Sitting of 12 May 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Army and Navy Estimates, appointed.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS VII. — MISCELLANEOUS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—East India Stock Commission * [263].
Second Sending—Duke of Connaught's Leave [228].
Committee—Municipal Corporations Acts (Ireland) Amendment (No. 2) * [176]—R.P.
Third Reading—Colonial Service (Pensions) * [251], and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Report—Pier and Harbour* [222].

QUESTIONS.

  EMIGRATION FROM IRELAND, JANUARY TO APRIL, 1887.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the number of emigrants from Ireland during each of the months of January, February, March, and April, 1887?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The numbers of emigrants from Ireland during the period named appear to have been as follows:—January, 1,678; February, 2,749; March, 7,147; and April, 18,968.

  INDIA—THE FOREST SERVICE—PENSION REGULATIONS.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Why the Pension Regulations of the Forest Service in India are based on a considerably lower scale than those now obtaining in the Public Works Department; and, if, having regard to the fact that the European officers in both Services are trained in an analogous manner, and that the duties of Foresters involve much hardship, solitude, and exposure, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to remove this distinction?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): I find, upon inquiry, that the Questions which the hon. Member has addressed to me are among those which the Government of India has submitted to the Public Service Commission. The attention of that Commission is specially directed to placing Departments, as regards recruitment and future conditions of service, upon a full satisfactory basis. Alleged existing grievances as to conditions of service and retirement in various Departments are being considered from this point of view. The Secretary of

  1661
  State cannot, therefore, express any opinion upon the matter till the Report of the Commission is made.

  THE CURRENCY COMMISSION.
  COLONEL LLOYD ANSTEUTHERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, having regard to the very considerable public interest taken in the matter, he will arrange that the proceedings of the "Currency Commission," of which Lord Herschell is Chairman, be public, and that it do not sit with closed doors, as was the case when Mr. Arthur Balfour was Chairman of the Commission; and, whether he will arrange that the proceedings of the Commission, with the evidence already taken before it, be printed and circulated?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The proceedings of Royal Commissions are invariably conducted in private, and it would be contrary to precedent to admit the public The accommodation at the disposal of the Commission would, moreover, be inadequate for such a purpose. I understand that the Commission purpose, at an early date, to make an interim Report to Her Majesty of their proceedings.

  ARMY—AUXILIARY FORCES— REMOVAL OF THE WEXFORD MILITIA FOR TRAINING.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state why the Wexford Militia are to removed this year from the town of Wexford for their training?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: The 3rd Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment will this year be trained at Duncannon Fort instead of Wexford, because there is no suitable rifle range available at the latter place.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE—GENTLEMAN CADET WARD.
  MR. SHIRLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to take any criminal proceedings against, or otherwise to secure the proper punishment of, Gentleman Cadet Ward, for the culpable negligence by which he
  1662
  shot an errand boy, named William Vicars, at Woolwich, on Saturday, 7th May?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): This matter has been somewhat exaggerated. the boy Vicars did not fall down insensible, and his injury if, fortunately, not dangerous. Compensation has been offered and accepted, and the police have withdrawn from interference. Although it has not been deemed necessary to detain Gentleman Cadet Ward in arrest he has been most seriously cautioned as to his future conduct. His behaviour has been hitherto most exemplary, and the recollection of his indescribable folly will be in itself a severe punishment to him.

  ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE—RELATIVE RANK.
  DR. CLARKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering the great dissatisfaction that exists amongst medical students and the Medical Profession generally at the abolition of relative rank, which dissatisfaction may seriously diminish the number of candidates for the Army Medical Service, he will advise Her Majesty to issue a Warrant conferring honorary rank on all medical officers, and place them at least in as good a position as the officers in the Commissariat, Ordnance, and Pay Departments?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have said many times that the abolition of relative rank has not in any way altered the position or status of medical officers; and I have no reason to suppose that these officers are desirous of being called by titles so dissociated from the duties of their honourable Profession as those of Colonel, Major, and Captain. These titles are, however, necessary in the case of other Departments, whose officers, unlike those of the Medical Department, do not belong to a recognized Profession.

  LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA—THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. FINLAYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he has ascertained that there is serious dissatisfaction with the limited scope of the inquiry to be conducted by

  1663
  the Select Committee on Loss of Life at Sea; and, whether that scope will be extended to include inquiry into loss of life and property cause by collision, and the prevention of such loss?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the Reference to the Select Committee has been enlarged, and now includes almost everything which is not within the scope of the Royal Commission to inquire into Loss of Life at Sea. The question of collisions involves international considerations as to possible modifications of the Rule of the Road at Sea. The advantages which might accrue from any such alterations would have to be carefully weighed against the possible disadvantage of changing Rules which are well known and adopted by all maritime countries, and by seamen in all parts of the world.

  AUSTRALIAN COLONIES—NORTH QUEENSLAND.
  MR. MCDONALD CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, What steps the Government propose to take in connection with the Separation Petition received from the people of North Queensland, advocating the formation of that part of Australia into a new Colony?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I have fixed a day on which to receive and hear the views of the promoters of the separation of North Queensland; but I am advised that Her Majesty's Government can take no step without Imperial legislation, and I must add that such legislation could hardly be resorted to without some prior resolution, in favour of the change, being passed by the Colonial Legislature.
  MR. MCDONALD CAMERONasked if the right hon. Gentleman would present the Correspondence which had taken place on the matter?
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: At present I can see no objection; but I. would rather defer an answer until I have seen the deputation.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — MR. TURNER, R.M., DRUMSNA.
  MR. COX(for Mr. O'KELLY)asked the Chief Secre-
  1664
  tary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention had been called to the refusal of Mr. Turner, R.M., to grant an information against Francis Cooke, a bailiff, charged with presenting a loaded revolver at Mr. Veich Simpson, of Drumsna; whether a number of witnesses swore that Francis Cooke and some companions had driven into the village of Drumsna and called out for Mr. Simpson; whether, when Mr. Simpson presented himself, Francis Cooke drew a revolver and presented it at Simpson; whether Mr. Turner, R.M., refused an information against Cooke, on the ground that—
  "Though the revolver was produced and flourished by Cooke, to the danger of a crowd of persons near Mr. Dalrymple's door, still as there was no actual proof that he presented it at Simpson, he could not return Cooke for trial;"
  and, whether the Government propose to take any further action in the matter?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Resident Magistrate reports that he did not refuse information on the ground alleged in the Question, but because there was no evidence to prove the charge. The three witnesses produced by Simpson in support of the charge denied that Cooke had presented the revolver at him or anybody else; and there was, therefore, no ground for returning information.
  MR. COXasked, could no prosecution be taken for drawing a revolver in a crowd because he did not present the revolver at any individual in the crowd?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, there was no evidence to prove that the man presented the revolver at Simpson, or at anyone at all.
  MR. COX: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inquire into the truth of the statement that Cooke did draw his revolver in a crowd?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman put the Question down?

FRANCE —ASSIMILATION OF HOME AND COLONIAL CUSTOMS TARIFFS.
MR. KNOWLESasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the French Government have assimilated their Home and Colonial Customs Tariffs; and, whether such assimilation will

1665
shortly come into force in their Asiatic Settlements, and impose differential duties against British trade?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The French Government have not assimilated their Home and Colonial Tariffs. It is enacted that from and after June 1, 1887, the General Tariff of France shall be applied to all foreign goods imported into Cochin-China, Cambodia, Annam, and Tonquin, with such exceptions as may be considered advisable by the French Indo-Chinese Authorities, and be sanctioned by the French Council of State. French goods entering Indo-China will be free of duty, unless they come under the exceptional rates above-mentioned, whether they are imported under the French or a foreign flag. Since September 6, 1886, French ship3 entering ports in Annam and Tonquin have been liable to pay tonnage dues at the rate of 2 francs per ton for three months, or 50 centimes per ton per voyage. Foreign ships pay double—namely, 4 francs in the first case, and 1 franc in the second.

