a Bill of importance he thought the matter might remain until Monday.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
    Resolution [July 29] reported, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and that Sir ARTHUR OTWAY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Sir HENRY HOLLAND do prepare and bring it in.
    Bill presented, and read the first time.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) BILL.— [Bill 99.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) BILL.— [Bill 99.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    A Clause (Amendment to "The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) (Scotland) Act, 1878,")— (Mr. J. B. Balfour,)—was twice read, and made part of the Bill.
    Amendments made.
    Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
    House adjourned at Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
— Took the Oath for the First Time — The Lord Bishop of Truro.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Fifth Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading — Customs and Inland Revenue (No. 2) * (220); Lunacy Acts Amendment * (221); Metropolitan Police Staff Superannuation * (222); Patent Law Amendment* (223).
Second Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2)* (188); Smoke Nuisance Abatement (50); Copyhold Enfranchisement (185). negatived; Pluralities (213); Poor Law Unions Officers (Ireland) (214); Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * (209).
Committee—Earldom of Mar Restitution (217).
Committee—Report—Medical Relief Disqualification Removal (207); Bankruptcy (Office Accommodation)* (191).
Report — Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt Practices) * (219).
Third Reading — Post Office Sites* (181); Public Health (Members and Officers) * (194), and passed.

SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.—(No. 50.)
(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.—(No. 50.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I rise to move the second reading of the Bill on Smoke Abatement. Let me first explain the interval which has elapsed since it was read a first time this Session. Down to the middle of June I was absorbed by questions far more urgent in their character. The course of Parliament was then long interrupted. When it was resumed on the 6th of July, there was little chance of getting such a measure through the House of Commons for the

  477
  present. If it is only read a second time and goes no further, yet the object of its friends will be promoted. Last Session the Bill was advocated fully on two stages. It was carried on the last by a majority of more than two to one against the strenuous efforts of the late Government, excepting always the noble Duke their Master of the Horse (the Duke of Westminster), who is as much concerned in it as I am. It is chiefly because a number of Peers on either side have lately joined us that I feel bound to give a hurried explanation of it. The Bill starts from the measures of Lord Palmerston, at the time when he was Home Secretary. It contemplates a gradual action on the smoke of private houses, as he directed his enactments against the smoke of large commercial factories in London. It is useless to efface the smoke of large commercial factories if the void is constantly filled up by the new houses which arise with wonderful rapidity. The Statutes of Lord Palmerston are baffled by a steady influx of the evil which they were framed to obviate. It is something like the Sinking Fund. The Sinking Fund is excellent when you have ceased to borrow. But it has been found that there is no good in reducing debt when you are steadily augmenting it. The aggregate of smoke in London must be greater than it was when Lord Palmerston began to operate against it. Beyond that, the Statutes of Lord Palmerston are not enforced with rigour, because it is seen that, even if they were, the evil which they have in view would not be seriously mitigated. Some action, therefore, is required in order to do justice to the legislation of Lord Palmerston. It can only be brought about by the mechanism of local bodies. The householders will not submit to interference except from local bodies which they have helped to form, which they know how to reach, which they are qualified to influence. The leading feature of the Bill is to enable Vestries, through their bye-laws under the direction of the Home Office, to make the evil which prevails illegal for the future. It may be said that, however just the power, it will not be exerted. Possibly it may not. It will turn much upon the pressure of opinion, discussion out-of-doors, the feeling of society. But even if all the local bodies are inactive,
  478
  by other clauses some good will arise of a subordinate description. The excessive and opaque smoke which at times proceeds from clubs when some unwonted dinner is preparing may be immediately prohibited. The Statutes of Lord Palmerston will operate over a wider area than hitherto they have done. The Metropolitan Board of Works will gain a further jurisdiction over the heating apparatus of new houses, which, as 25,000 are added every year, become a vast ingredient in a formidable problem. I contended last year, and I hold still, that the discretionary power of the local bodies will be exerted in the City, even if elsewhere it is latent. The Lord Mayor of the day may easily obtain its application, and there are many influences well known to the House by which a Lord Mayor may be urged into activity for any object which is just and irreproachable. Some few objections ought, perhaps, to be encountered. It has been urged that mechanical invention is not advanced sufficiently for restraining smoke in private houses. But this impression wholly overlooks the history of the subject. Last year I pointed to seven methods by which the object may be compassed. For 100 years the scientific world has been employed upon the subject. In 1785 the well-known author of the steam engine, James Watt, took out a patent with regard to it in furnaces. There is no more reason that London should be enveloped as it is than any other capital of Europe. The use of coke and wood, or coke and gas, or coke alone, with a little alteration of existing fire-places to increase the draught, would be sufficient for the object. The late Sir William Siemens is the master we should look to. The noble Duke the Chairman of the Institute on Smoke has also tried experiments by which the public may be guided. In some quarters it is feared that the liberty of the householder would be improperly encroached upon. On the contrary, he would enjoy a greater latitude and more authority than he does at present. He is now confined, not by law, but custom, which is infinitely stronger to the use of raw coal in ordinary fire-places. Whenever he departs from it—as there is no necessity to do so—his family and servants are nearly certain to oppose him. I knew a householder, some years ago,

