Sitting of 11 June 1886

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Endowed Schools Acts [No. 191].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—£6,879,764, on Account, CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS; ARMY ESTIMATES; NAVY ESTIMATES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Consolidated Fund £26,993,652.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Public Works Loans [Advances].
Ordered—First Reading—Revising Barristers (Ireland)* [283]; Westminster Abbey Restoration * [284]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* [285].
First Reading—Oxford University (Justices)* [280]; Law of Evidence Amendment* [286].
Second Reading—Sea Fishing Boats (Scotland)* [270]; Public Works Loans (Tramways Ireland) [259]; Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Acts Amendment [274], debate adjourned; Customs [276]; Probation of First Offenders* [39].
Special Report of Select Committee—Employers' Liability Act (1880) Amendment [No. 192]; Employers' Liability Act (1880) Amendment (No. 2).
Committee—Tithe Rent-Charge (Extraordinary) Redemption (re-comm.) [264]—R.P.; Coal Mines* [92]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Returning Officers' Charges (Scotland) [188–281]; Poor Law Loans and Relief (Scotland)* [252]; Peterhead Harbour of Refuge (re-comm.) [266]; Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (re-comm.) [244].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Turnpike Roads (South Wales)* [260], and passed.
Considered as amended—Re-committed—Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act (1875) Amendment [282].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Medical Acts Amendment* [163], and passed.
Third Reading—Conveyancing (Scotland) Acts Amendment [251]; Land Tax Commissioners' Names* [113], and passed.
Withdrawn—Burial Grounds* [131]; Lunacy Acts Amendment* [198]; Coal Mines Regulation* [217]; Glebe Lands* [93].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government (No. 11)* [277]; Public Health (Scotland) (Urray Water)* [279]; Electric Lighting * [278].
Considered as amended—Local Government (Ireland (Fermoy)* [226].
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Public Health Act)* [239]; Local Government (County Divisions)* [225]; Local Government (Highways)* [235]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 7)* [236]; Local Government (No. 3)* [223]; Local Government (No. 4)* [224]; Local Government (No. 5) * [237], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL [Lords] (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. CODDINGTON: Sir, I feel it my duty as an independent Member of this House to oppose the second reading of this Bill, and in doing so I think it is necessary that I should tell the House what the history of this Hull and Barnsley Railway is. I believe it is very well known to the House that there have already been some extraordinary proceedings, giving rise to great scandal, in connection with this line. The Company were incorporated in 1880 for the purpose of making and maintaining railways in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and thence to Hull, with a dock and other works in connection with them at Hull. The share capital was fixed at £3,000,000, with a borrowing power of £1,000,000. In 1882 the Company were authorized to extend their railways to Huddersfield and Halifax, to raise further capital amounting to £2,400,000, and to borrow £800,000. In 1883 the Company were authorized to raise an additional sum of £600,000, and to borrow on mortgage £200,000. In the following year—1884—the Hull and Barnsley Railway Company applied for power to borrow £1,500,000 on debenture stock, which was to be first debenture stock; but the Committee to whom the Bill was referred decided that it should be second debenture stock, and at that time it was stated by the representatives of the Company that no further money would be wanted. The Company now, however, come to Parliament again and ask this House for power to raise further capital to the extent of £500,000. They do not seek to raise this £500,000 in the ordinary form by the issue of stock to the amount of £500,000, but they ask the House to allow them to raise the money in the following form:—
    "That the Company may, from time to time, create and issue preference shares or preference stock to such nominal amount as shall

    1471
    be sufficient to produce at the price at which the same are issued the sum of £500,000."
    So that if this Company is, as it is notorious it is, in a state of bankruptcy and cannot raise this £500,000 at the ordinary price, they must raise it at any price they can. I think they will do very well if they raise it at 50 per cent discount; and, presuming that they succeed in raising it at a discount of 50 per cent. they will have to create preference stock over the ordinary shareholders to the extent of £1,000,000. That £1,000,000 will in reality only produce £500,000; but I think I am even taking a most favourable view of the prospects of the Company in regard to the raising of the money when I say that they will be able to raise it even at a discount of 50 per cent. Some people estimate that they will have considerable difficulty in raising it even at a discount of 75 per cent. so that it may require the creation of preference stock to the extent of nearly £2,000,000 before the Company will succeed in obtaining the £500,000 they ask for. There is another fact which I desire to place before the House. The railway was opened for traffic in July, 1885, and the traffic receipts have been £54,000, but out of that sum £48,000 are estimated to be necessary to cover the working expenses of the line. If so, the net receipts of the first five and a-half months after the opening of the line have amounted only to £6,000. Even that is simply an estimate, after allowing for certain sums which ought to have been placed to the account of revenue, but which have really been placed to the capital account—consisting of auditors' fees, rates and taxes, land tax, interest on bank balance, and various other items. The total amount of these items is £12,700, so that instead of the Hull and Barnsley Company having made a net profit of £6,700, which they show upon their balance account, they have made an absolute loss of £6,000—that is to say, that the working expenses were £6,000 more than the absolute receipts. Out of the working expenses of £48,000, it is estimated that more than £20,000 go in the salaries of directors, secretary, manager, clerks, and other officers, so that nearly one-half of the whole expenditure upon the line is consumed on what is called non-profitable work. The amount of money already received by the Company
    1472
    has been £5,500,000, and allowing £1,485,000, which they say the dock works at Hull cost, there has been an expenditure of £4,000,000 of money upon the construction of the line alone. The line is 66 miles in length, so that it has cost upon the average £58,000 a-mile. When I tell the House that this line runs entirely through an agricultural district, that the town of Hull is the only important town which it touches, that in that town there is as yet only a temporary station, that with the exception of Hull there is not a single town of any importance, or containing more than 2,000 inhabitants, upon the line, that all the rest of it runs through a purely agricultural district, and that the present terminus of the railway is in the middle of a field, I think the House will be prepared to agree with me that an outlay of £58,000 a-mile is a most extravagant one. Then, again, this expenditure includes nothing on account of rolling stock, because almost the whole of the rolling stock has been bought on deferred payments, and the money is still owing for that stock. While this line, passing exclusively through a purely agricultural district, has cost for construction £58,000 a-mile, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, which goes through a series of large towns from one end to the other, only cost the same sum per mile; the London and North-Western Railway cost £48,000 per mile; the London and North-Eastern, £41,000 per mile; and the Great Northern, £32,000 per mile; so that it must be clear to the House that the expenditure upon the construction of the Hull and Barnsley Railway has been at a most extravagant rate. The contractors and everbody connected with it must have got enormous sums out of it. But what is the object of raising this additional capital? The original capital of the Company was fixed at £3,000,000, and the original debenture stock was £1,000,000. At the time of the passing of the Act in 1883 to authorize a second issue of debenture stock to the amount of £1,500,000 the original shares were worth from £35 to £40 per £100. Therefore, out of the £5,500,000 of capital the original shares were only worth £1,100,000. To-day they are marked at £17, so that the total value of the original shares is only some £510,000,

    1473
    thus showing that the issue of £1,500,000 of Debenture Stock in 1884 with the sanction of this House has resulted in the depreciation of the ordinary share capital from more than £1,100,000 to something like £500,000. The interest upon the two Debenture Stocks amounts to £120,000 a-year, and the Company propose to pay out of the capital which they now propose to raise—namely, £500,000—a sum of £180,000 for
    "The payment of interest already due or about to become due upon any Debentures or Debenture Stock of the Company for the time being, but not exceeding in the whole £180,000."
    It must, therefore, be quite clear to the House what the object of the Company is in raising this additional £500,000—namely, to enable them to pay interest upon the Debenture Stock, and thus prevent them from going into bankruptcy. Now, I admit that this may possibly enable them to carry on the line for a year and a-half or two years; but I maintain that they will be doing so at the expense of the original shareholders. The £3,000,000 of original Stock, now worth £500,000, will probably, if this additional sum of money is raised, not be worth £100,000. But it is incredible to suppose that if this Bill is passed the public will be induced to subscribe their money. But we know how dull they are; and, therefore, I feel it my duty, as an independent Member of this House, to raise my voice against what I consider to be a Bill which, if passed, will lead to the total loss of the money which these unfortunate people have been induced to subscribe towards the capital of this railway. I think it is only right that the House should protest against any such unfair proceeding, and I therefore trust that the Bill will be thrown out upon the second reading. In order to afford the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion I beg to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Coddington.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MAJOR DICKSON: I rise for the purpose of moving the adjournment of the debate. The opposition to this Bill has taken the promoters entirely by surprise. They were not aware that there was going to be any opposition raised to it until about 3 o'clock this afternoon. Perhaps I may inform the House that the Bill has already passed through the House of Lords, where it was carefully examined, and all its provisions investigated by the late Lord Redesdale, and we all know with what a critical eye he looked into these matters. It has also passed through a Committee under the Duke of Buckingham; and, therefore, I had hoped that when the Bill came on for a second reading in this House the House would have been prepared to endorse the action of those two noble Lords. In order to give time to the promoters of the Bill to meet the opposition which has been suddenly sprung upon them, I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until Wednesday next.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Major Dickson.)
    SIR JOSEPH PEASE: In reference to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Dickson), I wish to point out that the adjournment of the debate until Wednesday next would entail considerable inconvenience upon Members of the House, many of whom, in the peculiar circumstances of the hour, feel it incumbent on them to go down into the country to look after their constituents. It certainly seems to me that if the House is to deal with the provisions of this Bill it is better to deal with them at once, while there is a good attendance of Members in the House, rather than a week hence, when the attendance of Members is likely to be very much less. If the Bill has any merits at all they had better be discussed now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Coddington) has pointed out, there is no objection to the working provisions of the Bill; but the measure also involves a question of railway morality and finance. That is the question which my hon. Friend has brought before the House, and I believe that we are in a position to consider it fully now. I

    1475
    therefore trust that the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Dickson) will allow us to go on with the discussion, and withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY): I think the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Dickson) should have stated same more adequate reason than that which he has given for proposing the adjournment of the debate. No doubt, under ordinary circumstances, it might be a good and sufficient reason that the opposition raised to the Bill has come upon the promoters by surprise; but I am afraid that the House will not be in any degree in a better position to consider the provisions of this Bill next Wednesday than it is now. I would, therefore, suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that he should withdraw the Motion, and allow the Bill to be discussed on its merits. There is nothing whatever to prevent the House from coming to a decision now. No doubt, this is the case of a Railway Company which finds itself in a very embarrassed position; but although the facts stated by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Coddington) are undoubtedly correct, it must be remembered that the Bill has already been carefully considered and passed by the House of Lords. It therefore appears to me that it would be a rather strong measure to reject the Bill, which, after all, may be the best way out of a serious difficulty. It is quite evident that something must be done if this Railway Company are to be prevented from falling into bankruptcy.
    MR. CODDINGTONwas understood to say that in the end bankruptcy was inevitable.
    MR. COURTNEY: That may be so; but, nevertheless, it may be the best course to defer it for a time. The only question, however, that is now before the House, is whether we should come to a decision upon the merits of the I Bill at once, or delay it until Wednesday. Although the hon. Member for Blackburn has shown that this is the case of an embarrassed Railway Company, he has not shown that this is not the best mode of dealing with the difficulty.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I had not the
    1476
    slightest intention of saying a single word on this question; but I was a Member of the Committee which sat upon the Bills which were promoted last year and the year before in reference to this railway. We made, as we thought, a very fair and equitable arrangement in regard to the Hull and Barnsley Railway; and we were in hopes that the Directors might be enabled, under the provisions of those Acts, to have tided over their difficulties. But it appears that this line has been most unfortunate in more than one respect.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Question now before the House is the adjournment of the debate.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Then I will turn to the other point. Considering the magnitude of the interests at stake in a railway of this kind, I think it would be hardly right or justifiable to propose to discuss it on its merits to-day without anyone being prepared to state the case of the promoters. I do not think the hon. Baronet the Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) will feel that it would be quite right to reject a scheme which has cost so much money, and in which the interests of so many people are at stake, or that it should be dealt with in a hurried way in a thin House. It may be that Wednesday next may be an awkward day for taking the discussion. I say nothing upon that point; but, unfortunately, we have no other day—no other day is so available; but it might be put down for Thursday or Friday if that is thought better. I have no interest whatever in this railway. I do not care a single farthing about it, except in the general interest of the public. At the same time, I think it would be both unwise and unfair, considering the magnitude of the undertaking, to deny to the Company the only opportunity they may ever have of making, at any rate, another attempt to place the railway upon a satisfactory basis.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 67: Majority 10.—(Div. List, No. 128.)
    Original Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR JOSEPH PEASE: In the few remarks which I made just now on the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, I pointed out that the question before the House is really one of railway morality. By the general Railway Law, as the House is probably aware, a Railway Company is allowed to issue one-fourth of the amount of its capital in Debenture Bonds. This Hull and Barnsley Company, in its original Act, obtained power to raise capital to the extent of £3,000,000, and £1,000,000 in Debenture Stock on the strength of that ordinary share capital. They next came to the House of Commons with an application to allow them to pay interest out of capital during the construction of works; but that proposition was negatived by a considerable majority. They next came to the House, as my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Coddington) has pointed out, with a Bill empowering them to raise a preferential sum of £1,500,000 in addition to the £1,000,000 already authorized to be raised in the original Bill. That proposal, as introduced, placed the new Preference Stock practically upon the same level as the original Debenture capital. The House sent that Bill to a Committee upstairs, by whom the provisions of the measure were amended. It was also altered by making the additional sum of £1,500,000 a second charge. The financial position of the Company, at the present moment, is this. It has an ordinary share capital of £3,000,000, but the shares are only worth £500,000; £1,000,000 of Original Debentures and £1,500,000 of Second Security Shares in Debentures, which are a second Preference Stock. The present Bill proposes to enable the Company to raise a further sum of £500,000 in any way they can, and it provides that one-fifth of the amount of a share shall be the greatest amount of a call; that three months at least shall be the interval between successive calls, and three-fourths of the amount of a share shall be the utmost aggregate amount of calls made in any year upon any shares; but the shares may be issued at any premium required to get them out. Therefore, it is quite possible that the Company may have to incur liabilities to the extent of another £ 1,000,000 before they are able to obtain the £500,000 they desire to raise. And when they have got that £500,000,
    1478
    how do they propose to expend it? £180,000 is to be spent in paying interest upon the first and second charge of £2,500,000 for Debenture and Preference Stock. My hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, who spoke upon the question of adjournment, seemed to think that this may be the best means of enabling the Company to get out of the mess in which they find themselves involved. That may be so; but what I wish to call attention to is that this is another instance of the inconvenience and danger of allowing interest out of capital during the construction of works. I believe that the original Stock of £3,000,000 is held largely by the working classes of Hull. The average holding in the Company is £250 per shareholder, whereas the ordinary range of the shareholders' obligations extends to £1,700 per shareholder. These poor people are almost ruined at present; but if this additional charge, which may probably, in the end, amount to £1,000,000, is to be placed in front of them, there can be nothing left of the original shares. There may be nothing left whether we pass this Bill or not; but I desire to point out to the House that while the general law allows a solvent Railway Company to raise Debenture Stock to the extent of one-fourth of its share capital, this Company was, in the first instance, allowed to raise £1,000,000 upon a share capital of £3,000,000, and that it has since been permitted to supplement its Preference Stock by an additional sum of £1,500,000. The House is now asked to sanction the creation of further Preference Shares or Stock to such nominal amount as shall be sufficient to produce £500,000, so that the preference liabilities of the Company will then be exactly equal to the amount of the original share capital. I may add that, whether the House consents to pass this Bill or not, it will make very little difference to me, or to the Railway Company with which I am connected in the immediate neighbourhood of this line. I have simply felt it my duty, in the interest of the general public, to point out these considerations to the House.
    MR. C. H. WILSON: The hon. Baronet who has just addressed the House is the Representative of another Railway Company which is connected with the district through which

    1479
    this line runs. The hon. Baronet is a Director of the North-Eastern Railway, of which I at one time was also a Director; and I know as well as he does that the reason this railway and the Docks at Hull were made was on account of the dissatisfaction of the people of Hull with the conduct of the North-Eastern Railway Company as to the way in which they conducted their business at the Port of Hull. The North-Eastern Railway possesses an unfair monopoly of the railway system of the North-Eastern Coast of England, and they have a connection with other Docks which are in direct competition with the Port of Hull. But Hull is an ancient port, with longstanding mercantile connections, and it has an enormous trade. But what have the North-Eastern Railway Company done? They have endeavoured to divert the trade of Hull to their own Northern ports, not to create a new trade, but, to a great extent, to take away the trade from Hull and to prevent its natural development.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASE: Allow me to interrupt my hon. Friend. I think he is labouring under a mistake. The rates of the North-Eastern Railway at Hull for goods are exactly the same as those of the Hull and Barnsley Railway.
    MR. C. H. WILSON: May I give an instance? The North-Eastern Railway carry from Hull to the Barnsley Colliery District, a distance of 120 miles, by their system; whereas by the Hull and. Barnsley Railway the distance is only 60 miles; but yet rates in both cases are the same. The consequence of the operations of the North-Eastern Company is that the trade which would naturally go to Hull is diverted to the Northern ports. The North-Eastern Company have also another advantage—that they have another district to serve, and they are enabled to get cargoes of coal at a cheaper rate than they could procure them in Hull, and the tolls they impose on the carriage of coals to Hull are higher than those which they impose in other parts of their Northern system. For these reasons, Hull has always been intensely dissatisfied with the conduct of the North-Eastern Railway Company, and they have endeavoured to get rid of the monopoly which that Company has so long enjoyed. At length they have succeeded
    1480
    in doing so by establishing the Hull and Barnsley Railway and Dock Company. But the works of the Hull and Barnsley line, like those of too many other railways, have cost a great deal too much in construction; and I do not know whether the North-Eastern Railway Company have not been, to a considerable extent, responsible for the position of the Hull and Barnsley Company at this moment in increasing the costs to which that Company have been put. It is quite true that the shares of the Hull and Barnsley Company are at this moment very much depressed; and, unless this Bill is passed, the effect will be that the Hull and Barnsley Company will have great difficulty in carrying on their business at all. No doubt, that would be all very well for the North-Eastern Railway Company, because they would got rid of a formidable competitor, and very possibly the North-Eastern Railway Company would only be too glad to continue their monopoly by buying up the Hull and Barnsley undertaking at a great sacrifice to the Hull and Barnsley shareholders. At the present moment the Docks of the Hull and Barnsley Railway at Hull are the finest on the East Coast of England. They can afford accommodation for ships of very great draught of water, and, indeed, are capable of taking in the largest of Her Majesty's ships of war, which no other Docks on the East Coast can do. The undertaking has been one of great enterprize. The arrangements made by the Bill are the best for the interests of all concerned; and I trust and feel convinced that, in making this appeal to the House in favour of the second reading of the Bill, the House will not consent, by refusing its sanction, to play into the hands of the North-Eastern Railway Company.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY): I spoke just now on the question of adjournment, and I shall be glad now, if the House will permit me, to say a word or two on the merits of this Bill. After all, the case is a very simple one. This Company is extremely embarrassed. It owes money upon its Debenture debt, and if it is unable to effect this, or some other arrangement, the railway will be obliged to be placed in the hands of a receiver, and will have to be liquidated in bankruptcy. That,

    1481
    I am afraid, is the only alternative. This Bill is promoted in order to increase the borrowing powers of the Company. It proposes to create Preference Stock to the extent of £500,000 in cash to enable the Company to pay the interest already due upon the Debenture Stock of the Company, to discharge the liabilities of the Company in respect of rolling stock, and for the purchase of such new rolling stock as may be necessary for the efficient working of the line, to pay for the purchase or compensation money for lands acquired or to be acquired, and to defray the expenses of constructing warehouse and other buildings in connection with the Docks at Hull. It is believed that this sum will enable the Railway Company to weather the storm and to get into smooth water, which is impossible without this Bill or some such arrangement. The Bill itself comes down to us from the House of Lords, where it was first considered by the late Lord Redesdale, and since by the Duke of Buckingham, both of whom approved of its provisions. It is further approved by the shareholders and creditors of the Company. That being so, it does appear to me that it would be rather a strong measure for the House to refuse to this Company, dealing with its own affairs, the power of entering into a satisfactory arrangement, and to say—"You shall go into bankruptcy." Therefore, I think the burden of presumption is in favour of reading the Bill a second time. The Bill came before me some time ago; but in the event of the House consenting to read it a second time it will have to come before me again. I have no doubt that everything that ought to be considered has been considered carefully in "another place." I do not know whether what I am going to throw out will meet the views of the opponents of the measure. The proposal is to raise £500,000 in cash upon Preference Stock; but there is no limit fixed as to the terms upon which the money is to be raised. It may be that the Company are too sanguine in their anticipations, and that they think they can raise the money in the market at a lower rate of interest than will be possible. I will, therefore, make this promise to the House—that if the Bill does come before me I shall require the promoters to give me some good ground for believing that the
    1482
    money will be raised at something less than a ruinous rate of interest. I shall certainly be prepared to suggest that there shall be some limitation of the terms upon which the money is to be raised. These are my views upon the matter, and I have felt it my duty to explain to the House the conditions under which I should be prepared to approach the consideration of the Bill. On the whole, considering the exceptional and peculiar circumstances of the case, I think the best course would be to assent to the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. J. ELLIS: I only desire to say a word on behalf of the second reading of the Bill. I believe that the new railway was an absolute necessity, and that its construction has been for the great convenience of the traders in the centre of England. Whatever may be said about the money question, I am certain that it would be a great public advantage if the Bill should pass.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOTS AT BELFAST.
  MR. DE COBAINasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that the exasperated feeling in Belfast at present is due in great measure to the fact that in some of the concerns connected with that town Roman Catholic overseers had threatened the men under them belonging to a different faith with immediate dismissal upon the establishment of a Home Rule Parliament for Ireland; whether any information has reached him of misconduct on the part of the country police draughted into Belfast for the preservation of order in the disturbance which took place on the Shankhill Road; if an indignation meeting of the citizens of that locality, attended in great numbers by the traders and clergy of the various churches and others, has been held, calling upon the authorities to have these police removed and the military substituted for them, and demanding that investigation should be promptly made into recent occurrences

  1483
  in Belfast; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary having gone to Ireland, he has asked me to reply to the Question of the hon. Member. The Government have received no official information in the sense of the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question. As regards the second paragraph, no information of a reliable character has reached the Government of any misconduct on the part of any member of the county constabulary now serving in Belfast. As regards the third paragraph, it appears from the newspapers that such a meeting was held, and that resolutions were passed to the effect stated. But these have not been officially brought under the notice of the Government; therefore the Government can express no opinion in the matter. A resolution was, however, passed yesterday at a meeting of magistrates, presided over by the Mayor, which was brought under the notice of the Government by the senior Resident Magistrate. It was in the following terms—
  "That it is the opinion of this meeting that the county constabulary should not be used in disturbed districts unless it should become absolutely necessary, and that the local magistrates be directed to assist the resident magistrates in maintaining the peace of the town. Also that, the aid of the military having been called in, it be approved of."
  On receipt of this the following message was sent by the Irish Government to the senior Resident Magistrate—
  "While the views of the local magistrates should have every attention paid to them, it is absolutely necessary that the most energetic measures should be taken to preserve the peace of the town, and the large extra force of police sent there for this purpose must, of course, be further utilized for that purpose. The association of local magistrates with the resident magistrates will, it is hoped, be productive of good."
  This instruction was acted upon, and all the available force with police and military were employed in the streets. The Government have the fullest confidence in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and have no intention, so long as disturbances continue in Belfast requiring the presence of an extra force, that their services should not be utilized to the fullest extent.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he is aware that the Mayor of Belfast, who presided over the meeting of magistrates yesterday and called for the removal of the police, is himself a proprietor of the works of Harland and Wolff, which contain almost every one of the rowdies who were attacked by the police?
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I should like to know, whether it is not notorious that several of the local magistrates who passed this resolution are themselves Orangemen, some of them being Grand Masters of Orange Lodges; and whether the conduct complained of on the part of the county constabulary was not caused by their attempt to protect defenceless Nationalist families and to repel the ruffians who attacked them?
  MR. CHILDERS: As to the first Question, I presume the answer would be yes; but I have no official information on the subject. All the information I have is that supplied by the newspapers. As to the second Question, I am afraid I cannot answer it, because at the Home Office we do not keep lists of Orangemen or Orange Lodges in Ireland.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Government have any information that there was further wrecking and pillaging of houses last night; whether the movement has now assumed the threatening and serious aspect of plunder; and whether the meeting referred to by the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway (Mr. De Cobain) passed this resolution—
  "That this meeting strongly condemns the conduct of those who attacked the houses and destroyed the property of innocent and inoffensive people residing in their midst;"
  and in the opinion of the gentlemen who moved that resolution the fault of the police appeared to be that they fired on the mob, because he said if the shots had been fired in the direction of the rowdies it would have been all right?
  MR. CHILDERS: I am afraid that it is not quite germane to the Question, and that I ought not to answer it at this moment. If the hon. Member will ask me whether we have received information from Belfast as to what happened last night or to-day, I will give him all the information we possess.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether the man shot at Monaghan by the Orangemen has since died?
  MR. CHILDERS: I am not quite certain. Certainly one man injured has not died.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—VENTILATION OF THIS HOUSE.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the honourable Member for North West Staffordshire, Whether the recommendations in the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Ventilation of the House, which said recommendations involve remedial works which the Committee declare it to be urgently necessary to proceed with without delay, inasmuch as
  "the health of Members of Parliament and of the Officers who reside within the precincts of the Palace at Westminster is seriously imperilled by the defective drainage and sanitary arrangements which now exist in the building,"
  will all or some of them, and, if so, which of them, be carried out between the date of the Dissolution of the present Parliament and the assembling of the new Parliament; and, whether in the Vote on Account it is proposed to include the sum of £13,265, that being the estimated cost of such remedial works?
  MR. LEVESON GOWER (A LORD of the TREASURY): As I have already stated to the House, orders have been given for the carrying out of those recommendations of the Committee which it was possible to undertake immediately. These works cannot, of course, now be completed, as had been intended, during the Whitsuntide Recess; but they can be carried on when the House is not actually sitting, and will be finished without delay. With regard to the larger operations recommended by the Committee, I have to point out that the Estimates are approximate only, and that the period of two years is stated in the Report as the time that will be required for the execution of the works. The First Commissioner has thought it desirable to obtain more precise information on the question of cost, and he has requested Mr. Shone, the inventor of the system recommended by the Committee, to furnish him with a Report on this subject, and as to how the system, if adopted, could be most
  1486
  speedily and effectually brought into operation. He hopes to obtain this Report before the Dissolution, and to be in a position to lay a definite statement before the House. As no payment is likely to be made in respect of these works at present, it will be unnecessary to include any special sum in the Vote on Account.

  WAR OFFICE—REGIMENTAL (YEOMANRY) BAND AT A POLITICAL MEETING.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that, at a meeting of the Hertfordshire Primrose League Habitations, to be held in Hatfield Park on Saturday 12th June, it is announced that the "Hertfordshire Band will march from Hatfield Station to Hatfield Park," and that this Band is, it is understood, a Yeomanry Band; and, whether he will take steps to prevent this Band appearing in the uniform of Her Majesty's Forces at this Conservative Demonstration?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): No, Sir; I was not aware of the circumstances referred to by my hon. Friend. I have no reason to suppose that the Herefordshire band is identical with the Yeomanry band. I cannot believe that the Yeomanry band could have been granted leave to attend at such a meeting after the Circular Letter which His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief has recently sent to officers commanding districts calling their attention to the Regulations on this subject.

  EAST INDIA RAILWAYS (LOANS) BILL.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he intends to proceed with the East India Railways (Loans) Bill; if so, whether he will state on what Railways the Indian Government intend to spend the money borrowed; and, what is the amount of unexpended borrowing power under previous Acts at present in the hands of the Secretary of State in Council?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY (Mr. STAFFORD HOWARD): No, Sir; it is not intended to proceed with the East India Railways (Loan) Bill. The money which it is proposed to take powers to borrow under the

  1487
  Bill would not be spent directly by the Indian Government. Large sums have been raised from time to time by Guaranteed Companies on Bonds or Debentures for the purpose of constructing, extending, and equipping railways in India; and the Secretary of State is advised that the charge on the Revenues of India would be less if such moneys were in future raised by him directly, and lent to the respective Companies. The object of the Bill was to enable him to raise money accordingly, its application being limited to this specific purpose, and to the discharge of Debentures already issued by Companies. The amount of unexpended borrowing power under previous Acts, at present in the hands of the Secretary of State in Council, is about £7,500,000; but it was never intended by Parliament that this money should be devoted to the purposes contemplated in the Bill.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—VOLUNTEER CAPITATION GRANT.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has obtained the Returns relative to the Volunteer Capitation Grant, which he announced his intention of calling for; and, when there is a prospect of a decision being come to as to the increase of the Grant?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): A decision cannot be formed until all the Returns have been received and duly analyzed for consideration. At present I have only received 170 answers out of 290; but I hope that the corps which have not yet sent in their Returns will furnish them without much longer delay.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES REMOVAL ACT—THE VICEROY OF IRELAND.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is a fact that, on the occasion of his recent visit to Cork, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland knelt before the altar in the Roman Catholic Cathedral; and, if so, whether such an act was in consonance with the Law which requires that the Viceroy of Ireland should be a Protestant?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that
  1488
  Question, I should like to ask whether he is aware that the late Lord Beaconsfield, on the occasion of an interesting marriage at Kensington, attended the Roman Catholic Pro Cathedral, and was seen to kneel before the altar?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I am equally unable to answer the supplementary Question put by the hon. Member, although I think I have heard something to that effect; and the original Question, which I was in hopes that the hon. Member opposite, upon further consideration, would not attempt to put. My answer to the Question is that I know nothing upon the subject, and that I entirely decline to make any inquiries. As a Question of this kind seems to be put with some hope of lighting anew the fire of religious discord in Ireland, and of leaving upon the person to whom it refers some shade of suspicion, I take the liberty of saying from my own knowledge, beginning at a very early period, that as I have never known a better Christian than the present Viceroy of Ireland, so, in addition to that, I have never known a more perfect Protestant.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to give Notice that in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman I shall call attention to this matter in the new Parliament, should the present Government, unfortunately, be then in power.