ADMIRALTY—EXAMINATION OF MIDSHIPMEN IN SEAMANSHIP.
MR. CRAIG SELLARasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in reference to his statement regarding the examination of midshipmen in seamanship, If he can state the number of first class, second class, and third class certificates respectively which have been awarded since September, 1885; what proportion of the holders of these certificates served in the Training Squadron; and, how many first, how many second, and how many third classes respectively have been awarded by the Examiners in the Training Squadron during that period?
THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Since September, 1885, there have been awarded to midshipmen at their seamanship examination 40 first class certificates, 35 second class certificates, 21 third class certificates, making in all 96. Of thes9 43 served in the Training Squadron. The officers of the Training Squadron examined 19 of the above number, with the following results:—Three first classes; nine second classes; seven third classes; making a total of
1666
19. the remaining 24 of the 43 were examined by officers of other Squadrons.

CENTRAL AFRICA—TRANSIT TARIFF THROUGH PORTUGUESE TERRITORY.
MR. CRAIG SELLARasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Whether it is a fact that the Portuguese Government has, for more than two years, suspended the 3 per cent. Transit Duty of goods passing through Portuguese territory to British Settlements on Lake Nyassa and the Shiré Highlands; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to secure the advantages of the transit tariff arranged in 1877; and, whether Her Majesty's Government can safeguard British interests in that region by pressing for a permanent Transit Duty, which will not be liable (as is now the case) to suspension without British concurrence?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): There is no arrangement as to the Transit Tariff between Great Britain and Portugal. The Mozambique Tariff of 1877 was imposed by Royal Decree, and was purely an act of internal administration. The temporary suspension of the Transit Duty was also pat into operation by Decree. Her Majesty's Government have been assurred that the suspension, which was owing to local causes, will be removed on the first suitable opportunity, due regard being had to fiscal interests. Her Majesty's Government, having no Treaty rights, cannot press the Portuguese Government in the sense suggested.

THE NEWSPAPER PRESS—THE LANG-WORTHY MARRIAGE CASE IN "THE PALL MALL GAZETTE."
DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the number of instances in which statements apparently obviously and wilfully false, have been made in affidavits quoted by The Pall Mail Gazette, in its narrative of the Lang-worthy marriage case; and, whether he will instruct the Public Prosecutor to inquire into the truth of the allegations therein contained, with a view, in the event of their proving true, to instituting

1667
proceedings for perjury against the guilty-parties?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said, the Home Secretary had no intention of taking action in the matter. If those concerned were of opinion that proceedings for perjury should be instituted against anyone it would be open to them to make of application to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

POST OFFICE—SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT IN QUEEN VICTORIA STREET.
DR. CAMERONasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has yet been able to take any steps for ameliorating the accommodation of the Savings Bank employés in the Savings Bank Department in the temporary premises in Queen Victoria Street and Knightrider Street, or the mitigation of the annoyance of which they complain from the noise and vibration of adjacent machinery, and want of sufficient air, space, and ventilation?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have to state that the First Commissioner of Works has carried out measures for improving the ventilation in the premises in Queen Victoria Street temporarily occupied by a portion of the staff of the Savings Bank, and that it has been found possible to reduce the number of officers who are required to work there. Thus a considerable improvement has been effected. As regards the premises in Knightrider Street, I may say that I trust shortly to be able to obtain some other premises which will afford better accommodation. Meanwhile, an effort will be made to mitigate the effect of the vibration caused by adjacent machinery as far as possible.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BELFAST GUARDIANS—JOSEPH WATT, A RELIEVING OFFICER.
MR. LEAHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it be true that the Belfast Poor Law Guardians, at their usual weekly meeting held on 3rd May, 1887, had under consideration the conduct of Joseph Watt, one of their relieving officers, who attended the Board Meeting in a drunken state without his diary for
1668
the week being duly written up; is it true that Watt had been sent home by Mr. Harkness, one of the Guardians, owing to his incapacity, and that he made a Report of Watt's condition to the Chairman and other members of the Board; was Watt absent from duty on the previous weekly meeting of the Board from the same cause; did the Guardians make any Report to the Local Government Board as to Watt's condition in the Minutes of their last day's proceedings; and, if not, why not; and, will Watt's services be now continued?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: It appears that Mr. Watt attended the meeting on the 3rd instant, but was obliged to retire, owing to his weak state of health, another relieving officer undertaking to discharge his duties. Mr. Harkness has stated that he did not advise Mr. Watt to retire, nor did he report his absence to the Board. Mr. Watt was absent from the previous meeting of the Board owing to illness, a medical certificate of which he has since furnished to the Guardians. An entry appeared in the Guardians' Minutes of the 3rd instant, to the effect that the Chairman did not sign Mr. Watt's diary, as that officer was unable to remain during the meeting. The Local Government Board do not consider that there is anything calling for their interference at present in the matter.

WAR OFFICE—PERMANENT FINANCIAL CONTROL.
SIR. WILLIAM PLOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will state, for the information of the House, the nature of the permanent financial control he proposes to establish at the War Office?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I explained to the House the other day the reason why, at present, I could make no further statement on this subject.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—PUPIL TEACHERS.
MR. MACLUREasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education,

1669
Whether instructions may be given that candidates and pupil teachers shall be informed, soon after their examination on paper, whether they have passed that part of their examination?
THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The whole subject of the examination of pupil teachers is now under consideration, with a view to the alteration of the terms under which, so far as the Department is concerned, they are apprenticed; and, in the meantime, it will not be expedient to make any change in the Regulations.

THE MAGISTRACY (ENGLAND AND WALES) —CERRIG Y DRUIDION PETTY SESSIONS.
MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in The Carnarvon and Denbigh Herald of 30th April, relating to the Petty Sessional Division of Cerrig y Druidion, County of Denbigh—
"An Abortive Petty Sessions. — Another Petty Sessions fell duo here on Monday last, and although there were a few cases to be heard, no magistrate could be found to attend; "
whether the repeated failure of the Monthly Petty Sessions at Cerrig y Druidion is due to the aversion of magistrates to sit with a gentleman recently made a Justice, and who is said to have associated himself with the anti-tithe agitation; and, whether he will take steps to procure a prompt administration of justice in this Petty Sessional Division?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: There was an abortive Petty Sessions at Cerrig y Druidion in April last; and those Sessions have not been held regularly in the past in consequence of the difficulty of obtaining a quorum of Justices. This was not due, the Secretary of State is informed, to the cause suggested in the Question, but to the inaccessibility of the place, and the limited number of magistrates. The Lord Lieutenant has recently added one magistrate to the Bench of the district, and he hopes to find a second qualified person. By this increase of strength on the Bench the Lord Lieutenant anticipates that the regular attendance of a quorum will be secured.

WAR OFFICE—THE TWO ARMY CORPS —THE HORSE ARTILLERY.
MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the eight batteries of Horse Artillery of the two Army Corps about to be formed will be on the peace or war establishment, and if there has been any alteration in the latter establishment from that laid down by the War Office Equipment Regulations—namely, 175 men and 168 horses per battery; if no alteration, how it is proposed now, or on sudden emergency, to supply the deficiency of men and horses required to raise these batteries to their war strength; whether the full complement of horses in these eight batteries at war strength would be 1,344; whether the total number effective on 1st April of present year, in the whole of the 13 batteries then existing and before the reduction, was 980; and, whether it is now but 808 for the nine batteries which remain after the reduction has been carried out?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Horse Artillery batteries will be on the peace establishment. The war establishment of a battery has not been altered. On full mobilization—that is, of two Army Corps, a Cavalry Division, and lines of communication—the batteries would be completed in men from the Reserve and in horses by purchase. At war strength the eight batteries would require 1,304 horses On the 1st of April the effective number was 1,032. If the Horse Artillery batteries required for the two Army Corps were to be kept at full strength, to enable them to take the field instantly, we should require 568 more horses and 230 more men, and the extra cost the first year would be £51,000. I should be very glad if there were the least probability of such a proposal being accepted by the House; but I do not think it likely that they would approve an establishment far in excess of what other countries think of maintaining in peace time. I may add that the supply of horses for the Artillery forms part only of the much larger question of horse supply generally, about which I hope to be in a position before long to make proposals.

AFRICA (EAST COAST)—THE SLAVE TRADE ON THE MOZAMBIQUE COAST.
MR. A. E. PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in view of the concurrent and recent testimony borne by travellers, missionaries, and other residents to the great activity of the Slave Trade on the Mozambique Coast, in the Nyassa District, and on the Red Sea Littoral, Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table of the House such Reports as may have been received from Her Majesty's Consuls stationed at Mozambique, Lake Nyassa, Suakin, and Jeddah?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERQUSSON): No Reports have been received showing that there is exceptional activity in Mozambique and the Nyassa District. Such Reports as have been received on the subject will be found in the annual Slave Trade Blue Book about to be presented.

WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—DEFECTIVE WEAPONS—THE ROYAL HORSE GUARDS.
MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that, in or about October of last year, an official was sent from Enfield to Regent's Park Barracks to test the swords belonging to the Royal Horse Guards; whether the swords so tested were the new pattern sword, and when were they issued; whether, out of 15 tested in one troop, only one passed; and, how many in all were so tested, and out of what total, and how many failed to stand the test?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have not at present found any record of an official testing of the swords of the Royal Horse Guards in October last; but I am making further inquiries. In the previous January, however, 165 swords belonging to that regiment were examined, when a large proportion were found to be in bad condition, and all were reported as very old, and not worth the cost of repair. The regiment had had these swords for many years, and they had been obtained by purchase on the responsibility of the officers commanding the
1672
regiment, in accordance with the practice which formerly obtained in the regiments of Household Cavalry. All these swords were replaced by new ones when they were found to be in bad condition.

CEYLON—RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.
MR. MCDONALD CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is aware that the Ceylon Government have constructed 42 miles of railway between Nawalapitya and Nanuoya at a cost of £900,000; that it was the original intention of the Government to extend the line to Haputale, 25 miles further, in order to tap the traffic of the Uva District, which now goes by a long route of 150 miles to the sea; that two successive Governors have recommended the construction of the 25 miles alluded to; that it has been estimated that this extra expenditure would lead to a return of 6 per cent on the total capital of £1,400,000, whereas the traffic revenue from the 42 mile section already constructed is only sufficient to pay 3 per cent on the £900,000 expended upon it; and, whether the Imperial Government is prepared to recommend the construction of the 25 miles alluded to, and so obtain a greater revenue, besides conferring a highly desirable benefit on the planters and other inhabitants of the Uva District?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The line to Nanuoya has been constructed; but it was sanctioned by the Government irrespective of any further extension. In the event, however, of the section to Nanuoya justifying expectations, Badulla, some 30 miles beyond Haputale, was looked to as the ultimate terminus. Two successive Governors recommended the extension; and estimates have been furnished, from time to time, purporting to show that the extension would be profitable, but the data given did not satisfy my Predecessors. In the face of the fact that the revenue for 1886 did not reach the estimate, and that the last few years have shown a constantly growing burden of debt, there would be considerable difficulty in varying the decision of my immediate Predecessor—namely, that the extension could not be undertaken by Government in the present financial

1673
condition of the Colony, but that a private Company would be at liberty to take it up. There is little to add to the answers given to the hon. Member in April last year, and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) in March last; but I am to receive a deputation on the subject in the course of next week, and shall, of course, give careful consideration to any statements they bring before me.
MR. MCDONALD CAMERONasked, whether the Government would sanction the construction of the railway by a private Company?
SIR HENRY HOLLANDimagined that a private Company could start without the sanction of the Government.

FRANCE—THE PARIS EXHIBITION IN 1889.
MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it be true, as stated in The Morning Post of Monday the 9th instant, that Her Majesty's Government have declined official participation in the proposed Exhibition to be held in Paris in 1889 to commemorate the capture of the Bastille and the triumph of the French Revolution?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The French Government have been informed that Her Majesty's Government do not propose to take any official part in the Exhibition to be held in Paris in 1889; but that they will be happy to afford every facility to exhibitors who may be desirous of sending their goods, or of contributing in other respects to the undertaking.

WAR OFFICE— QUARTERMASTERS—THE WARRANT OF 1886.
DR. CLARKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the Government to put in force, at any early date, the provisions of the Royal Warrant of 1886 regarding Quartermasters having honorary rank conferred upon them; and whether several Quartermasters have been strongly recommended by their Commanding Officers for the honorary rank of Major, but have not yet had the rank conferred upon thorn; and, whether it is the case that two Majors have been
1674
appointed in the Royal Artillery Coast Brigade whose total commission service is only 12 years, while there are Quartermasters and Ridingmasters of over 20 years' commission service not yet promoted?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The grant of the honorary rank of Major to a limited number of Quartermasters has been decided on and will shortly take effect. Two Majors have recently been appointed in the Coast Brigade of Royal Artillery who had only 12 years' commissioned service, though they also had long service in the ranks; but the position is regimental, and dependent on the establishment of the corps. The promotion has no reference to the claims of Quartermasters or Ridingmasters, none of whom would have been eligible for the appointment.

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS—EXTRA ALLOWANCE TO THE POLICE CONSTABLES.
MR. O'HANLONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, How many nights' extra duty have constables been engaged in and about the House for which they have not been paid any money; when they are to get these wages; and, how much per night he intends to give each man?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The police have been employed longer than usual on two nights in this Session— namely, March 21 and May 9. The Chief Commissioner has recommended that for the former of these two occasions the men should receive 2s. 6d. each, and the Inspectors 5s. each, the messengers of the House having been granted an extra allowance for that occasion. It is understood that the messengers will not be granted any extra allowance for the 9th instant; and in order that there may be a uniformity in the allowances to messengers and police it is not proposed to grant an extra allowance to the police for that day.

EDUCATION—SECOND REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON EDUCATION.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the Vice Presi-

1675
dent of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether some arrangement could be made whereby the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Education, just issued, could be sold at a more reasonable price, and not at one which is practically prohibitory to most of those desirous of purchasing the volume?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: I am afraid that I cannot agree to any reduction in the price fixed according to the established scale for the Report referred to. The price is based only on the cost of paper and printing, and does not include the cost of setting up the type.

NEW ARMY MEDICAL WARRANT—HALF-PAY.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the proposed alterations in the New Warrant with reference to the Medical Department of the Army, the same privileges, as enjoyed at present by the Royal Engineers under paragraph 71, Clause I, Army Circular, 1st January, 1887, would be extended to Medical Officers, namely—
"That an officer, placed on half-pay on account of ill-health incurred in and by the Service, may reckon time on half-pay, not exceeding one year, towards promotion, towards voluntary retirement, and towards retired pay?"
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: The general rule for all Departmental officers is that they do not reckon time on half-pay towards promotion or retirement. Medical officers come under this rule, in common with those of all other Departments.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE INSTRUCTIONS TO INSPECTORS.
MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he could arrange that the Instructions to Inspectors should be issued earlier in the year, and nearer to the time when the Education Code is published, so as to avoid the anomaly, now existing, of having the Code of one year and the Instructions of another year in circulation at the same time?
THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The form which the Instructions to Inspectors, if they undergo any change, finally take, depends, to some extent, upon the results of the Easter Conference between the Chief Inspectors. It is the practice of the Department to issue the Instructions as soon as possible after the conclusion of the Conference.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ELEMENTARY EDUCATION—THE RETURNS.
MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, When the Returns as to Elementary Education, usually issued early in the year in advance of the Report, will be in the hands of Members?
THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The Returns will shortly be in the hands of Members.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNES ESTATES, LUGGACURRAN —ACTION OF THE POLICE.
MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the police at Borris-in-Ossory, Queen's County, have torn down all the posters announcing a collection in aid of the Marquess of Lansdowne's evicted tenants at Luggacurran; and, if so, whether he will inform the House by virtue of what Act of Parliament the police took this course?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Yes, Sir; six placards, announcing a collection in aid of what was represented as the Luggacurran Campaign, wore torn down by the police. The placards directly, though not expressly, advocated the Plan of Campaign, and the Divisional Magistrate properly ordered their removal.
MR. W. A. MACDONALD: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answer what is really the important part of the Question; by virtue of what Act of Parliament the placards were torn down?
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The Divisional Magistrate acted in pursuance of his duty as an officer in charge

1677
of the district, and in the interests of peace.

THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITY BILL.
MR. MASONasked the Lord Advocate, When the Scotch University Bill is to be introduced, which was promised in the Queen's Speech?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): This Bill will be introduced as soon as the clauses which require the consent of the Lords of the Treasury have been adjusted.