  479
  conversant with the question, who introduced the Arnott stove throughout his mansion, except the kitchen, where, of course, it was most needed, but where the opposition was too serious to deal with. When this Bill is carried, and when his local body acts upon it, the householder will be armed by law; he will pull himself together; he will compare the different modes of heating which exist; he will form a sound and prudent choice between them, and insist on the necessity of quitting the old routine from which for years he has vainly struggled to release himself. But there was one objection mentioned by my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, that as some local bodies would apply the law, while others did not, smoke might be legal on one side of a street and illegal on the other. But even if it was the case the atmosphere would gain a little. Where it was not corrected no new hardship would arise. Can it be doubted that the action of the defaulting body would be hastened, that both sides of the street would soon be under the enactment on the old principle, Cum proximus ardet. But the objection of the late Government, which forced a division on the House last year, has vanished altogether. It was that the whole subject ought to be referred to a huge central body which the late Government proposed to organize. In vain it was demonstrated that such a jurisdiction could not act on smoke at all, because it would have no proper title to fix an area for the experiment, and would not venture to impose restraint upon the whole of the Metropolis together. Nothing would satisfy the Government of that day except leaving smoke to the repression of a colossal power which was not certain to arise, and could not venture to repress it. To encroach upon the privileges of that gigantic form was inconsistent with the tenderness which it inspired even before its parturition was effected. The late Government were haunted by it. We have heard of a celebrated novel called Frankenstein, by Mrs. Shelley. Frankenstein was overpowered and entangled by the monster he had too ambitiously created. He did not turn pale before the imagined dignity and hypothetical austerity of the monster he was never doomed to call into existence. It may be urged by some that Vestries are not final, and
  480
  that new municipal divisions will replace them. Whenever that occurs their powers as to smoke may be easily transferred to the new municipal divisions by which the capital is governed. Let me run over very briefly the positive advantages which the measure aims at. One is, of course, the greater purity of domiciles. Smoke is now destructive of furniture, of linen, of dresses, and many other thing which womanhood appreciates. Another is the sanitary benefit. You cannot leave with prudence, in constantly deteriorating air, the masses you are striving to transfer to better habitations. As to architecture, I will not now repeat what I have dwelt upon before; but wish to make this observation. Unless smoke is overcome you cannot have the colour you desire for edifices which are rising. The influence of smoke on architecture is too extensive and minute a topic to be handled at this moment. There is but one opinion among experts of its consequences. Of course, it may be argued that the Bill can never reach the Statute Book this Session. The object is, by the unanimous concurrence of the House, to facilitate the task of Governments in afterwards adopting it. It is not in all respects desirable that Bills should become Acts—even if they can—unless a Government proposes them. Governments are forced by a political necessity which grew up after the first Reform Act—whether they like or not—to offer legislation to the country. If the material of proper legislation is consumed—it cannot be unlimited —they are driven to schemes revolting to themselves and prejudicial to the country. It is sufficient for the framers of the present Bill to lay before them a path which is not either dangerous or unprofitable. I therefore ask your Lordships to repeat the step which a year ago you had the goodness to decide on. I will now move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Earl BEAUCHAMP)said, that since the 19th of March this Bill has been slumbering peacefully on the Orders as a Bill that awaited the second reading, and it was not until Tuesday last that the second reading was put clown for this day. In these circumstances it could scarcely

  481
  have received adequate consideration from their Lordships. He supposed the noble Lord did not intend to proceed any further with it this Session; at any rate, if he did intend to do so, it would be his (Earl Beauchamp's) duty to point out the many grave defects which existed in the Bill. Everyone would sympathize with the object of the Bill, which was to limit waste and extravagance in the consumption of coal, because they were injurious to health, and property; but it was another question whether the machinery of the Bill was the best adapted for the purpose. That, however, was a point into which they need not now stop to inquire. He would recommend that it be read a second time, and that the Order for Committee should be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, that their Lordships would be unanimous on the point that smoke was a nuisance in London, and it was a reflection on our civilization that so little had been done to diminish it. It was a mistake to suppose that the unconsumed coal which floated in the air we breathed and the dismal pall of smoke which hung over London was inevitable. Mechanical science had made such advance that there was now no difficulty in preventing the pollution of the atmosphere by smoke, and it was a wrong upon the public that individuals should have unlimited power to injure themselves and others by negligently contributing to the nuisance. Moreover, there was a great waste of carbon, which might be economized and utilized by mechanical science. This Bill provided amendments of the law worthy of the deliberate consideration of their Lordships in the next Session.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, that in reference to what had fallen from the noble Earl on the Treasury Bench he would have willingly exposed the Bill to the ordeal of a Select Committee, to give it greater accuracy and precision, although it was not carelelssly drawn up, had there been time for such a process. As things stood he did not wish it to go beyond the second reading for the present, and he trusted that their Lordships would see no reason to depart from the conclusion they had previously arrived at.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a.

COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
(The Lord Hobhouse.)
COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

  (NO. 185.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HOBHOUSE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, I said, that the measure was one of a series of steps which had been taken by the advice of eminent lawyers and statesmen, men who in other departments of public life entertained the most divergent opinions, but who agreed in this— that it was desirable as fast as possible to diminish, and finally extinguish, the old inconvenient tenure of copyhold. Great and serious evils arose from this tenure. In the first place, there was a multiplicity of laws, not written and not generally known, and only ascertainable by tradition, which this system created. These laws could only be I ascertained on the oral evidence of persons cognizant of the customs of each particular manor. The question was inquired into for the first time in 1832 by a body of eminent lawyers, who dealt with the whole subject of real property. The Report of these gentlemen recapitulated the evils arising from the immense variety of customs in different manors, customs to be sought in oral traditions, and the Court Rolls which had often been kept by ignorant or negligent stewards. They remarked that it was not surprising that frequent litigation arose between lord and tenant, vendor and purchaser, and the vendor and others claiming an adverse interest to the vendor. It had been suggested that the true remedy for these evils lay in the adoption of a general registry of titles in England. But these, though, perhaps the most obvious, were not the greatest evils. The greatest was the system of arbitrary fines on each devolution of the copyhold interest and occasionally also of the freehold title. The lord might require the copyholder to pay two years' improved value of the land. That system was obviously, and, in fact, had been found to be, a serious obstacle to the improvement of land. In the same Report from which he had quoted, he found remarks on the check to improvements occasioned by the conflicting rights of landlord and tenant,