  PARLIAMENT—THE DISSOLUTION.

    MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I wish to take the opportunity of re-stating, as the matter is one of importance, as clearly as I can the substance of what I said yesterday on the subject of the re-assembling of Parliament. What I said, I believe, was this—at all events, this I can venture without hesitation to say—if when the elections have taken place the Irish policy of the Government should have been found to be disapproved by the country, or if there should be room for doubt on that point, without question, on that ground the new Parment ought to be assembled forthwith.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: So far as I am concerned, the right hon. Gentleman's statement is perfectly satisfactory.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL —DUTIES ON SPANISH WINES.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question with reference to the Customs Bill, the second reading of which is down for to-night—namely, Whether we are distinctly to understand that the raising of the standard of Spanish wines from 26 to 30 degrees will depend upon the confirmation by the Cortes of the Commercial Treaty with Spain?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): Yes, Sir; most certainly that is the case. The Treasury, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, parts with money very reluctantly, and the Government would only part with the benefit they receive from the Wine Duties at present levied in consideration of the advantage to British manufacturers. The Commercial Treaty will also be a benefit to many of our Colonies.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOTS AT BELFAST.
  MAJOR SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given private Notice. It is, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in The Times of this day to the effect that the Orangemen have not taken part in the recent riots in Belfast; and whether the Government intend to have a sworn inquiry into the whole circumstances?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I received a private note from the hon. and gallant Gentleman two or three hours ago, and I have sent him an answer which I am afraid he cannot have received. My reply, however, is this—that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary left London last night for Dublin for the purpose, in great part, of considering the grave occurrences which have unfortunately happened in the North of Ireland. I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree with me that it would be quite premature on my part if I were to announce until he has had the opportunity of considering the whole matter in conjunction with the permanent officers of the Government on the spot, or if I were to anticipate what conclusion may be arrived at. I do
  1490
  not intend, however, in the least degree to cast any reproach or any shade of disapproval on the suggestion which appears to be made by the hon. and gallant Member.
  MR. SEXTON: I understood that the Home Secretary would be ready at the close of Questions to make a further statement with reference to the grave state of affairs in Belfast. I wish particularly to ask him whether the Catholics whose houses were pillaged gave any provocation; whether they or their friends have indulged in any retaliation; and whether the officials in Belfast do not recognize that the whole of these proceedings—the riots, the pillage, and the siege of the police barracks—have been conducted by the Orange faction, and have been commenced by provocative rejoicings over the defeat of the Government of Ireland Bill?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): I will read to the House, in reply to the hon. Member's Question, the whole of the information which has reached me from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. My right hon. Friend telegraphed to me at 1 o'clock this afternoon the following:—
  "In addition to the statement made by me in the House last night, the only official information received goes to show that the rioting was continued in Belfast last night over a more extended area than on the previous night, that all available police and military were employed, and that there were no fatal results. One policeman is reported to have been shot in the face. We have a large number of very experienced magistrates in Belfast, and every requisition made by them has been promptly attended to. There are now over 1,600 constabulary in the town, the normal force being 502, and the military have been augmented by 250 men despatched from Dublin last night.
  I received a second telegram at 4 o'clock this afternoon, which is as follows:—
  "Further telegrams from Belfast show no material change of any sort. The most serious rioting last night took place at York Street and Henley Street, at the junction of which the police were obliged to fire on the mob who were stoning the police and wrecking houses, and several men were more or less injured, but none seriously, so far as at present ascertained. Several of the police were knocked down before they fired. The rioting spread to other parts of the town, and several public-houses were wrecked and liquor carried away. This rioting was more directed against public-houses than against the police. Public-houses will be closed this evening, and the Mayor will

  1491
  issue a notice with a view of preventing assembling of people in the streets."
  That is every word I have received from the right hon. Gentleman, and I am unable to answer anything further.
  MR. SEXTON: Are we to understand that the Government find it impossible to say from what section of the populace of Belfast the riots originated?
  MR. CHILDERS: That is a totally different Question. The information I have given is all I have received. I am not in charge of the Irish Department. I have read verbatim the telegrams sent by my right hon. Friend; but when my right hon. Friend returns to his place in Parliament then will be the time for the hon. Member to put such a Question.

MOTION.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PRECEDENCE OF COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY AND WAYS AND MEANS, AND MONEY BILLS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the hon. Member for St. Pancras, Whether he would postpone further dealing in Committee with the Tithe Rent Charge (Extraordinary) Redemption Bill until a reprint of the Bill and the Report of the Select Committee were in the hands of hon. Members?
  MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he was unable to accede to the request of the hon. Member. To accept the suggestion would be equivalent to the abandonment of the Bill. He was informed that the reprint of the Bill would be in the House in the course of an hour or two.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON, appealing to the Government, asked whether it was in conformity with the understanding that contentious legislation would not be pushed forward that the Government Whip should assist in a division on a Bill in charge of a private Member as occurred last night?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the Government considered that, in giving the support they did to the Bill in question, the principle of which was affirmed by a very large majority of the House, they were acting quite consistently with the understanding referred to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That for the remainder of the Session the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means and all stages of Money Bills have precedence of Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day on every day on which they may be set down by the Government."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked what the Government proposed to do with regard to Private Bills, and he referred more especially to the Belfast Main Drainage Bill? He understood that the Government intended to give a stage to the Municipal Franchise (Ireland) Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE)said, his impression was that the Municipal Franchise (Ireland) Bill was one which had received the general assent of the House. If that was not the case he was afraid he must reserve to the Government the right to consider further what course they should take in regard to it. He wished it to be remembered, however, that his statement the previous night referred to Public Bills.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he hoped the Government would exercise such influence as they could in order to prevent any private legislation being proceeded with that could be called opposed, because it was obvious that a Parliament which was to last only for some 10 days longer ought not to undertake any such Business, whether it was in the hands of a private Member or of the Government. That was the general feeling not only in the House, but in the country; and they knew very well that if that view were not taken here it would be taken in "another place."
  MR. SEXTONreminded the Government that the Belfast Main Drainage Bill was postponed to the 21st instant, with the view that, in the meantime, the House of Lords might be afforded an opportunity of dealing with the general question of the Municipal Franchise in Ireland. If that opportunity were not afforded, or if, being afforded, the House of Lords should not make use of that opportunity, he wished to know whether they could not make further progress with the Private Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)thought they ought to have some intimation

  1493
  as to the attitude taken, especially on the opposite side of the House, with reference to the Irish Municipal Franchise Bill. If Gentlemen opposite were not opposing the Bill, then it would practically become a non-contentious Bill and might go on. But if they were opposing the Bill, and the Municipal Franchise (Ireland) Bill was not to be proceeded with, then, of course, hon. Members below the Gangway were restored to their former position with reference to the Belfast Main Drainage Bill.
  MR. PLUNKETobserved, that he knew nothing about the Belfast Main Drainage Bill; but the Municipal Franchise (Ireland) Bill was opposed both by one of the hon. Members for the City of Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) and also by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman). As he understood, their opposition was on the ground that there was a great deal of very serious matter in the Bill, and that there would not be time properly to consider it before the end of the Session. He had himself received various communications in reference to the clauses of the Bill, and it was clear it would take a good deal of time adequately to consider and discuss them. It might be taken, therefore, as an opposed Bill.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he felt bound to complain that the Government had supported private Members in bringing on contentious Business at an early hour that morning, in contravention of the Prime Minister's statement. An Amendment to a Bill raising novel and contentious matter had been brought forward and discussed last night.
  MR. CHILDERSexplained that the Bill, which had been taken up the previous night, had been before the House on a previous occasion, and had been read a second time and passed through Committee. Some Amendments to be added on Report had been left over.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: At the request of the Tories.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that these Amendments were considered and advanced a stage the previous night. The clause to which reference had been made was passed without a division. Considering the circumstances, he thought
  1494
  they were strictly bound to abide by the undertaking given.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he objected to the course which it was proposed should be adopted with regard to the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He thought it would be strongly opposed.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, it had been his privilege to be there at 4 o'clock that morning, and he had tried to understand the proposal of the Home Secretary. What they objected to was that these changes—especially of the hon. Member for Northampton, which was a very important one—should be brought forward for the first time under such circumstances. Especially so, considering what had taken place in the course of procedure upstairs.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, was the right hon. and learned Member in Order in referring to the proceedings of a Committee which had not yet circulated its Report among Members?
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, the Report had been circulated.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Report has been laid on the Table of the House, and therefore, I apprehend, the right hon. and learned Member would be in Order.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that with regard to the clause which stood in his name, he believed that they had a majority of the House last night, and could have passed it if they liked; but a desire had been expressed by hon. Members opposite that the discussion should be taken to-night, and, therefore, they had withdrawn the clause on the understanding that it should be taken to-night.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the hon. Member was right; they had never got to the discussion of the clause last night.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, it was true that he and his Friends had agreed that it should not be taken last night; but not upon any understanding that it should be taken to-night.
  SIR HENRY JAMESremarked that a very important question had been raised by this discussion. Two Bills had been introduced dealing with the payment of Returning Officers. One of these had been a harmless Bill which had not met with

  1495
  opposition, and to which he had himself given such assistance as he could in order to effect a satisfactory amendment of the Act of 1875; but now, on the Report stage of that harmless Bill, the gravest possible question of principle had been raised, and it had been sought to add a clause to the Bill which had never been the subject of discussion either on the second reading or in Committee, and which involved the very grave principle that official expenses of elections should be cast on the rates instead of upon the candidate. There was another matter. There was a Schedule coming on to alter all these charges; they could not go into Committee on that subject, but would have to deal with it on the Report stage, in which they would only be able to speak once, and would, therefore, be unable to discuss the matter properly. He did not wish to offer any factious opposition; but he had considered it right to call attention to the grave question involved in commencing on the Report stage the discussion of an entirely new matter.
  MR. DWYER GRAYsaid, that there had been an understanding arrived at with reference to the principle of franchise in connection with the Belfast Main Drainage Bill. The Bill was adjourned for three weeks on the general understanding, very strongly urged by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, that they approved unanimously of a reform in the municipal franchise in Ireland, and preferred that the larger Bill should pass the Upper House, instead of the reform being introduced into a Private Bill, referring only to a single town. The Irish Members yielded to that suggestion, and the Bill was now adjourned for three weeks. Now that they had secured that position for the Belfast Main Drainage Bill they were told hon. Members were opposed to the Municipal Franchise (Ireland) Bill, and wanted to obtain a full discussion of it. They knew what that meant. They wanted to kill the Bill. The adjournment of the Belfast Main Drainage Bill would be of no avail if it was to be included in the general Resolution which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government announced—that he intended giving to Private Bills in the new Parliament the same status and position which they had occupied in this Parliament.
  1496
  The result would be, therefore, this—that while the Belfast Bill would be then in a position to go on, the Municipal Franchise (Ireland) Bill, notwithstanding its position, and it having passed its second reading unanimously, would be lost. He thought it was therefore only fair that the Government should give an undertaking—seeing that the Conservatives had changed their plan—that the Belfast Main Drainage Bill should not come under the Resolution regarding Private Bills which it was intended to bring forward. The only way, in fact, to do justice in regard to this matter was that if the Conservatives now thought fit to destroy the Municipal Franchise Bill, they should make them responsible by refusing to allow the Belfast Bill to pass.
  SIR JAMES CORRYthought the proposition just made a most extraordinary one. He believed it would be most mischievous to punish the promoters of the Belfast Drainage Bill because a great many hon. Gentlemen might have something to say regarding the Municipal Franchise Bill before it passed the House.
  MR. CHANCEsaid, he would remind the House that in connection with the contention of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) it should not be forgotten that the Schedule was not brought on unexpectedly. The matter had been the subject of discussion for a whole I Wednesday, and received the favourable consideration of a large majority of the House. At that moment he did not believe 10 Members had a single objection to the Schedule. It was a mistake to think that they would not have the fullest opportunity of discussing the Bill, in addition to the Schedule, on Report. It was competent to move an Amendment to each single item.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONcomplained that the Government had taken up extremely contentious matters in the small hours of the morning. What he wanted was that the right hon. Gentleman should tell them now what was going to be done, and not keep them up till 2 o'clock in the morning before they knew what was going to be done.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he thought the discussion should not be allowed to drop until they got some information

  1497
  from the Government as to whether, in the event of the rejection of the Municipal Franchise Bill, they could defeat the Belfast Main Drainage Bill. They had no desire to defeat the Bill, but they wished hon. Gentlemen to show how much there was of bona fides in their promises. When they saw the Belfast Bill in danger they declared their desire to see the question of the franchise settled on a broad basis. A fair and reasonable compromise was entered into; but the moment this was done blocking Notices were put down on this Municipal Franchise Bill, so that the very Gentlemen who had expressed their desire to see the Municipal Franchise Bill were the men to come forward to block it. They wanted to know whether, if this opposition was persisted in, the Government would accept the Belfast Main Drainage Bill?
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, there was no doubt that there had been a vast majority of Members in the House at the time who would have supported the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill if a precise understanding had not been come to. He trusted that the Government would prevent what would undoubtedly be a breach of faith.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that this was really a public question, inasmuch as it was proposed that a large sum of public money should be levied and expended by a small and by no means popular body.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he could confirm what had been said regarding the compromise come to with reference to this Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)thought there could be no doubt that in this matter those who were opposing the Belfast Main Drainage Bill were placed in a position of the most unfair disadvantage, because two different kinds of language had been held on the Front Bench opposite. The right hon. Member for Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had strongly supported the extension of the Irish municipal franchise, and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had declared war against it. The question, however, was how they were to deal with the Belfast Drainage Bill. He did not know whether the
  1498
  opponents of the Bill desired that it should be rejected entirely, or only that a clause should be grafted upon it. He understood that they would be satisfied with the latter course. The Order might be discharged; but it was for those who were interested in the matter, and who knew more about it than he did, to say what course ought to be taken under the circumstances of the breaking of the engagement which had been made.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought it would be extremely unjust to the promoters of the Bill now to discharge the Order, which had been postponed till a certain day.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he held that the promoters of the Bill would not, under the circumstances, have the slightest right to complain of the entire loss of the Bill this Session.
  Motion agreed, to.

  SUPPLY—MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)said, he wished to explain what the Government intended to do in Committee of Supply that night, as the House was anxious at the close of the Sitting to adjourn for the holidays. In Committee of Supply last night a considerable sum was voted for the Navy, and quite sufficient to carry them over for all purposes to the 31st of October; but there were several Votes for the Navy on account of which no sum had been voted already, and unless some money was voted for those Services, and the items appeared in the Appropriation Act, it would not be in their power technically to transfer money that had been voted under one head to another in the course of the financial year. Therefore, they wanted a nominal vote of £1,000 on each of those Navy Votes in order to comply with the technical requirements of the Appropriation Act. The Secretary of State for War would follow the same course in regard to the Army Estimates.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he assented to the course just indicated by the Secretary to the Treasury, by which he observed that no hon. Member would be precluded from hereafter raising any question of principle when the substantive Votes came to be taken in the new Parliament.

  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS UNDER THE CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  DR. RODERICK MACDONALDrose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the appointment of Commissioners under the Crofters (Scotland) Act of this Session.
  But, the pleasure of the House not having been signified,
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places:—
  And, not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen in their places:—
  DR. RODERICK MACDONALDsaid, he was sorry to say that this was the only means left to him, as a Crofter Representative, to bring this matter before the House and the country. It was well known to the House that they had had some trouble on this subject some time back. They had heard that certain Commissioners had been appointed, and they made all the fight they could to prevent their appointment. A great delay took place, and in the meantime the votes of the Crofter Representatives were given for a certain Bill in that House; but the Government had adhered to their former tactics in this matter. He had often said to the House before that that the Act itself was bad enough; but it was now going to be made ten times worse by the appointment of Commissioners who had not got in any way the confidence of the crofters. He was afraid the Act would become a dead letter entirely. To his mind it was very doubtful whether, in a great many instances, the people would take any notice of the Commission at all, because they did not think it would do justice to them. They had heard a great deal in that House lately of the wishes of the people being expressed through their Representatives. He thought, if that was true of any part of this country, it was true of the Highlands of Scotland. But when they came to set this Act agoing they found that their wishes were ignored, and that they were not allowed to have any say whatever in the matter, although they were entirely at one
  1500
  in regard to it with one exception—that of the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford). The Prime Minister, speaking on the Irish Question the other evening, said he had no right to assume that the Parnellite Members did not speak the mind of the decided majority of the Irish people. But, although the Crofter Members spoke the mind of the majority of the people in the Highlands, their wishes were entirely ignored and scouted by the Government. They found that the Commissioners who were appointed to carry out this Act were the nominees of landlords in the Highlands, and not only so, but, as the people believed, the nominees of landlords who were unsuccessful at the recent elections in the Highland counties. If landlords, because they were landlords, were to wield the influence of the Government in this way, they might as well disfranchise the Highlands altogether, and the time of the House had been entirely thrown away in regard to this matter. Let them look at the difference between the Crofter Representatives and the Irish Representatives. The former were weak, and it was supposed that they could be trampled on by the Government as they liked. There was a day when Ireland was weak and was trampled upon, and this was the best means the Government could use to increase the number of Crofter Representatives from the Highlands, and from other parts of the country in which the crofters had not yet risen against the landlords' tyranny. The proposed message of peace to the Highlands had been cut and carved in every way during its progress through that House, and now it was to be worked in an impossible way. The Lord Advocate for Scotland had done more to alienate the people of the Highlands from Radicalism, and from the present Government, than anything else that had been done in that House, because everything had been done against the wishes of the Crofter Representatives. He dared say Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House would not be sorry to hear that opinion in the Highlands was going over to their side. The belief was that they had got the Bill, bad as it was, from the Liberals, and when the Tories came in they would get the money, and it would be all right. That was the feeling

  1501
  in the Highlands now. The people of Scotland, and Highlanders in particular, were simply in the position of the Irish. They had a Dublin Castle in Scotland, too, in the form of an Edinburgh Parliament House, who did as they liked. It was an Augean stable which Scottish Home Rule would very soon clear out, because they held that these Gentlemen were not in accord with the people in any way whatever. They had asked the Government—and they thought it a very reasonable proposal—that they should at least have some representation on this Commission in whom the people would have confidence. They had tried all they could to get two Representatives on the Commission, for they knew that the Gentlemen at the head of the Commission would be in favour of the landlords. They had not succeeded in that, and the matter had gone so far that he himself, no later than Saturday last, had asked the Secretary for Scotland to give them one Representative on the Commission, and they would be satisfied. But they had not got even one man, and those who had been appointed were the friends and protégés of the landlords. He hoped the House would show its sense of the disgraceful manner in which they had been treated by the Government in giving them this one-sided Commission, that would only cause irritation, instead of doing any good. He moved the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Dr. Roderick Macdonald.)
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, that when the Question was put he rose for the purpose of giving his hon. Friend the opportunity he desired to call attention to the subject; but he must express his disappointment that the hon. Member was one of only two Crofter Representatives who took sufficient interest in the question to be present on the occasion. [Dr. MACDONALD: There is another.] He would go with his hon. Friend so far as to say that he thought the Government, both in the conduct of the Bill through the House and in the appointment of the Commissioners, would have acted wisely if they had given a little more consideration to the Crofter Members, and, he would say, to the Radical Party. He observed that
  1502
  the Legal Commissioner was to have a salary of £1,200 a-year, and that the gentleman nominated for the appointment was Mr. Brand, who was described as Sheriff of Ayrshire. He did not mean to say that Mr. Brand was an inmate of the Augean stable to which his hon. Friend had referred; but he wished to know whether the Government had made any special arrangement with the learned gentleman? He understood that Edinburgh was more fortunate than they were in this part of the world, inasmuch as there was an office for every three members of the Profession. Apparently, from the pluralism that was exhibited on this occasion, there were more offices than candidates. What he wanted to know was whether they were going to give Mr. Brand the total aggregate salary of the two offices for duties which, put together, were not likely to be excessive?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.)said, he regretted the Lord Advocate was unavoidably absent to-night, because, from the close attention he had given to matters connected with the Crofters Bill, he would have been more competent to reply to the observations that had just been made. But he was glad to think that those observations were not of such a serious character as to impose any great difficulty upon the Representative of the Government who required to reply to them. He also regretted that the hon. Member for Ross-shire (Dr. Macdonald) had thought it necessary to bring this matter forward, because he quite agreed with him that it was extremely desirable that this Commission and the Crofters Bill should be started under circumstances calculated to inspire confidence throughout the whole of the crofter community; and he hoped, in spite of what was taking place now, that the Commission, when it did enter upon its duties, would possess and receive that confidence. He was not quite sure, from his hon. Friend's remarks, whether he took exception to the Commission as a whole or only to one or more Members of it. With regard to the appointment of Mr. Brand, anyone who had to do with legal matters in Scotland would not hesitate at once to acknowledge that the Government and the crofters were extremely fortunate in having been able

  1503
  to secure the services, as Legal Commissioner, of Mr. Brand. He had been a member of the Scottish Bar for upwards of 20 years, and had filled the office of Advocate Depute for a considerable number of years, during which he (Mr. Asher) had had numerous opportunities of appreciating his high, legal qualifications. Mr. Brand had also filled the office of Principal Sheriff of Ayrshire, and he had only heard one account of the admirable manner in which he had discharged the duties of that office. In regard to Mr. Hossack, he had been very much surprised to hear the hon. Member declare that the gentlemen who had been chosen were the nominees of landlords, and defeated landlords. Amongst other recommendations which were put before the Government in support of Mr. Hossack's appointment were one by the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane), and another by the hon. Member for the Wick Burghs (Mr. Macdonald Cameron), who was sitting at that moment beside the hon. Member for Ross-shire. Besides these recommendations, there was a body of testimony absolutely irresistible in support of the ability and capacity of Mr. Hossack to discharge the duties of a Commissioner under the Bill. With regard to the appointment of Mr. M'Intyre, farmer, of Findon, in Ross-shire, there had also been a very large body of testimony in his favour, and that of an extremely varied character. His hon. Friend was quite aware that a very short time ago opposition was offered on behalf of certain representatives of the crofters to Mr. M'Intyre's appointment, and it had also got abroad that certain other gentlemen were specially favoured by certain representatives of the crofters. It was, of course, the duty of the Secretary for Scotland to take into consideration all the material brought under his notice affecting the eligibility of the different gentlemen who were suggested; and he thought it right to say that his noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie) had for a considerable time past devoted great attention to this matter, with, he was certain, the single and sole desire to secure the services of the very best men. But what he wanted to point out was this—that when it got abroad that opposition was being offered to the appointment of Mr. M'Intyre, of Findon, a very
  1504
  curious circumstance took place. A small number of communications were received, chiefly by telegram, at the Scottish Office objecting to the appointment, and it was observed that these came chiefly from the neighbourhood of the other two gentlemen whose names had been suggested. On the other hand, there came an overwhelmingly larger number of telegrams from a great variety of places in Ross-shire, Sutherlandshire, Skye, and other parts of Inverness-shire, from single crofters, and from several crofters telegraphing together, stating that they had unbounded confidence in Mr. M'Intyre, and that the Government could not by any possibility get a man who would be be more acceptable to the crofter community. He did not for a moment suggest that Mr. M'Intyre's appointment was founded upon these telegrams; there was much more reliable material than that available to the Secretary for Scotland to enable him to make up his mind in this important matter; but it certainly was satisfactory that there was this perfectly voluntary and independent testimony from such a large number of quarters in support of the view which the Secretary for Scotland had made up his mind to adopt. He had stated all that he had to say in support of what the Government had done. He repeated that the matter had received the most careful and anxious consideration with the view of securing the very best men possible; and he had the greatest hope that it would be found that those who had boon selected were perfectly qualified for the office, and that they would by their action immediately secure the confidence of the whole community interested in the effective administration of the Act.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONreminded the Solicitor General for Scotland that he had not answered his question with regard to the financial arrangement.
  MR. ASHERsaid, that the financial arrangements were not absolutely completed at that moment. The terms of the remuneration, he understood, had not yet been adjusted with the Commissioners; but he might say that it was in the contemplation of the Government that the salary of the Legal Commissioner should be £1,200 a-year, which would secure that the services of Sheriff Brand would be given to the utmost

  1505
  extent necessary for the discharge of his duties under the Act.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, his question was whether Sheriff Brand was to receive the aggregate salary of the two offices.
  MR. ASHERsaid, that was so; and he might add that the Government contemplated fixing the salary of £800 a-year to each of the Lay Commissioners.
  DR. CAMERONwished to call attention to the unbusiness-like manner in which this arrangement had been made. They had got Commissioners appointed, and a formal announcement was made on the subject; but no financial arrangement had been made with regard to their salaries. It turned out that it was intended to pay a double salary to the Legal Commissioner.
  MR. ASHERsaid, it was certainly not contemplated that Sheriff Brand should resign his office as Sheriff of Ayrshire. Hon. Members from Scotland must be aware that the office of Principal Sheriff was held by a practising member of the Bar, and his exclusive services could not be obtained for £700 a-year. Sheriff Brand would retain his appointment as Sheriff, while at the same time performing his duties as Legal Commissioner; but, of course, the other duties which he had performed along with those of the Sheriffship would now have to give way.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked whether it was proposed to give the Legal Commissioner, as reported among the Scottish Members, not £1,900 a year, which was the aggregate of the two salaries, but some smaller amount?
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he did not object to the appointment of Sheriff Brand, who was an excellent and capable man; but he thought it would have been most desirable, when they were entering into an engagement of this exceptional character, if the Representatives of the Scottish Office had been able to assure the House that the arrangement had been gone about in a business-like fashion.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)said, that the Treasury were responsible for the financial arrangement, and not the Scottish Office. The Treasury had not had a conflict with the Scottish Office on the subject.
  1506
  They had dealt with them as they dealt with other Departments, and they had endeavoured to apportion what they considered proper salaries for the work to be done. The Irish Land Commissioners had £3,000 a-year; but the Treasury in this case considered that they would not be justified in allowing a maximum salary of more than £2,000 a-year to the Chief Commissioner. They required the Chief Commissioner to abstain from all private practice; they did not interfere with his Sheriffship. His salary as Sheriff would be taken into consideration, and in no case would he be allowed to receive more than £2,000 a-year. He believed the present emolument of Mr. Brand as Sheriff was £700; and the Treasury considered that they had made a business-like and economical bargain.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  ARMY—REGIMENTAL CANTEENS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he rose to call attention to the management of regimental canteens. A very strong feeling had arisen against what was regarded as an unfair system of exclusive trading. The officers who managed the canteens obtained their supplies from the Army and Navy Stores; and, as they were presumably shareholders in those stores, there was reasonable irritation on the part of local traders, who otherwise might supply the canteens. It was desirable that the conduct and motives of the officers who managed the canteens should be above suspicion, particularly as the soldiers were, if not obliged, yet induced by circumstances which amounted almost to pressure, to spend their money at the canteens. He hoped the subject would receive attention during the Recess.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.)said, his attention had been drawn to this subject by the right hon. Gentleman and also by some other Members

    1507
    of the House; and he had found in the War Office a somewhat lengthy correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman and the late Secretary of State for War. The military canteens were maintained by the troops themselves, who, he believed, upon the whole were very well content with the way in which they were managed. The right hon. Gentleman had brought forward a side of the question which injuriously affected his constituents in Aldershot, and against which it was alleged the soldiers sometimes protested. It was that, instead of being allowed to deal with the local traders, the canteens obtained their goods from co-operative societies and other such establishments. He was himself entirely in favour of the system of open tender as far as it could be employed; but a canteen was under the control of a canteen committee, who were practically independent of the authorities. He did not wish to dissociate himself from responsibility in the matter, or to throw responsibility upon others; neither did he desire to interfere more than was absolutely necessary with the discretion of the canteen committees. At the same time, he had every disposition to see that the whole system was managed in such a way as not only to avoid abuse, but also to give satisfaction and contentment to the soldiers who dealt with the canteens.
    MR. CRILLYprotested, in the name of some Irish traders in garrison towns in Ireland, against the system of procuring supplies for the military from English firms.