DOGS—THE RABIES ORDER.
MR. COGHILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, having regard to the recent increase in the number of mad dogs since the suspension of the "rabies" order issued by the police, he will give instructions for that order to be re-issued, and for other precautionary measures to be taken for the protection of the public; and, whether he has any information to show that, in Berlin, where all dogs are at all times compulsorily muzzled, rabies has almost completely disappeared?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said, the Commissioner of Police reports no abnormal increase of cases in April in the Metropolitan Police District. We have no official information as to the results of whatever may be the practice in Berlin.

POST OFFICE—CARRIAGE OF MAILS TO CORNWALL.
MR. CONYBEAREasked the Postmaster General, What are the terms of the existing Mail Contract with the Great Western Railway Company for the carriage of Mails for the County of Cornwall, relative to the power of the Company and of the Post Office respectively to stop its trains at various points; how long such contract has still to run; and, whether it can be terminated on the part of the Post Office by giving any, and, if so, what notice?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The hours and stops of the mail trains on the Great Western Railway are de-
1678
termined by a Schedule attached to the Mail Contract. As regards these trains, the Postmaster General may require alterations of the time bill; but the Company have no power of making an alteration, except by consent of the Postmaster General. The contract is for a term of five years from December 1, 1883, and is determinable afterwards by notice of six months.

INDIA — INDIAN TELEGRAPH OFFICIALS.
MR. CONYBEAREasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is now in a position to state more definitely the intentions of the Government respecting the grievances complained of by the Indian Telegraph Officials; and, whether he can now, or, if not, how soon, lay before the House the Correspondence on the subject with the Indian Government?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): I regret that I am not yet in a position to state definitely the intentions of the Government respecting the Indian Telegraph Department. The Correspondence is not yet complete, and it would be premature to lay it before the House.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE ANNUAL HOLIDAY.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Postmaster General, If the annual holiday of one month, referred to in the Post Office Circular of November 30, 1886, has been allowed to the overseers in the sorting branch of the General Post Office, Dublin?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): No, Sir; it has not. The case of the overseers in Dublin is being considered, with that of the corresponding officers in London and in Edinburgh, and the decision, when arrived at, will apply to all three offices in common.

FISHERY COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND)— TRAWLING IN DONEGAL BAY.
MR. T. M. HEALY(for Mr. MAC NEILL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Fishery Commissioners, who hold inquiries last year in the towns of Donegal and Killybegs, have arrived at any, and, if so, what

1679
decision on the question of permitting trawling in Donegal Bay?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I have been unable to obtain the necessary answer for this Question, as the Inspectors of Fisheries are absent from their headquarters on duty. But since I came down to the House I have received a telegram from Sir Thomas Brady to the effect that trawling is allowed on a part of Donegal Bay, and the Inspectors of Fisheries have come to no decision as to prohibiting it.

POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—TELEGRAPH INSULATORS.
COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Postmaster General, Whether the form of telegraph insulator now adopted by the Telegraph Department is the subject of letters patent; and, whether the patentee is in the service of the Department; and, if so, whether the Post Office pays royalty in respect of such insulators, or whether the insulators are purchased in the ordinary manner by open tender, and the price paid for such insulators?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. and gallant Member, I have to state that the form of telegraph insulator generally used by the Post Office is the subject of letters patent. The patentee is an officer of the Post Office; but no separate royalty is paid in respect of such insulator. The insulator can only be obtained from one firm, who are the sole makers of the article, and therefore open tenders cannot be called for. The price paid is 10¼d. per insulator.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—LORD GRANARD.
MR. T. M. HEALYfor (Mr. CHANCE)asked the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any letter from Lord Granard has been published, denying that the authorities of Maynooth College are, either directly or indirectly, responsible for the evictions on his estate?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: A letter has appeared in The Free-
1680
man's Journal of Tuesday last, addressed to Dr. Browne, the President of Maynooth College, which does not exactly tally with the suggestions contained in the hon. Member's Question, but in which Lord Granard describes himself as being "quite ready to assume the responsibility" for the evictions on his Drumlish estate.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether he proposes to make any apology to the authorities of Maynooth College for his insinuation that they were responsible for the evictions?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
Subsequently,
COLONEL KING-HARMAN, in asking leave to make a personal explanation, said: The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) either insinuated or stated that I had brought a charge against the authorities of Maynooth College. I wish to explain. It will be in the recollection of the House that what I did say was that Lord Granard's agents stated that his Lordship did not desire to press the matter to the point of eviction; but that it was owing to the action of the mortgagees that this course had to be adopted. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford then demanded from me the names of the mortgagees. I had not intended to give them; but I was obliged, in reply to his Question, to mention that the mortgagees were the Trustees of Maynooth College. On the following Monday, the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) road what purported to be a letter from Lord Granard's agents to the clerk of the Mohill Union, stating that his Lordship's estate had never been in the hands of a receiver. The hon. Member, probably from the excitement of the moment, did not read the end of the letter, which went on as follows:—
"We have, unfortunately, been obliged to press for payment of the rents now overdue. This is in consequence of charges on the estate, the principal one being the interest due to Maynooth College, and which the Trustees state they do not feel themselves justified in allowing to fall into arrears.
Yours obediently,
DARLEY AND ROE."
I think the House will see that I was justified in saying that the agents of Lord Granard's said that the mortgagees were the Trustees of Maynooth College.
MR. T. M. HEALY: After the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, to prevent further discussion, I think it is only right, speaking on behalf of the mortgagees to some extent, to say that it was the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself who stated, in reply to my Question, that it was in consequence of the pressure of the mortgagees that these evictions occurred. I asked then who were the mortgagees, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said Maynooth College. It was the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's original statement that these evictions took place in consequence of the mortgagees that brought out the names of the mortgagees; and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must now see, owing to the letter of Lord Granard and the statement of Maynooth Colloge, that these evictions in no sense have taken place in consequence of the action of Maynooth College.

WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT) —SMALL ARMS MANUFACTORY AT ENFIELD.
COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, How many reversed ratchet barrels have been manufactured at Enfield, approximately; what has been the rate of production a-week during January, February, March, and April of this year; and, how many Enfield Martini-Henry rifles have been manufactured, with short levers and half cock, similar in pattern to those issued experimentally?
THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): Upwards of 70,000 reversed-ratchet barrels have been made at Enfield, at the average rate, during the present year, of 1,668 per week. 21,875 Enfield-Martini rifles, similar to those issued experimentally, have been constructed. Some objections have been raised in detail to the experimental weapons; and arrangements are now in progress to alter the main supply, so as to meet those objections.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—EXTRA POLICE IN THE NORTH RIDING OF TIPPERARY.
MR. P. J. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, At what date or dates the 43 men stated to be acting as
1682
extra police in the North Riding of Tipperary were appointed for that duty; whether these 43 men represent the exact number by which the Parliamentary quota in the district stands reduced; whether the district is at present acknowledged to be in a peaceful condition, and cannot, therefore, be "declared by proclamation to be in a state of disturbance" to warrant extra police; and, whether, having regard to these facts, the extra police will be withdrawn, and, if necessary, the Parliamentary quota restored to its original number, 309?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: On the 23rd of January, 1882, 64 police were sent to the North Riding of Tipperary, and on the 4th of August following 50 men. That force has been gradually reduced to the present number of 43. The question of extra police in counties comes under the consideration of the authorities yearly; and on the last occasion the matter was before them the Local Authorities responsible for the peace of the district of the North Riding could not advise the withdrawal of the force,

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)— UNSATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS IN TYRONE.
MR. M. J. KENNYasked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been directed to the unsatisfactory postal arrangements at present existing at Fintona, County Tyrone; if the latest hour for posting letters is 6.50 p.m., although a train carrying the mails from surrounding towns passes Fintona without stopping at 10 p.m.; and whether he will in future cause the mails to be despatched by this train; if it is a fact that the latest hour for posting English letters is 10.30 a.m., although a train passes through Fintona at 2 p.m., connecting at Omagh with the regular English mail train; and, whether he will cause the incoming mails to be delivered at Fintona by the train which now passes that town without stopping at 3 a.m., but which carries the incoming mails to other towns further on?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): My attention had not been previously directed to the postal arrangements at

1683
Fintona as unsatisfactory. The letter box closes for the night mail as late as 6.40 p.m., the mail bag being despatched to Omagh by the 7.10 p.m. train. The arrival of the night mail in the morning is by the train due at 8.35 a.m. The trains to which the hon. Member refers as passing through Fintona at about 10 p.m. and about 3 a.m. respectively are trains recently put on for the conveyance of the Enniskillen night mail; and it seems to me unnecessary, considering the amount of correspondence from Fintona, to make special arrangements, and to incur additional expense, in order to give the very late despatch and the very early arrival now suggested. The day mail at present leaves Fintona at 10.30 a.m., so as to be available, not only for English letters, but for the down day mail from Omagh for Londonderry, and it is undesirable to withdraw the despatch at 10.30 a.m. Inquiry is, however, being made whether an additional despatch for the English letters from Fintona can be made by the train at 2 p.m.; and on receiving a Report on this point I will communicate further with the hon. Member.