  483
  and the consequent diminution of the public wealth, and the direct discouragement to agriculture and the erection of buildings. Remarkable evidence was taken also by the Committee which reported on the subject in 1852. In that evidence were some striking statements of one of the Drainage Commissioners on the unwillingness of copyholders to borrow money for drainage. This gentleman expressed an opinion that copyhold lands were worse cultivated than freehold. He was talking the other day to a veteran solicitor and steward of a manor, who said that he could tell by simple inspection which were copyhold and which freehold lands. Then the tenure discouraged the growth of timber, for if the lord cut the timber it was trespass against the tenant, and if the tenant cut it was waste against the lord. Thus no young timber was allowed to grow on copyhold land. Thus in Sussex copyhold land could be recognized by the entire absence of trees on one side, while there was on the other a well-wooded area. Then there were heriots. The lord might on alienation take his tenant's best chattel —in some cases it wa3 his best live chattel. Very startling and, in some cases, amusing stories were told of the devices resorted to by tenants to induce their lord to take the worst instead of the best chattel. These evils were aggravated in many instances by the confusion of boundaries between freehold and copyhold land. It frequently happened that when land had been held continuously for many years part of the same field was copyhold and part freehold without any distinction which was which. But the occupier was afraid of tilling the field to the best advantage because he might by his method of cultivation incur a a forfeiture of the copyhold portion. Then, too, it often became necessary to make both a freehold and copyhold conveyance of the same land, and the tenant dare not grow timber for fear of forfeiture. These insuperable objections existed in the case of purchase because the vendor could not point out the boundaries between the copyhold and the freehold. All these inconveniences were especially felt in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex. The Real Property Commissioners did not advise any compulsory action. In 1838 the
  484
  matter was referred to a very strong Committee of the House of Commons, which recommended that a compulsory measure should be passed. The result of the recommendation of that Committee was the passing of the Copyhold Act of 1841, and the Legislature appeared to have followed the recommendation of the Committee by trying in the first instance what he might call the voluntary system. A Copyhold Commission, which was still at work, was established, and was empowered to receive applications for enfranchisement and to give effect to them in cases when the lord of the manor and the tenant were agreed on the subject. In 1851 the matter was again referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and they reported to the effect that it was highly desirable that the entire enfranchisement of copyhold estates should be effected as soon as possible, due regard being had to the rights and claims of all parties, and that such enfranchisement should be compulsory on all. In 1852 a measure was passed enabling one of the parties to demand enfranchisement instead of requiring the consent of both. That Act, however, applied only to cases where the admission had taken place after the 3rd of July, 1853. The principle of that Act was found to be very beneficial, and the number of enfranchisements considerably increased. In 1858 another Act was passed which took away the restriction as to time and made the Act of 1852 apply to every copyhold in the Kingdom. Their Lordships might ask what had been the practical effect of this legislation. He held in his hand a Return made by the Land Commissioners down to 1882 which showed the operation of the various Acts. As long as the Act of 1841 or the voluntary system was prevalent the average number of enfranchisements was 42 a-year. When the Act of 1852 came into operation the average rose to 243 a-year, and when the Act of 1858 came into operation, taking it down to the present time, the average was 554 a-year. Perhaps he might be asked what proportion that was of the whole of the copyholds in the Kingdom, and whether the process of enfranchisement was going on fast or slowly. He was sorry to say that he could not answer that question. He found that no man could answer it. In

  485
  the absence of registries we had no means whatever of ascertaining what quantity of copyhold land there was in England. Therefore, he could not say whether the proportion of which the enfranchisement had been effected was small or large compared with the proportion which remained. But it was agreed upon by everybody who understood the subject that there still remained a vast number of copyholds throughout England. The Bill now under their Lordships' consideration had been the subject of discussion for four years in the House of Commons, by many public bodies outside it, and by individuals who were interested in the matter; and the measure was, in fact, the work of many hands. It bore, indeed, the marks of that, as it was not quite so clear either in point of arrangement or in point of expression as could be desired. In these respects it was open to some amendment; but he believed their Lordships would consider it to be upon the whole a very valuable measure. It contained a large quantity of legislative details, and if he were asked what was the principle of the Bill he should say that it was a measure to carry into more complete effect the policy of the last 50 years and to promote and accelerate the enfranchisement of copyholds. He had heard this measure described by persons competent to judge of it as one which proposed to deal with the property of two persons in a way which neither of them desired should be followed; but what it did was to place the initiative in the hands of the lord who was required on admitting or enrolling any person as tenant to any land after the 31st of December, 1885, save where the admittance or enrolment took place in consequence of the death of a lord, to give a notice in writing to the tenant of enfranchisement, and the Bill provided that in default of such notice being given no fine, relief, or heriot should be payable to the lord on any subsequent admittance or enrolment. Every such notice of enfranchisement was to be accompanied by an offer to take a certain sum which, if accepted, was to be the compensation; the lord and the tenant were empowered to agree on compensation and to appoint valuers to fix it. Thus if the tenant desired to remain a copyholder all he had to do was to allow the lord's notice
  486
  to drop. In the event of the lord not serving such notice the tenant might avail himself of the compulsory provisions of the Copyhold Acts. He anticipated that this measure would have a very important effect in enfranchising copyholds, and would benefit the lord, the tenant, and the public. The Bill came before the Incorporated Law Society, and met with their approval. In conclusion, he moved the second reading of the Bill, thanking their Lordships for the great patience with which they had listened to him.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Hobhouse.)
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that the Bill was not prepared with such consummate skill as his noble and learned Friend would have them believe. He thought no one denied that it was desirable to get rid of the copyhold tenure, and if anyone did doubt it before he could not doubt it after having heard the very convincing speech to which the House had just listened. His noble Friend had shown the great mischief caused by the existing law. There was one evil he had not mentioned. The lord was the owner of the minerals under the surface, whilst the copyholder was the owner of the soil; therefore the lord could not take them, and the copyholder could not take them. This was another reason why this tenure should in some way be got rid of, and most certainly if some benevolent magician could do that with a wave of his wand without expense he did not suppose anyone would be found to object. He did not suppose the lord was desirous of being lord for the mere pleasure of the title. But did it not strike their Lordships that the more the noble and learned Lord showed that it was good to get rid of this tenure the more it followed that there were some difficulties in the way of getting rid of it which made it better for them to put up with it than to go to the expense involved? That, indeed, was the only reason for its existence—it was more troublesome and expensive to get rid of than to keep—the cost would be greater than the benefits derived from enfranchisement. There was a third person interested, and that was the steward, and certainly the Bill would be a boon to the present generation of