  INCOME TAX.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. HICKMAN, in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, all persons in any way concerned in the assessment of the Income Tax should be paid by salary and not by poundage or in proportion to the amounts of such assessments,"
  said, that it had become necessary for the House to affirm such a Resolution as this, in order to compel the attention of the authorities to what was really a substantial grievance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget Speech, stated that during the last nine years an increase of taxation amounting to £11,600,000 had been put upon the Income Tax payers of this country. Looking at that fact, it was
  1508
  essentially necessary not only that the assessments should be fair, but that the taxpayer should believe them to be fair. The number of assessments made in the year 1883–4 was 1,600,000; and with respect to no loss than 1,200,000 of these either exemption or abatement was granted in consequence of the income being less than £150, or under £400 per annum. All these 1,200,000 persons were admittedly over-assessed. It might be said that they were not obliged to pay; but in many cases they did pay from ignorance of the law; and if they did not pay it was a substantial grievanee that they should have to appeal, and so lose time and money. Then it might be said that the Commissioners had to decide the matter. But it should be remembered that the clerks, who were paid by poundage, practically decided, because as experts they were acquainted with all the circumstances of each case, and naturally exercised over the Commissioners a preponderating influence. In some cases the over-assessment had been distrained for; and, where it was proved to be unfair after the distraint had been made, the Treasury recouped the amount. In these cases, however, the persons did not receive the costs of the distraint; and it was a poor consolation to a man who had his goods sold that he should only have the amount over-assessed returned to him, while his credit was injured, and he lost the costs and expenses of the distraint. He believed that the Commissioners were as good men as could be chosen; but he complained that in his particular district their names were not made public. He submitted that they ought to know who their judges were. He had no complaint to make against the clerks or assessors; but what he did say was that they were placed in a false position, which was unfair to themselves as well as to the public. He moved the Resolution which stood in his name, and hoped that the House would agree to it.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, all persons in any way concerned in the assessment of the Income Tax should be paid by salary and not by poundage or in proportion to the amount of such assessments,"—(Mr. Hickman,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)said, that his hon. Friend had raised two points, one referring to the administration of the Income Tax, and the other to a question of general principle. With regard to the administration of the tax, he had overlooked one or two matters as to over-assessment, and the amount reduced on appeal. The large amount which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to was not the amount reduced by reason of excessive charge, but the great bulk was in respect of incomes on which deductions were claimed. With regard to the suppression of the names of the Commissioners, he might say that that was done advisedly. The names of the General Commissioners who were responsible for the administration of the Income Tax were very well known. They sat as a Court of Appeal, and their decisions carried weight with them. But these Gentlemen had Commissioners to assist them in the assessment of the Income Tax, and the duties of the Assistant Commissioners were of a very private and important character. It was thought, rightly or wrongly, that these gentlemen would be subject to a great deal of unpleasant pressure on both sides if their names were generally known. A large number of these gentlemen would resign if their names were made public. The duty was one which they undertook without any remuneration whatever. It was the desire of the Treasury to remove as far as possible all friction in the assessment and collection of the tax; and every case brought before them had been investigated and dealt with, he believed, to the satisfaction of those gentlemen who had communicated with them. He thought the principle was not to be defended of paying assessors by poundage; and his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers), when Chancellor of the Exchequer, did his utmost to induce the House to adopt an entirely different mode of payment, stating that £50,000 a-year might be saved by doing so; but, unfortunately, he was defeated in a very full House. People ought not only to be fairly assessed, but to believe that they were
  1510
  fairly assessed; but it was open to doubt so long as those who assessed them had a pecuniary interest in the matter. When Sir Robert Peel introduced the Income Tax he laid down the principle that, as far as possible, the assessment should be local, and should not pass into the hands of the Government. The Inland Revenue Authorities had carefully considered the question, and they thought that some other mode of payment not inconsistent with the local character of those officers and the local payment of the tax might be introduced. But the question was a very difficult one. The Government looked with the greatest possible sympathy upon the object his hon. Friend had in view. They believed the principle he had propounded was a good one. They would proceed further in the consideration of it on the lines indicated by his hon. Friend. He was satisfied that whether by the present or a future Government the matter must be dealt with, if, as he believed, the Income Tax was to remain a permanent part of our fiscal system. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment to a division.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he happened to know that the present mode of assessment had given rise to great suspicion and grave dissatisfaction. Payment by poundage was a vicious system. The same remark was applicable to the payment of architects. They were paid by commission; but nothing could be more objectionable, for though you might meet with honourable men among them the system gave rise to suspicion. He hoped his hon. Friend would be content with what had fallen from the Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. HICKMANsaid, that after the appeal of the Secretary to the Treasury he would withdraw the Resolution.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £1,000, Gratuity to Lady Gosset.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER):

1511
I hope the Committee will allow me to explain the circumstances under which this Vote is submitted. Members of this House who sat in the last Parliament will remember the late Serjeant-at-Arms (Sir Ralph Gosset), and the efficient services he rendered for a long series of years. When he retired, after serving the House for 50 years, a Vote of Thanks was moved by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, seconded by my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and supported by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), as representing the Irish Party; and the House unanimously expressed its high appreciation of the services which Sir Ralph Gosset had rendered. The House desired that the most liberal terms of pension should be granted, and accordingly £1,200 per annum was awarded to Sir Ralph Gosset, and was to commence from the 1st of October, 1885. When the House passed the Vote of Thanks my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed a hope that Sir Ralph Gosset might be spared for many years to enjoy his well-earned pension; but he lived for a very short time, and died within less than three months. Under the circumstances, the matter was brought before the late Government, with a view of ascertaining whether the House of Commons would not be disposed to mark its acknowledgment of his services by a grant to his widow. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Iddesleigh concurred in that view, and were of opinion that £1,000 ought to be given for that purpose. In that opinion the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury also concur. I hope, therefore, that the House will make this recognition of the claim of an old and valuable servant who served the House for 50 years, whose father before him served the House for 30 years, and whose son, I trust, will be spared to serve the House for many years to come. No better case for a frank and generous recognition of faithful services has ever been submitted to the House, and I trust that the Vote will be unanimously acceded to.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I hope it will be understood that it is not from any want of sympathy with the Motion that my right
1512
hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) is not at this moment in his place, and that so few of my right hon. Friends are present. The fact is that the Motion was not expected to be made at this moment. I beg to assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and the Committee generally that Gentlemen on this side fully concur in the proposal which has been made, and entirely support it. They are of opinion that it is by no means in excess of what is due to one who did so much to earn the gratitude and win the affection of the Members of this House.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: As an independent Member of the House, I desire to say that I cordially agree with what has fallen from the Secretary to the Treasury; and I venture to believe that the Vote will be granted unanimously by the House. All who knew the late Serjeant-at-Arms must have felt his retirement as a loss to the House; and if we can mark our appreciation of his services by a grant to his widow, it is only right and fitting that we should do so.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I hope the Committee will not deem it impertinent on my part if I obtrude a word or two in regard to this Vote. Unfortunately, from circumstances with which I need not trouble the Committee, I had no opportunity of personally joining in the vote to the Serjeant-at-Arms passed in the last Parliament. I am afraid that, during the sitting of that Parliament, I was often the cause of considerable anxiety and trouble to him. I therefore desire to bear my testimony to the very great courtesy which Sir Ralph Gosset always showed to me, sometimes under very trying circumstances. As becoming a young Member I will not say more, but that I cordially support the Vote.
SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: I can assure the Committee that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Colleagues from Ireland generally fully recognize the urbanity and kindness which the late Serjeant-at-Arms always displayed towards the Irish Members, and they also heartily support the Vote.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
(2.) "That a further sum, not exceeding £6,879,764, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, viz:—

CIVIL SERVICES.

CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Great Britain:—

£

New Admiralty and War Office

Dover Harbour

Ireland:—

Royal University Buildings

4,000

Science and Art Buildings, Dublin

4,000

MR. PICKERSGILL: I desire to take this opportunity of drawing the attention of the Committee to a matter which has stood in my name upon the Notice Paper of the House for some time—I mean the appointment of Mr. Graham to the office of Clerk of the Parliaments. I thought, Sir, and I still think, it is desirable that there should be some discussion, at all events, in this House, with regard to an appointment which has been roundly characterized out-of-doors by Members of both political Parties as a "job." At the opening of the Session I placed upon the Paper a Notice asking for some explanation with reference to this appointment; but owing to the Ministerial crisis which ensued, and which was followed by the resignation of the late Conservative Government, I was not able, according to the Rules of the House, to press my Question. Although it was not competent for me to press the Question, still I apprehend that it would have been perfectly within the competence of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to give me an explanation, if any satisfactory explanation was forthcoming; and I can only say that if any communication had been made to me it would cot have been met by me in a carping spirit, but would have received the fullest and most candid consideration. In the first place, I desire
1516
to say a word with regard to the nature of the office of Clerk of the Parliaments. I do not apprehend that the duties of that office require any supernatural degree of abilities; but it does seem to me that it is distinctly an office in which great experience in the procedure of Parliament is imperatively required. But I need not rely upon any opinion which I myself might entertain with regard to the nature of the duties of the Clerk of Parliaments, because I may quote to the Committee what was stated by a very high authority upon the occasion of the demise of Sir William Rose, who preceded Mr. Graham in the office. It was then said that Sir William Rose possessed a profound knowledge of the precedents of the House of Lords, and that, consequently, he was able to render services to the Members of that House and to the country in the capacity he filled, which were specially required owing to the fact that the Speaker of the House of Lords does not possess authority over its Members, and that the disposal of all order in the House is vested in the House itself. An authority, therefore, like that of Sir William Rose, able and willing to furnish the Members of the House with guidance, was all the more essential. My first objection in regard to the appointment of Mr. Graham to this office is that, although it is one which requires almost more than any other office an experience of the duties to be performed, a gentleman was appointed who had had no experience of any kind whatever. My second point is, that it was a distinct departure from the usual practice of appointing to that office. Sir William Rose, who preceded Mr. Graham in the office of Clerk of Parliaments, entered the service of the House of Lords in 1835, and from 1848 until 1875 he was Deputy Clerk of the Parliaments; so that, in his case, there was appointed to the office a gentleman who, for 40 years prior to his appointment, had filled subordinate offices in the House of Lords, and in that way had acquired the requisite experience for the discharge of the duties of the office. Now, Sir, I think it is essential to a proper understanding of this case that I should briefly sketch the salient features in the official career of Mr. Graham. In 1869 Mr. Graham became the son-in-law of Viscount Cranbrook. It will be remembered that from 1869

1517
to 1874 a Liberal Government was in Office, and during that time the ability of Mr. Graham does not appear to have been recognized; but in 1874 he was made Secretary to Lord Chancellor Cairns, and he continued in that office until 1880, when the Conservative Government went out of Office. Mr. Graham was then made one of the Masters in Lunacy, and he continued to be a Master in Lunacy until 1885. In the summer of last year a Conservative Government again came into power, and within a very few weeks Mr. Graham was appointed to the extremely lucrative office of Clerk of the Parliaments. Now, what are the qualifications which it can be contended Mr. Graham possessed for that office? He had been for more than four years previously a Master in Lunacy. I do not know whether it will be contended that there is any common ground of connection between a Master in Lunacy and the Clerk of the Parliaments in "another place;" but I have some reason to believe that the qualification which will be relied upon is that Mr. Graham was for some years Secretary to the Lord Chancellor. Now, Sir, I submit that the fact that Mr. Graham was Secretary to the Lord Chancellor does not, in any way, qualify him for the office he was afterwards appointed to fill. The duties of Secretary to the Lord Chancellor are distinctly different from, and altogether unconnected with, the procedure of the House of Lords; and if that qualification is relied upon, then I would press for an answer to this further question. If it be true that the Lord Chancellor's Secretary is engaged in the procedure of the House of Lords, for what purpose, and for the discharge of what duties, do we pay several thousand pounds a-year to the Clerk of the Parliaments and his two assistants in the other House? With regard to the general question of promotion, I think I am able to speak with some special knowledge as an old Civil servant. I do not stipulate that in all cases promotion should be by seniority; but I do strongly protest, knowing the mischief which arises from such a course, against the introduction into a lucrative office of a gentleman who is altogether a stranger to the office, when, in order to promote such stranger, it is necessary to pass over men who have spent a lifetime in the discharge of similar duties.
1518
In the present case, if there were good reasons why the assistants of the House of Lords should not be promoted to the higher office, I think, by universal consent, there was one distinguished man who was perfectly marked out for promotion. I refer to that eminent and much-regretted gentleman who, at that time, was Chief Clerk of this House. It does seem to me that it would have given some satisfaction, not only to this country, but far beyond the bounds of this country, if well-merited promotion had been bestowed upon a man whose reputation, as a high Parliamentary authority, was far more than European. Wherever free institutions exist, I think I may say, without exaggeration, the name of Sir Erskine May is known and appreciated. I have thought it my duty to ventilate this opinion before the Committee. Of Mr. Graham I know nothing, and I should be very sorry if I were to inflict any pain upon him; but in the performance of a public duty it is necessary sometimes to inflict pain upon individuals. I can only say that my object is simply to guard the interests of the Service to which I once belonged, and intimately connected with the interests of that Service are the interests of the public. From my own experience and observation, I know that when appointments of this kind are made there is left behind a feeling of rankling resentment which produces the worst possible effect in the Department in which the appointment is made, which tends to bring about great discontent, and ultimately to impair the efficiency of that great Service to which the welfare of the country at large is so much indebted.
After a pause,
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid: I wish to know whether anybody is going to answer my hon. Friend? Is anybody going to defend this scandalous appointment? I see on the opposite Bench a right hon. Gentleman who was a Member of the last Cabinet (Mr. W. H. Smith), and I think he ought to give us some explanation of this appointment. The point which my hon. Friend has dwelt upon is the appointment itself. He has entered a protest against the particular appointment of Mr. Graham; but what I wish to know is, why the Clerk of the Parliaments is paid £500

1519
more than is paid to the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons?
SIR ROBERT FOWLER: A Notice of Motion has been given upon that point.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I am quite aware of that; but it is not likely to come on, and as I may not be here in the next Parliament, I wish, in the present Parliament, to ask for some explanation on the subject. I want to know from my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury why the Clerk of the Parliaments in the House of Lords receives something like £500 a-year more than the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons? No doubt, the Clerk of the Parliaments may be a superior officer; but his work is precisely the same in character as that of the Clerk of the House of Commons. In this House the Clerks have to sit for 12 hours at a stretch, whereas the Clerk of the Parliaments in the House of Lords sits sometimes for half-an-hour, and very seldom for more than three hours. I hope also to hear from the right hon. Gentleman opposite some explanation of this appointment. In my opinion, the appointment of Mr. Graham was one of the most scandalous jobs ever perpetrated, either by a Liberal or a Conservative Government. I am told that this gentleman is related to a number of Conservative Lords, and he appears to have been taken away from a Lunacy appointment and pitch-forked into the House of Lords at a time when we had here Sir Erskine May, whose reputation, as my hon. Friend has said, was European. Sir Erskine May was a very old public servant, and it is very possible that he might still be alive among us if he had not been obliged to remain here and perform the arduous labours of Chief Clerk of this House, instead of going to what may be considered almost the retirement of the House of Lords. I trust that the late Conservative Government will not maintain silence on this matter, but that they will explain to us what, if not explained, will be regarded by the country as one of the grossest jobs that was ever perpetrated.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I think that when it is proposed to bring under the notice of either House of Parliament the conduct of any person connected with the Public Service it has been usual to give to the
1520
persons who are attacked some intimation of the intention to bring the matter forward. Now, it does not appear, from the Notices on the Paper to-day, that any reference would be made to this subject; and, therefore, no one who is in the slightest degree responsible for the appointment could have had any idea that the question was to be raised this evening. I have no hesitation, however, in saying that those who were charged with the duty of exercising Ministerial patronage in this case discharged that duty with a full sense of their personal responsibility, and in the full discharge of the right which belonged to them. Mr. Graham is a gentleman of known and proved capacity. It has been remarked that he was a Master in Lunacy, and that as a Master in Lunacy he had no special qualification for performing the duty of Clerk of the Parliaments. That observation may be correct enough; but the real fact of the case is that Mr. Graham was Secretary to successive Lord Chancellors during a long period, and in that capacity, in the judgment of those with whom he was brought in contact, he displayed abilities which it was thought might be usefully applied in higher positions in connection with the Public Service, when this appointment became vacant. I really do not know in whose hands the patronage was vested; but it was exercised with a full sense of responsibility and of duty, and with a desire to appoint a man who was in every way qualified to fill the important office of Clerk of the Parliaments, and it was rightly and fairly exercised. I will pass by altogether the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) as to the question of Mr. Graham's relationship with Members of the other House of Parliament; but it must not be supposed by any person that, in this appointment, either relationship or personal interest was the real motive for the exercise of the patronage. For my own part, I believe that no such interests or motives had the slightest weight whatever in the selection of Mr. Graham for the office he fills. I believe that in making the selection a good appointment has been made; and I think it is somewhat questionable whether it is open to this House to review appointments which may be made by the other House of Parliament. I will, however, pass by

1521
that consideration altogether. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Northampton to the late Sir Erskine May. The hon. Member said, I think, that if Sir Erskine May had been promoted to this office his life might have been spared, and that it was the hard work imposed upon him in this House which shortened his valuable life. No one can entertain a higher sense of the valuable services rendered by Sir Erskine May than I do; but I do not think that there is any ground for the assertion that his life was shortened by the services he rendered to this House during the last few weeks of his life, after the appointment of the Clerk of the Parliaments had been filled up. The assumption of the hon. Member has no foundation whatever. The illness of Sir Erskine May had unfortunately declared itself before this appointment was made, and it is notorious that Sir Erskine May received every consideration from the Speaker, and from his Colleagues in this House, which it was possible to afford to a gentleman occupying his position, and entitled by his past services to so much consideration. I think in this case the patronage has been exercised wisely and well, with due regard to those higher considerations of ability and capacity which the gentleman appointed will bring to bear upon the discharge of his duties.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) will not think me guilty of discourtesy in not having risen as soon as the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) concluded his remarks. I may say that there has been a Notice down upon the Notice Paper for some time of the intention of the hon. Member to raise this question; and I believe that the Leader of the Opposition would have been desirous of defending the appointment, if due Notice had been given that the question would be raised to-night. There certainly was no anticipation that it would be raised to-night. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton has pointed out the peculiar circumstances under which we are now placed. We may not be Members of the next Parliament, and therefore it has been considered desirable to bring
1522
on this important question before the Dissolution takes place; but in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition I think it is desirable that I should reserve any remarks which I may have to make. I know nothing whatever myself about the appointment of Mr. Graham, and all questions in reference to the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords had bettor stand over until the whole Vote can be brought on for discussion. Certainly, if we are to discuss the manner in which the late Government exercised their patronage, Notice should be given, so that those who are familiar with the matter should have an opportunity of being present. I therefore hope that the question will now be allowed to stand over, with the full knowledge that the hon. Member for Northampton proposes on some future day to raise the question stripped of all personality, upon the broad principle why the Clerk of the House of Lords should have a larger salary than the Clerk of the House of Commons, who certainly has a much larger amount of work to perform.
SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I take it that there is no opposition to the present Vote; but I hope that at some future period the question of the salaries paid to of the officers of this House will be raised. I have made more than one appeal to the Predecessors of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury upon this subject; and I hope, if I am a Member of the next Parliament, to make a further appeal with some better effect. Of course, none of us know whether we are to come back here or not; but if I have the honour of being returned, I shall certainly appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury, whoever may happen to fill that Office, whether something cannot be done to rearrange the salaries of the officers of this House. I do not believe that the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords are at all too high. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has pointed out that they do not sit as long as we do in this House. That is perfectly true; but I apprehend that the officers there have a good deal of work to do when the House is not actually sitting. They have frequently to go through the Bills presented to that House and amend the phraseology; and

1523
not very long ago the present Lord Chancellor told me, referring to a clause I had inserted in a Bill of which he, as Solicitor General, had charge, that it would be necessary to correct the phraseology in the House of Lords. At the same time, there can be no doubt that the officers of this House do a good deal harder work than the officers of the House of Lords; and it follows that as I do not believe the officers of the House of Lords are at all too highly paid, the officers of this House are very much under-paid. Let us only consider the long hours during which they are required to sit. We frequently find them sitting here from 4 o'clock in the afternoon until 3 o'clock in the morning, and not unfrequently for 12 hours consecutively. Any leisure time they can get is a matter of arrangement among themselves; but there must always be one of them in attendance at the Table. Therefore, I think that £2,000, £1,500, and £1,200 are very inadequate salaries for the three Clerks respectively. In regard to the Chief Clerk, he occupies a highly dignified post, and I certainly do not think that the salary he receives is at all sufficient for the duties performed. I would, therefore, make to the present Secretary to the Treasury the same appeal which I have made to some of his Predecessors—[Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER dissented.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. The matter, however, may not altogether rest with him, but even with greater men than himself, and therefore I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sits near him. I cannot concur in the remarks which have been made that if the late Sir Erskine May had been promoted to the office of Clerk of the Parliaments his life might have been spared. Sir Erskine May was a man whom we all honoured, and whose memory we all respect; but he was long known to be in ill-health. No doubt, he was a man who well deserved the honour of promotion to a seat in the other House of Parliament, and if his life had been spared it is probable that he might have rendered useful services there.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): My hon. Friend (Sir Robert Fowler) has appealed to me, and, therefore, I
1524
am bound to say a word upon this matter. My hon. Friend is always generous. The public, however, are not so flush of money as the Corporation of London, and they cannot afford to apply the hon. Member's standard of payment to salaries or anything else. It must be remembered that the Lord Mayor of London has double the salary of the Prime Minister. We are obliged to be a little more moderate in these matters. We fully allow that the officers of this House serve us well; but we do not think that, at the present time, it would be expedient for the House of Commons to increase the salaries of all its officials, and thus to set an example which might soon have to be followed in all the branches of the Civil Service.
SIR ROBERT FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman has made a reference to the salary paid to the Lord Mayor of London. I wish to remind the right hon. Gentleman that that allowance is hardly considered to be a salary, but merely what is called in the Army "table money."
MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has described this appointment as a great job. It was one of the appointments made by the late Government when they were just going out of Office, and I am exceedingly sorry that they have not considered it necessary to justify the appointment which has been made in this particular instance. I would like them to answer this question—whether Mr. Graham's abilities would have entitled him to this appointment if he had not been related to Lord Salisbury? His appointment was far more due to his relationship to the Prime Minister of that day than to any qualifications he possessed for discharging the duties of the office. I notice that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) made no Motion on the subject; but I hope that it will not be allowed to drop. If I have the honour and the privilege of a seat in the next Parliament, I will certainly support my hon. Friend in bringing the subject forward again. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) said he doubted whether it was open to this House to question any appointment made in the House of Lords; but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that although this

1525
officer is appointed by the House of Lords, we have to pay him. Having control over the public purse, we are fully justified in taking notice of these appointments.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I feel bound to correct one remark which has fallen from the hon. Member. Mr. Graham is not in any way related to Lord Salisbury, either directly or indirectly.
MR. GREGORY: I should like to point out that the Chancery Clerks are all selected from a most competent class of men, whose services could not be secured unless they are paid adequate salaries. The salary is now £1,500 a-year, and for that sum they are required to work from 10 o'clock in the morning until 5 in the afternoon. They have to perform most arduous duties; and all the arrangements connected with the administration of property in the Chancery Division, as well as a good deal of judicial business, passes through their hands.
MR. KIMBER: I have myself had an experience of a quarter of a century of the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery, and I can testify to the admirable work done by the Chief Clerks in Chancery. I do not know for what reason, or for what motive, they have been dubbed Chief Clerks. I think they would be more properly described as Deputy Judges, seeing that the functions they fulfil are entirely judicial. Anyone who visits the Courts will be able to see the long list of cases they have to go through, second only to that of the cases which go before the Judges themselves. But when we compare the salaries they receive and the work they do with the salaries received and the work done by the County Court Judges I think it will be admitted that they are most inadequately paid. Their work, undoubtedly, will compare very favourably with that of the County Court Judges. In point of fact, I cannot help feeling that their energies are too heavily taxed, and it must be remembered that their jurisdiction is not limited in regard to the administration of estates, as is the case of County Court Judges. Now, from my own knowledge and experience, I can say that the salaries they receive are not half those which men who are successful in their profession are able to earn.
MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I was wrong in stating that Mr. Graham is a relative of Lord Salisbury. I ought to have said not of Lord Salisbury, but of Lord Cranbrook.
MR. T. H. BOLTON: I understand that an attack has been made upon the conduct of the late Government in the appointment they made to the office of Clerk of the Parliaments, and that a complaint has also been made of the lowness of the salaries paid to the Clerks of this House. Reference has further been made to the salaries and duties of the Chief Clerks of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. Those gentlemen discharge their duties, I believe, very much to their own credit and to the advantage of the public. The duties are of a very arduous and important character, and the salaries paid are certainly not in excess of the duties attached to the office and the ability with which those duties are discharged. Mr. Graham was never a Chief Clerk in Chancery.
MR. KIMBER: I did not speak of Mr. Graham's appointment at all.
MR. T. H. BOLTON: The hon. Gentleman intervened in the discussion of Mr. Graham's appointment. I cordially agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in the feeling of annoyance which they have expressed on the part of the public at the appointment which has been made in the House of Lords.
SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I believe that in former times the officers of the House of Lords were paid by fees in connection with the political Business of that House. These fees were given up to the Treasury on condition that the salaries should be voted by this House. We are, therefore, bound by an honourable understanding not to reduce this Vote. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury will correct me if I am wrong. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER assented.]
MR. PICKERSGILL: I must ask permission of the Committee to add one word before the discussion closes. A complaint has been made that due Notice was not given of my intention to bring forward the subject of Mr. Graham's appointment, and there appears to have been some sort of arrangement between the right hon. Gentleman

1527
the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to when this Vote might be brought forward, and when, therefore, I should have an opportunity of raising this discussion. I can only say that if that was the case it might have been as well to communicate the arrangement to me, seeing that I had given Notice of my intention to avail myself of the first opportunity which came in my way for calling attention to the subject. I have to-night distinctly carried out the Notice I gave. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) seemed to raise the question whether it was competent for the Committee to discuss the appointment, because, forsooth, Mr. Graham had been appointed by another House. In reply to that view, I can only point out that it is we, as the custodians of the purse of the country, who have to provide the salary of the Clerk of the Parliaments; and, therefore, I think we are fully justified in discussing any appointment to that office. I have only one further observation to make. The right hon. Gentleman stated that Mr. Graham had been Secretary to successive Lord Chancellors. I think that statement is likely to convey a misleading impression. As far as I am aware, Mr. Graham was only Secretary to one Lord Chancellor—namely, Lord Cairns.
MR. TUITE: I have received several communications from my constituents complaining of the Email and inadequate remuneration paid to some of the employés of the Post Office. In some cases, I am told, it is as low as 7s. a-week. I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to know whether something cannot be done in the matter.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I believe it is the desire of the Post Office Authorities to pay proper wages to every person they employ. This, however, is only a Vote on Account, and when the Vote for the Post Office expenditure comes regularly before the Committee it will be a proper time for the hon. Member to raise the question. I think it may be possible to give a full and satisfactory explanation to the hon. Member. I quite sympathize with him in the view he has expressed; but, at the same time, I feel
1528
that the Department ought not to be called upon to pay salaries which are higher than is absolutely necessary.
MR. TUITE: I am certainly acquainted with one instance in which a man employed by the Post Office only receives 7s. a-week.
MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Will the hon. Member send me the particulars of that case?
MR. TUITE: I will do so.
Vote agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
(3.) That a sum, not exceeding £5,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Army Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, viz:—

EFFECTIVE SERVICES.