WRECK COMMISSIONERS COURT— WRECK OF THE CHANNEL STEAMER "VICTORIA."
MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the findings of the Wreck Commissioners Court in the case of the loss of the Victoria near Dieppe, the Board of Trade will make any representations, through the Foreign Office or otherwise, to the French Authorities, as to the regulations for sounding fog-horns, and also as to the omission to send boats from the shore to rescue the passengers and crew of the Victoria?
THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on Monday to the hon. Member for Walworth (Mr. Isaacs). The Report of the Court of Inquiry will be communicated to the Foreign Office, with a view to its being brought before the French Maritime Authorities.

FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—LOSS OF LIFE FROM SHALLOW-DECKED BOATS.
MR. MCDONALD CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Board
1684
of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the frequent loss of life among the Scottish fishermen, owing to the shallow-decked boats now in use; that these shallow-decked boats have only a few inches between the deck and the top of the gunwale, and that such frequent loss of life could, in most instances, have been avoided by the owners of boats being compelled to adopt some kind of safety rail; and, whether it is within the power of the Department to make compulsory the adoption, by the owners of all shallow-decked fishing boats, of a safety rail?
THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Representations have been made—which I believe to be true—that life is lost from the decks of the fishing boats referred to, and that the bulwarks are very low. The boats are built in a way to suit the requirements of the trade, and the Board of Trade have no power to make the adoption of a safety rail compulsory.

FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—THE BRITISH FISHERY SOCIETY—NET-DRYING GROUNDS.
MR. MCDONALD CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is true that the British Fishery Society has appropriated, for agricultural purposes, certain lands in the neighbourhood of Pulteneytown, Wick, which at one time were used by the fishermen for drying and mending their nets?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I have not as yet ascertained how the facts stand; but I may inform the hon. Member that fishermen who dry and mend their nets on waste lands free of charge under the Act 2 Geo. III., c. 31, do not thereby acquire any right to prevent land capable of cultivation from being utilized. The Act only gives them a privilege of free use of land which happens to be in a condition of waste.

INDIA—THE FAMINE GRANT.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is owing to the military operations in Burmah that there is no surplus for 1887–8 out of which the Famine Grant can be paid; and, if there is any likelihood, if the occupation

1685
of Burmah continues, of there being a surplus available for the Famine Grant in 1888–9?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): It is not correct to say that it is owing to the military operations in Burin all that there is no surplus in 1887–8 out of which the Famine Grant can be paid. It is impossible, at present, to say whether there is likely to be a surplus available for the Famine Grant in 1888–9.

THE CONSTABULARY—CASE OF EX-POLICE SERGEANT ESKETT.
DR. CLARKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the case that ex-Police Sergeant Eskett, who has been compelled to retire in consequence of being permanently injured while on duty, has only been allowed a pension based on his length of service, while the custom is, under such conditions, to allow a full pension to all officers who are compelled to retire through being injured on duty; and, whether he will reconsider this case?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said, the ex-Police Sergeant referred to was not allowed a special pension, because the Home Secretary was not able to treat his case as one of disablement caused by injuries whilst on duty. He regretted that he could not alter that decision.

THE NATIONAL DEBT BILL.
MR. CHILDERSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he proposes to introduce the National Debt Bill?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I hope to-morrow.

THE SCOTCH CHURCH—CHURCH BUILDING IN PITSLIGO, ABERDEENSHIRE.
MR. ESSLEMONTasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been directed to the circumstances in connection with a proposal to build a new church in the parish of Pitsligo, County Aberdeen-shire, whereby, against the unanimous protests of the Heritors, the Presbytery, relying upon a very old and all but ob-
1686
solete statute, propose to compel the erection of a building to accommodate 1,150 persons, practically the whole church-going population of the parish, notwithstanding that there are several other churches in the parish, and that the attendance at the old church, for which the now one is proposed to be substituted, never exceeds 250 persons; and, should he find the circumstances substantially as stated, is he able to take any steps to prevent this expenditure of public money?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I do not think that a Presbytery can insist on a church being built to accommodate practically the whole church-going population of a parish; and the Courts of Law have jurisdiction to prevent any Court of Presbytery from overstepping its authority. It is not in the power of the Lord Advocate to take any action in such a matter.

INLAND REVENUE—FARMERS' RETURNS TO THE INCOME TAX.
MR. LLEWELLYNasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will sanction a form of balance sheet, similar to that now used in certain parts of England, for farmers submitting their accounts to the Commissioners?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I find that the Inland Revenue officers consider that there are considerable difficulties in the way of carrying out the suggestion made by my hon. Friend; but I will inquire further into the possibility of facilitating the task of farmers in submitting their accounts to the Commissioners of Income Tax.

PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES)— MILLBANK PRISON.
MR. FELL PEASEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If orders have been given to Colonel Lodge or any other official to have preparations made in Millbank Prison for the reception of first-class misdemeanants; and, if so, why he anticipates a large increase of such persons requiring first-class accommodation?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: First-class misdemeanants used to be imprisoned in Coldbath Fields Prison, which is now closed. They are at present generally confined in Holloway Prison, where the accommodation is wanted for ordinary prisoners, who have constantly to be removed from thence for want of room. The Directors of Prisons have, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determined to place all first-class misdemeanants in Millbank Prison. The orders given to the Governor of Millbank have been to appropriate part of a Pentagon there, which is used for female prisoners, and is never full, to the use of male prisoners, both first-class misdemeanants and ordinary prisoners. The Secretary of State has no reason to anticipate an increase of first-class misdemeanants.
MR. BRADLAUGH: Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the modification arrived at a few years ago, by which first-class misdemeanants were erased as a class, has since been changed?
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I think the hon. Member had better give Notice of that Question.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAMS FROM LIVERPOOL TO BREMEN, viâ NEW YORK.
MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that Liverpool merchants and brokers at present send telegrams from Liverpool to Bremen and Havre, viâ Now York, because they thereby save from one and a-half to two hours of the time ordinarily occupied by telegrams passing over the direct Government line and Submarine Telegraph Company's cable, and that the increased expense and delay is a serious impediment to business; and, whether he can now state that any steps have been taken to remedy this, in accordance with the terms of the letter from the General Post Office of 1st February, 1887, to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Since the hon. Member's Question was placed on the Notice Paper, I have ascertained upon inquiry that the Commercial Cable Company has accepted from merchants in Liverpool messages for Havre, and that such messages have been paid for
1688
at the tariff from England to America and from America to France. This practice is contrary to the agreement between the Department and the Company, and is not followed by any other American Cable Company. The average time taken in the transmission of messages between Havre and Liverpool is under an hour, and there would, therefore, appear to be some mistake in supposing that the saving can be as stated in the hon. Member's Question. I am informed by the American Telegraph Companies that they have no knowledge of messages for Bremen having been sent over their lines. The whole question of the telegraphic communication between England and the neighbouring Continental countries is at the present time receiving my earnest consideration.

WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE TOBACCO DUTIES.
MR. HOOPERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any, and, if so, what, steps were taken to ascertain the views of Irish tobacco manufacturers, in the same way as the views of other manufacturers were obtained, at a meeting of trade representatives, preceding the concession made recently to cigar manufacturers; whether, in the event of a rebate of 4d. per lb. being granted to Irish roll tobacco manufacturers on all stock on hand on the 21st instant, any loss would be likely to eventually result to the Revenue; and, whether any protests have been received against the granting of this suggested rebate; and, if so, from how many manufacturers in Ireland, Scotland, and England, respectively.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I have previously informed the House, I think, that the concession made to the cigar trade was not made in consequence of a meeting of manufacturers. I saw a deputation, mainly consisting of representatives of the working men engaged in the cigar trade, and I afterwards ascertained that the cigar trade could be treated separately. I have taken no steps myself, since the introduction of the Budget, to ascertain the views of any manufacturers, English or Irish; but representatives of various branches of the manu-

1689
facturing trade pressed upon me to receive deputations. I received the deputations, but made no concessions, finding I could not make them. Loss would certainly accrue to the Revenue from granting a rebate on all stock in hand on the 21st instant. No protests have been received from any manufacturers against the grant of a rebate. No manufacturer would object to a proceeding which would benefit him at the expense of the Revenue.
In reply to Mr. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.).
MR. GOSCHENsaid: What I understood was that the cigar trade might be treated on a separate footing from the rest of the tobacco trade without injustice being done to any portion of it.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what would be the total loss to the Revenue if the concession claimed by Irish roll manufacturers was made?
MR. GOSCHEN: I could not say without knowing what the stock would be. It would be impossible to make any concession to the Irish roll manufacturers that would not be made to the roll manufacturers of the whole of the United Kingdom.

POST OFFICE—MAIL BAGS FOR IRELAND ON SUNDAY EVENINGS.
MR. KENNEDYasked the Postmaster General, Whether a mail bag is despatched from the Irish Office on Sunday evenings to Euston to catch the Irish Mail; and, if so, whether he will offer any facilities to the public, by establishing one central office, for despatch of Irish letters on Sundays, and thereby do away with great inconvenience felt by Irish residents and others in London.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): There is an arrangement by which a mail bag can be sent from the Irish Office when necessary; but, as a matter of fact, such a bag is not often sent. As regards the facilities for posting letters for Ireland by the public, as the hon. Member is, no doubt, aware, post offices in London are closed generally on Sunday; and I do not consider it necessary to make any change in this respect. There is, however, an arrangement by which letters for the Irish Mail (among other mails),
1690
if prepaid with an extra half penny stamp, can be pasted in a special letter-box at the Euston Railway Station all day up to 8.20 p.m. on Sunday, and this has hitherto been found sufficient to meet the requirements of the public.

OPEN AIR MEETINGS (METROPOLIS)— ARREST OF CHAPMAN AND KEMP.
MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the police applied for the warrant upon which Chapman and Kemp were arrested; and, if so, why they did not proceed against them by summons; why the warrant, which was issued on the 4th May, was not acted upon until the 8th May; whether Chapman and Kemp were arrested in Sancroft Street, where they had assembled with a number of other persons for the purpose of holding a meeting, as usual; whether, at the hearing of the charge, the police, in reply to the magistrate, stated that Chapman and Kemp were known to them, and that they would appear on remand; and, whether Chapman and Kemp were then released upon their own recognizances?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The police applied for a warrant because Chapman and Kemp could not be arrested at the time of the committing of the offence, and their addresses were not known. The hon. Member is aware that the issue of a warrant, in the first instance, is left to the discretion of a magistrate, and must be preceded by an information on oath. I understand that May 8 was the first day upon which Chapman and Kemp were seen after the issue of the warrants. Chapman was arrested in Kennington Road on the way to Sancroft Street. There were a number of persons assembled there at the time, and he did express himself to the effect that he had intended to address a meeting. He appeared, however, to be too late to do so. Kemp was arrested in Blackfriars Road. After being arrested Chapman and Kemp gave their addresses, and accordingly the police made at the bearing the statement set out in the hon. Member's fourth Question. They were released on their recognizances, the police offering no

1691
opposition, as the addresses had been given.

PUBLIC BILLS—BILLS RELATING TO PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS.
MR. HOWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the numerous Bills now before this House dealing with various statutes and matters relating to Parliamentary Elections, and proposing amendments in the laws regulating elections in the United Kingdom, the Government will consent to the Second Heading of all such Bills pro formâ, with the view of their being-considered by a Select Committee?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): As these Bills involve matters of principle as well as of detail, Her Majesty's Government do not think that they can give effect to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman that the second readings of the Bills should be taken without debate.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS—MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY —THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended by the Government that Questions addressed to the Minister responsible to this House for the conduct of Irish Affairs shall be habitually answered by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Thanet Division of Kent, who has been appointed unpaid Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; whether there is any precedent for such an arrangement; and, whether a similar delegation of duties will be applied to other Departments of State, of which the responsible Head and certain of his subordinate officers are simultaneously Members of the House?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The arrangement to which the right hon. Gentleman refers has been made by my right hon. Friend and Colleague the Chief Secretary, to meet the pressing demands made upon his time at the present moment in connection with the discharge of his official duties. No inference must be drawn from that circumstance, either that the arrangement is intended to be permanent, or that it will affect any other
1692
Department of Her Majesty's Government.
MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the present Chief Secretary is more involved in Irish business than was the late Mr. Forster, or Mr. Trevelyan, or the late Chief Secretary?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I apprehend that the hon. Member is aware that the present Chief Secretary is greatly involved in work; but whether more so than the Gentlemen he has named I cannot say.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Does the fact that another hon. Member of the Irish Administration is also a Member of the Cabinet, and resides in Ireland, diminish or increase the labours of the Chief Secretary?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I am surprised at the Question of the right hon. Gentleman. He is sufficiently aware of the mode in which Public Business is conducted to be able to answer the Question himself.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACTS (IRELAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask some Member of the Government to refer me to one of their Colleagues who can answer a Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) the other night. There is a Bill down to-night in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry)from which the blocks have been withdrawn. I wish to know, whether it is the intention of the Government to support the hon. Baronet in restricting the Bill to Belfast alone; or, whether the Government will support the extension of the principle of the Bill to all Ireland?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): My right hon. Friend and Colleague the Chief Secretary is the only Member of the Government who can answer that Question, and he is not in his place just now.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the Irish Chief Secretary cannot be in his place to answer a Question of this kind?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be in his place had he the slightest notion that the Question would be asked.
Subsequently,
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid: I wish to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet and Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can give the House any information, either from his conferences with the Irish Secretary or not, as to whether Her Majesty's Government will vote in support of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry) in moving to restrict to Belfast the franchise which the Bill proposes to extend to the whole of Ireland?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN): The hon. Member for Mid Armagh has brought in the Bill to which the hon. and learned Member refers entirely on his own responsibility, and has taken the course which seems to him best calculated to effect his object.
MR. T. M. HEALY: That is not an answer to my Question. My Question is, whether he can inform the House if Her Majesty's Government intend to support the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh in restricting to one particular borough an Act for the whole of Ireland?
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: When the hon. Member for Mid Armagh brings forward his Bill the hon. and learned Member will have an opportunity of seeing what course the Government will adopt.

PARLIAMENT—THE HALF-PAST TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE—"BLOCKING" OF SCOTCH BILLS.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question with reference to a large number of Blocking Notices which appear on the Paper to-day against Scotch Bills, in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell). It will be convenient to know whether these Notices imply that the Government intends to oppose the Bills against which blocks have been placed?
MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I should also like to ask whether it was not laid down from the Chair two or three years ago that systematic blocking, by one Member, of a
1694
large number of Bills is a violation of the Rules of the House?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have not seen the Bills to which the hon. Member refers; but if he will give me Notice, I shall put myself in a position to give him an answer. I should say, as a rule, that the blocks put on the Paper by Members of the Government are rather given in view of the necessity of discussing them at an hour when the Bills can be discussed than to be taken as a distinct Notice of opposition. As to the Question of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), I am not aware whether such a ruling was given or not.

WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION.

  ARMY—STORES AND MUNITIONS OF WAR (VOTES IN SUPPLY).
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLdrew attention to a Return moved for by him showing—
  "(1) The Annual Votes for Stores and Munitions of War from 1870–1 to 1886–7, exclusive of Votes of Credit; (2) The amounts allotted out of Votes of Credit and Supplementary Estimates, during the same period, for purchase of Stores and Munitions of War; (3) The a mounts allotted to the Navy out of Annual Votes; and (4) The amounts allotted to the Navy out of Votes of Credit and Supplementary Estimates."
  The noble Lord said, that for some unaccountable reason a Notice of opposition had been placed against it by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), and he now begged to move that the Motion for the Return be withdrawn and the Order discharged, for the reason that the Secretary of State for War had kindly promised to lay the information before Parliament on his own initiative.
  MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord has done all that is necessary in the matter.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Order discharged.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  DUKE OF CONNAUGHT'S LEAVE BILL.
  (Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Sir John Gorst.)