  487
  stewards; and when his noble and learned Friend said that the Incorporated Law Society approved of the Bill he could well understand that, seeing that there was a great number of stewards in the Society. The stewards were most respectable gentlemen, but, like himself, were inclined to think that right which was pleasant. The lord could compel enfranchisement if he pleased; the copyholder could compel it if he pleased; and, therefore, the Bill could only be applicable to the case where both lord and copyholder, each being able to enfranchise, did not choose to do so. In that case the Bill said they should. He should neither affirm nor deny anything about land at the present time. It might very well be that the public was entitled to say that land should be held and dealt with in a way most advantageous to the public; but that could only be done through the individual. Why was it that both lord and tenant were so indifferent that they would not take the benefit which the law at present offered? It must be a peculiarity of the copyholder if he would not follow his own interests. He would tell them why the copyholder left things as they were. The game was not worth the candle, and the noble Lord on the Woolsack would agree with him that the worst of all expensive and wearisome proceedings in which a man could be involved was in the adjustment of parcel or boundary. This was the real reason why advantage had not been taken to a much larger extent of the existing law than had been the case. He wished to know why the provision for the lord having the right of access to his mines, with some arrangement in respect of it, was omitted from this Bill? Such a provision had been in all previous Bills. The Commissioners, whose Report had been quoted by his noble and learned Friend, rejected all plans for the compulsory enfranchisement of copyholds, and since that Report Acts of Parliament had been passed which introduced compulsory enfranchisement upon the application either of the lord or the tenant. The difference between those Acts and the present Bill was that in the case of copyholds which it would not be worth anybody's while to enfranchise the Bill would compel enfranchisement. He had often said if anyone were to make him a present of
  488
  a piece of land occasionally to be seen by the wayside he would not take it if he had to defend the title, and there were several of those copyholds which he would not take as a gift if there was to be enfranchisement of them. He hoped their Lordships would not read the Bill a second time. The only reason by which the Bill could be justified was on account of some benefit, or supposed benefit, to the public. So far from that, it seemed to be a Bill simply to compel people to do that which they were told was for their good, but which they nevertheless thought was not for their benefit.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, it was obvious, from the speech of the noble and learned Lord who moved the second reading, that this was a complicated and technical Bill, and being so vast and extensive, containing 54 clauses, it ought to have fuller consideration than could possibly be given it at this time of the Session. If the noble and learned Lord was correct in saying that the object of the Bill was to benefit the lord, the tenant, and the public, he would be the last person to propose to refer it to a Select Committee. But though he had put a Notice of such a Motion on the Paper he really believed that the Bill ought not to be gone on with at the present time. The principle of the Bill was to compel those who did not wish to enfranchise to enfranchise against their will. Speaking on behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of whom he was one, he thought the Bill contained several objectionable provisions. Besides having presented a Petition carefully prepared from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he had also presented Petitions from the Dean and Chapter of Carlisle, from Trinity College, Cambridge, King's College, St. John's College, at Pembroke College, Cambridge, against the second reading. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were among the largest lords of manors in England. They held 450 manors, and notwithstanding the slow progress which was alleged had been made, they had enfranchised over 2,500 copyholds. The noble Lord admitted that the enfranchisements were at the rate of 500 a-year. First of all, the mineral rights of the lords were prejudiced by the Bill, because, though it was true that the minerals could not be worked without the leave of the copy-