1. Pay of the General Staff, Regimental Pay and Allowances, and other Charges

£

2. Divine Service

30,000

3. Administration of Military Law

20,000

4. Medical Establishments and Services

160,000

5. Militia Pay and Allowances

270,000

6. Yeomanry Cavalry Pay and Allowances

40,000

7. Volunteer Corps Pay and Allowances

320,000

8. Army Reserve Force Pay and Allowances (including Enrolled Pensioners)

200,000

9. Commissariat, Transport, and Ordnance Store Establishments, Wages, &c.

260,000

10. Provisions, Forage, Fuel, Transport, and other Services

11. Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies

440,000

12. Supply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike and other Stores

1,200,000

13. Superintending Establishment of, and Expenditure for, Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

460,000

14. Establishments for Military Education

60,000

15. Miscellaneous Effective Services

20,000

16. Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office

120,000

Total Effective Services

£3,600,000

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: As I see the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War in his place, I should like to ask what has been done in regard to the new rifle? I believe that a new rifle has been adopted by the Government; but I am informed that very few of these rifles have been made. The Martini-Henri rifles that were in store have been served out to the Volunteers, leaving a stock of arms in store of the smallest and most meagre description. I would like to ask the Surveyor General of the Ordnance what is the amount of arms now in store? A great country like this ought never to allow its stock of arms to get into a low condition. I see from the Estimates that the Government are still adding to the buildings at Enfield, although the establishment at Enfield has been declared to be objectionable. In my opinion, it would be much more convenient to manufacture rifles at Birmingham than at Enfield. The Government have recently bought a large property at Birmingham; and I think it is a serious question, looking at the position and state of Enfield, whether the manufacture of rifles ought to be continued there. At Enfield every man you bring has to be put into a house that you must build for him, and when he is turned off it is impossible for him to find any other occupation in the neighbourhood. It is altogether the reverse at Birmingham. If a man is turned off there are other occupations in which he can find employment, and which he can procure at a moment's notice. The country would also have the advantage at Birmingham of having an arsenal in the centre of the country. These are questions of great importance; and although this may not be a fit opportunity for entering into them, there is one question which I think it would be well for
1530
the right hon. Gentleman to consider, and that is whether we ought not to have a Committee to inquire carefully into the question of what quantities of rifles and also of guns are necessary to be kept in store both for the Army and Navy. The same Committee might also consider what ought to be done in regard to our coaling stations, and lay before the House some Report as to the expenditure that may be necessary to afford the country some protection. There is one other point—namely, that we never know what stores we have in hand. I have always been anxious, and the Public Accounts Committee have constantly recommended, that the amount of stores should be known, so that anyone may be able to point to them and say whether they are up to the mark or not. Everybody ought to know what is required for the best interests of the country; but at present the public are kept in a state of complete ignorance. One Government, for its own convenience, reduces the stores, and then another Government has to spend large sums of money in order to place them in a proper condition; while, at the same time, the public receive no notice and have no idea of what has been done. I think this is a matter which deserves the serious attention of the Government.
THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. WOODALL): The hon. and gallant Member has asked a number of questions; but he has admitted that this is hardly the occasion on which we can enter at length into these matters. With regard to the new rifle which was sanctioned by the last Government, I am happy to say that its manufacture is proceeding satisfactorily, though prudently. Some thousands have been completed and experimented upon. In the meantime it has been found necessary not only to extend the factory at Enfield, but also to supersede a great deal of the old machinery by new. In regard to the quantity of Martini-Henri rifles in stock, it is quite true that the number is not so large as under ordinary circumstances would have been considered expedient; but still it is considered sufficiently large to meet all the possible requirements of the Service, especially having regard to the fact that in recent times the Volunteers have been armed with this weapon,

1531
and that the old Sniders have been called in. The factory which had been acquired at Birmingham is being adapted instead of the smaller establishment at Bagot Street for general testing and repairs, and also for the manufacture of pistols and carbines. The hon. and gallant Baronet may rest assured that satisfactory progress is being made in perfecting the defences of our coaling stations.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.): I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government whether any steps have been taken for the withdrawal of our troops from Egypt? As the Turkish Envoy was accompanied by his cocks and hens and harem, it may be inferred that he contemplates a pretty long stay; but I think it is very desirable that the Government should not go to the country with the sin of Egypt upon their heads, without giving any idea of the progress of the preparations for the withdrawal of our Army from the country. I am certainly disappointed at the failure of every attempt to obtain information from the Government, and it seems to me that the withdrawal is gradually becoming relegated to the dim and distant future. Some time ago, in a sort of apologetic strain, we were told that there was a hope of being able to withdraw in the next six months; but as time goes on that vista seems to be receding into distance. It is, therefore, most desirable that before the Parliament is dissolved we should know what is the result of the Conferences between Sir H. Drummond Wolff and Mukhtar Pasha. It certainly appears to me that these two distinguished individuals are spinning out their time without any result whatever. Sir H. Drummond Wolff has already intimated that he is not in a position to come to Portsmouth and contest the representation of that borough at the present moment, because his duties in Egypt will detain him for some time longer. Possibly he may be looking out for some other employment. Nor is Mukhtar Pasha in a hurry to depart from Egypt; and although a great many months have passed, and a great many Conferences have been held, nothing whatever appears to have come out of them. It appears to me that these two distinguished individuals have had ample opportunities for coming to an understanding if they desired to
1532
do so. The hon. and gallant Member for the Holborn Division of Finsbury (Colonel Duncan) has told the House that the Egyptians make good soldiers if properly handled, and the only question is whether the officers of the troops who are to relieve ours are to be Egyptians, or British, or Turks. Upon that simple question there does not appear to be the least approximation towards a decision. If that question were solved we might make greater progress towards a solution of the question. I am glad to learn that our troops are to be removed from that most detestable and useless place, Suakin; but I am sorry that the Native troops who are to be retained there are to be paid, not by the Egyptian Government, but by the British taxpayer. As far as we have yet heard from Her Majesty's Government, we are still to maintain some 9,000 troops in Egypt; but I am glad to find that none of them will be kept at Suakin, which is, I think, without exception, the very worst place in the world. Perhaps the Soudan is not quite so bad; at any rate, our troops have not suffered so much there from sickness, although it would appear, from private sources, recently corroborated by public despatches, that Assouan and Upper Egypt have been fatal to a good many of our troops. Of course, it is impossible to go into details upon all of these subjects under present circumstances; but I have considered it right to afford Her Majesty's Government some opportunity of saying whether anything is being done to secure the withdrawal of the troops from Assouan and other unhealthy places in which they are now retained in Egypt, and if steps are being taken to facilitate their entire withdrawal from that country.
COLONEL BLUNDELL: I am anxious to urge upon the Government that, although it is not desirable that our occupation of Egypt should be longer than is necessary, it would be a mistake to withdraw until the Khedive has a reliable force to maintain order and to keep the frontier of Egypt safe from the Arabs. Last year, when Dongola was evacuated, it is well known that the Egyptian troops were not reliable for the protection of the country. The hon. and gallant Member for the Holborn Division of Finsbury (Colonel Duncan) entertains a very high appreciation of the Egyptian troops.

1533
He appreciates them, and they appreciate him; but, nevertheless, the Egyptian troops are not generally supposed to be in the highest degree either reliable or efficient. At the same time, it would be a great error to withdraw altogether from the occupation of the country until Egypt herself can have a force there that is reliable. If we were to withdraw prematurely, we might have to return, because all the conditions which took us so very reluctantly to Egypt are still in force. Our General Officer in Egypt may be able to advise Her Majesty's Government as to the reliability of the Egyptian Army; but it is an undoubted fact that last year they were not regarded as reliable. In a former debate it was stated, with perfect truth, that it will be impossible for this country ever to return to the Cape route to India; because, after all, the Suez route is much the shortest, and we should not, therefore, like to see any other powerful country take our place in Egypt if we decided to leave it. I have no wish to see our occupation of Egypt made continuous; but it ought to be continued until the Khedive has a sufficient force at his command to maintain order in Egypt and to prevent any excuse for interference on the part of any other great country. To leave the country prematurely is just the one mistake which remains to be made by us. With regard to the question of the jamming of the cartridges in the Martini-Henry rifles of the Camel Corps, it is notorious that the jamming took place most extensively. As a matter of fact, about one cartridge in three jammed during the Egyptian Expedition. I should like to know what has been done in the matter, and whether any experiments are being made in regard to the magazine rifles; because it is quite plain that when any great Power adopts a magazine rifle the other great Powers will be compelled to follow suit. There is another point to which I desire to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War—namely, the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting as to the desirability of all officers and men who enter the Army being vaccinated. At present the Army suffers in consequence of bad characters enlisting; and it is said that to mark them with the letters "B.C." is branding them in a way to which the public object. Then
1534
what I would suggest is that the system of vaccination in the Army should be a special one, so that any bad characters, who have been discharged, should be discovered if they attempt to re-enlist. There was at one time a system of cross-cutting in the Army, by which it could always be told that men so marked had been in the Army. I believe we should save many thousands a-year to the country if this plan were brought into practice. Another question which I am anxious to bring under the notice of the Secretary of State is the fact that officers on retired pay are ineligible to hold Civil appointments without losing their retired pay, which bears hardly on some of the officers of the Purchase Army who have now retired. These officers paid high prices for their commissions, and have only received the average price of the commissions they held. I am anxious that the disability, as far as such officers are concerned, should be removed. It would affect the Estimates very slightly if at all, but would be a great boon to the officers themselves. The only other point I wish to bring before the Committee has reference to recruiting. Great improvements have been made in recent years in the Regulations for recruiting, and the only suggestion I would make is that the provisions in regard to re-entering the Service should be made even more elastic than they are. When a man has left the Service it very often happens that he is anxious to re-engage or re-enter. That is contrary to the Regulations; but the only objection is that they would become entitled to a pension. I would urge upon the Secretary of State that such men should be permitted to enter the Army again if they are fit in every other respect, and that they should be placed under an enforced system of stoppages to provide a fund when they leave which would replace the pensions to them. There are many such men idling about who are anxious to return to the Army, but who find themselves unable to do so. I think it is quite possible to make an arrangement by which the difficulty in regard to pensions would be met and by which the services of these men would be secured to the country. I am satisfied that it would be a great advantage to the Army if they were permitted to re-enter the ranks.
SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAM: I wish before this Vote is granted to protest against the system of reconstructing huts now going on at the so-called camps of Aldershot, the Curragh, and Shorncliffe. Without objecting to the Vote in the present year I wish to point out that these camps, being, as they are, mere barracks, and on the barrack establishment, are perfectly useless as regards the private soldier. He learns nothing of camp life in them—not the least in the world; and they are expensive to the nation, because they are built of wood. All officers will, I am sure, admit the great value of bringing together large bodies of troops during the summer for drill and manœuvre; but as regards the private soldiers and the junior officers, the assembling of large bodies of men is practically useless. The junior officer does nothing except receive the word of command from the senior officer, and the private soldier learns nothing beyond what he would learn equally well from ordinary drill. General and field officers may learn much; but the person who learns more than anybody else from these camps is the Commander-in-Chief, because he is soon able to find out the capacity of a general and field officer to handle troops. I do not say that a capacity to handle troops at Aldershot is a necessary guide to the capacity of an officer for handling them in actual war; but if an officer has not the capacity of handling troops at Aldershot or the Curragh, it is perfetly certain that he will be unable to handle them in the field. But in order to practise general officers it is not necessary to put the troops up in huts, or to keep them throughout the year in camp. No doubt, the bringing together of large bodies of troops for exercise for four or five months in the summer is useful, both as regards manœuvres and drill; but I deny that it is of any advantage in the winter, when there are no manœuvres and no drill. In the winter they would be much better and happier in barracks in their county towns, and there would be this further advantage, that recruiting would be facilitated. Instead of reconstructing wooden huts, I would suggest, and I should like to see, canvas camps in the summer months. In this country there might be two canvas camps; one at Aldershot in the South and the other at
1536
York in the North. There two lots of troops should undergo six weeks drill each, and then be comfortably housed in barracks. I cannot see that anything is gained by keeping the troops at Aldershot in the winter. I speak from experience, having been in command of a brigade at Aldershot for some years; but I honestly say that, in my opinion, the troops would have learned quite as much during winter as well as if they had been in their county barracks. In regard to general officers, I believe that six weeks would be an ample amount of practice, and would be time enough to enable the Commander-in-Chief to discover whether a man has capacity for handling troops in the field or not. The generals, no doubt, need practice; but six weeks' practice is quite enough. The same course should be followed in regard to the Curragh and Ireland generally. Then, as regards the soldier, when he is on the barrack establishment at Aldershot he learns nothing of camp life—nothing whatever. When he leaves Aldershot he knows nothing more of camp life than if he had been in barracks; whereas, if he had been in canvas touts, it would have been possible to reproduce active service and regular military life. I would endeavour to make these canvas camps of practical use for the instruction of the soldier, so that when he goes on foreign service he may not be asked to perform duties which he has never been called on to perform before. At Aldershot there is no practice in real camp life, no camp fires, and no oxen to be slaughtered, or flour to be baked in camp ovens. If regimental transport is granted I would place the Commissariat store 10 miles off, so that the men should become acquainted with transport duties, the driving of cattle, and many other useful services of which they are now ignorant. There is much knack acquired in camp life which is only learnt by actual practice. I will not, however, weary the Committee with details. I will only say that the old campaigner grows fat while the young soldier sickens and starves. In my opinion camps should be real camps, and in such camps should be practiced not only the art of manœuvring for generals, but all the duties of camp life, as they occur in actual war. As I have already said, I do not object to this Vote; but I would ask the Government

1537
not to go on, in succeeding years, aggravating the mistakes they have already made by reconstructing huts. I look upon the permanent barracks at Alder-shot as an evil, and I think it was a great mistake to build them. I would strongly press upon the Secretary of State for War the great advantage and economy and the increased efficiency which would result from making use of canvas tents, instead of huts, at Aldershot, for practice of camp life in summer.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I believe it is not usual to move Amendments, or to raise discussions, on Votes on Account; but as we are rapidly approaching the last days of the present Parliament, and as I shall not have another opportunity of calling attention to a matter which well deserves the attention of the Committee, I cannot help saying a few words upon it at the present time, because I feel that the attention of the public must be drawn to it sooner or later, and that it must be taken up with vigour. I refer to the great and growing expense of the Pension List of the Army. Hon. Members often declare that it is impossible, in Committee of Supply, to do anything in the direction of reducing the Army Estimates; but, if the occasion were fitting, I could show how it is quite possible to effect a very great reduction in the Army Estimates in this particular direction. The Government constantly tell us that attempts are being made to introduce real reforms into the Army, both in regard to the expenditure and to the general efficiency of the Service. This year I have procured a Return, which has not yet been printed, but a copy of which I hold in my hand. It illustrates the growth of the dead weight in a most striking manner. The Return shows that the increase in the number of officers of the higher ranks of the Establishment has been altogether out of proportion to the number of men borne upon the Establishment. I will ask the Committee to listen to one or two of these figures. I do not propose to enter into the subject at any great length; but I think these facts ought to be known, and I hope the new Parliament will take the matter up in earnest, and institute a searching inquiry. I propose to give the figures for the years 1870, 1880, and 1885, respectively. In 1870,
1538
the number of general officers on the Effective and Retired Lists was 332; in 1880, it had increased to 456; and it was 440 in 1885. In the same three years, the numbers of field officers on the Establishment were 1,698, 1,917, and 2,443, respectively. But the effective strength of the Army in those three periods did not greatly change, having been, in round numbers, 184,000 of all ranks in 1870; 191,000 in 1880; and 188,000 in 1885. Therefore, although the number of field officers increased from 1,698 in 1870 to 2,443 in 1885, the effective strength of the Army in the same period showed a very small increase indeed. It is evident that this crowding of the higher ranks and compulsory retirement after a short period of service has had an effect perfectly appalling upon the number of men borne upon the Pension List. I will now trouble the Committee with the figures which show the growth of the Pension List. In 1855, the total charge for pensions and gratuities on retirement was £504,000; in 1860, it was £544,000; in 1870, £567,000; in 1880, £1,011,000; and in 1885, £1,354,000. I would ask the Committee what we are likely to come to if this increase is to continue? The Army will be eaten up by dead weight. An hon. Baronet behind me procured a Return, in 1883, of the estimated cost of the sums paid to officers on retirement by the Army Purchase Commission, and I see that whereas in 1883 the total was £758,000, it was estimated that it would grow gradually up to the year 1902, when it would amount to £1,000,000. Well, it has grown with a vengeance, and it has already reached a far higher figure than what it was estimated to reach by the commencement of next century. Now, Sir, all Armies should have efficient officers, and not officers who are past their work; but what Army in the world could afford to pension off its officers at this rate? The German Army and the French Army are obliged to put up with what they have, and what they can afford to pay; and it is well known that in the great Continental Armies there is nothing like the system of pensions which prevails here. The enormous number of officers borne on the strength of the British Army, as compared with the Armies of other countries, seems to me to call for the attention of Parliament. A German

1539
battalion has one officer commanding to every company of 120 men, which is its war strength; a French battalion has one major commanding, eight captains, an adjutant captain and lieutenant; whereas a British battalion has two lieutenant colonels, four majors, four captains, and a full staff of lieutenants. Our system of promotion is perfectly absurd. Our field officers have little or nothing to do, and the second lieutenant colonel with the battalion at home has really nothing to do. In India, it is quite true that you ought to have four field officers to a battalion, but there is no necessity for six; and in the case of a battalion at home, there is much less. You promote them to a rank in which they have no duties to perform, and then you pension them, with the result of providing the country with a Pension List which is crowded to a fearful extent. In the end you have officers who are extremely disgusted with their services having been dispensed with at a time when they are at their very best. I do not know that I can add anything to the force of what I have already said. There are several ways in which the evil I have pointed out may be cured, but it is not for me to find a remedy. I think, however, that the Committee ought to ask Her Majesty's Government to provide a remedy, and in future to carry out regulations more in accordance with true economy, and with the efficiency and requirements of the Army.
SIR WILLIAM CROSSMAN: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War some questions relative to the items contained in Vote 13, as I observe that some large sums are inserted for new works. In the first place, there is a sum of £26,000 for Wynberg, at the Cape of Good Hope. Wynberg is doubtless a very pleasant place, but it is situated between St. Simon's Bay and Cape Town, and I should have thought that the former place, which I hope will be strongly fortified for a coaling station, would have been the proper place in which to build new barracks. I should also like to have some explanation as to the acquisition of land and the conversion of buildings at Hong Kong. No doubt, more accommodation is required for the troops; but I doubt very much, from my own experience, whether the buildings
1540
now existing in the Island could be so altered as to adapt them for the accommodation of European troops. With reference to the repair of the hospital ship Melville, I would ask my right hon. Friend what has been done with the sanitarium which it has been proposed to build on a site in the centre of the Island—a site which I myself certainly do not deem to be suitable for the purpose? I would also ask whether the new hospital at Malta will be placed on a site where it will not be exposed to fire in case of siege, as I think that ought to be taken into consideration as well as sanitary requirements? I should further like to have some information as to the proposed railway between the forts of Treganthe and Scraesdon, at Plymouth, because if it is only intended for communication between the two forts it cannot be wanted, seeing that the men could walk the distance—a mile and a-half—in almost the same time it would take to convey them by train. I regret that no provision has been made for the Royal Artillery at Portsmouth. The present barracks are a disgrace to the country. They are simply old storehouses which have been converted into barracks, and they are now tumbling down about the men's heads. I believe that putting men into such a place on first joining has had an injurious effect on recruiting. The state of these barracks has been reported over and over again. The Government have plenty of ground at Portsmouth on which new barracks could be built, and I trust that the matter will not be overlooked. It is very satisfactory to find that something is being done to provide submarine mines for not only the military ports, but the commercial ports and the coaling stations abroad; but I hope that means will also be taken for protecting the mines when laid down, as I am of opinion that submarine mines are of little use except they are protected by guns from a counter-mining attack. The necessary arrangements need not be of an expensive character, because machine guns under cover of existing forts, well covered from the seaward, would answer the purpose. I am glad to see that measures are being taken to put the coaling stations in a proper state of defence; but I think that the total sum mentioned for this purpose is much

1541
smaller than that originally estimated. I think that a great saving might be effected in Part 3 in Vote 13, if we were to establish companies of old soldiers of the Engineers on the same principle as the Coast Brigade of the Royal Artillery and the Coast companies of submarine Mining Engineers. These men could do all repairs and maintenance, and thus save the expense of contracts with tradesmen, and, in addition, openings would be afforded for commissions to be given to a most deserving and intelligent class of men—namely, the military foremen of works.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir William Crossman) in the details into which he has entered of a particular Vote, because, I think, it has been generally understood that the discussion of the details of these Estimates is to be reserved until they come up for consideration in connection with the regular Votes. But I think it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of one or two of the questions which have been referred to, especially the necessity of establishing and making adequate provision for the protection of coaling stations. I think there can be nothing more important than to provide for the defence of such stations, and that the works should be proceeded with as rapidly as possible, consistent with due economy and thorough efficiency. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Manchester (Sir James Fergusson) has done good service in calling attention to the compulsory retirements of officers at an early ago. The figures which my right hon. Friend referred to are, in themselves, very startling and serious. The system has been an expensive one, and has not fulfilled the expectations which were formed from the actuarial calculations. No greater service can be done to the Army than to institute a thorough and authorative inquiry into this portion of the administration of the Army. The attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has already been called to the subject, and I had hoped that it would have been possible for him to have placed before the House some proposal which would have dealt with the question, which is undoubtedly of very considerable im-
1542
portance to the taxpayers of the country, and also of serious importance to the Army itself. I believe there is no body of men more anxious that the question should be considered from an economical point of view than the officers of the Army. If my right hon. Friend is not able to frame for himself any scheme, or to make any proposal that will deal adequately with the matter. I trust that he will see his way to the appointment of some Committee or Commission to inquire thoroughly into the question, and completely review the conditions under which the present regulations take effect. I believe the time has come when an inquiry of that kind, conducted by a perfectly impartial tribunal, would be welcomed by all parties. It is felt that, in the present system, the burden of dead weight is excessive and vastly more than the actuarial calculations led the authorities originally to expect. I refrain from going into the details of any of these Votes. I believe a more fit time for doing so will be when we can discuss them in proper order; but I do not think it right when so important a question has been raised as that which has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Manchester, that it should be passed over altogether in silence.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I wish to call attention on this Vote to the immense number of men on deferred pay, and to ask whether this arrangement is necessary? If I may be allowed to say so, I think we have here also an opportunity of dealing with a matter which has been before the House of Commons quite recently. The sense of the House was taken on the subject of the Volunteer Forces, and I think I am right in saying that it was in the direction that, if possible, an increase should be made in the capitation grant. I suggest for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, whether he cannot now make the grant of £100,000 for the increase of capitation for the Volunteer Service.
MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I believe the Committee are entirely agreed that there is need for some reduction in the expenditure on the Army. I have not long been a Member of this House, but have sat here long enough to see that there is always going on a

1543
constant increase in the expenditure of the national funds. Therefore, I say that those who stand up for an economical use of the public purse should endeavour to prevent the continuance of this increase in the future. I hope the time is coming when some stop will be put to the extravagant expenditure in connection, with the Forces of the country. The people whom I and those who think with me represent do not think that they get anything like "value received" for the money spent on the Army and Navy. In view of the depression which exists in the country, and of which we hear so much from hon. Gentlemen opposite, I think that the present especially is no time for extravagance; and I hope that Her Majesty's Government, taking the circumstances into full consideration, and looking at the constantly increasing expenditure, will do all they can to check the extravagance which is certainly going on. The Pension List is one of the most unsatisfactory features of expenditure, and, sooner or later, it will have to be reduced. I may say that the sooner that is done the greater will be the satisfaction felt in the country.
COLONEL DUNCAN: I am glad that the question of the compulsory retirement of officers is occupying the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for War, and the right hon. Member for North-East Manchester (Sir James Fergusson). It is indeed a question the importance of which cannot be exaggerated. By making a change in the present system under which officers are forced out of the Army in the prime of life we shall consult the interests of the Service, and, at the same time save the money of the taxpayers; and I therefore strongly hope that we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that some measures are to be taken in this matter, and that a thorough and exhaustive inquiry will be made into this system with a view to its alteration, so that it shall in future exercise a less exhausting influence upon the national purse. With regard to the Egyptian occupation of Suakin and the withdrawal to Assouan, I rejoice that both these measures have been adopted; and I have observed that there has been no uncertainty or insecurity in Suakin since the garrison consisted only of Egyptian troops, but, on the other hand, a desire
1544
for friendly commerce has sprung up, and to-day we see, by the newspapers, that two markets have been opened. At Wady Halfa we see also that there is a great desire to re-open that commerce which was formerly the chief source of their means of living; and I remember when I was out there how much pain and loss the cessation of that commerce caused to the people of the district. Then, with regard to barracks, I heard at Portsmouth a complaint made as to the barrack accommodation, and found that there was an officer laid up with typhoid fever in consequence of the barrack arrangements. As the importance of having proper arrangements cannot be overrated, I sincerely hope that the defects will be remedied. And then, Sir, there is an inquiry I have to make to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether anything has been done with regard to the position of the quartermasters in the Army? The right hon. Gentleman has, I believe, met my wishes up to a certain point, and has mentioned that certain delays are necessary. I am impatient of the delays of permanent officials in this matter. The quartermasters are the men in the Army who have least power of defending themselves; they have risen from the ranks, and it is our duty specially to look after them; they cannot plead for themselves, and they are absolutely dumb here, while their conduct is only known to men like myself who have served long enough to know how deserving their conduct is. Sir, possessing that knowledge I renew my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to allow the case of these most deserving officers to be the subject of further delay.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I also rise to support the claims of the quartermasters, whose treatment by the Government I regard as simply disgraceful. I have been informed that they require quartermasters to retire one year before the regular time. There is one case in particular with which I am acquainted—that of Quartermaster Ramsden, which I think particularly deserves the attention of the Committee. That officer was in the country's service for 35 years; he obtained the good opinion of the officers under whom he served, and he has done valuable service to the country in the

1545
matter of recruiting. Well, Sir, the Regulation was passed, and he was compelled to retire a year before the time, the country being thereby deprived of the services of that valuable officer in the prime of life. He had served long enough to be entitled to two pensions, but he lost one of them; and what I ask is that he may be placed in the position in which he was before he was compelled to retire. The whole of the circumstances have been brought under the notice of the Secretary of State for War, who expressed his interest in the case, and promised to give it consideration. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will relieve the minds of the quartermasters, who have been compelled to retire, of the sense of the serious wrong which has been done them, and that we shall be informed, as soon as possible, as to the position in which, these officers will be placed as the result of the inquiry which I understand has been instituted.
SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAM: I condemn the enormous cost of pensions, and I equally condemn the grievance which compels the officers of the Army to retire. Now, Sir, I believe that both these grievances might be avoided. At present, an officer is compelled to retire at 40, unless he is a combatant field officer. I would abolish compulsory retirement, and allow an officer to remain in the Army as long as he liked, and fix the maximum pension to be earned at the age of 45; and I believe that if you did not give an increased pension, officers would leave of their own accord, and the grievance they have now would cease to exist, and you would, moreover, get rid of those officers whom you do not wish to retain. The men who loved their profession and had a good prospect of advancement would stay with the Army; but the idlers, married men, and others who do not care about the Service, would see that they had nothing to gain by remaining, and would voluntarily leave. I believe you would also save a large amount of money by adopting this course, and give satisfaction to the Service.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN) (, &c.): I am not often in disagreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Colonel Duncan); but, in the course of his observations, he has
1546
made one or two remarks with which I am unable to agree. In the first place, he said that the quartermasters of the Army were a class of men who were, so to speak, dumb, inasmuch as they could never make themselves heard in this House. Well, Sir, I have had a seat in this House for 18 years, and during 16 of those years I have been either connected with the Army Department, or watching closely Army debates, and I think I may say, without exaggeration, that there has hardly been a year in which the grievances of the quartermasters have not been fully and amply ventilated here. Then the hon. and gallant Member made the remark that he was impatient of the delays caused by the permanent officials of the War Department. Now, when any question affecting the relative position of the officers in the Service is brought up, it is absolutely necessary that it should be most carefully and seriously considered; and I have known many cases, similar to this of the quartermasters, where a settlement was supposed to be arrived at, and then, on further consideration, which caused, no doubt, distressing delay, it was discovered that the settlement would be most injurious to the interest of the Service itself. We hear of the rights of the officers in the Army; but there is always to be considered the interest of the taxpayers and of the country generally, and I greatly deprecate the tendency to agitate the House of Commons in the interest of any particular class of officers. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, there are one or two points in which the quartermasters have a plausible case. Their position was readjusted only two or three years ago, and since that time it has been shown that one or two things might be done for them which were not done at the time when the readjustment took place. I have gone into these matters, and I can promise my hon. and gallant Friend that no time has been unnecessarily lost in the matter, although to him it may seem otherwise. With regard to the great question of promotion and retirement brought forward by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-East Manchester (Sir James Fergusson), I am not one who would underrate the gravity of that question, and I observe, with regret, that the increase from year to year of the non-effective