  [BILL 228.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST) in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, there were no less than five Notices of objection to it. The terms in which the objections were expressed were so short and concise that he was unable to gather from them the reasons which actuated the hon. Members in giving those Notices. The only one which condescended to reasons was that of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton). He (Sir John Gorst) would answer, as well as he could, such objections as he was able to find. He rather gathered, from a Question put to him by the hon. Member for Swansea, that there was in the hon. Member's mind—and he understood in the minds of some other hon. Members —a doubt as to whether such a Bill was necessary. It was rendered necessary by an old Statute, 53 Geo. III., which was repeated in the now operative Statute, the 3 and 4 Will. IV., c. 75, Clause 79 of which provides—
  "That the return to Europe, or the departure from India with the intent to return to Europe, of any Governor General of India, Governor, Member of Council, or Commander-in-Chief, shall he deemed a resignation or voidance of his Office and employment."
  Therefore, if His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught left Bombay for the purpose of coming to this country, he would ipso facto lose his appointment. If he had been allowed to leave his appointment, and had then been re-appointed on his return, it would have been regarded by many persons as an improper evasion of the Statute he had just read. There was another objection—that the condition of India might be such that it would not be expedient that the Commander-in-Chief of the Bombay Army should be absent. The Bill did not enact that His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught was to come home. The Bill would be permissive; and only provided that the Viceroy of India—who was responsible for the safety of India—might, should he think the circumstances of the time admitted it, grant such leave for three months to enable him to return to this country. He had gathered also that there was a feeling on the part of hon. Members that the Revenues of India might be burdened by the salary of an official not attending to his duties there. That was a misconception, as the effect of the Bill, if enacted, would only be to enable
  1696
  His Royal Highness to return to this country without resigning his command, but would not enable him to draw his salary during his absence.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: It is not in the Bill.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, it was not there because it was not necessary. The section of the Act of Parliament to, which he had already referred, said that—
  "If any of the specified officials should leave the Presidency, &c, to which he belonged, the salary and allowances belonging to his Office should not be paid or payable to any agent or person to his use."
  The Act would not be disturbed by that Bill if passed; therefore, no part of His Royal Highness's pay or allowances would become payable to him.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: What about the pay as Member of the Council?
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, he believed that His Royal Highness received no pay as a Member of the Council; but if he did, that would share the same fate under the Act. He did not think he need at that—or, indeed, at any—stage of the Bill argue the general question as to whether it was desirable that His Royal Highness should be present on such an occasion as the Queen's Jubilee. [Cheers.] He accepted that cheer as showing that the whole House agreed with him in what he had just indicated. He now came to another objection. He understood that the hon. Member for Leicester objected to the Bill as a measure specially relating to His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught, and not a general Bill dealing with the clause in the Act of 1833. He admitted that there was a strong case for a general repeal of those provisions of the Act of 1833 which were referred to. When that Act was passed the only way a person could come to this country from India or return to India from this country was by sailing ship round the Cape of Good Hope; a passage which would occupy three or four, or even as much as nine months. It might be a very proper provision then; but now when the passage was made—or would be made under the new contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company—in 16 or 17 days, and had actually been done in 15 days; when it was possible also by means of

  1697
  the electric telegraph to recall an officer to his post at a few hours' notice, the House would see that the reasons which might have influenced Parliament to pass that Act no longer existed, at any rate in anything like the same degree. The fact of the Duke of Connaught desiring to come home for the Queen's Jubilee had, no doubt, raised the question as to whether Parliament ought not now to be asked to repeal that section of the old Act altogether. It had occurred to his mind, however, that if Her Majesty's Government had proceeded in that fashion, hon. Members might have accused the Government of trying to alter the law under cover of a Bill for an apparently different purpose; and although the Government did not often get credit for frankness and candour in their proceedings—[laughter]—he was sure that hon. Members would say that on that occasion, at all events, its procedure had been candid and frank. Therefore, if the Government had proceeded by a general Bill it might have been made matter of objection. But there was a more serious objection to a General Bill than that, and it was that in Indian legislation it was the practice of the Government at home to proceed with extreme caution, and not to tamper with the laws of India without consulting the Indian Government itself. It was a matter which took some time. On such a question the Government of India itself would not proceed rashly; it would refer the question to the provincial Government, and hear the opinion of that Government before it would form or indicate its own opinion to the Secretary of State; and that also would take a considerable amount of time. The course which the Government had adopted, and which he hoped would commend itself to the good judgment of the House, was in this particular case to proceed by special legislation for the purpose of giving statutory authority to the Viceroy of India on his own responsibility to give leave of absence to the Duke of Connaught. Having so dealt with this special case, at more leisure and when the time of Parliament was better able to be devoted to such a question, the Government intended to bring this old Statute under the consideration of Parliament, with a view to ascertaining whether the present law might be altered or not. He hoped the House
  1698
  would consent to that course being adopted, and agree to the second reading of this Bill. He begged to move that the Bill be now road a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir John Gorst.)
  MR. DILLWYNin rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that he had understood from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) that the Government might have given His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught leave to come home without initiating any special legislation, but that the Government on the whole considered it desirable that this Bill should be passed.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, that he had said there was nothing to prevent His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught coming home except the fact that by doing so he would have to resign his command, and that if he did so the Government might re-appoint him. The Government did not adopt that course, for the reason that it might be considered an evasion of the Statute.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he quite understood what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said. He was glad to hear that there was no intention at present to repeal the Statute, which he considered a very salutary one. For many reasons he was extremely unwilling to bring forward this Resolution, and he only did so from a sense of duty. [Cries of "Oh!"] He considered it was advisable that those who were opposed to this measure should express their opinions frankly and fairly. There was a very strong feeling outside the House on this point, that there were many exalted personages in this country who received high appointments over the heads of other officers in consequence of their connection with the Throne—appointments which they would not have received otherwise. That was believed to be so, not only in the case of his Royal Highness, but in the case of other personages who had chief commands entrusted to them in this country. That, however, was not the ground on which he now moved the rejection of the Bill. In doing so he wished emphatically to declare to the House that it was not

  1699
  from any want of loyalty to Her Majesty or respect for His Royal Highness, whom he believed to be an estimable person and an excellent officer; but he contended that if these appointments were given to exalted personages they ought to hold them upon the conditions on which other persons held them. His Royal Highness—or whoever else was entrusted with the command in India— enjoyed high pay, great power, a good position, and many great privileges. What he said was this—and he thought a very large proportion of the country agreed with him—that those who had this great power and these great privileges, on account of their relationship to the Throne—which he did not complain of—should take the rough with the smooth — that they should not have all the good things, but should take the disabilities and the inconveniences which attached to the positions with which they were entrusted. That was his chief reason for moving the rejection of this Bill. He was bound to say that the House were asked to grant these special privileges to His Royal Highness at a very unseasonable time. [An hon. MEMBER: The Jubilee.] Mr. Dillywn said he would say nothing about the year of Jubilee; but the political horizon of India was not so satisfactory that just now, of all other times, they should give to his Royal Highness leave to come home to see his respected mother. He almost doubted whether his Royal Highness himself would wish to leave India at this particular crisis. They had troops on the North-West Frontier, where they did not know what might turn up; and in Burmah, again, they had a considerable army. He had now stated, he hoped with all respect to Her Majesty and his Royal Highness, the reasons that had induced him to make this Motion. He repeated that it was a sense of duty only which impelled him to move the rejection of the Bill.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEin seconding the Amendment, said, that high places in the Army and the Navy were being filled by exalted personages. He would refer to a few examples. He hoped the House would acquit him of any want of respect or loyalty to the Queen in the course he was taking. In the first place, His Royal Highness the
  1700
  Duke of Cambridge—the Commander-in-Chief—had never served as ensign, lieutenant, captain, major, or lieutenant-colonel. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. PULESTON: I rise to Order. I wish to submit to you, Sir, whether the hon. Baronet is in Order, and is speaking to the Question before the House, in referring to the names of these Royal personages, who hold appointments in the Army, as he is proceeding to do?
  MR. SPEAKER: The specific point of this Bill is the question of leave to His Royal Highness the Duke of Con-naught. The hon. Member certainly appears to me to be travelling beyond the question before the House in discussing the position of the members of the Royal Family.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I wish to know, Sir, whether, in discussing this Bill, we shall not be at liberty to consider the practice of appointing to high positions in the Army and the Navy members of the Royal Family?
  MR. SPEAKER: That would certainly be out of Order.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: On the question of Order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask you, whether you will be good enough to direct the Clerk at the Table to take down that ruling as a precedent?
  MR. SPEAKER: I shall do nothing of the sort.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, he brought the other cases forward as an illustration of his argument; but, in accordance with the Speaker's ruling, he should try to avoid them. But there were in the Army and Navy three or four of the highest positions held by exalted persons, and the consequence was that officers of the Army and Navy had been precluded from obtaining these high appointments. [Cries of "No, no!"] He would give as an illustration the case of the hon. and gallant Member for Southampton (Admiral Sir John Commerell)—one of the most gallant Admirals in the Navy—who found that his prospects of hoisting his flag as Commander of the Mediterranean Squadron were very materially diminshed—
  MR. SPEAKER: The clause of this Bill—and the only clause—relates to the return of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught without the resignation of