  489
  holder, it was undisputed that they belonged to the lords, and the onus of proving the boundaries which hitherto fell on the tenant was thrown on the lord. That would be a very difficult and costly process. Another provision which injuriously affected the lords of manors was contained in a clause which said that the land should be sold at the actual value of the rent or the actual value of the land as it stood. That meant that all the advantage arising from land situated near towns was sacrificed. There was land in the neighbourhood of towns worth £200 an acre, for which the copyholder paid only a small line, which did not, at all represent its value. In fact, that clause would sacrifice the prospective value of building land all over the Kingdom. What was the evidence in favour of the Bill? All the evidence that he could gather was that it had been four years before the House of Commons. But it had never been discussed by the House of Commons. It was true that the Bill was referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons last year; but that Committee refused to hear evidence whether of the lord or the copyholder, though a measure of such importance ought in all justice to be carefully sifted and weighed by a Committee receiving evidence. The facilities for enfranchisement given by the Acts of 1852 and 1858 had been admitted. The proposal of the Bill was that the parties, whether they liked it or not, should be obliged to enfranchise, and the law charges, the expense of the definition of boundaries, and the cost of notice all fell on the lord. The Bill would also inflict injustice on the tenant. A tenant who paid 6d. a-year for his copyhold was to enfranchise whether he liked it or not. He would, under the Bill, be obliged to borrow the money at 4 per cent, or be subject to a rent charge equal to 4 per cent. There were no Petitions from copyholders in favour, of the Bill. It was said that the copyholders of Accrington were very desirous that it should pass. Well, let them have a Bill of their own. He did not think anyone could allege that this Bill was likely to receive adequate consideration at the present time, and, therefore, he would take upon himself at once to move that it be read a second time that day three mouths.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")— (The Earl Stanhope.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he should like to ask the noble and learned Lord who moved the second reading of this Bill whether he would be content that the Bill should be read a second time without sending it to a Select Committee? If he gathered from the noble and learned Lord's observations that he did not desire that it should pass into law before its details were considered, it was obvious that it was absolutely impossible to thoroughly discuss those details this Session. The only object, therefore, in assenting to the second reading was that the House should affirm some principle on which the Bill was supposed to be framed. On that subject it appeared that the noble and learned Lord had not made up his mind as to what was the principle of the Bill. There was considerable doubt as to whether the 1st section made the Bill compulsory or not. What, in effect, it enacted was this, not that it should be compulsory, but that it should, whether the parties liked it or not, commence litigation which would be fruitless. Anything more injurious than such a state of things as that both to lord and tenant he could hardly conceive. He gathered from the noble and learned Lord that the Bill was the product of many minds, that the mode in which it was drawn was open to exception, and that he would not like it to pass into law without going through the ordeal of a Select Committee. By those admissions he judged that the noble and learned Lord would not desire to see this field of litigation thrown open to lords and tenants without a very careful scrutiny being made of the provisions of the Bill. He did not think that the noble and learned Lord dealt satisfactorily with the point that the Bill did not deal with minerals. The answer he gave was that it did not refuse to accept what former Acts had done; and he stated that Bills introduced on the subject had attempted to settle the vexed question of minerals, the state of the law with regard to which was very unsatisfactory. The Bill now before their Lordships, however, did not settle the question, and it would tend to pro-

  491
  duce heartburning and make people believe that the question as between lord and tenant was settled when it was not. He presumed that their Lordships must make up their minds as to whether this was a compulsory measure or not before the second reading was taken. The noble and learned Lord stated that the lord must, to put the provisions of the Bill in operation, serve the tenant with a notice, but that the tenant might, if he liked, throw the notice behind the fire. If that was the true view of it how did the Bill differ from the law as it stood at the present time? It was not denied that the law might enforce enfranchisements; and if this was only another useless step to create expense it would be very undesirable to read the Bill a second time, and settle nothing by it.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he could not agree with his noble and learned Friend who had just spoken. The measure stated that it was very desirable to get rid of this inconvenient copyhold tenure, which had many disadvantages. He had never heard anyone point out an advantage in connection with copyhold tenure, and the principle of the Bill was that it took another step in the direction of getting rid of it. Were their Lordships going to reject a Bill founded on that principle—a Bill which had received the sanction of the House of Commons, of a Select Committee of the Land Commissioners, and of that branch of the Legal Profession which was conversant with the question? Were their Lordships going to reject the principle of the Bill because there was no time this Session to discuss details. Some of the clauses, no doubt, ought to receive very careful consideration; but he did not think that the House would put itself in a much better position with respect to the question than it now occupied if it affirmed the principle that it was desirable to make progress in the direction of getting rid of this tenure, and also that the details of the measure required consideration. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack asked why a Bill of this sort should be proposed when the law already enabled the lord or the tenant to compel enfranchisement. The answer to that was that the present provisions were such that nobody had an interest in putting them in motion except upon
  492
  particular occasions. If the law could be set in motion in the manner proposed by the Bill they would practically get an important step towards the end which all agreed it was desirable to attain. He would not discuss the details of the measure because if the principle was right the details would have to be considered at the proper time. Everyone admitted that the present state of the law was unsatisfactory. There were minerals which could not be got at, and that was a state of things injurious to the public. Surely the proper course to adopt was to read the Bill a second time in order that the details might be discussed if there were time, and if there were not, that there Lordships might indicate that they were not hostile to the principle of the measure.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT CRANBROOK),said, he was disappointed that the noble and learned Earl who had just spoken had not laid down a principle on which they could vote. All he had said was that the Bill was a step in the direction of enfranchisement. He (Viscount Cranbrook) did not yield to anyone in his objection to copyhold tenures; but this seemed to be one of those Bills which originated in the feeling that something must be done, and then it often was supposed that anything would do. It was a sort of Joseph Surface Bill, full of high sentiments not carried into practice—an illustration of faith without works. The House ought not to be called upon to approve a principle which was not accurately defined by the noble and learned Lord who had introduced the Bill, or by those who had supported it, and to commit themselves to something of which an inconvenient application might be made next year.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that if there was any imitation of Joseph Surface in the matter, it was in fully recognizing that there were evils that called for remedy, and yet in declining to support a measure calculated to diminish those evils. The principle of the Bill had been clearly stated by the noble and learned Lord who moved the second reading. It was admitted that the evils were considerable evils, that the tenure was a bad one, and that there were grave details for discussion in Committee; and no one had impugned the general principle of the Bill, which

  493
  ought not to be rejected, simply because there might not be time to consider it in Committee.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, he objected to the Bill as a piece of legislation intended to worry people who wanted to be let alone, and to compel them to enfranchise whether they liked or not. He believed that the Bill would, if passed in its present shape, affect very many rights over considerable tracts of moorland, and to that he objected.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion?
  Their Lordships divided:— Contents 14; Not-Contents 46: Majority 32.
  Resolved in the negative.
  Bill to be road 2a on this day three months.