1547
expenditure is something undoubtedly alarming. But let us go a little way into the history of the subject. As far as the men are concerned, the present great cost of pensions was foreseen at the time when short service was introduced; and, undoubtedly, we are now, and have been for a considerable period, in this unpleasant position—that we have a still growing charge for the original long service pensions, and at the game time the cost of the short service system. The two systems have overlapped, and we have to bear the cost of both of them; and until all the men have passed out of the Army who have claim for pensions for long service we must bear the expense. But as regards the officers, the increased expenditure arises, undoubtedly, in great part from the abolition of purchase. When purchase in the Army was abolished, an undertaking was given that the average standard of promotion then existing should be maintained. A Royal Commission was appointed to ascertain what steps should be taken in order to bring about the result; it was, I believe, presided over by Lord Penzance; it sat in 1873 or 1874, and it was that Commission which recommended the compulsory retirement of officers that has filled the clubs and the country with comparatively young officers, who are forced into idleness. I am not expressing any opinion whether or not this was a right step; but the opinion of the Commission was adopted by Lord Cranbrook, then Secretary of State for War. No material change was made in the Regulations until 1881, when my right hon. Friend, now Secretary of State for the Home Department, and then Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers), introduced a Warrant which altered the conditions of service and promotion; but it went almost entirely in the direction of modifying the rigidity of the previous system. Now, the result appears to have been that for one reason or other promoiton has been quicker than the standard rate, especially in the lower ranks. That may have been due to special circumstances; yet, having been so long acquainted with these matters, and knowing how delicate a machine the Army is, I am loth to come to any conclusion on that point. But there are one or two points on which there can be hardly two opinions, and if
1548
they can be modified in some way, I believe it would be to the advantage both of the Service and the country. One or two clauses in the existing Warrant appear to me to be capable of modification. I have been considering the subject, and although I am not at present able to announce any decision arrived at, I think I am justified in saying that I see my way to take certain steps which will have a material influence in reducing the dead weight which is felt, and, at the same time, be acceptable to the Army generally. The points I speak of are small; but I need hardly say that from small changes large results very often proceed. But we can only proceed upon such data as we know to be sound, and in order to treat the matter in that careful way, some time is required. I am, however, glad to be able to say to my hon. and gallant Friend who brings the subject forward that, at all events, it is not being neglected, and that if, by some fortunate course of circumstances, I find myself continuing in the Office which I now hold, I hope I may be able to do something in the direction indicated. The right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for War suggests an impartial and comprehensive inquiry into this matter. I am always afraid of Royal Commissions and large inquiries, because, although they are influenced by the best and most patriotic intentions, they are almost sure to land us in additional expense; and I have no hesitation in stating my opinion that a large inquiry in the present instance would have that effect. I think that there are those advising the Secretary of State for War who, by their long and intimate acquaintance with these questions, know what objects to aim at and what to avoid, and with their assistance I have no doubt that some modification of what is now complained of will be arrived at. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir William Crossman) called my attention to two items in Vote 19. I point out that this is only a Vote on Account, and, that being, so I am hardly in a position to go into details; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman shall have such explanation as I can give. He asked about the barracks at the Cape of Good Hope. With regard to the new barracks at Wynberg, I may say that the barracks at Cape Town were disgracefully

1549
old, and required a heavy outlay of money which would simply be wasted. It is intended to provide additional accommodation at Wynberg, which will admit of the Cape Town Barracks being vacated. Then, with regard to Hong Kong, the account I have to give is that, in order to concentrate the garrison, it is proposed to give up the buildings in use, and provide accommodation for the troops now there as well as additional accommodation for 100 men; and for this purpose it is proposed to purchase land at a cost of £40,000, and re-appropriate it to barracks at a cost of £15,000. With regard to the Artillery Barracks at Portsmouth, these are known to be in an unsanitary state, and to place them in a proper condition is one of the first things to be taken up when there are funds available. With regard to the coaling stations generally, I do not think I can add anything to the somewhat full statement made by my hon. Friend the Surveyor General and myself when the Estimates were introduced. On that occasion, we gave a clear account of the money to be expended during the year, and of the purposes for which it would be expended. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) spoke of the camp at Aldershot, and with a good deal of what he said I entirely agree. I believe a large question with regard to accommodation in barracks would have to be entered into, if the present arrangements were disturbed. Undoubtedly, the huts at Aldershot and elsewhere have been for a long time in an unsatisfactory condition; but the whole question involves serious expense and serious consideration, and it therefore stands over for the present. Now I come to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who initiated this discussion with a question on Egypt, and who complained of not being able to get any information. I can only say, if that is so, that he has departed from his usual habit of asking questions. I would point out also that he has gone away this evening without waiting for any reply. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will not be very well satisfied when he receives the answer. When he was speaking there were two Ministers in the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
1550
Affairs, who are well acquainted with the subject, and would have replied better than I can. We have done a great deal in the direction of getting away from Egypt; and we have been able with perfect safety, notwithstanding the opinions expressed, to withdraw the British troops as far as Assouan. I regret to say that Assouan is not in a satisfactory state of health. Of course, in a matter of this kind we rest ourselves upon the advice of the General Officer commanding on the spot. At all events, the process of withdrawing our troops from unhealthy positions, and reducing the number of British troops altogether, by substituting Egyptian troops, has been carried further than most people, I think, thought we should find possible. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Blundell) made some remarks on the question of recruiting, and suggested some means of marking recruits, in order to avoid fraudulent enlistment. That is a question we are very familar with, and I know there is a great deal to be said in favour of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman recommends; but I am a little suspicious and doubtful whether the public and the House of Commons are ready to accept any step of that kind. The question of re-entering men who have left the Army is one which I will consider from the point of view which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has urged. Of course, at present no man is entitled to a pension whose service has not been continuous; but if any means can be adopted, without detriment to the Service, of using the services of men who have retired from the Army, but who are anxious to serve again, we shall be glad to adopt them. I think I have noticed all the points which have been raised, and I have now only to express my regret if any hon. Member has been disappointed or put to inconvenience in consequence of these Votes having been put upon the Paper to-night. After all, we only take a Vote on Account. That appeared to us to be the most proper course in the circumstances, and I am sure the Committee will believe that there has been no intention to mislead any hon. Member.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I think it right to say that the Army have implicit confidence in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. They are fully persuaded that he will do

1551
everything that he believes to be fair, and just, and right towards both officers and men, and that he will not allow any remarks to be made which will prejudice his view in any way. In regard to the question of the retirement of officers, the question is indeed, as he has stated, a very great one; it is a very expensive one, and it is one which deserves most serious and careful consideration. I am certainly of opinion that if the Secretary of State for War will take the question at ones into his own consideration and carefully look at it in all its details, he may perhaps be better able to find out some way of dealing with it satisfactorily than the Committee would suggest. In all probability a Committee would recommend something on hard-and-fast lines which would not tend to economy or to the contentment of the officers of the Army. I have only one other remark to make, and that is in regard to what was stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Manchester (Sir James Fergusson). That right hon. Gentleman said we had too many officers in the Army. Now, I venture to say that, looking at the work of the officers of our Army, and looking at what our Army has to do all over the world and at the calls upon the officers, there are not even enough officers to do the work of the regiments. It must be borne in mind, too, that it takes very much longer time to train officers than to train the rank and file. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) will consider this matter as fairly as he can, and will do nothing in a hurry, he will be able to produce a scheme which will be both beneficial to the Army and to the country.
COLONEL BLUNDELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not said anything upon the question of the jamming of cartridges.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the Vote under which such a question might properly have been raised had been put down, I should have refreshed my memory. I may, however, say that it was not found, when the cases came to be examined, that the jamming was so serious and so extensive as it has been represented to be. The matter has been receiving the most careful attention, and steps have been taken to prevent any recurrence of the jamming.
GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I am sure it must be patent to everybody that the Army suffers very seriously by the Secretary of State for War changing with each Government. There have been many changes in this Office within the past year, and now there is every possibility of another change. The result is that the Army suffers very considerably in respect to organization. No sooner does a Minister learn his work and take the subject of reorganization in hand, than he is transferred to another Department, or the Government goes out of Office, and, as a consequence, the Army fails to be organized as it ought to be. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that the Army is in anything but an efficient condition. We require to have our Army Corps property organized; we want to have the supplies, especially in the case of the 1st Army Corps, with the regiments. When an Army Corps has to be equipped everything has to be done in a hurry-scurry, and, as a general rule, the work is not satisfactorily done. I proposed making more observations on the state of the Army, but it is useless at the present time; but, the bayonets having lately failed, and there having been an inquiry upon the subject, I should like to know from the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to have the bayonets which are in the possession of the Volunteers tested, so that we may know whether they are efficient or not, it having been found that those in possession of the Regular Army are not efficient.
MR. T. H. BOLTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) will recollect that on the 6th of March I asked him a Question with reference to the sums voted for the rewards for distinguished and meritorious services. The Question I then asked was whether the rewards for distinguished and meritorious service under the Royal Warrant of 1884 were reserved for officers above a certain rank, and, if so, on what ground that practice had been established? The right hon. Gentleman answered the Question by stating that officers of all ranks were eligible for the rewards, length of service naturally forming an important element in determining the claims, and that, consequently,

1553
rewards very often fell to officers in the higher ranks. If hon. Gentlemen will refer to the Estimates, they will see that the sum that is voted for distinguished services is apportioned amongst nine generals, 15 lieutenant generals of Cavalry and Infantry, five lieutenant generals of Royal Artillery, five lieutenant generals of Royal Engineers, 43 major generals of Cavalry and Infantry, five other major generals, four colonels, one colonel Royal Artillery, several lieutenant colonels and majors, but no officer, however long his service, of a lower grade, except riding masters, seems to have participated in these rewards. It so happens that there are officers who have risen from the ranks, and who have served for a considerable time, although they do not hold high position in the shape of rank. They do not seem to participate in this Vote, however distinguished their service may have been. This is particularly hard. I have a case in point. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the officer's name; but, possibly, it will not be desirable to do so, as I do not wish to make this in any sense a personal matter. In the case to which I refer, application was made to the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief for the distinguished service pension, and the answer was—
"I am directed by the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, recommending Lieutenant (mentioning the officer's name) of the battalion under your command, for the grant of good service pension, and in reply I have to acquaint you that it is not the practice to confer the rewards in question upon officers of his rank."
That was directed from the Horse Guards, and dated 19th January, 1886. Now, this officer had served in every grade that it is possible for an Infantry soldier to serve in. He had been in the Service for upwards of 20 years. For six years and eight months he had been adjutant of his regiment. He had had 20 years' foreign service, served in the New Zealand campaign in 1863–4–5, and in the Afghan campaign of 1878–9. He was in possession of the New Zealand and Afghanistan medals, and the medal for long service and good conduct, and the medal conferred on the most deserving soldier of each regiment serving in India at the time of the assumption of the title of Empress of India by Her
1554
Gracious Majesty. He was also specially mentioned in despatches for service in Afghanistan. Owing to ill-health, contracted in the Service, he was invalided home, and he was reluctantly obliged to accept retirement. Had his health permitted him to serve only 34 months longer, he would, in all probability, have been retired with the honorary rank of major. He lost £20 a-year for life through not being able to serve these few months. Now, I cannot conceive a more deserving case than this for the consideration of the Government, a case more entitled to participate in this benefit which Parliament intended for long and distinguished and meritorious service. This unfortunate officer has had to retire on a small income simply through ill-health. He is in very straightened circumstances, and it is quite clear one of these rewards would be of far more real advantage to him than to general officers, who are in receipt of comparatively large incomes, and others who are at the present time in receipt of full pay in connection with high appointments they at present hold. I maintain that in dealing with this fund the full intention of the Royal Warrant, which says nothing whatever about rank, should be carried out, and that the men who have risen from the ranks and obtained commissions should participate fairly in the money which is voted by Parliament for distinguished and meritorious services. Depend upon it, it is not calculated to create a good impression in the Army, if men find that this money voted for distinguished and meritorious services is allotted exclusively to officers above a certain grade. It is, in practice, although it may not be in theory, that officers above a certain grade, who are in receipt of large incomes, receive these rewards. I do not in the slightest degree wish this to be considered as a hostile complaint. I bring the subject forward for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, and I refer to this particular case in the hope that he will inquire into it, so that the unfortunate officer with reference to whom I speak here to-night, and others in a similar position, may participate in the advantages which I believe the country intended for all distinguished officers irrespective of rank.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will furnish me

1555
with the particulars of the case to which he refers, I will inquire into it.
Vote agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
(4.) £1,000, on Account, Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad.
(5.) £1,000, on Account, Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad.
(6.) £1,000, on Account, Marine Divisions.
(7.) £1,000, on Account, Naval Stores for Building and Repairing the Meet, &c.
(8.) £1,000, on Account, Machinery and Ships built by Contract, &c.
(9.) £1,000, on Account, Medicines and Medical Stores, &c.
(10.) £1,000, on Account, Martial Law, &c.
(11.) £1,000, on Account, Miscellaneous Services.
Resolutions to be reported upon Wednesday next.

RETURNING OFFICERS' CHARGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 188.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 12th May.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Payments to returning officers).
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.): In the absence of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Dr. M'Donald), I beg to move the Amendment which stands on the Paper in his name—namely, in page 1, line 24, after "notwithstanding," to add—
"It shall be his duty to furnish detailed statements of his actual outlays, and to produce vouchers for all disbursements exceeding five shillings in amount."
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 24, after the word "notwithstanding," to add the words "it shall be his duty to furnish detailed statements of his actual outlays, and to produce vouchers for all disbursements exceeding five shillings in amount."—(Sir George Campbell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER) (, &c.): I must object to add the words of my hon. Friend, because the case in question is provided for in Clause 7.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 (Liability of candidates).
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND, the following Amendment made:—
In page 2, line 1, leave out from "where" to "candidate," in line 4; and in line 7, leave out "with the candidate."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 (The accounts of a returning officer may be taxed).
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 6, leave out "the person to whom the account is transmitted," and insert "such candidate;" and in line 16, leave out from "apply to," to end of Clause, and insert—
"Make written application to the auditor of the court of session for a taxation of the account, and the auditor shall thereupon forth with proceed to tax the account, and to issue a deliverance thereon, power being hereby given to him, if he shall so desire, to refer any point or points to the judges appointed for the trial of election petitions of Scotland, under and in terms of 'The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868,' and 'The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1879,' and either party shall have power to appeal against the deliverance of the auditor by lodging a note of objections to the said deliverance within ten days after it has been so pronounced with the said judges appointed for the trial of election petitions, who shall forthwith hear parties and decide upon the deliverance and note of objections, and their judgment shall be final.
"It shall be competent for the auditor to receive evidence directed to prove that the work or furnishings in respect of which charges are made could have been efficiently performed or supplied at less cost than that charged in the account.
"The said judges shall have power to enforce judgment for the amount of charges found due to a returning officer as if such judgment were a judgment in an action in said court, and with or without expenses, at the discretion of the court.
"Where an application is made for the taxation of an account, the provisions of sub-section five of the twenty-ninth section of 'The Corrupt Practices Act, 1883,' shall not apply, and it shall not be necessary that the expenses of the said returning officer shall be paid within twenty-eight

1557
days from the day on which the election is declared."
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.): I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear)—namely, on page 3, line 26, at end, add—
"The auditor or the court shall be bound to receive evidence, if tendered, that the services in respect of which any charges are made could have been efficiently performed by other competent persons or in a different legal manner at a lower coat."
I do not see the hon. Member in his place; but he is a Member of great experience in these matters, and I should therefore like to move the Amendment in his name.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 26, at end, add—
"The auditor or the court shall be bound to receive evidence, if tendered, that the services in respect of which any charges are made could have been efficiently performed by other competent persons or in a different legal manner at a lower cost."—(Sir George Campbell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER) (, &c.)said, the Amendment was unnecessary. The hon. Member for East Fife was satisfied as to the matter raised by it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 (Notices to be given by returning officers).
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND, the following Amendments made:—
In page 3, line 36, after "elections," insert "and of sheriff court and municipal buildings, so far as practicable;" in same line, leave out "court," and insert "auditor;" and in line 37, leave out "his," and insert "returning officers."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 (Appointment of a deputy returning officer).
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 41, before "Schedule," insert "Third."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1.
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, leave out lines 8 and 9, and insert—"For publishing the notice of election and supplying the nomination papers. The actual outlay not exceeding £2 2s."—(Mr Solicitor General for Scotland.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.): I hope the hon. and learned Solicitor General will give us some information on this subject. I observe that the hon. Member for East Fife has an Amendment on the Paper to reduce this two guineas to one guinea.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER) (, &c.): That is so; but a Sub-Committee had sat and considered these matters, and the amount proposed had been put down to give effect to the arrangement which was effected.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Am I to understand that this Amendment has been put down since that of the hon. Member for East Fife appeared on the Paper?
MR. ASHER: Yes, Sir; it was only put down on the Paper last night to give effect to the arrangement which has been come to.
Question put, and negatived.
Question, "That the words proposed be there added," put, and agreed to.
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND, the following Amendments made:—In page 5, line 10, leave out "Scotland," and insert "the sheriffdom;" line 20, after "outlay," leave out—
"Not exceeding £7 7s. for each polling station," and insert "not exceeding £3 3s. for each polling station where the number of voters does not exceed 700, and £2 2s. for each additional compartment required for each additional 700 voters or fraction of that number;"
in line 20, after "buildings," and before "for constructing," insert "or;" in line 27, after "box," insert "not being the property of a public authority;" same line, before "2 6," insert "The actual outlay not exceeding;" leave out line 28, and insert "For stationery in each polling compartment the actual outlay not exceeding 2s. 6d.;" in line 29, leave out "1 10 0," and insert

1559
"The actual outlay not exceeding 1 0 0;" and in line 30, leave out "0 15 0," and insert "The actual outlay not exceeding 0 10 0."
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 31, after "officer," insert—
"At each polling station there shall be one presiding officer for the first 700 voters, and an additional presiding officer for each additional 700 voters or fraction of that number beyond the first 700."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHANCE: I do not wish to interfere; but practical experience tells me that if you have only one Returning Officer for each 700 voters, you run a great risk of breaking down towards the middle of the day, when the work gets severe. One is not enough for 700 voters.
MR. ESSLEMONT: The universal opinion in Scotland is that the time of the Returning Officer is not nearly fully occupied; and it is believed that there will be no difficulty in working out the provisions of this clause.
Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly, and agreed to.
Further Amendments made.
On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—
In page 7, leave outlines 18 and 19, and insert—
"For publishing the notice of election and supplying the nomination papers, the actual outlay not exceeding £2 2s.;"
line 23, leave out "Scotland," and insert "the sheriffdom;" line 24, after "outlay," leave out—
"Not exceeding £7 7s." to "used," and insert "not exceeding £3 3s. for each polling station where the number of voters does not exceed 700, and £2 2s. for each additional compartment required for each additional 700 voters or fraction of that number;"
line 20, after "buildings," and before "constructing," insert "or;" line 35, after "compartments," add "where the number of voters does not exceed 1,400;" line 36, leave out "such," and insert "each;" in page 8, line 4, after "box," insert "not being the property of a public authority; line 4, before "0 2 6," insert "The actual outlay not exceeding;" leave out line 6, and insert "For stationery in
1560
each polling compartment, the actual outlay not exceeding "0 5 0;" line 6, leave out "0 10 0," and insert "The actual outlay not exceeding "1 0 0;" line 10, leave out "0 15 0," and insert "the actual outlay not exceeding 0 10 0;" line 11, before "0 1 0," insert "the actual outlay not exceeding;" line 11, after "0 1 0," add—
"For preparing and publishing notice of sub-agents, for each candidate the actual outlay not exceeding £1 1s., and 10 s. for each sub-agent named in addition to the first;"
line 12, after "officer," add—
"At each polling station there shall be one presiding officer for the first 700 voters, and an additional presiding officer for each additional 700 voters or fraction of that number beyond the first 700;"
line 14, leave out "at each polling station," and insert "to each presiding officer;" line 16, leave out "500," twice, and insert "700," in each place; leave out line 18; line 20, leave out "eight," and insert "six;" line 21, leave out "4,000," and insert "3,000;" line 21, leave out "1,000," and insert "2,000;" line 23, before "1 1 0," insert "the actual outlay not exceeding;" line 25, leave out "£20," and insert "£10;" line 27, leave out "1,000," and insert "2,000;" line 30, leave out from "£25," to "sums" inline 41, and insert—
"£20, and an additional £1 for every 1,000 registered electors or fraction thereof above 6,000. In an uncontested election one-half of the above sums;"
line 42, after "0 1 0," insert "no travelling expenses to be allowed beyond the limits of the sheriffdom;" in page 9, line 1, leave out "services and expenses in relation to receiving and."
Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 7, leave out "£2 2s.," and insert "the actual outlay not exceeding £4 4s."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Question proposed, "That '£2 2s.' remain part of the Schedule."
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: All the changes hitherto have been in the nature of a reduction; but I observe here an increase—a rise from two guineas to four guineas. I should like to know if that is necessary.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER): The explanation is this—that in every other case

1561
the publication has been by notice posted up; but in this case provision is made for giving the notice in the newspapers. The matter has been inquired into, and it has been found that it is impossible to fulfil this statutory duty for less than £4 4s.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: What has been the amount allowed hitherto? Has it been £4 4s.?
MR. CHANCE: The amount in both England and Ireland is £2 2s. The fact is, the more money you spend on these matters the higher the charges become. It is usual to give 1s. a-line—the charge is made, and the candidates are afraid to refuse. There is no reason why the charge should be more than 4d. or 6d. a-line, like other advertisements. This is simply an inducement to the papers to raise their prices at Election time.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER): We have inquired into this matter, and the result of that inquiry has been to show that the statutory requirements cannot be complied with. There is no means of compelling the newspapers to publish these things at less than their customary charges.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I give Her Majesty's Government credit for a general desire to reduce these charges. It is a fact that in England and Ireland this charge is limited to £2 2s., and I do not see why in Scotland we should pay more than that amount. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chance) is generally pretty correct in these matters.
MR. CHANCE: It is not two guineas in every case in Ireland. It is two in the counties of England and Ireland, and only one in the Irish boroughs.
MR. ESSLEMONT: It seems to be a statutory obligation to publish in two newspapers. The remedy, undoubtedly, would be to alter the Schedule, so that this would not be a statutory obligation. The difficulty that occurred to us was that it was laid on the Returning Officer to make the publication, and there was no way of compelling the newspapers to fix their charges, so that the Returning Officer would not suffer personal loss. The remedy for this state of things would be to provide that it should not be obligatory on the Returning Officer to publish in the newspapers. In that
1562
case, he would publish in some other way, so long as the newspapers refused to accept the amount he was prepared to give them. Although our desire was to be economical, we wish to avoid placing on the Returning Officer a statutable obligation which he could not perform without personal loss.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Could not this be altered before the Bill is passed?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER): At present, there is no statutory scale regulating these charges. The amount of them is entirely left to the discretion of the Returning Officer, so that this would be imposing on him a restraint for the first time.
MR. CHANCE: I am very much astonished that it has been discovered that two guineas is not enough for Scotland, and that four is necessary. In 1874, before the Act of 1875, which deals with England and Ireland was passed, a Select Committee sat and examined a number of Sheriffs, Sub-Sheriffs, Town Clerks, and other witnesses on the question, and the result was that a sort of contract was made with these gentlemen, and two guineas were agreed upon in the case of counties and one in the case of boroughs. No complaint has been made as to the sufficiency of these sums; therefore, it appears to me unreasonable to fix the amount at four guineas.
Question, "That '£2 2s.' remain part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
Question, "That '£4 4s.' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were made:—In First Schedule, page 9, line 6, leave out "and an additional £1 for every 1,000 electors or fraction thereof above 1,000;" in page 10, line 10, leave out from "400," to end of Schedule, and insert—

275

200

Where the registered electors exceed 4,000 but do not exceed 7,000

430

250

Where the registered electors exceed 7,000 but do not exceed 10,000

550

300

Where the registered electors exceed 10,000 but do not exceed 15,000

700

450

Where the registered electors exceed 15,000 but do not exceed 20,000

800

500

Where the registered electors exceed 20,000 but do not exceed 30,000

900

600

Where the registered electors exceed 30,000 but do not exceed 40,000

1,000

700

Schedule 2.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to move, in the Second Schedule, to strike out lines 7, 8, and 9 on page 10. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that this raises the question discussed last night as to the Irish and English Schedule. As this important alteration was made in the measure affecting England and Ireland, it seems to me that it ought also to be made here, so that there may be no difference in the matter between England, Scotland, and Ireland. I have no doubt that candidates in Scotland will be found equally as reliable as candidates in England and Ireland, and there is no reason why the securities in Scotland should be fixed at a higher rate than they are in the other countries. There is one exception to be made in the application of this Amendment—the case of Dundee. That is the one double constituency in regard to which a higher rate should be fixed; but, in every other case, the rates should, I think, be made the same as those for England and Ireland.
Amendment proposed, in page 10, to leave out lines 7, 8, and 9.—(Mr. Esslemont.)
Question proposed, "That the lines proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER): The figures which are stated in this Schedule were adjusted at a meeting of Scotch Members; accordingly, I thought it my duty to make the Motion that this Schedule should form part of the Bill. But I am aware of the result of the discussion last night, when it was the unanimous opinion of the House that the amount of security the Returning Officer should be allowed to exact should be a very much smaller sum than that agreed upon by the Scotch Members; and I think the proper course to take now would be to omit this Schedule altogether, or not to proceed with this Amendment, on the understanding that we should bring up words on Report that will give effect in the Scotch Act to precisely the same principle adopted in the English and Irish Acts.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw the Amendment?
MR. ESSLEMONT: Yes, I withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—In page 10, leave out Note to Second Schedule, and add—

Third Schedule.

£

s.

d.

(1.) At a contested election. For every thousand or part of a thousand electors in the constituency

1

10

0

(2.) At an uncontested election. For every thousand or part of a thousand electors

0

10

0

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed, [Bill 281.]

CONVEYANCING ACTS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Advocate, The Solicitor General for Scotland.)

[BILL 251.] THIRD READING.
Order for Third Reading read.
MR. JOHN WILSON: I have received a telegram from Heriot's Hospital, to the effect that their interests would be injuriously affected by this Bill. I will not go into the particulars of the matter just now, but merely mention it, so that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Scotland may enter into communication with the Governors of the Hospital, with a view to finding out whether anything can be done to meet their objection.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER) (, &c.): The Hospital the hon. Member refers to undoubtedly has large interests as Superiors; but this Bill has been examined by a Committee of the Society of Writers to the Signet in Edinburgh, who act largely for Superiors, and they have expressed their approval of it.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

POOR LAW BOARDS AND RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 252.]
(The lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 10th June.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Power to parochial boards to borrow on the security of the assessments, and mode of exercising power).
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.): I should like to have an explanation of the clause?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER) (, &c.): Its object is to enable Local Boards to borrow money when necessary for purposes of the Poor Law, though they may be in debt at the time. At present, it is not possible for them to borrow until their loans are paid off.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Chargeability of child born in a poor-house).
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 22, after "situated," add—"Provided, That no parish or combination shall be liable to be rated for relief of the poor in respect of their interest in any poor house or lunatic ward situated in another parish."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clause and Schedule separately agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next.

PETERHEAD HARBOUR OF REFUGE (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 266.]
(Mr. Duff, Mr. Hibbert, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)

COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 21 (Reports to be laid before Parliament).
On the Motion of Mr. DUFF, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 8, before the word "charges," insert the words "said compensation and;" and in the same line, after "charges," add "out of moneys to be provided by Parliament."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERTES (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 244.]
(Mr. Mundella, Mr. Acland.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"—(Mr. Acland,)—put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 6 (Reports to be laid before Parliament).
CAPTAIN PRICE: As the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck) is not in his place, I propose to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Baronet, which, owing to his great knowledge of the subject, I have no doubt is of importance.
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND): I am afraid that the Board of Trade are not prepared to undertake annually to lay before Parliament the information asked for in this Amendment. They are quite prepared to issue a Report annually; but I must point out that the details asked for in the Amendment, of which Notice has been given, could not possibly be obtained in anything like the complete form which would make them of value, because we cannot expect to get from the owners of private fisheries such Returns of the weights and value of fish as would represent the value of such fisheries, and would, therefore, affect their rental; and as it would be impossible to get these Returns, the Report in the form asked for by the hon. Member for East Norfolk would be useless, because it would not be complete. On the other hand, the Board of Trade fully recognizes the necessity of full Reports with reference to the produce of fisheries. I hope the Bill will be allowed to pass without any difficulty, because it is the first step towards the fulfilment of a promise given earlier in the Session to consolidate the work which is now divided

1567
between the Board of Trade and the Home Office. We feel that it is impossible to make any progress with the administration of fisheries until we can get the transfer of administration proposed in this Bill effected. The present Home Secretary is not in his place; but I know that he will fully support the views I express, and which are not arrived at without careful and constant consultation with the Inspectors of Salmon Fisheries, and I have reason to believe that the only objection found to the Bill was on account of the one point which I have removed from it. Under the circumstances, perhaps, my hon. and gallant Friend will not proceed with the Amendment.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
MR. C. T. D. ACLAND: I hope I shall not be asking too much in expressing a hope that the House will now consent to the third reading of the Bill.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: In the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck), I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to take the third reading this evening.
Bill to be read the third time upon Wednesday next.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 259.]
(Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. John Morley.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
MR. BIGGAR: Sir, I think it is rather strange that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury should be moving the second reading of this Bill. I have read the Bill, and I understand that it is for the purpose of enabling the Government in Ireland to prefer their claims against public Companies—to take payment from the ordinary shares of the Companies. Now, I think that if the Government have a first charge against any public undertaking, railway, or other public Company, they should not certainly take
1568
security for it of the worst class. I think I am not wrong in stating that no railway shares in Ireland are at par. The Government railway shares are nominally at par, but in reality they are very much below it; and in the case of one Company the shares are taken up at very much less than the original price, and no dividend has been paid for many years. What the Government are doing is to transfer their mortgage claims, and take ordinary shares, and that I think is a mistake. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury may be able to furnish an explanation which will satisfy me that I ought not to object to the Bill; but certainly it seems to me that the measure is one to which no Chancellor of the Exchequer or Secretary to the Treasury could for one moment agree, or to which any careful House of Commons would accede. The probability is that the Treasury would find themselves in possession of securities which have no intrinsic value in exchange for their first charge, and that, Sir, is a transaction with which I would recommend the Government to have nothing to do.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Biggar).
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I fully agree with the hon. Member for West Cavan that there is no worse way of lending money than on the security which he describes. But that is not the intention of the Bill, which is to set at rest some doubts which have arisen as to the position of these claims on the Tramway Companies in Ireland with regard to dividends. I hope my explanation will satisfy the hon. Gentleman that he can with safety withdraw his Amendment opposing the second reading of the Bill.
MR. BIGGAR: After what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed, for Wednesday next.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(Mr. Mundella, Mr. Acland.)

[BILL 274.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. C. T. D. Acland.)
MR. EDWARD CLARKE: Sir, I certainly expected that some explanation would have been given of the Bill, the second reading of which has just been moved; and I think that perhaps, under the circumstances, it will be better to move as an Amendment, that it be read this day three months. But, Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill which was only introduced last night, and ordered to be printed yesterday. It is a Bill which makes great alterations in the provisions of the Act of 1883, relating to fishing vessels. Now, Sir, I have had some experience of the very unfortunate results which follow regulations made without due notice to this House. The Bill of 1883 passed through both Houses of Parliament in the same manner as it is proposed to pass this Bill. It was printed on the very day that it came to the House of Lords for second reading; then it came down to this House; it was printed on the day of second reading here; great inconvenience resulted; it was passed in the absence of any discussion on the part of those who were interested in the subject. There was an Amendment on the Paper to exclude fishing boats from that Act which was not properly considered; and what happens? The 3rd clause of the Bill now proposed is to give power to exempt fishing boats from the operation of the Act, which was passed in the manner I have described. Sir, I represent a constituency very considerably interested in this matter, and I distinctly object to the second reading of the Bill being taken to-night. There has been no time whatever for the consideration of the proposal, and I do not think there is any reason whatever why the Bill should be pressed upon the House at this time, when there can be no serious discussion of its provisions.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the
1570
Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. E. Clarke.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND): Sir, the only reason why I did not enter into any explanation of the Bill was, because I considered it undesirable to take up any portion of the time of the House. I will state shortly why the Bill is in its present shape. The Department considered which clauses were likely to give rise to opposition, and they concluded that whatever opposition there might be would be in respect of clauses dealing with other matters than fishing boats, which subject it was thought would give rise to no opposition whatever. The Bill is intended to put the masters and men of small fishing boats in the same position as seamen under the Act passed two or three years ago, an Act which has been found to work well; and I find, after consultation with the trade, both skippers and seamen, that the Bill has the unanimous consent of every class. [Mr. E. CLARKE dissented.] The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head; but I can assure him that the statement is correct; and, for that reason, I ask that the second reading may be taken now. I should have brought the Bill in at an earlier date, but for the delay which has taken place in getting the answers of the various classes interested, some of which have only been three or four days in my possession. We were then satisfied that there would be no opposition. I, however, quite agree that it is only reasonable that the Bill should be well considered by the House, and I am prepared to assent willingly to the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. C. T. D. Acland,)—put, and agreed to.
Debate adjourned till Wednesday next.

CUSTOMS BILL.— [BILL 276.]
(Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second

1571
time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.): Sir, I confess that I see very little use in opposing this Bill; but I am bound to say that I do not like it. I was two or three years ago opposed to the principle of the Bill, and I repeat now what I then said—that the Bill proposes to tax the alcohol of the middle classes at a very much lower rate than the alcohol of the lower classes—that is to say, that the port and sherry consumed by the former will be taxed at 1s. a gallon, which is equal to 3s. a gallon at proof strength, as compared with 10 s. a gallon charged in the case of whisky, which is the drink of the latter. Now, Sir, it seems to me that this state of things is wholly indefensible, and I believe that if the proposal stood alone it would not receive the assent of the House; but we know that it is put forward as an Economic Bill, and we are asked to pass it because it is connected with another matter—namely, the admission of our goods into Spain. However, as I have said, it is of no use to oppose the Bill; and, therefore, I will do no more on this occasion than protest against it.
MR. GREGORY: I wish to refer, on this occasion, to an Amendment which I proposed to move when the last Financial Bill was in Committee a few weeks ago, in relation to the right of the Crown to proceed against trustees and other persons for an indefinite period for duty on property—in fact, an indefinite claim which can be made at any period, at any time, and under any circumstances. I believe I am right in saying that when I introduced the subject in March last, it was received in a manner which afforded a prospect of success to my proposals, and I was invited by the Prime Minister to put them into the shape of clauses for consideration. I did so, and they were favourably received by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), and I am bound to thank my hon. Friend for the manner in which he then treated my proposals, and for the spirit in which I believe he is prepared to meet them. I was in hope that he would have been able to have included them in the present Bill; but I feel that there may have been difficulties in his way, owing to the
1572
early Dissolution of Parliament and other circumstances of the time. I think I may understand that my hon. Friend is not indisposed to deal with the question, if he is in Office, during the Autumn Session; and, even if he be not then in Office, I think I am justified in believing that my proposals will meet with his support. As I do not intend to seek re-election, I regard this as the last occasion on which I shall have an opportunity of making reference to this Motion—["No, no!"]—which I commend to the good intentions and good offices of my hon. Friend, and also to those of other hon. Gentlemen as well worthy of their consideration, whether in this or in a future Parliament.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)I am sure the House will have heard with very great regret that it is not the intention of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) to seek re-election to the next Parliament. Both sides of the House will equally regret the absence of my hon. Friend from the deliberations of the House. The moderation and impartiality with which he has always discussed every subject, and the mature knowledge he has brought to bear upon the matters with which he has dealt, have caused him to be regarded with the utmost respect by every Member of the House. I hope he will reconsider his decision to retire from active Parliamentary life. The House is very much indebted to him for the observations he has just made. The principles he has laid down are practically agreed to by the Treasury; and I am quite sure that those principles, putting aside small questions of detail, will prevail, whichever Party may have charge of the Treasury. Therefore, my hon. Friend may be quite certain that his policy will survive him.
MR. BUCHANAN: There is a clause in the Bill to enable Her Majesty to issue a Proclamation prohibiting the importation into this country of certain foreign coins, such as French two sou pieces. I think we ought to have some statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt), or the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), as to the necessity for this provision. If any great loss is sustained by the importation of foreign coins, then possibly the Treasury

1573
are justified in introducing this provision in the Bill; but, unless some substantial object is to be gained, it appears to me to be hardly worth while doing so.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My attention was called to this matter, and I caused inquiries to be made. Of course, it would be immaterial if only a small amount of foreign bronze coin were imported; but, upon inquiry, it was found that this coin is imported in very largo quantities indeed. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buchanan) does not seem to appreciate the great injury done to people, especially the working classes, in having coin passed to them which anyone may legally refuse. For the protection of the poor it is absolutely necessary that these measures should be taken.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed for Wednesday next."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I should like to know what Business the Government propose to take on Wednesday, because they have put down a large number of Bills for that day? Do they intend to move the suspension of the Standing Order which necessitates the adjournment of the House at 6 o'clock?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The Government will put all the financial Business first, and there will only be a very few Bills taken afterwards. We do not propose to move the suspension of the Standing Order referred to by the hon. Baronet.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill committed for Wednesday next.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE (EXTRAORDINARY) REDEMPTION (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 264.]
(Mr. T. H. Bolton, Mr. Thorold Rogert, Mr. Borlase, Sir John Lubbock.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 10th June.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Limitation of extraordinary charge).
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Mr. Courtney—Sir, I
1574
beg to move that you do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I do so on the ground that this Bill only came to the hands of Members a very few hours ago. It was not sent round this morning, and I do not suppose there are more than three or four Members of the House who have a copy in their hands. There are also a large number of—no less than 35—Amendments on the Paper, and each one of them is out of Order, because they were put down according to the numbering and paging of the clauses of the Bill as it was, not as it is now. If we proceed with the consideration of the Bill now, the Amendments will have to be put in a form different to that in which they appear on the Paper. I am quite prepared to go on with my Amendments; but I have a strong objection to do so, for I believe it will take two, or three, or even four, hours to get through the Amendments. I trust we shall not be asked to proceed with a Bill of this character at this time of the night (11.25). The Bill has been carried through a Select Committee; but the Report of that Committee has not been made to the House. The consequence is that we are entirely in the dark as to what that Committee has reported. We only have the Bill; and even that the persons who are chiefly interested in it—namely, the tithe-owners—have not had an opportunity of seeing. The titheowners are very deeply interested in this measure, because, even upon the lowest calculation, it will take away 40 per cent of their incomes. According to other calculations it will take away 60 per cent. and on the calculation which I make it will deprive them of as much as 90 per-cent of their income. It is a very serious matter for the titheowners to be deprived of £90 in every £100 of their income, and that, too, behind their backs, without their having had an opportunity of seeing the Bill, and making representations regarding it to their Members in the House of Commons. This is really a very drastic measure, and I consider it to be wholly unjustifiable for the House of Commons to rush it through, just before a General Election. Only this evening I have received a letter from the Secretary to the Parliamentary Committee of the Diocesan Conference of Rochester, in which the writer said that the persons

1575
in whose name he wrote had been awaiting the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the Bill. I have also received several communications on the matter from persons interested, and I am frequently asked when the Report of the Select Committee is to be presented, so that the parties affected may have it before them and be able to make suggestions as to any Amendments which they may consider necessary, in order to make the Bill a just and workable measure. They say they have been anxiously watching for the Report, but they have never got it yet; and, as far as I can see, they are not likely to get it, if the Bill is rushed through the House in the hasty manner now proposed. Moreover, the Members of the Select Committee of which I was a Member are by no means agreed as to the effect of the clauses of the Bill; they did not call a single witness, nor ask for the aid of a single expert; and one hon. Gentleman who was also on the Committee (Mr. Gregory), whom the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) has so happily eulogized to-night, told us the other day that we had better get a legal opinion upon the Bill, because he was not able to say what it amounted to. There is the utmost difference of opinion amongst the Members of the Committee as to the effect of the Bill. If that is so, is it not advisable that some delay should be allowed, so that the parties interested may have an opportunity of seeing the Report of the Committee, and of offering their opinions and suggestions thereon? For these reasons I hope the Committee will postpone the further consideration of the Bill, and that we shall be able to carry it through on some other occasion and under much better auspices.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sitagain."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) that he should agree to postpone this Bill till Thursday. The argument the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Leighton) has used—namely, that
1576
there should be time afforded for the people interested to see the Bill, is a reasonable one. If my hon. Friend agrees to adjourn the further consideration of the Bill till Thursday he may, as I hope he will, still get the Bill through.
MR. T. H. BOLTON: I accept the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time, I wish the Committee to understand, that I do not at all admit the accuracy of the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Leighton) who made the Motion to report Progress. With reference to the alleged irregularity of the Amendments on the Paper, if he will compare the Amendments with the revised Bill in the hands of Members he will find that the Amendments which stand in my name are not irregular. The Amendments which stand in his name, I admit, are irregular, inasmuch as they do refer correctly to the lines in the printed copy of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the proceedings of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman himself was a Member of the Committee. He did not call any witnesses. It is true there was a difference of opinion; but it existed between the hon. Gentleman himself and the rest of the Committee. I believe that describes the position the hon. Gentleman occupied in a former Committee which dealt with this question; he was in the singular minority of one. The whole question was fully considered by a Select Committee of the House, presided over by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Inderwick) who represented Eye in the last Parliament. That Committee took evidence and went very fully into the question. The Select Committee, which was presided over by the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Mellor), considered that there was such an exhaustive inquiry by the former Committee that it would be quite safe.
THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): The hon. Gentleman is departing from the Question to report Progress.
MR. GATHORNE-HARDY: I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. H. Bolton) has accepted the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think if the right hon. Gentleman had known the state of the case he would hardly have

1577
made it. Practically speaking, the Committee were unanimous in approving of this Bill. There were, no doubt, certain differences of opinion, and this Bill is really a compromise between the two sides on the question. The Amendments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Stanley Leighton) are out of Order, because they are Amendments which would carry out his views; and those views are totally incompatible with the Bill, and, indeed, have no bearing upon it. The other Amendments on the Paper might be passed with the greatest possible ease. The hon. Gentleman says we ought to take legal opinion as to the effect of the Bill. The reason why the great majority of the Amendments are being moved is that the Land Commissioners who have to carry the Bill out have suggested that these Amendments should be made in order to make the Bill work more smoothly. The Amendments are purely verbal, and their consideration would not occupy any appreciable length of time. The Members for the county of Kent are most anxious that this question should be set at rest. We believe this is a Bill which would set it at rest, and we shall be very disappointed if it is not passed through in the course of the present Session.
MR. GREGORY: I was not only a Member of the Committee to which this Bill was referred, but a Member of the Committee which sat under the Presidency of Mr. Inderwick some years ago. The tithe question is one of considerable interest in the constituency I have the honour to represent, and I have given some attention to it.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Question of reporting Progress.
MR. GREGORY: I was coming to that most distinctly. I was about to say that I, as a legal Member of the Committee, felt considerable difficulty in settling the details of the Bill. It is a matter of a complex character; it is not easy to convert an extraordinary tithe, or to provide for its recovery. What I suggest is that the Bill should be referred to some acknowledged authority—to some gentleman who is thoroughly conversant with the details of the tithe question. Let such a gentleman examine the Bill and see whether
1578
it is workable. Between this and Thursday the examination I suggest might be made. I should not like this House to send out a bad piece of workmanship; and, therefore, I trust the Government will adopt some such course as I have suggested.
MR. T. H. BOLTON: I do not think it can be said that the right hon. Gentleman who presided over the Committee is unskilled, or unfitted to deal with a Bill of this kind. Other Members of the Committee had some practical experience of the subject of the Bill. The Bill is a practical measure to deal with a very difficult subject. It deals with the subject to the satisfaction, I believe, of a large number, if not the principal portion, of the people interested——
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
MR. T. H. BOLTON: I will not persevere in my remarks.
MR. J. G. TALBOT: I cannot help thinking that the course suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire (Mr. Leighton) is the right one under the circum stances. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Med way Division of Kent (Mr. Gathorne-Hardy) that a great deal of trouble has been taken with this matter; that the Committee has gone into it very thoroughly; and that we owe the Committee a debt of gratitude for the labours they have be stowed upon the question. But we are in this remarkable position—we are asked to deal with a Bill which has only just been printed, and which, speaking broadly, has not yet been delivered. The Bill is in my hands; but it is not in the hands of Members outside the House, and it is not in the hands of those people who are affected by it. If ever there was a case for adjourning the discussion, this surely is the case. The only argument against the adjournment is——[Cries of "Agreed!"] Yes; I know some are agreed; but Members like my hon. Friend (Mr. Gathorne-Hardy)—
MR. GATHORNE-HARDY: I do not oppose the adjournment at all. I said I regretted that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. H. Bolton) had accepted the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 241.]
(Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Chance.)

FURTHER PROCEEDING ON CONSIDERATION.
Bill, as amended, further considered.
New Schedule.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question, "That this Schedule be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chance.)
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: It seems to me that the House does not understand the position it is in with regard to this Schedule. I think that when the matter comes to be examined, it will be found that there are certain charges in the Schedule to the Act of 1875 which might well be subject to revision, and that the hon. Member who is responsible for the Schedule is justified in thinking that some reductions might be made. But I confess that, so far as England is concerned, I have very great difficulty in dealing with the matter at all. I hardly need remind the House that the original Schedule formed part of an Irish Bill; that it was subsequently made part of another Bill, and extended to England. I find that in dealing with these charges in reference to England we shall find considerable difficulty. Some of the charges formed the subject of a Bill last year. That Bill was passed after communication with a great number of Returning Officers, and it was passed with the assent of both sides of the House. There may be cause for some of the reductions which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chance) proposes; but we are without information with regard to the amount of the charges, so far as England is concerned. I speak, of course, for myself. I myself am not in a position to form an opinion as to whether the reductions are fair and proper. The House is placed in considerable difficulty, because this Schedule has only been extended to England within the last few days. We have no information upon which we can deal with the matter. No doubt, so far as Ireland is concerned, the hon. Member may be in a position to give us some accurate information; but I feel great difficulty
1580
in allowing this Schedule to be read a second time if it is to stand as now extended to England. There are a great many objections to the Schedule, and if it is read a second time it will be necessary to move a great many Amendments to it before it can be passed.
MR. T. M. HEALY: We were bound to make this Bill apply to England; because, if ever we move a Bill on a Wednesday afternoon, we are met with this taunt—"Why do you not propose equal legislation for the whole Kingdom?" As far as we are concerned, we do not wish to meddle with England. We would rather not do so. I would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Webster), therefore, that election expenses are much cheaper here than they are in Ireland—the Sheriff's charges are much lower than they are in Ireland. You can always bring a certain amount of common sense to bear on the Sheriffs in England; but in Ireland they belong to one particular class, and they regard it as part of their business to bring up the expenses as much as possible.
Question put, and agreed to.
SIR HENRY JAMES: I think that the sum of £2 for the necessary expenses for constructing a polling station is hardly sufficient.
MR. T. M. HEALY: What line of the Schedule is the right hon. and learned Gentleman referring to?
SIR HENRY JAMES: I think it is line 8. It is the 2nd paragraph. The sum of £2 does not appear to me to be sufficient; and I would ask your leave, Sir, to amend the Schedule by omitting £2 in order to insert £4.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "£2," and insert "£4."—(Sir Henry James.)
Question proposed, "That'£ 2' stand part of the Schedule."
MR. CHANCE: I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in the House earlier in the evening, or he would not have proposed this Amendment. It is a curious fact that a smaller sum than this has been assented to to-night in the Scotch Bill. In the Scotch Bill £3 only was allowed where there were 700 voters; whereas I propose £2 for 400 voters, and for 1,000 voters I give £5, as against £3 3s. in the Scotch Bill. Now,

1581
I think that is a very conclusive argument in favour of my figures, and particularly when we remember that the Amendment was introduced into the Scotch Bill with the consent of the Scotch Sheriffs. If they can construct places for that sum, certainly we ought to be able to do it.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Surely the hon. Member has not considered that this is an item for the first expense of a polling station. It can scarcely be considered sufficient for erecting a new polling station where no materials whatever exist. The Scotch Amendments were not discussed in this House. There were so many of them that they could not be discussed. But in any case I should have thought that this Amendment was not unreasonable.
MR. ILLINGWORTH: We owe a good deal to my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James) for the popularization of our elections, and I thank him for the good work which he has done. But I think it would be an irony that having opened the door of this House to the humbler classes of Her Majesty's subjects, we should, on the other hand, keep up these expenses, and prevent them taking advantage of the privilege. Board schools are generally used now as polling places, and a very moderate outlay upon them is sufficient, and therefore I think that the sum of £2 is sufficient.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I am one of those who regard these expenses at elections as necessary. Our expenses in North-West Sussex amounted to £658 for two candidates for one day's polling; but there were 32 polling stations. Well, the Committee is anxious that there should be polling places for everybody, and as near everybody as possible, and this, of course, necessitates a great many polling stations. I agree that there should be as many polling stations as possible; but I really think that, that being so, the cost of each station should be reduced as much as it can be, so that as little expense as possible shall be put upon the candidate.
MR. GATHORNE-HARDY: I quite agree with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Illingworth); but the House must remember that you are not only opening up the House to poor men, but you are also opening up
1582
the post of Returning Officer to poor men, and we ought to be careful not to impose burdens upon Returning Officers who may be poor men, and who may have to pay more than is given by the Bill. I think that while we consider ourselves in this House, we should be careful to enable men, however poor, to undertake the position of Mayor and Returning Officer of his town.
COLONEL NOLAN: There is no fear of the Returning Officer losing money. The Sheriffs, at the present moment, make money out of a contested election. I have an acknowledgment from the Sheriff of the County Galway, who said that he made money. I do not think that the Sheriffs ought to make money out of the elections; and, therefore, I do not see why we should allow as much as £2. All they do is to bring in a chair and a table; and, as a rule, they have no regard for the comfort of the voters whatever.
VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE: May I point out to the House that the sum put down is not necessarily to be charged always? It does not say that he shall charge the £4. In my election he did charge it; but I appealed, and a great deal of it was cut down.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I hope that the House will not run away with the idea that this is more than the ordinary price that is charged. The present law enables a charge of £7.
MR. T. M. HEALY: In my constituency the Sheriffs put the voters into the most terrible places, where there was no light or air, or any comfort whatever, and for this the candidates were mulcted in enormous sums.
SIR HENRY JAMES: I would point out that there are a great many places in which rooms will have to be hired, and that under this Bill there will be very stringent powers of taxation. Therefore, it is only to guard against injustice that I moved this Amendment. However, I am willing to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I beg, as an Amendment, to move the omission of the last three lines on the page, namely—
"That there shall not be in any polling district more than one polling station, to which less than 400 voters shall be assigned."

1583
All I can say is that, with regard to county constituencies, this provision will be perfectly unworkable. I know more than one instance where, in a polling district which has only about 600 voters altogether, it has been considered desirable that they should have three polling stations, in order that some of the voters should not have to walk three or four miles. In this matter we are dealing with a subject which is beyond any question of charge. It is a matter of the convenience of the voters; and, therefore, I propose to omit the last three lines of the Schedule on the page.
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 27, to leave out the words "there shall not be in any polling district more than one polling station to which less than 400 voters shall be assigned."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
MR. CHANCE: A moment ago I said it was evident that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry James) had not been in the House earlier in the evening. I am not only sure of that now, but he must have taken the late Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) with him. The same observation which I made a few minutes ago to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite I now make to the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General. Exactly the same provision as this was inserted in the Scotch Bill, and not one word was said against it, except that in that case the figure was 700 voters. Now, I trust the House will allow me to tell them why I have put this provision in. It was because we frequently find that in Ireland the Sheriffs appoint a great number of Presiding Officer?, where there are only 600 voters to poll; and the meaning of that is that a certain amount of profit is made by the Returning Officer. He gets £2 for each polling place, and probably he has some arrangement with the Presiding Officers to return to him some portion of their fees. Again, I have provided for cases in which there are 600, or less than 800, voters in a polling district. I provide there that you may have two polling places—one for 400 voters, and another of 200 odd, or 300 odd. I am merely
1584
desirous of preventing Returning Officers overcharging candidates, for the purpose of making a paltry profit out of an undue number of polling stations, and I do hope the House will accept the Schedule as it stands.
SIR HENRY JAMES: I think we are getting into a little confusion as to the difference between a polling district and a polling place. If the hon. Member means, by this Amendment, that the Returning Officer shall not divide localities I agree with him; but if it means bringing voters from a great distance to record their votes I cannot agree with him. I do not wish to oppose this measure, and I do not wish to refer to what may be done in "another place;" but I suppose, if it is necessary to make Amendments there, no doubt it will be done.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: If we alter the word "district" into "places" it will be all right, and doubt as to its meaning will be removed.
COLONEL NOLAN: The universal practice is to split up the names according to the alphabet, and to have five or six stations where there are a large number of voters. No voter will have to walk a single mile in consequence of this Schedule.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I beg to move now to leave out the word "district" in order to insert "place."
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 27, to leave out the word "district," in order to insert the word "place."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'district' stand part of the Schedule."
MR. CHANCE: The result of this will be to create the greatest confusion in the case of boroughs, without being of the slightest benefit.
MR. T. M. HEALY: If the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Webster) is not satisfied on this point, we shall be quite satisfied to aceept an Amendment to this effect in "another place."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I think the provision that only 10 s. shall be given for ballot boxes is too small, and I would point out that in the Scotch Bill

1585
the sum is a guinea. I propose that the amount shall stand as in the Act of 1874, and in the Scotch Bill—namely, a guinea. These boxes, in some cases, have to be carried a considerable distance, and I think that we ought not to cut the price down to less than a guinea.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 2, to leave out "10 s." in order to insert "£1 1s.,"—(Sir Richard Webster,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That '10 s.' stand part of the Schedule."
MR. CHANCE: All I can say as to this is that it is a matter of absolute fact, within my own knowledge, that Presiding Officers in Ireland were offered tin ballot boxes for 10 s. each. They were sent over from England for 10 s., and why, therefore, should you give them a guinea?
MR. T. M. HEALY: I would point out that several large firms of stationers in England offered to supply Sheriffs with everything that is requisite for them in regard to elections, and in the circulars of every one of them ballot boxes are put down at 10 s. each, and why should a candidate pay more? As a matter of fact, these gentlemen have ballot boxes in hand, and do not want them every time there is an election.
MR. CREMER: I am a manufacturer of ballot boxes, and am able to supply them for 10 s. each, and have a large profit for myself.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: After that information I should not be justified in pressing my Amendment, and shall be willing to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR HENRY JAMES: It appears to me that 15 s. is very little for printing 1,000 ballot papers. Will the hon. Member (Mr. Chance) accept the substitution of £1 5s. I beg to move that "15 s." be left out and "£1 5s." inserted.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, to leave out "15 s." in order to insert "£1 5s.,"—(Sir Henry James,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That '15 s.' stand part of the Schedule."
MR. CHANCE: I hope that there is a practical printer in the House who
1586
will speak as to this. But, considering that I have been interested in no less than 68 contested elections, I think I may be considered an authority on this point. All I can say is that I got a most respectable firm of printers to take a contract to supply me with these ballot papers at 6s. a thousand, and another firm undertook to do them at 10 s. a thousand. I think that we ought to be able to get them at even a lower figure in London.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I hope the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), who is doing good work, will not press this matter too hard. It is a fact that if they can do it in Ireland we can do it in England; but it must be remembered that the printer often has to be appealed to at the last moment, and I think that if the hon. Member will agree to the insertion of £1 it would not be unreasonable.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I would ask my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance) to accept £1.
MR. CHANCE: Certainly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, "To leave out '15 s.' and insert '£1,'" put, and agreed to.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I must call attention to the allowances of the Presiding Officers in counties and boroughs. It is proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Chance) that the Presiding Officers in counties shall be paid around sum of £5, and the Presiding Officers in boroughs a round sum of £4. That is to include all travelling expenses, and not only the travelling allowances of the officers themselves, but also the conveyance of the ballot boxes to and from the polling places at their own expense. I hope that Her Majesty's Government, if they have considered this matter, will tell us what their view is, for the reason that it formed the subject of legislation last year. In regard to counties, owing to the multiplication of polling districts, and the difficulty of finding proper Presiding Officers, the charge of £3 3s. in the Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) was increased to £4 4s., the amount in the case of boroughs being left at £3 3s. In counties the Presiding Officers were allowed only £4 4s. and travelling expenses—their own travelling expenses and the expenses of conveying the ballot boxes to and from the

1587
polling places. On that occasion we had communications from a large number of Returning Officers. The matter was brought before my notice when I was Attorney General. I had communications from nearly all the Sheriffs in the counties, and they conveyed to me information that I should have had with me if I had known the subject was to take this form. I must say that having regard to the character of the men that the remuneration of £4 4s. was certainly not excessive remuneration for those who were called on to perform the duty. Last Session the House decided that we should have responsible men and men in a trustworthy position; and I would suggest that it is not wise, or right, or fair to alter the bargain agreed to by both sides of the House on that occasion. I must point out that the hon. Member's proposition to turn the £4 4s. into £5, fixing an all-round sum for services and travelling expenses, does not seem fair; for in some cases the officers may have to travel eight or 10 miles, whilst in others they may only have to go short distances. In some cases they may have to remain out two nights, whilst in others they may be able to sleep at their own houses. I think it would be much more just that the charge should be what was agreed upon last year. The amount charged can be taxed. The remedy for excessive charges is a proper system of taxation and appeal. It does seem an unwise thing to put travelling expenses and the expenses of conveying ballot boxes into an all-round charge, when we know perfectly well that in some cases these charges may amount to a few shillings and in others to pounds. I beg to move that the £5 be reduced to £4 4s. Of course, if that is carried, I shall move to strike out the words on the next page with regard to travelling allowances and expenses. The House will understand that I make this Motion in order afterwards to omit words, so as to restore the matter to the position it occupies at present, and would continue to occupy if that Bill had not been brought forward.
Amendment proposed, to omit "£5" in order to insert "£4 4s.,"—(Sir Richard Webster,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That '£5' stand part of the Schedule."
COLONEL NOLAN: I can claim the support of the right hon. and
1588
learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) on at least a part of this question, because he will remember, when this subject was last before us, I pointed out that Presiding Officers in Ireland could use one car themselves, put the ballot boxes on another, and charge for both. I moved an Amendment, and pressed the matter to a division, and was only beaten by five or six in a House of 200. Immediately after that decision the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he would get the Amendment inserted in the House of Lords, out of respect to the large minority that voted on that occasion. But the point was forgotten, and ever since the Sheriffs have had power to charge for the two cars. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ridiculed the idea that the Sheriffs would charge for two cars, but they have always done it. He insisted that the charge would be struck out.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The hon. and learned Member (Sir Richard Webster) proposes this reduction in order that a special charge may be made for travelling expenses. I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Schedule (Mr. Chance) will not agree to anything of the kind, for I concur in what has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan), that the sum of £5 is, if anything, an extravagantly large charge for these purposes. I do not know how it may be in England; but, so far as I know anything about the matter in Ireland, and certainly in the constituency I represent myself, there are dozens and dozens of men to be got, most capable of filling the position of Presiding Officer, who would be very glad to do a day's work of this description for a couple of pounds. I say, therefore, that it is perfectly ridiculous to ask a candidate to pay £5 for work which I undertake to say you could get men to do in every county, not only in Ireland, but in England and Scotland also, for a couple of guineas. A couple of guineas is quite sufficient; but £5 is here allowed to include travelling expenses, though there are no travelling expenses at all to speak of, for the distances are in no case very great. So far as the conveyance of ballot boxes is concerned, a man must have a conveyance to go to the station where he is to preside, and