PLURALITIES BILL.—(No. 213.)
(The Lord Bishop of London.)
PLURALITIES BILL.—(No. 213.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had already twice passed their Lordships' House. The Bill was intended to remedy the defects of the Pluralities Act of about 50 years ago. In case of the holder of two benefices being unable to provide for the duties of one of them, and being unable to obtain a clergyman to undertake those duties for the stipend offered, the Bishop had now no power to interfere. The Bill would enable the Bishop to appoint a curate in such cases and to assign an adequate salary out of the revenues of the living. When benefices were vacant the Bishop could appoint a temporary curate, but at a salary which no curate would now accept. He had, when Bishop of Exeter, on several occasions himself paid a curate in these circumstances. As the law now stood in Wales, no clergyman could be appointed to the cure of souls who could not preach in Welsh. But the Bishop had no power to order Welsh services to be celebrated. This Bill would enable the Bishop to order that at least one Welsh service should be held on Sundays. In these circumstances he hoped their Lordships would read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Bishop of London.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

POOR LAW UNIONS' OFFICERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 214.)
(The Marquess of Waterford.)
POOR LAW UNIONS' OFFICERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 214.)

  SECOND HEADING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to enable Boards of Guardians in Ireland to give pensions to officers on the abolition of their offices. As the law now stood these Boards could give pensions to their officers on the ground of ill-health or resignation through old age; but they were not able to give pensions in cases where the offices had been abolished. These cases would mainly occur where Unions had to be amalgamated. Where two Unions had to be amalgamated—and there was a prospect of such amalgamation—it would be very hard upon the officers of a Union amalgamated to another Union if they were turned out into the world without pensions. The Bill provided that the Union which was abolished should provide the funds. He thought it only fair that such a Bill I should be passed, and he, therefore, I moved the second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Marquess of Waterford.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

EARLDOM OF MAR RESTITUTION BILL.
(The Earl of Rosebery.)
EARLDOM OF MAR RESTITUTION BILL.

  (NO. 107.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of REDESDALE)said, he was surprised that the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Selborne) should ask their Lordships to go into Committee on this Bill, which was a wholly unprece-

  495
  dented measure, and was not really a restitution Bill at all. What was at stake with regard to this Peerage? The Bill said—
  "And whereas doubts may exist whether the said ancient honour, dignity, and title of peerage of Earl of Mar, which so descended to the said Isabella, Countess of Mar, was or was not previously to 1565 by any lawful means surrendered or merged in the Crown."
  This Peerage had never been represented in Parliament since it became extinguished. The way in which this matter stood was rather peculiar. The gentleman who was to be benefited by this Bill had never applied to the Crown claiming to be entitled to the dignity; but in opposing another person who got the Peerage he refused to have the Peerage described as in this Bill. The Standing Orders of the House were againt this mode of procedure, for they laid clown that neither the House nor a Committee should proceed upon any claim to the Peerage until the necessary Petition should have been lodged, along with a statement containing a history of the pedigree and an abstract of the proof and authority upon which the claim was to be founded. In this instance no printed case had been lodged, and the only evidence upon which it stood was what was taken in their Lordships' House, some of it many years ago, so that no one could have gone through it without very great labour. It was upon the evidence on which this gentleman refused to make a claim that the title was now to be given to him by Act of Parliament. This was a proceeding of so strange a character that if their Lordships were not particularly careful a precedent might be established which would have a dangerous effect with regard to the future. If this precedent were to be followed, a man might be raised to the Peerage by Act of Parliament without any satisfactory proof entitling him to such Peerage. He confessed it was with reluctance that he had come forward in this way; but he felt it his duty not to allow this matter to be treated in so summary a manner without raising an objection and bringing it clearly and distinctly before the House. He entertained the highest opinion of the late Lord Chancellor, who had been the chief promoter of this Bill; but he could not help remembering that the noble and learned Earl
  496
  acted as counsel for the gentleman who claimed the Earldom. This was unfortunate, although he did not mean to say I that it influenced him to the slightest extent. No one had yet stated the grounds on which the Bill was based, and in these circumstances he thought it would be most injudicious for their Lord-ships to proceed further with the measure. The matter required more inquiry and more time for consideration than the few days given to it. If the present case was to be pursued, and a man was to have a Peerage conferred by Act of Parliament, they would give up every-thing in the practice of the House in regard to the establishment of Peerage claims.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he had heard the speech of the noble Earl with much surprise. There was a bound to all things, and he thought the noble Earl would have been satisfied with what had already taken place. When the late Lord Privy Seal (the Earl of Rosebery) introduced this Bill at the command of the Crown he stated very clearly the reasons for its introduction. In the course of that debate he had I himself an opportunity of stating his reasons for thinking that the introduction of the Bill was right. The measure was received with general assent on both sides of the House, as it promised to put an end to a long and a by no means convenient controversy. The noble Earl stated at that time his objections to the Bill, but neither he nor any other noble Lord moved to reject it on the second reading. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lothian) took, as he thought, a very generous and right course, saying that he would be very glad if the Preamble could be proved, and that in that case the Bill might pass and the controversy be brought to a close. But the noble Marquess added; that he thought it right that the Preamble should be proved. The noble Earl had treated this measure as if it were a Bill to relieve a person who claimed a Peerage from the necessity of making his claim in the usual manner. It was not so. It was really a Bill to remove the impediments which the noble Earl and the two noble Lords who were associated with him in the former case found to exist in the way of the re-establishment of this ancient Peerage. The Committee of Privileges found that