1589
the car which he will take will also serve to convey the ballot box. There has been no attempt in any way to show that £5 is other than a most generous item for this work. As to the item of £4 for Presiding Officers in boroughs, I think that is altogether an extravagant item, for they will have no travelling expenses at all to incur. In my own constituency there were several Presiding Officers—I think half a-dozen—in the Court House on the polling day. These gentlemen had no expenses in travelling, because the ballot boxes were deposited in the same house where the polling stations were. Therefore, I think it is ridiculous to fix £4 for the payment of Presiding Officers in boroughs. While I was reading over these items, I said I thought £5 for a Presiding Officer in a county, and £4 for a Presiding Officer in a borough, was, if anything, too large a payment. I should like to know what kind of work, as a rule, you would pay a man £4 or £5 a-day for doing? I do not believe you would pay so much for any other kind of work. I am sure the House will not agree to anything which will tend to enlarge these expenses.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I wish to point out that if you leave the amount to be taxed a good many disagreeable consequences may be avoided. We remember that after the last General Election there were a great many appeals—hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway had stated that appeals could be made. Well, they were made, and they were very disagreeable things, not only for the candidates, but for the Sheriffs themselves, because in almost every case in Ireland these gentlemen had to forego a great many exorbitant claims. When you make it a fixed sum these appeals will no longer be possible. When the amount is left an open question, there is a temptation to make charges and put down expenses which otherwise would not be put down. I would, therefore, urge on the House to adhere to the fixed charge. There is everything in reason and argument in its favour.
MR. COBB: It is obvious that there must be some difference in the amounts expended by different Presiding Officers, seeing that in some cases they may live near the polling places, and in others some distance away. I can say as to my
1590
own constituency that, in one instance, the Presiding Officer had to bring the ballot box 20 miles, and in another instance even further, and had to hire a conveyance all the way. I think it must be obvious to everyone that it is impossible justly to have a fixed charge.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I trust my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny will insist on the proposal in this Schedule, to keep the charge for the Presiding Officer a fixed charge. I have had some little experience in the matter of taxing Sheriffs' bills after elections, and I must say that what I have seen convinces me that there is no item in the existing Schedule which gives Returning Officers so great an opportunity for fraud on candidates than the present mileage. Subsequent to the last General Election I had to do with the taxing of the Returning Officers' charges for the county of Cork, and for the seven divisions the Returning Officer came into Court with a nice little table, showing the maximum amount charged for travelling expenses in the case of 250 Presiding Officers. In every case 1s. per mile was charged for taking the ballot boxes to the place where the ballot papers were counted. It was impossible to have an inquiry into what the real sums expended were, as it would have involved the examination of 230 persons. The result was that the maximum sum was allowed in every case. In this way hundreds of pounds were allowed to the Presiding Officers—sums amounting, in some cases, to twice and three times what they should actually have spent. It is said that the Schedule of my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance) does an injustice, and that it will have the effect of giving the Returning Officer who has to go a short distance more than the Returning Officer who has to go a long distance. That is, no doubt, so; but what I would say on the point is that in these matters you have for the protection of candidates to adopt what I may call the rule of thumb. You have to do what this Schedule does—namely, strike an average. The sum my hon. Friend has mentioned—£5—seems a very fair sum to adopt. Instead of being too low, I think it will be found, in the majority of cases, to be too high a sum. My hon. Friend, in order to meet the objections

1591
that may be raised, has purposely fixed a high sum. I hope he will abide by the principle he has laid down, that you should have a fixed instead of a variable sum; because if you do not you will lose a great source of protection for candidates against Returning Officers' charges.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT), I have listened very carefully to the discussion, and I think there is a great deal to be said on both sides. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says the Schedule strikes an average. But an average is not always fair. You do not compromise, or rather compensate, one man for giving him too little by giving another man too much. Lord Erskine is said to have stated that he had lost a great many verdicts that he ought to have won; but that he had won a great many verdicts he ought to have lost, and that, therefore, average justice was done. The expenses of a Presiding Officer might vary very much. It might be necessary for him to go to the polling station over night, so as to be there at 7 o'clock in the morning. He might have to go by train and sleep at the place, whilst another could easily reach it from his home in the morning, and in that way the expenses might vary. The county may be a scattered one; therefore, on the whole, it seems to me that it would be desirable to keep to the old plan of allowing the Returning Officer £4 4s., and paying him in addition the actual sum out of pocket for travelling expenses. With regard to boroughs, I see no reason why the amount should be raised from £3 to £4. I think it would be better to keep to the old sum of £3.
MR. WARMINGTON: I should like to point out that the Schedule does not propose to pay each Presiding Officer in a county £5. It only fixes that sum as the maximum which a Returning Officer can pay. So that in the case of a person who has not travelled far the Returning Officer may say that £3 will be enough.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When I contested Monaghan the Sheriff had the audacity to bring the Presiding Officers from Armagh, and to insist upon my paying my share of their expenses. I said to
1592
him—"Suppose you brought them from India, on a P. and O. ticket, should I have to pay for it?" And it was the view of that intelligent and distinguished officer that I should. Have I to understand that if Presiding Officers are brought from London to manage Irish elections the candidates will have to pay their expenses? For that seems to be the view to be taken of this matter as it stands. The amount ought in no case to exceed £5, and if the House prefers it you might say that the charge shall be £4 4s., with a maximum of £5 to cover travelling expenses. If the hon. Member (Mr. Chance) would accept that I should have no objection. It might be fair for the Government to say the amount shall be £4 4s., with a maximum of 1s. a-mile for travelling expenses up to 20 miles. I do not think the hon. Gentleman could object to that.
MR. BRODRICK: In my case, my constituency being within a moderate distance of London, the Presiding Officers were brought from London, and were charged for accordingly. I must say that that appeared to me a great hardship and a very undesirable thing; but, at the same time, I think it would be very difficult to fix an absolute scale. I should have thought it would have been possible to get over the difficulty by taking the old sum of £4 4s. for the Presiding Officer, and making a mileage allowance for travelling expenses, carefully limiting that allowance to such an amount as may be reasonable—limiting the charge to 10 or 20 miles, or to such distance as may be regarded as reasonable. I think, if £5 were adopted, it might press hardly upon the Presiding Officers in some very out-of-the-way districts. Still, I think it desirable that some limit or other should be adopted.
MR. ILLINGWORTH: It seems to me very desirable to make this arrangement as exact and precise as we can, so that there shall be as little room as possible for litigation. I think the question of boroughs ought to be left out of account in the present controversy. When we come to deal with them, I do not see what objection there can be to adopting the arrangement that already exists. As to Presiding Officers in counties, it seems to me that this is the method upon which we should act. Some men have

1593
reached such a position in their profession that they should not be asked to travel to a place, and to preside at a polling station, for less than £5; but there are juniors for whom a less payment would be ample. We should, I think, leave it to the Sheriff to make the selection. There are men in a comparatively humble position who would be glad to accept £5, and pay all their expenses wherever they had to go; but, on the other hand, there are men who should be paid £5, without being expected to travel any very long distance.
MR. ESSLEMONT: In Scotland we have an allowance of of £3 3s.; but in cases where the Presiding Officer is necessarily kept away from home he is allowed £1 1s. a-night for expenses. There are county polling stations in boroughs where the Presiding Officers, residing in the boroughs, should not be entitled to travelling expenses. In my own district there are several boroughs included in the county constituency, and it would be obviously unfair to give the Presiding Officers in these a fee as though they remained from home all night, and to give only the same amount to a Presiding Officer who might have to travel 20 miles and stay in the neighbourhood of the polling station over-night. I would suggest that the fee should be £ 3s., with £1 1s. a-night when detained from home.
DR. R. MACDONALD: I think it would be better to have a fixed sum set down, and if that is done you can rest assured that the Returning Officer will take good care that he finds Presiding Officers in the district. Such a thing as happened in my own case would then be impossible—that is to say, men would not be sent from Edinburgh to the North of Scotland, and receive £3 3s. for five or six days, as the case may be. If the fees are fixed, the Returning Officers will take good care to find men in the district.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: It may be convenient if I here explain that if we take these £4 4s. as being the charge for the Presiding Officer, we can consider the question as to what should be the proper amount of expenses when I bring up words—as I should bring them up—in substitution for line 26.
Question, "That '£5' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That £4 4s. be there inserted."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
MR. CHANCE: Before that is put, I desire to insert the words "in England" after the words "in counties" in order to insert—"In Ireland £3 3s."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, after "counties," to insert "£4 4s. in England."—(Mr. Chance.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER: It is now proposed to add at the end—"In Ireland £3 3s."
MR. CHANCE: To make it uniform, I would move to insert the words "and £3 3s. in Ireland."
Amendment proposed, after "England" to insert "and £3 3s. in Ireland."—(Mr. Chance.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. CHANCE: I wish to move to add the words—
"In addition to these sums a sum not exceeding £1 1s. may be allowed for travelling and all other expenses actually incurred."
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "In addition to these sums a sum not exceeding £1 1s. may be allowed for travelling and all other expenses actually incurred."—(Mr. Chance.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I should like to have an opportunity of communicating with the hon. Member (Mr. Chance), and to suggest to him that the better course would be—as I rather think his Schedule is supposed to be in substitution for the Schedule to the Act of 1875—to adopt some such plan as this—we have to deal with two classes of expenses, the conveyance of the ballot boxes and the travelling expenses of the Presiding Officers and their clerks. I venture to say that £1 1s. would not be fair as a standard charge for both these expenses. I framed the following Amendment during the discussion of the last Amendment, After the words—

1595
"For the conveyance of the ballot boxes to the polling station, and from the polling station to the place where the ballot papers are to be counted, for travelling expenses of presiding officers and clerks to and from the polling places, the actual expenses not exceeding 1s. per mile, and a maximum of £2 per head."
I quite agree that there should be some limit adopted, so as to prevent Presiding Officers from being brought long distances to polling stations, instead of selecting Presiding Officers in the district. Of course, the ballot box has to be taken from the polling stations to the place where the votes are counted by the Returning Officers; and, therefore, there is no fear of its being taken to an excessive distance. With regard to the expenses of the Presiding Officer, surely I think that the House will agree with me in saying that one guinea is scarcely sufficient as a maximum charge, as in some counties one may have to travel more than 20 miles, and I ask the House to agree that £2 should be the maximum, and 1s. a mile for railway.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I ask whether there is any objection to allow, as we propose, payment of railway fares at the rate of 1s. a mile return? The railway fares in Ireland are only 2d. a mile for first-class single tickets, and 3d. a mile for return tickets. If our proposal be adopted, the officer who has to travel 30 miles will receive 30 s. I think hon. Members will agree that if the distance travelled be only 10 miles the candidate ought not to be charged 20 s.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I do not think the hon. and learned Member for South Londonderry quite understood my meaning. I assume the honesty of these gentlemen referred to—["No, no!"]—and with regard to railway fares would pay them a fixed sum.
Original Question again proposed.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Is it open to me to move an Amendment?
MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Then I propose, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after "in addition to" to the end of the line, in order to add—
"For the conveyance of ballot boxes to the polling stations, and from the polling stations to the place where the ballot papers are to be counted, the expenses incurred not exceeding the maximum sum of £2 per head."
MR. GREGORY: I wish to point out to the House that this Amendment proceeds on the assumption that railway communication exists in all cases; but that is not so. I live in a county in which railway communications are by no means frequent—where, indeed, they are altogether infrequent, the result being that to reach many places by railway you have to travel along two sides of the triangle in order to get to the end of the third side. I think it will not, therefore, be wise or proper to lay down a hard-and-fast line for the railway expenses of Returning Officers, who are performing the duty imposed upon them by law.
COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench that he has stated exactly what we complain of at the present moment. These Returning Officers always will go two sides of the triangle if they possibly can, and take care to claim for doing so. It is not difficult to see why they do not go another way to work. Moreover, they are in the habit of joining two or three polling stations together on the same road; they pick each other up, and then charge for each separately. Unquestionably, £1 1s. will cover the personal expenses; but the other payment would be excessive. You are actually giving a premium for bringing persons from other places to the district to receive this money. For my own part, I would very much prefer to pay it, if it is to be paid at all, to one of my own constituency; but I may add that I would much rather not pay it at all. As I have said, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman is simply an inducement to carry on this practice, and I sincerely hope my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) will press his Amendment.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): While I wish to add my protest to that of the hon. Gentleman opposite against excessive charges by Returning Officers, I am unable to go to the length of saying that the Sheriffs of England are a set of dishonest rogues. I think it quite justifiable to reduce these charges, but do it openly. Why should you import into

1597
this matter the assumption that all parties are about to commit a fraud. I say that in my own county of Stafford, for instance, it would be absolutely impossible to carry on an election on the scale here proposed. If hon. Members look at the matter, I think they will see that the Returning Officers have no motive whatever for overcharging. As a matter of fact, they can get no profit out of it. I shall certainly most willingly support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir Richard Webster), and in the interest of passing this Bill I sincerely hope hon. Members opposite will not press this matter any further, but endeavour to facilitate a measure of interest not only to Irish, but to English Members. I would ask hon. Gentlemen who support the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Chance) how the Schedule would apply in the case of Cornwall, where the polling places are in some cases 40 miles distant from the mainland?
MR. PETER MACDONALD: Having had some experience of elections in the county of Sligo, I am pretty well aware of the amount actually expended in these matters, and I have calculated that £6 will cover the entire expenses, although the amount proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny is £8 8s. So far, then, from there being any illiberality in the Schedule, the amount, as fixed by the Amendment, is very considerably in advance of that which will be expended. The sum proposed is, therefore, quite reasonable and adequate to the purpose intended.
DR. R. MACDONALD: I ask why the sum is to be fixed at 1s. a-mile for railway expenses, and so much a-mile more for the Returning Officer extra in connection with the ballot boxes?
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I thought I had stated the matter plainly; but my proposal is this—I put in each case a sum not exceeding 1s. per mile and the maximum of £2.
MR. CHANCE: As the sense of the House seems to be against me, I must ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I now propose to deal with this question of railway expenses and ballot boxes. I contend that the actually necessary expenses
1598
shall be the charge, and I impose a limit afterwards which will prevent people being brought and charged for from a distance.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words—
"For conveyance of ballot boxes to the polling stations, and from the polling stations to the place where the ballot papers are to be counted, the expenses incurred not exceeding the maximum sum of £2 per head."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BRODRICK: My suggestion is that, in these circumstances, the actual expenses will always be taken to be 1s. per mile; and I put it to the sense of the House whether it might not be well to iasert—
"Not exceeding two pence a mile, where the train is available, or one shilling a mile in other cases."
MR. T. M. HEALY: The Schedule sets forth a charge which is not to exceed the sum actually paid. I cannot see why Sheriffs should get 1s. a mile for taking the ballot boxes by train. This operation does not cost more than a few pence, and I think that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Guilford (Mr. Brodrick) is a very reasonable one. Again, with regard to carriage hire, I do not see why there should be two charges, while one vehicle will serve two purposes. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree to the words which are in the Act of 1875—
"Travelling expenses not to be allowed in the case of any person, unless the distance exceeds two miles from the place where he resides?"
We have omitted this, but I think it would be better to have it inserted in the Schedule.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I would prefer to stand by the words I have proposed.
MR. CHANCE: The Ballot Act of 1873 provides that the Presiding Officer shall take the ballot boxes to the polling places; but this Amendment seems to suppose that the ballot boxes would travel there on their own account, and that the Presiding Officer would not travel along with them. I do not see why they should not travel together. The sum of £2 would cover all expenses; but instead of having the £5 originally fixed we shall now have in England £5 5s., and in Ireland £8 8s.
MR. BUCHANAN: I wish to point out that in the Schedule of the Scotch Bill it is provided that 1s. a mile shall be paid where the ballot boxes cannot be sent by the Presiding Officer or his clerk.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman to omit the word "maximum." For my own part, I would make the sum of £2 cover all the expenses.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The Presiding Officer is responsible for the conveyance of the ballot boxes to the polling station and from it; and therefore it is out of the question that the ballot box should be separated at any time from the Presiding Officer. It follows, then, that £2 is quite sufficient, seeing that the ballot box must accompany him.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I desire to meet the views of hon. Members, as far as I can, without doing anything unfair in the matter. I am exceedingly sorry to give so much trouble; but, for the reason I have stated, I propose to withdraw the Amendment now before us, and to move another, including words which go in the direction I have indicated.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words—
"For the travelling expenses of presiding officer and clerks to and from polling station, including the conveyance of the ballot box to the polling station and from the polling station to the place where the ballot papers are to be counted, the actual expenditure inclined not exceeding a maximum of two pounds per head."—(Sir Richard Webster)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BRODRICK: I only rise to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the words include a point which I raised a few minutes ago—namely, the use of the train wherever it is available, because otherwise you may always have the road fare charged. I suggest that it would be well to insert before the word "maximum" the words "not exceeding the railway fare there and back where the railway is available."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Certainly, the words would involve the use of the train where available.
Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
MR. T. M. HEALY: As I have pointed out, the former Act limits the travelling expenses to the case where the individual travels more than two miles from the place where he resides. I can assure hon. Members that this is a very necessary limit, and I would, if the House will allow me, make it three miles instead of two.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words—
"Travelling expenses are not to be allowed in the case of any person, unless for a distance exceeding three miles from the place in which he resides."—(Mr. T. M. Sealy.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. Returning Officers have to go a good many miles in the course of the day, and, as a matter of fact, a cab is invariably required.
MR. T. M. HEALY: In deference to the wish of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken I will not press my Amendment; but I must point out that the Act of 1875 provides a limit of two miles. I, therefore, move to omit the word "three" from my Amendment and insert "two."
Amendment proposed, to amend the proposed Amendment, by leaving out the word "three" in order to insert the word "two."
Question, "That the word 'three' stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
Question, "That the word 'two' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 1, leave out "£4," and insert "£3 3s."—(Mr. Small,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That '£4' stand part of the Schedule."
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I shall support the Amendment, on the distinct understanding that there is no allowance superadded for travelling expenses.
Question put, and negatived.
Question, "That '£3 3s.' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I now appeal to the House to allow me to propose the restoration of £1 10 s. for £1 1s. to be paid to the polling clerk. Last year Parliament decided to allow £1 10 s., on the ground that very often, in country places, polling clerks had to be away from home two nights. It was pointed out that having regard to the class of men who served as polling clerks £1 1s. was not sufficient payment. The question was fully discussed last July, and I submit to the House there is no ground for altering the £1 10 s. to £1 1s. I beg to move that the polling clerk's fee be £1 10 s.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 9, to leave out "£1 1s.," in order to insert "£1 10 s."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
Question proposed, "That '£1 1s.' stand part of the Schedule."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): I think there ought to be a distinction in this case between the counties and boroughs.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I mean my Amendment to relate to counties.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There is no distinction in the Schedule as drawn. We might very well make it £1 10 s. in counties, and £1 1s. in boroughs.
MR. CHANCE: In Ireland there is no need for a polling clerk to be away from home at night. Polling clerks are generally local mercantile men, and a guinea is very good pay for them. They have nothing to do with the conveyance of the ballot boxes to the place of counting; but their work ceases when the ballot closes.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I intended the Amendment to refer to counties, and I am quite willing to insert the words "in counties in England."
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I object to increasing the payment for clerks at polling stations.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: It is not increased; it is now 30 s.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will confine his Amendment to England?
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Certainly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, after "station," in line 7, page 3, to insert "in counties in England."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I now beg to move to omit "£1 1s." and insert "£1 10 s.," so that the provision will then read—
"For one clerk at each polling station in counties in England, where not less than 400 voters are assigned to such station, £1 10 s."
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 9, to leave out "£1 1s." in order to insert "£1 10 s."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
"Question, "That '£1 1s.' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived
Question, "That '£1 10 s.' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will propose the words "and in Ireland £1 1s."
Amendment proposed, to add to the last Amendment "and in Ireland £1 1s."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
Question, "That those words be there added, "put, and agreed to.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I have now to move the omission of the words "this sum includes all travelling allowances and expenses."
Amendment proposed, in lines 10 and 11, omit the words "this sum includes all travelling allowances and expenses."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
MR. CHANCE: I am afraid there is a technical objection to this Amendment. A previous Amendment gives £2 2s. travelling expenses. Is it clearly understood that the maximum of £2 2s. applies here?
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Certainly.
Question put, and negatived; words left out accordingly.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: It is now necessary to add the words—"In boroughs, for one clerk at each polling station, £1 1s."
Amendment proposed, at end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words—"In boroughs, for one clerk at each polling station, £1 1s."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: A corresponding Amendment must be made in the next clause. I apprehend hon. Members below the Gangway will wish to limit the increased allowance for an additional clerk to England; and, therefore, I beg to move to add "in counties in England," after "station," in line 12. The clause will then read—
"For an additional clerk at a polling station in counties in England, for every 500 voters or fraction thereof beyond the first 500 assigned to such polling station."
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, after the word "station," to insert the words "in counties in England."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 14, to leave out "£1 1s.," and insert "£1 10 s"—(Sir Richard Webster.)
Question, "That '£1 1s.' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
Question, "That '£1 10 s.' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed, at end of foregoing Amendment, to add the words—
"For an additional clerk at a polling station in Ireland and in boroughs in England, for every 600 voters or fraction thereof beyond the first 600 assigned to such polling station, £1 1s."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. SMALL: This Amendment assumes that a Presiding Officer may have two clerks. I never saw a Presiding Officer with two clerks. The Amendment will increase the expenses of an election, instead of decreasing them. One man can only be polled at a time, and one clerk can mark out any number of voters.
MR. T. M. HEALY: My hon. Friend (Mr. Small) seems to forget that we have adopted the words "there shall not be in any polling district more than one
1604
polling station to which less than 400 voters shall be assigned."
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 15, to omit the words "this sum includes all travelling allowances and expenses."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
Question, "That those words stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move the insertion of the following words:—
"The above sums are the aggregate charges the amount of which is to be apportioned amongst the several candidates or other persons liable for the same."
I think these words are desirable for the protection of the candidates.
Amendment proposed,
At end of Schedule, to add the words "the above sums are the aggregate charges, the amount of which is to be apportioned amongst the several candidates or other persons liable for the same."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, added.
MR. LABOUCHERE, in rising, according to Notice, to move—
"That the Bill be re-committed in respect of a new Clause and Schedule providing for the payment of the returning officer's expenses out of the rates.
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill accordingly,"
said: For the last two hours we have been discussing how much a candidate shall pay; but I have now to move that the Bill be re-committed, in order that we may adopt a clause providing that a candidate shall pay nothing. There is some objection, I believe, on the part of some hon. Gentlemen in the House to the mode of proceeding in this matter. They seem to think that the clause I wish to move has been, to a certain extent, sprung upon them. Practically, the clause has been on the Paper for more than a week; it has been brought forward twice already at a little later hour than the present (1.35), and then there has been a discussion upon it. On both occasions the House has been full. It appears to me that, at the present time, we can have a full and fair discussion, if hon. Gentlemen opposite desire it. I do not think any hon. Member should be called upon to do more

1605
than conform to the Rules of the House, and the Rules allow an Amendment to be moved on Report, and that is what I am doing. Now, Sir, we have been told that this Amendment ought not to be moved, because it goes to the root of a great principle. The only principle in regard to it is the principle of plain common sense. We have school board elections and municipal elections; but no one ever dreams of calling upon the candidates to pay for the machinery of these elections. There are elections for Legislative Assemblies in other countries; but no one would dream, for a moment, of laying it down that a man who wishes to be elected to the Legislative Assembly of his country must pay for such things as ballot boxes and other necessary election machinery. The real reason why hon. Gentlemen object to my proposition is that they look upon the present state of things as creating an artificial barrier against the poor man coming into Parliament. We have had members of the aristocratic Party flourishing their money-bags, and telling us they will carry the Election by the effect of their money. We know what occurred on this side of the House a little while ago. We know that Gentlemen who had voted money for Secret Service most freely, year after year, stood aghast when it was suggested that the money was being spent in electioneering. We also know perfectly well that it has been the boast of hon. Gentlemen opposite and their allies on this side of the House that they mean to obtain a majority by the effect of their money. I think we ought, at the present moment, to carry a Resolution such as I suggest. It has been asserted that to do what I propose would produce a large number of bogus candidates. I do not know what that means. A man cannot tell, when he comes forward, whether he will be elected or not; he may have a large number of supporters or a small number. I think we shall find that what occurs at municipal and school board elections will occur in the case of Parliamentary elections; no one will come forward merely for the purpose of advertising himself. There are no bogus candidates at municipal elections, and it is not probable there will be bogus candidates at Parliamentary elections, even if the Returning Officer's expenses are paid out of the
1606
rates. I have no doubt we shall hear another objection from hon. Gentlemen opposite—namely, that this will increase the rates. By whom ought these expenses to be paid? I do not see why they should be charged on the Consolidated Fund. Do you not pay for municipal elections and school board elections out of the rates, and not out of the Consolidated Fund? The sum is very small when distributed over the rates. While it is a serious amount to a poor candidate, it is practically nothing to the entire body of ratepayers. A speech was made in 1875 on this subject by the late Mr. Fawcett, and Mr. Fawcett then pointed out that the amount that this reform would cost a holder of a £10 house would be about the price of one glass of beer every three years. Who would object to that? We have been told by an hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench that it is a waste of time debating this subject, because the clause will be thrown out in "another place." It appears to me that if "another place" will throw it out, that is an extremely good reason for us insisting upon it. I beg to move—
"That the Bill be re-committed in respect of a new Clause and Schedule providing for the payment of the returning officer's expenses out of the rates."
MR. SPEAKER: The proper form in which to put it is—"That the Bill be re-committed in respect of a new Clause and Schedule;" and, subsequently, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide for the payment of the returning officer's expenses out of the rates."
MR. LABOUCHERE: I will make the Motion in that form.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of a new Clause and Schedule."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I certainly hope that the burden which Her Majesty's Government have been willing to put upon this Bench in regard to the Bill hitherto will not be comtinued, as far as this part of the Bill is concerned. I do not mind a little work; but really I hope I shall have some assistance from those whose duty it is to look after such matters. Now, Sir, I do trust the House will not adopt the Motion of the hon. Member

1607
for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) without fully considering how the matter stands. It is all very well to say that the hon. Member has conformed to the Rules of the House. That may be perfectly true; but, still, I do not think hon. Gentlemen consider that the Forms of the House have been fairly made use of. I am sure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) will not think I mean any discourtesy when I say that if this course is adopted it will be an abuse of the Forms of the House. On the 22nd of January last there was brought in a Bill with reference to the Returning Officers' expenses—the Parliamentary Elections Returning Officers' Expenses (Ireland) Bill. That was a Bill to which there was a Schedule attached, a Schedule of the same character as that we have been discussing to-night. About the same time the Bill now before the House was brought in by the hon. and learned Member for South Londonderry (Mr. T. M. Healy) and the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance). That was a Bill which simply provided, by its title and clauses, for an appeal against the Returning Officers' charges. So far the Bill was a very proper one; but it did not give the slightest warning or notice to any Member of the House that it contemplated anything else. So little was it thought that the Bill was intended to have a wide application, that it was not until the Committee stage that words were inserted to make it clear that it was intended to extend to England. I make no further observations upon that, because there is no reason why the provision for appeal should not be extended to England as well as to Ireland. Finding that their Bill with regard to the charges was not likely to be carried, hon. Gentlemen succeeded in getting the Schedule transferred from that Bill to this Bill. So the Bill remained until a few days ago, when the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) brought up this clause. It seems an extraordinary thing that, at this stage, there should be brought up a clause dealing with the whole question, practically speaking, of the incidence of these charges. There has been no discussion upon the principle of this clause; and, indeed, the usual opportunities of debate have not been afforded. We are dealing with a matter which, if it is to be passed, ought to be passed after most
1608
careful consideration. I do not know what the views of the Government are; but I shall feel it my duty to divide the House, because it seems to me that such a clause ought not to be sprung on the House, and it has been sprung on the House. If such a subject is going to be taken up, it should be taken up in a fair and open manner. The Procedure Committee call attention, in the Report they have just presented, to one great defect in our procedure, and that is that important changes have been introduced at this stage of Bills. Old Members of the House will bear me out when I say that it is only within recent years that this practice has sprung up. I know nothing about "winning by money bags," nor have I heard of it, and having regard to the stringency of the Corrupt Practices Act such a threat would be absurd; and I cannot understand its having the slightest effect upon any audience. It is a serious thing to say that we are to alter a system which has prevailed for a considerable time, which was the subject of discussion when the Redistribution Bill was before the House in 1884, and which the Prime Minister declined to enter into on that measure. Considering those facts, it is, to say the least of it, not quite a proper proceeding that this matter should be brought forward in the last days of an expiring Parliament—and brought forward in such a way—when it has been kept back and suppressed from hon. Members until the last moment. As to the threat that the Bill is to be thrown out in the House of Lords, I have heard no such threat; but all I can say is that if this clause is to be put in in this way, and at this stage, I think the House of Lords will be perfectly right in throwing it out. I do not appeal to the House of Lords; I appeal to the spirit of fair play in this House; and I say that any such change as this Amendment involves should have been brought forward by the Government—we should have had it square and fair before us, at a time when it could have been adequately discussed. I shall feel it necessary to divide the House on this matter.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): My hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down seeks to take credit to himself for the part he took on the Schedule which has just been passed, and complains

1609
that I did not give him my assistance. Well, I will tell the House why he has got no assistance from me so far. Because it appeared to me that he showed a disposition to increase expenses, and, inasmuch as my sympathies are in the opposite direction, I was prepared to vote with hon. Members below the Gangway, and I was certainly quite prepared to give my hon. and learned Friend all the credit of attempting to increase the expenses of elections. My hon. and learned Friend resents the statement that early this morning somebody threatened that this Bill would be thrown out in the House of Lords. [Cries of "No, no!"] I am not affirming that that was said; but I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) says that such a threat was made. The hon. and learned Gentleman disclaimed it with something like indignation; but he proceeded to say something which sounded to me very much like a threat to this House, because he said the introduction of this clause was an abuse of the Forms of the House; and then, having passed judgment to his own satisfaction in this way, he proceeded to say that the House of Lords would be perfectly justified in throwing it out. Well, the House is quite capable of taking care of its own Forms, and if this, in truth, is an abuse of the Forms of the House, let the House vindicate those Forms and pronounce judgment upon the matter; but if the House does not do that then hon. Members are entitled to say that this is a fit and proper matter to discuss without any regard to what may be done or said in "another place," and to leave the responsibility of what may be done and said in "another place" to those who say and do it. It might be pointed out that propositions of this kind have been introduced over and over again on various occasions; but I will not pretend to cite precedents on the subject. My hon. and learned Friend says that he desires "a fair and square" discussion of the question; but what is there in the way of a "fair and square" discussion? We have had discussions in the prior stages of this measure which, foreshadowed this clause, and the proposal of my hon. Friend has been before the House for some considerable time. Therefore, so far as Notice is concerned, it cannot be said
1610
with truth that the House has not had ample Notice of the discussion of the question. I want the House to observe a very curious omission on the part of my hon. and learned Friend. Whilst he was very strong in opposition to the form in which this clause was brought forward, I did not hear a word from him against the substance; and what I want to know, therefore, is this—is his a sincere desire to cheapen the cost of elections? Are they on those Benches sincerely anxious to have the poorest classes represented in this House—are they in favour of making it practicable for Representatives of that class to come into this House? My hon. and learned Friend was silent on that question; but I am not silent upon it. I am distinctly and absolutely in favour of it. I desire to give practical effect to that view by supporting the proposition of my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere)—a proposition reasonable in itself, perfectly just in its nature, vindicated and justified by the usage of municipal elections, justified by the practice of foreign countries, justified by the lesson which it would afford to the country that Parliamentary elections were national and not personal concerns, and justified, therefore, both in the interests of the candidates and of the constituencies themselves.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell) was not in his place last night, when his presence was greatly desired; but I venture to say that we are not much better off to-night now that he is here. He says he cannot see why the introduction of this clause on the Report now is an abuse of the Forms of the House. Well, I can justify that statement on the highest authority. This is what Sir Erskine May says upon it—
"The vicious practice of adding provisions to Bills quite foreign to their object, which was formerly very common, is now very rarely followed."
I think that that pretty well establishes that it is an abuse of the Forms of the House. I think my hon. and learned Friend made it very plain that the present proposal did not form a part of the subject-matter of the Bill when it was first introduced. It has been debated by Bill many times, and why has it not been passed? Because it has always

1611
been rejected. And now it is that by evading the Forms of the House, which guard us from hasty legislation, this is brought in without giving us a chance of discussing it. The Committee on Procedure also, in their Report, condemned this practice. I am not going to detain the House at this moment; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has challenged us on the principle. Well, I say it will look very bad if, when hon. Members are about to go to their constituents, they should appear as if they intend to save their own pockets at the expense of the ratepayers. It has been conceded, moreover, that local taxation should not be increased until local taxation has been more evenly distributed; and that, in my opinion, is sufficient reason for not proceeding further with this proposal.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): It is a good thing to read the whole of an extract; but the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Fergusson) has omitted what goes before and what comes after what he has read. What Sir Erskine May says is this—
"When a Bill, as amended by the Committee, is considered, the entire Bill is open to consideration, and new clauses may be added and Amendments made, whether they be within the scope of the title or even relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill or not."
Therefore, he says it is a technical Rule. Then he says—
"The vicious practice of adding provisions to Bills, quite foreign to their object, which was formerly not uncommon, is now very rarely followed."
Well, will anyone contend that this is foreign to the Bill? This Bill has to do with the expenses of elections, and to say that the manner in which those expenses are to be defrayed is foreign to the Bill appears to me to be an extraordinary proposition. It is perfectly relevant to the objects of the Bill——[An hon. MEMBER: Title of the Bill.]
MR. T. M. HEALY: It is perfectly relevant to the title as amended.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to say that no reasonable man can affirm that the funds out of which these expenses are to be paid is irrelevant to the object of the Bill. But there is another matter which is very relevant to the objects of this Bill. If you want to
1612
keep these expenses down, make it to the interest of the people to keep them down. It will be to the interest of the Local Authorities to keep them down. It appears to me that one way to keep them down will be to provide for them in this way. The object of the Bill is to enable persons who are not possessed of wealth to enter Parliament, and for these reasons I support the introduction of the clause.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: If this is not irrelevant, why should the hon. Member have to move an Instruction?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am surprised that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), who has been in this House for some time——
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Order, order!
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If the right hon. Gentleman has any point of Order to put why does he not rise in his place?
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: When a Member is asked a question in this House, by the ordinary courtesy of the House he is permitted to answer it. [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) has been asked a question, and by the Rules of the House he is entitled to answer it.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: In answer to the hon. Member for Hallam I may say that it is perfectly competent for an hon. Member to move an Instruction to the Committee to consider a matter which is not included in the title of the Bill, but which is perfectly germane to the objects of the Bill. It is impossible to introduce anything that is not germane.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I contend that the proposal to move an Instruction to the Committee is sufficient justification for all that my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Richard Webster) has said against the clause.
MR. JAMES STUART: I would point out that in 1875 my late Friend Mr. Fawcett made an exactly similar Motion to this. At that time he gave a series of precedents which it is not necessary for me to enter

1613
into. It appears to me that the matter is absolutely relevant to the Bill; and, since it is relevant, I think, under all the circumstances, my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) is justified in bringing it forward. This is not a matter which has been sprung upon the House—it has been before the House and the constituencies for a long time. These expenses are about to be altered by the Bill with which we have been dealing, and there is no more effectual way of reducing them than by such a clause as this. Someone on the other side of the House dissented from the statement that someone had said that moneybags were to be used at the forthcoming Election. It may not have been put in that way; it may not have been said that they were to contravene the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act; but it has been intimated by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Goschen)—[Cries of "Order!"]—I am answering the point which has been raised on the other side—that long purses will be found by many Gentlemen. These are to be employed in resisting men of small means, although they are men of ability; and the amount of the expenses has a tendency to keep such men, who frequently have large special and technical knowledge, out of this House. Well, we have to look forward to several elections not far distant from one another, and what is to be the result of these elections unless you reduce the expenses? It will be this—that after three or four of them the residuum of this House will be the wealthy and plutocratic classes of the community. One right hon. Gentleman spoke about "another place" throwing out this Bill. Well, all I have to say to that is that this Bill has to do with the Representatives of the people alone, and it is eminently a case for this House to discuss and decide.
MR. RADOLIFFE COOKE: Notwithstanding what I have heard from my Leaders from this side of the House, I do not see why this matter cannot be fairly debated. I was asked to stay in the House in order to listen to what was to be said on it. In my opinion, the cost to the ratepayers would be exceedingly trifling, and I cannot attach any importance to that whatever. I want to see in this House men to whom these costs would be a very serious
1614
matter. I believe that there would be a great many such men holding the opinions which I hold,. and therefore I shall vote for the Amendment. If I wanted any justification for the course which I am about to take, it is provided in the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken, because if we have the class of Members I have referred to on these Benches we shall not have that class of speeches from the Benches opposite.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 67: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 129.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide for the payment of the returning officer's expenses out of rates."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I do not propose to trouble the House with any further discussion on the clause. I do not entirely approve of the language of it; still, as the House has expressed an opinion on it, I do not propose to intervene further.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide for the payment of the returning officer's expenses out of rates.
Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to move a new clause (Payment of returning officer's expenses in certain cases)——
MR. T. M. HEALY: Before the hon. Member moves that, I wish to point out that last night, on the Report stage, on my Motion the word "Schedules" was altered into "Schedule." I presume it will be competent for us now to change the word "Schedule" back again into "Schedules." We have carried a Motion to re-commit the Bill in respect of a new clause and Schedule providing for the payment of Returning Officers' expenses out of the rates, so that I presume it will be in order to make this change.
THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): That can be done on third reading. The Bill is now recommitted

1615
for a special purpose, and we cannot go beyond that purpose.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to move the new clause standing on the Paper in my name—
"The charges authorized by section two of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, shall be paid in manner provided in the second Schedule to this Act."
New Clause (Payment of returning officer's expenses in certain cases,)—(Mr. Labouchere,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
MR. MAURICE HEALY: Before that Question is put I have an Amendment of a non-contentious character to move. The Returning Officer's fees, as they at present stand, have been drawn up on the assumption that the charges are to be paid by the candidate; and it is, therefore, assumed that the deposit the candidate will lodge as security will be devoted by the Returning Officer to the purpose of defraying the expenses of the election. If this second Schedule passes into law, however, these expenses will be defrayed out of the rates, and the candidate will be entitled to get the amount of his deposit back from the Returning Officer. I have, therefore, drawn up the following Amendment to the clause:—
"Where a returning officer has, pursuant to the provisions of the principal Act, required security to be given for the charges payable in respect of an election, he shall, on being paid the charges under this section, forthwith pay back to the person or persons entitled to same the sum or sums which have been deposited with him as such security."
THE CHAIRMAN: That would not be an Amendment to the clause.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: Yes, Sir; I think it would.
THE CHAIRMAN: It will be proper to deal with the Amendment on third reading; but the work of the Committee must be confined especially to the Order of Instruction to the Committee.
MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask you, Sir, whether, as the general framework of the Bill provides for the deposit, and as this Amendment now provides that
1616
the money should be paid out of the rates, we may not now arrange that the candidate should get back the deposit after the Returning Officer receives the money out of the rates?
THE CHAIRMAN: It would, no doubt, be necessary to do that; but it cannot be done by this Committee, which has a special duty only to perform, even though it be consequential upon that special work.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I now beg to move the second Schedule.
Second Schedule.
(Provision for the Payment of Returning Officers' Charges.)
"(1.) In counties in England—

(a.) Such charges shall be paid out of the county rates, and the justices of the peace for each county shall be empowered to and shall make provision for the payment of same. Such justices shall, in each county, at the quarter sessions to be held next after the election in every year, make their order upon the treasurer of the said county for the payment of such charges out of the public stock of the said county;

(b.) Where a county is divided into Parliamentary divisions, but not into sessional divisions, such charges for each such Parliamentary division shall be payable in all respects as if the election were for a Member for the whole county;

(c.) Where the area of any Parliamentary division of a county is co-extensive with or is included in any sessional division of such county, such charges for such Parliamentary division shall be paid by such sessional division, and the justices of the peace for such sessional division shall have the same powers and duties in respect of same in all respects as if such sessional division constituted a county at large;

(d.) In the case of any Parliamentary division of a county divided into sessional divisions, the area of which is not co-extensive with or included in one of such sessional divisions, each sessional division of such county the area of which is in whole or in part included in such Parliamentary division shall contribute to the payment of such charges for such Parliamentary division.

"(2.) In counties in Ireland such charges shall be paid out of the grand jury cess, and the grand Jury for each county shall be empowered to, and shall make provision for the payment of same. The grand jury shall in each county present at the assizes next after the election (without previous application to presentment sessions) the amount of such charges to be raised off the county at large, and the treasurer of each county shall thereupon pay such charges forthwith.
"In Ireland, where a county is divided into Parliamentary divisions, such charges for each such Parliamentary division shall be payable in

1617
all respects as if the election were for a member for the whole county.
"(3.)—

(a.) Such charges for any Parliamentary borough which is co-extensive with or included in the area of a municipal borough shall be payable out of the borough fund, and the town council for such borough shall have power to and shall make and levy such rate or rates as may be necessary for the payment of same. Such town council shall, at their meeting, to be held not more than six weeks after the election, make an order upon the treasurer of the said borough for the payment of such charges out of the moneys in his hands on account of the borough fund;

(b.) In the case of a Parliamentary borough the area of which is not co-extensive with or included in the area of a municipal borough, but which includes in whole or in part the area of any municipal borough or boroughs, each such municipal borough shall contribute to the payment of such charges for such Parliamentary borough;

(c.) In the case of a Parliamentary borough the area of which includes an area not included in any municipal borough, the county or (in England) the sessional division of a county in which such area is situate shall contribute to the payment of such charges for such borough out of the county rates. The sum to be so contributed shall be calculated in every year in like manner as provided in the fifth Clause of this Schedule in the case of a municipal borough or a sessional division of a county required to contribute as therein mentioned; and the justices of the peace or grand jury (as the case may be) for such county (or sessional division) shall have the same powers and duties in respect of such contribution as are in this Act prescribed in respect of such charges wholly payable by any county.

"(4.) In the case of any municipal borough the area of which is exempt from the payment of county rates, and which is not under this Act required to pay or contribute to the payment of such charges, such municipal borough shall contribute to the payment of such charges for the county, counties, or Parliamentary division or divisions of a county, within which it is in whole or in part situate.
"(5.) Where under this Act a municipal borough or a sessional division of a county is required to contribute to such charges as aforesaid for a county or Parliamentary borough, the sum to be so contributed shall be calculated in every year according to the same relative proportion as the number of persons in such municipal borough or sessional division placed on the register of voters for such county or Parliamentary borough shall boar in such year to the total number of persons upon such register; and the town council for such municipal borough and the jusices of the peace for such sessional division shall have respectively the same powers and duties in respect of such contribution as are in this Act prescribed in respect of such charges wholly payable by any one municipal borough or sessional division of a county.
1618
"In this Schedule the following words and expressions shall have the meaning hereby assigned to them, unless there be something in the context repugnant thereto (that is to say):—
"'County' shall include a division of a county, but shall not include a county of a city or county of a town.
"'Parliamentary borough' means any borough, city, county of a city, county of a town, place or combination or places, returning a Member or Members to serve in Parliament, not being a county at large, or riding, part or division of a county at large, and includes a Parliamentary division of a borough.
"'Municipal borough' includes 'burgh,' and means any city or town corporate, or any town, township, or city governed by town or township Commissioners appointed under any general or local Act.
"'Town Council' means the governing municipal authority in any municipal borough.
"'Borough fund,' in the case of any municipal borough having no borough fund, shall be deemed to mean the rates imposed and collected by the town council.
"'Parliamentary division' means a division of a county or Parliamentary borough within the meaning of 'The Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885,'"—(Mr. Labouchere,)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Question, "That the Schedule be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
Question, "That the Schedule be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, considered.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I now beg to move the Amendment I have handed in.
MR. SPEAKER: The clause the hon. Member has handed to me is a new clause, and could not be moved without Notice. I could not entertain it now—it cannot be entertained at this stage.
MR. T. M. HEALY: If that is so, I beg to ask leave of the House to read the Bill the third time now. I do this on the ground that we have arrived at a period of the Session when it is essential to lose no time if we are to carry the Bill through "another place," and because, days ago, I acceded to the request of hon. Members to put off a stage of the measure. I have to thank hon. Gentlemen for their courtesy, and to assure them that it is my duty to reciprocate that courtesy in every possible way. There can be no objection to the general principle of the Bill—we are all agreed upon it, though in "another place" we may find the clause and Schedule we have just agreed to objected to. There is an important Schedule

1619
making large changes affecting the rates; but the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) did the same thing, and yet it was read the third time by general consent. As nothing is to be gained by delay, I trust we may be allowed to take this stage by consent.
MR. SPEAKER: The Bill has been very extensively amended, and unless I hear a very clear expression of opinion on the subject I should not propose to put the Question.
Bill to be read the third time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 282.]

TREES (IRELAND) BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS REASONS AND AMENDMENTS.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Reasons and Amendments read.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I wish to complain of the manner in which the Lords have dealt with this Bill. It was a measure that contained no contentious matter; it was one to which no exception was taken in any part of the House, and to which the House has devoted a great deal of its time. The Lords have, in the exercise of their undoubted rights, inserted Amendments in it which render it practically useless. It is not very hopeful for Irish Members to endeavour to get legislative measures passed in this country when noble Lords have power to veto, mutilate, and destroy the Bills unanimously passed by this House. I would direct the attention of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite to the action of noble Lords in this matter. The Bill does not concern those hon. Members; but there is a principle involved in this question which does concern them. They desire to pass measures for the benefit of the people of this country, and it will be well for them to take cognizance of the fact that the Lords have power to destroy such measures, and that the sooner they are deprived of that power the better it will be for the toiling masses of the country. I move that the Lords Reasons and Amendments be taken into consideration this day six months.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Consideration of Lords Reasons and Amendments be put off six months,"—(Mr. Gilhooly,)—put, and agreed to.

GLEBE LANDS BILL.— [BILL 93.]
(Sir R. Assheton Cross, Sir Richard Webster, Mr. Gregory.)

SECOND READING, BILL WITHDRAWN.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: It is useless to go on with this Bill; therefore, I move that the Order be discharged. If I have the honour to have a seat in this House in the next Parliament I shall re-introduce it.
Motion agreed to.
Order discharged: Bill withdrawn.

COAL MINES BILL.— [BILL 92.]
(Sir R. Assheton Gross, Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Mr. Forwood.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 15th March.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Repeal of part of s. 18 of 85 & 36 Viet. c. 76).
MR. CHARLES JAMES: I beg to move the Amendment to Clause 1 which stands in my name on the Paper. Under the general Act for the regulation of mines, the check weigher is appointed at the expense of the men.
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, at end, add—"And further, in all cases where a cheek weigher has been appointed by the majority of the colliers working in any mine and had acted as such he may recover from any collier working in such mine his proportion of the check weigher's wages or recompense notwithstanding that any colliers or collier may have left the colliery or others have entered the same since the check weigher's appointment, any rule of law or equity to the contrary notwithstanding;
"And further, it may be lawful for the owner or manager of any mine to retain the agreed contribution of the colliers for the check weigher, notwithstanding the provisions of the Acts relating to truck, and to pay and account for the same to the said check weigher."—(Mr. C. James.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. BROADHURST): I must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R.

1621
Assheton Cross) not to proceed further with this Bill to-night. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could have expected that anything would be done with it at this Sitting, and I appeal to him to adjourn the debate until Wednesday. If the Government can see its way to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman, there will be plenty of time to get the Bill through despite such adjournment. But I do not think it will be in the power of the Government to assent to the measure now. They have, to the utmost of their power, embodied in their own Bill everything the right hon. Gentleman puts in this measure; therefore, I appeal to him to agree to the adjournment of further proceedings until Wednesday.
SIR R. ASSHETON GROSS: This Bill was brought in at the very beginning of the Session; and when the Secretary of State informed the House that he was himself hoping to be able to introduce a Bill on the subject as soon as the Report of the Commission on Accidents in Mines was presented, I was willing to put this off from time to time to await the appearance of that Bill. The Report in question was presented some time ago, and I put off my measure in order that the Government might pass theirs. Well, circumstances have happened which render it impossible for the Government Bill to become law this Session; in fact, it is withdrawn. I cannot, however, see why the colliers should lose the protection which this Bill would give them, and the advantages they would have if it were passed into law. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Broadhurst) practically says this—that, because the Session is to be broken up, the colliers are not to have the benefit of this measure, the whole of the provisions of which were contained in the Government Bill. They cannot object to the provisions of my Bill, because, as I say, and as the hon. Gentleman has himself said, every one of them were included in the proposals of the Government. The Government themselves, at one time, were anxious to pass these provisions, so anxious that they did not wait to frame a larger measure on the presentation of the Report of the Commission on Accidents in Mines, lest something should happen in the Session and these clauses should not become law. I desire the Bill to pass through Committee. The
1622
Report stage might be put down for Thursday, and the Secretary of State, if he has any Amendment to propose, can move it then, just as if I we were in Committee. I am extremely anxious to see the Bill passed into law this Session, and I trust the Government will do nothing to prevent it. If they do prevent it, I shall not shrink from throwing upon them all responsibility for the proceeding. The people who are interested in this question are anxious to have the Bill, and I have promised them that it shall pass. I trust the Bill will go through Committee to-night. On Wednesday, if they choose to stop it, they can; of course, if they so desire, they can do so now; but if they do they must take the responsibility.
MR. BROADHURST: I am sorry to trouble the Committee again; but the distinct understanding with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) was that this Bill should not be proceeded with if he did not proceed further with the Government Bill—[Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS: No, no!] I am not going to fasten these conditions on the right hon. Gentleman; but they were the conditions mentioned to me by my right hon. Friend the other day when we were consulting as to the course to be adopted in regard to this Bill. With regard to the Bill of the Government, it will be in the recollection of the House that it was put down for second reading one night last week, and we were perfectly prepared to proceed with the stage. I, however, consulted with the right hon. Gentleman as to whether it would be fair to the House to ask it to proceed with the second reading of so important a measure at an hour, somewhat two hours, earlier than at present, and the right hon. Gentleman agreed that it would be scarcely fair.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I said I would raise no objection.
MR. BROADHURST: He said he would not raise any objection previous to 1 o'clock in the morning.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I said I would raise no objection provided there was ample time before we went into Committee in order to have the matter discussed.
MR. BROADHURST: Then I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I did not move the second reading as I should have done. I understood he

1623
would object if it was after 1 in the morning.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: No.
MR. BROADHURST: Be that as it may, I think it would be scarcely fair to my right hon. Friend to take further proceedings on this measure, at 3 o'clock in the morning following the morning upon which my right hon. Friend was here until 4 o'clock, without giving him some notice of intention to proceed with the Bill. All I ask is that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to report Progress at once. I do not expect that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield can think anything reasonable that comes from this Bench; but I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his opinion, it is not a reasonable request to ask him to report Progress now and take further proceedings on Wednesday? There will be plenty of time to pass the Bill after that, and therefore there can be no danger in postponing the matter for these few days. I do not think it reasonable to expect us to agree to go on with the Bill at this hour.
SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I point out that as the House proposes to adjourn in an unusual way my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) may not have an opportunity of bringing on the Bill. On the other hand, if it passes, it will be open to the Government to object to the Bill on Report; and, therefore, at this time of the Session, they will not injure themselves by going on with the Bill.
Clause agreed, to.
Clause 2 (Attendance at inquest of relatives of deceased person).
MR. BROADHURST: I think I am justified in complaining of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) making no response whatever to the appeal I have made to him; and therefore, under the circumstances, I have no other course open to me than the very distasteful one of moving that Progress be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progross, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Broadhurd.)
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I am unable to assent to that Motion; but the responsibility must rest with the Government.
1624
I cannot see what possible objection there can be to allowing the Bill to go through. It may be that some slight alterations are necessary, and I offer every opportunity for their being considered. If the Bill is put down for Wednesday it would be impossible to proceed with it, because it is understood that the Government are going to take Supply on that day, as well as several other measures.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that there will be any difficulty in going on with the Bill on Wednesday. I am informed that Supply will not be taken on that day.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I am in a position to know the feeling among the miners of Yorkshire with regard to this Bill, which is that they are extremely anxious that it should go forward. I trust that the colliers in every part of the country will know how vexatious an opposition has been made to this Bill on the part of the Government, and will realize who are their true friends. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) not to yield to this monstrous attempt on the part of the Government to stifle this Bill from a feeling of Party jealousy.
MR. CHARLES JAMES: I hope the Government will allow this little Bill to pass to-night. If a larger Bill is passed it will repeal the smaller Acts, but many things may happen before this comes on again; and, in the meantime, the colliers will not get the benefit of a Bill which is very necessary in their interests.
MR. BROADHURST: I must complain that the right hon. Gentleman has not given my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary some Notice of his intention to proceed with this Bill. I say it is most unreasonable to ask us to go on with it at the present time. ["No, no!"] This Bill has been on the Notice Paper for a month or six weeks; and it is very unreasonable, I think, that the right hon. Gentleman should select 3 o'clock on Saturday morning, when my right hon. Friend has left, without any idea that the Bill would come on. I think it is very unreasonable that he should select this particular time at which to proceed with the measure. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Bill

1625
cannot be taken on Wednesday, because the Government will ask for Supplies. But there is no Supply to be taken on Wednesday; that is perfectly clear; and, therefore, there is every reasonable chance of the right hon. Gentleman having plenty of time on Wednesday, if he will agree to postpone the Bill until that day.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I am sorry I cannot agree to that proposal. I have already deferred bringing this Bill forward, owing to the request of the Secretary of State; and I cannot understand why we should not now go on with the Bill.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 23: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 130.)
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, the sum of £26,993,652 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Resolution to be reported upon Wednesday next.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [ADVANCES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise advances out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or out of moneys in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners held on account of Savings Banks, of any sum of money, not exceeding £3,000,000 in the whole, to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and not exceeding £1,200,000 in the whole, to enable the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to make advances in promotion of Public Works;
(2.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise further advances out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of any sum or sums of money, not exceeding £50,000 in the whole, to enable the Land Commission in Ireland to make advances in pursuance of "The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883."
(3.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise advances out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of any sum of money, not exceeding £20,000, to enable the Fishery Board for Scotland to make advances in pursuance of any Act which may be passed in the present Session relating to the Tenure of Land by Crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
(4.) Resolved, That it is expedient to empower the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to reduce, on certain conditions, from five to four per cent. per annum, the rate of interest payable on the debt due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners by the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland, in respect of the Belfast Central Railway undertaking recently purchased by that Company.
(5.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Public Works Loan Commissioners to remit all sums due in respect of a loan of £20,000 advanced by them under "The Dunbar Harbour Loan Act, 1857," and to authorise the Fishery Board for Scotland to remit all sums due in respect of a loan of £2,500 advanced by them for the purposes of the Harbour at Dunbar.
(6.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Public Works Loan Commissioners to remit on certain conditions all sums due in respect of interest on a loan of £8,400 advanced by them to the Newry, Warrenpoint, and Rostrevor Railway Company.
(7.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to remit all sums due in respect of a loan of £220 advanced by them to the Lough Allen Clay Works Company, in pursuance of "The Labouring Classes Lodging Houses and Dwellings Act (Ireland) 1866."
(8.) Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the terms on which the Public Works Loan Commissioners are authorised by "The Public Works Loans Act, 1875," to advance money for the purposes of the Acts relating to the relief of the poor.
Resolutions to be reported upon Wednesday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 11) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Borlase, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Local Government District of Dukinfield, the City of Manchester, and the Rochester and Chatham Joint Hospital District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Borlase and Mr. Stansfeld.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 277.]

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (URRAY WATER) BILL.
On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," relating to Urray Water, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 279.]

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Charles Acland, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under "The Electric Lighting Act, 1882," relating to Chelsea, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Acland and Mr. Mundella.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 278.]

REVISING BARRISTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. John Morley, Bill to amend the Law relating to the appointment of Revising Barristers and the attendance of County Officers at Revision Courts in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Morley and Mr. Henry H. Fowler.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 283.]

WESTMINSTER ABBEY RESTORATION BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Secretary Childers, Bill to enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to make an advance to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for the Restoration and Repair of Westminster Abbey, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Childers and Mr. Henry H. Fowler.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 284.]

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Bill to further amend the Acts relating to the raising of Money by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry H. Fowler and Mr. Leveson Gower.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 285.]
House adjourned at Three o'clock, till Wednesday next.