  497
  the Charter of Restitution of Mary, Queen of Scots, did not restore to John, then Lord Erskine, the ancient title Earl of Mar, but only to restore and reinvest in him the lauds belonging to the ancient territorial Earldom. One of the reasons urged against the gentleman to whom this Bill applied was that the action of the Crown had raised an impediment to the dignity being taken out by the person who would have been otherwise entitled to it. It was to remove that impediment, on proof of the Preamble, that the Bill by Her Majesty's command was introduced. Prom year to year, in Scotland and in England, there had been an increasing number of Peers who felt that justice in some way or another had not been done in this matter, but did not know whether that failure of justice was due to the tribunal of that House or not. They promoted what he would not venture to call an agitation, but a movement in that House and in Scotland which many other persons in Scotland participated in, and it was a fact that twice over 106 Peers, with the Duke of Sutherland at their head, had petitioned Her Majesty to use every means in her power to get the injustice which they conceived had been done redressed. So far was it from being the fact that he —because of any impression he might have formed as the former counsel for this gentleman—had taken any active steps towards having this matter brought forward, he had been one of the very last persons to be moved in it, because he had felt from first to last that it was his duty to maintain the authority of the Committee of Privileges of that House, and he had done so again and again; and he thought that he was maintaining that authority in the best way now, when—instead of leaving their decision to be still canvassed and a sense of rank-ling discontent by allowing things to go on as they were—ho sought to have the difficulty removed in the only way by which, consistently with what had been, done by their Lordships' House, it could be done—namely, by removing the impediments which had arisen. He was amazed to hear the noble Earl say that when the Bill was before the Select Committee the matter had been examined in an unsatisfactory way. The Earl of Kellie was present himself, and it was open to him to oppose the Preamble; but he preferred — and with
  498
  great good taste—simply to assist the Committee by pointing out the objections which he thought were to be taken to the Preamble. No other evidence could have been laid before the Select Committee than than which had been taken previously by the Committee of Privileges, which filled some 800 printed pages. The Select Committee were engaged for four days in investigating the subject, and all their Lordships who had sat upon it had the fullest opportunity of examining into the evidence which had bees n taken on the previous occasions. In his opinion no case had ever been more clearly proved than this had been. Their Lordships upon that Committee had had the assistance of almost all the noble and learned Lords who ever assisted the House in judicial matters. There was the Lord Chancellor, Lord Blackburn, Lord Watson, Lord Fitzgerald, and himself, and they were all perfectly unanimous with regard to it, while the noble Earl alone dissented from their opinion. He begged to move that the House resolve itself into Committee upon the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The Earl of REDESDALE)said, he thought that their Lordships were about to set a new and most dangerous precedent.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Amendments (proposed by the Select Committee) made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 207.)
(The Earl of Milltown.)
MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 207.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD BALFOUR,in moving the insertion of a new clause for the purpose of amending the Bill by limiting its operation to two years, said, he ventured to think that a matter of this great importance had not received that calm and deliberate attention which it ought to have done. There had been a great deal of recrimination and a desire, if he might say so without offence to either side, to make Party capital out of the proposal. He should like, therefore, that the final decision of the question

  499
  should be referred to the new Parliament. He admitted that if this Bill were not passed a certain amount of in justice might be felt for the first year; or two. But he thought that in a matter of this kind they ought to be very careful not to go beyond: the strict necessities of the case. By adopting his Amendment their Lord-ships, while giving no ground for complaint on the part of those who from ignorance of the law might have incurred the risk of disqualification through having accepted medical relief, would minimize the evil effect which would flow from the adoption of a principle which might render the working classes less thrifty than they had hitherto been, and might cause the administration of the Poor Law to become more lax than it was at present. He thought it was extremely doubtful whether the mass of the working classes wished this change made; certainly that was his information as to Scotland. The opinion was that the class which would most profit would be the loafers—the men who stood about the street corners, and who, when work was found for them, were not ready to do it. The judgment of the House of Commons had, he believed, never been taken on the point as to the limitation of time of operation of the Bill. All he pleaded for was that time should be given to the working classes to show what their real wishes were in the matter, and if they did so he should be perfectly satisfied. He begged to move the new clause.
  Moved, after Clause 4, insert as a new clause—
  "This Act shall continue in force till the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, and no longer unless Parliament shall otherwise determine." —(The Lord Balfour.)
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he hoped their Lordships would not agree to this Amendment. His noble Friend had taken it for granted that the principle of the Bill was wrong, and that it therefore ought to be law as short a time as possible. If the working class were opposed to the Bill, nothing would be easier than to repeal the measure; but in what was virtually a Franchise Bill, to insert a clause limiting it to any period was, he thought, absolutely unprecedented. The noble Lord had mentioned a case in which a sewing machine
  500
  had been given under the name of relief; but relief with which this Bill dealt was medical relief, and no one, he thought, had ever heard of a surgeon prescribing a sewing machine for a patient. His noble Friend seemed to think that the receipt of medical relief was a crime.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he was not conscious of having made use of such an expression. He thought the remark of the noble Lord might subject him to some animadversion. His Friends near him had not heard such an expression.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he had distinctly heard the word crime. It struck him as remarkable in such a connection.
  THE EARL OR CAMPERDOWNsaid, he could assure the noble Lord that he did use the word "crime."
  LORD BALFOURsaid, in that case he would withdraw it, as he had no intention of using it in such a connection.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he was glad to give his noble Friend the opportunity of correcting the expression. He must oppose the Amendment, and he hoped it would not be entertained.
  LORD FITZGERALDalso opposed the Amendment, and pointed out that the Government had in taking up the question dropped the clause in Mr. Jesse Collings's Bill which was to remain in operation for only a year and a-half.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, that the principal argument in favour of this Amendment was that the Bill would demoralize the poor; but he did not believe it would have that effect, because it would not interfere with the administration of the Poor Law. He hoped his noble Friend would not press his Amendment. It was quite clear what the opinion of their Lordships was upon the subject.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was very grateful to the noble Earl who had taken charge of the Bill for the argument which he brought forward to day in favour of the measure. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment argued against the whole Bill. He said his proposal was a very modest one, and so it was from him considering that he was opposed to the entire Bill. He did not think that occasional disqualification would deter a man from making application for medical relief. The noble Mar-

  501
  quess (the Marquess of Salisbury) the other evening used one argument with which he agreed—namely, that on a subject of this kind it was not desirable that this House should differ from the House of Commons. When a proposal such as that which had been by the noble Lord was made in the House of Commons by a county Member it received absolutely no support.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it appeared to him that the effect of the Amendment would be to enact that the Houses of Parliament should consider this question again two or three years hence. He did not think they had so distinguished themselves on the present occasion that that would be a desirable prospect.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

SCIENCE AND ART—SITE OF THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTON,in rising to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the site of the National Portrait Gallery, said, that only a few months ago this most valuable collection was almost destroyed by fire, and they had a report from Captain Shaw to that effect. His advice would be that the collection at South Kensington should be kept together, and that a building should be erected on the present site. If there should not be a distinct pledge from the Government that a new gallery should be built for this most admirable collection next year, in his opinion the pictures might as well go to Kensal Green as to Bethnal Green, because when they were a few years at Bethnal Green it would be said that they had been safe there, they had done a great deal of good to the people of the East End, and that they might as well be left there. He would ask the noble Lord whether, if the pictures went to Bethnal Green, it would be on the distinct understanding that the present Government, if they were in Office next year—and that was not quite certain—would erect a suitable building for the reception of the pictures? A most valuable picture had been received the other day from the Emperor of Austria
  502
  —a picture of Pitt addressing the House of Commons on the declaration of war against France in 1793. That picture had been discovered by the industry at assiduity of the Secretary, Mr. Scharf, who went to Vienna. The Emperor of Austria gave it to Lady Paget, and she presented it to the National Portrait Gallery.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he thought every one of their Lordships would sympathize with the noble Lord in his desire for the safe-keeping of the very valuable collection at the National Portrait Gallery. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had given the question very careful consideration in consultation with the best authorities, and he had come to the conclusion that the place where these pictures were at present housed was in a most unsatisfactory state. Another gallery near to it had been spoken of; but it was found that this was equally unsatisfactory. In fact, there was no place available at the present time under the control of the First Commissioner where the collection could be properly housed even temporarily; but he had come to the conclusion that this invaluable collection ought at once to be removed. Under these circumstances, the Trustees decided to make a proposal to the Science and Art Department to take the collection on loan at the Bethnal Green Museum. Among the Trustees were the noble Viscount (Viscount Hardinge), the Chair-man, Mr. Gladstone, the Lord President of the Council, Mr. Stanhope, the noble Lord who had brought the Motion forward, Mr. Beresford Hope, Sir Richard Wallace, Sir Frederic Leighton, and Sir J. E. Millais. No doubt, their Lordships would have every confidence in the judgment of such a body. They were unanimous, he was told, in making the proposal, and he believed the noble Lord (Lord Lamington) was the only Trustee who dissented. He had told their Lordships why. It had now been arranged that the noble Viscount the Lord President should be requested to ascertain whether the offer of the loan in question would be accepted. The noble Viscount was the Head of the Science and Art Department, which had control over the Bethnal Green Museum, as well as a I Trustee of the National Portrait Gallery; and he wished he was there to speak for himself; but he might say if there was

  503
  any doubt as to the safety of placing the collection at Bethnal Green that Sir Richard Wallace did not hesitate to leave his magnificent collection there for two or three years. The loan for obvious reasons would be a temporary one only; but he felt sure that, as was the case with the collection of Sir Richard Wallace, which was visited by over 900,000 persons in six months, and that of the Prince of Wales, which was visited by a somewhat larger number in the year, this collection would be most fully appreciated by those living in the East End of London, who might not have such another opportunity of seeing these pictures. To show the general interest taken in the Museum, he might say that th8 number of visitors, taking the average of 13 years, was 576,000 annually. He thought their Lordships would fully endorse the decision of the Trustees in consultation with his right hon. Friend. He must remind their Lordships that the Office of Works had no control over the collection. The duty of the Office was to provide a proper place when directed by Parliament and the necessary Vote was granted. It was impossible for the First Commissioner to make any definite proposals or give any definite pledge for the future; but it was his intention to give most careful consideration to the question of a site for a new gallery; and if, as he (Lord Henniker) hoped in common with many of their Lordships, an Estimate was prepared to provide a proper place for the collection, which no doubt the new Parliament would have the public spirit to grant, he would endeavour to have plans ready. He might be allowed to express his personal interest in the collection, which could not be replaced, as his noble Relative the late Lord Stanhope had done so much in making the collection. He believed their Lordships would agree with him that his right hon. Friend had done all he could under the circumstances in conjunction with the Trustees to preserve the collection to the country, and to endeavour to come to a satisfactory conclusion as to its permanent home.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before One o'clock.