  1701
  his appointment, and the remarks of the hon. Baronet are not pertinent to that.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, that in seconding the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea, he merely wished to suggest that an opportunity had occurred when His Royal Highness-finding his Royal duties incompatible with his military duties—might gracefully retire from the post he filled and allow some distinguished military officer to take his place. He would only refer for a moment to the enormous amount of ineffective service both in the Army and Navy in consequence of these positions being held by persons of exalted social rank. Our Army and Navy Estimates now amounted to £31,000,000, and one-sixth of that was for pay, pensions, and retirements, because naval and military officers could see no chance of promotion, or of obtaining these high positions. There were now some 600 or 700 lieutenants in the Royal Navy—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is palpably evading the ruling of the Chair.
  As the hon. Baronet did not rise to continue his remarks,
  MR. SPEAKER: Has the hon. Gentleman concluded by seconding the Motion?
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid: I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he wished to state the reasons which had induced him to put an Amendment to the Bill upon the Paper. He had not done so in any spirit of disloyalty— [laughter]—though some persons might look upon it in that light. He—like the hon. Member for Swansea, Mr. Dillwyn—had acted merely in discharge of a public duty. He objected to the Bill on the ground that it was special legislation, for which there was no necessity, and which did not affect any large section of the community. Although the occasion might be interesting, it could not be contended that it was a public duty for His Royal High-
  1702
  ness to return to England; and he, therefore, protested against the proposed legislation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India could say that such legislation would be undertaken with regard to Sir Frederick Roberts or Lord Wolseley, there might be some show of reason in proposing it. he thought the opportunity was a convenient one for protesting against His Royal Highness holding such an appointment as that in question. [Cries of "Question!"] He was arguing that if His Royal Highness had not been appointed at all the Bill would not be required, and now that he was appointed it was doubly unnecessary, he should like to know whether the Nation would be called upon to pay His Royal Highness's expenses home, for if the journey were undertaken the Nation, in the circumstances, certainly ought not to be called upon to pay the expense.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that, with all due respect to the opinion given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) he (Mr. Bradlaugh) was inclined to think that Section 79 of the Statute 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 85 merely provided that the salary of the Commander-in-Chief should cease as a consequence of what the Act declared to be a resignation and avoidance of the office. This Bill said that the departure of His Royal Highness should not be a resignation or avoidance of the office, and he would respectfully submit that if the resignation and avoidance were cleared away ail the consequences attaching thereto would also be cleared away. He would suggest that Her Majesty's Government should distinctly state that there was no intention whatever to impose a burden. Even if his contention were not accepted by the Government, he thought it would be desirable to introduce words so as to clear up the legal doubt, and make the point quite clear.
  MR. PICTONwho had placed on the Paper the following Amendment—
  "That in the opinion of this House it is unadvisable to pass a Bill for the purpose of conferring special or exceptional privilege on any commanding officer of Her Majesty's Forces, unless when such a measure is required for the due recognition of extraordinary personal services to the nation,"

  1703
  said, he was as anxious as the most loyal subject of Her Majesty that His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught should take his share in the rejoicings and ceremonies of this year; but he held that the Bill was unnecessary. His Royal Highness might have resigned and been re-appointed; or, he thought, power would have been found in the Government of India Act, which enabled Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to alter and regulate the terms and conditions of Service under which persons hold their Commissions. But the real point was whether or not it was desirable, for purposes of mere personal convenience, to set the whole legislative machinery of the Empire in motion. This Bill was an illustration of the saying that the British Parliament was like an elephant's trunk, which could pick up a pin or rend an oak. By an act of its omnipotent power it could unite nations or dissolve a marriage between an ill-matched couple; and it had been recently suggested by the editor of an evening paper that its power might be used to declare two persons to be man and wife who had never been legally married. But he maintained that, as a general rule, the Imperial power of the Legislature should only be invoked for purposes affecting the interests of the whole commonwealth. There were, of course, sometimes cases of extraordinary suffering, or gross personal wrong, which did indirectly affect the commonwealth, and create a scandal of sufficient magnitude and public interest to require a special Act of Parliament to deal with it. There was, for instance, a case in which a special Act had been passed for the purpose of securing to a particular family the possession and enjoyment of certain estates that had been wasted by a malignant pretender. And it was suggested by the newspaper previously mentioned that the power of Parliament would be well employed in passing an Act to relieve the misery of an individual caused by the special brutality and villiany of one man, on the ground that such unpunished villiany was a public shame and scandal. He had no doubt, however, that very many hon. Members would object, in such a case, to the power of Parliament being invoked for what would be considered private ends. But if they were right in that objection, how could they support the Bill before
  1704
  them for the mere private convenience of a Royal Prince, who wanted to be relieved of his public responsibilities in order that he might come to England to take a part in family rejoicings? He thought the legislative machinery should not be set in motion for a purely personal object. It would be said that an exception should be made, because this was the case of an illustrious Prince. The fact of His Royal Highness the Duke of Con-naught being a Prince was just the reason for not passing this particular Bill, and making an exception in his favour. Persons of such high station ought to set an example of uncomplaining obedience to the law. The people liked to see persons in exalted stations taking the rough with the smooth, and setting the example of uncomplaining obedience to the law; and nothing endeared exalted persons to the public affection more than such an obedience. It was singular what little sacrifices in persons of high station were looked upon as heroic; for them to face a shower of rain out of good nature was thought almost as much of as for a common soldier to face a shower of grape. This Bill was an abuse of Parliamentary omnipotence. Seeing that popularity could be so easily obtained, he thought that responsibilities ought to be fearlessly accepted, and that for the Government to bring forward a Bill of this kind was unwise in the interest of that loyalty which they desired should be always cherished towards the Throne of this Realm.
  MR. CREMERsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) should have felt it his duty to oppose the Bill, because the time of the House would be wasted in a somewhat useless discussion. Nevertheless, he intended to vote with the hon. Member, because he could not but regard the Bill as a piece of class legislation, for which there was no justification. If "Tommy Atkins"—whose interest was quite as dear to him as that of His Royal Highness—with his body covered with wounds received in the service of his country, had desired to return homo to celebrate his father and mother's silver or golden wedding, or on the occasion of domestic affliction, the Government would not have undertaken to introduce such a Bill for

  1705
  his benefit. He was not aware of His Royal Highness having earned any special distinction, and he failed to see what the Duke of Connaught had done to justify such a measure. Had he not been fortunate enough to hare been born Duke of Connaught he would not have been accorded such a privilege. He objected to special legislation of this kind, even when the person concerned was a son of Her Majesty.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYsaid, that the reason this Act was necessary for the Duke of Con-naught was that he was Commander-in-Chief, whereas a private soldier could get leave without an Act of Parliament; but with reference to the argument about "Tommy Atkins," he protested—as one who had been a regimental and staff officer for many years— against the suggestion that the interests of private soldiers were not taken into consideration. On all occasions when there were domestic circumstances in the case of private soldiers requiring leave of absence, the commanding officer strained a point to give them leave.
  MR. CREMERsaid, he should like to ask whether that privilege had ever been extended so far that private soldiers had been permitted to return from India for such purposes?
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYsaid, similar cases could not arise; but he happened to know there bad been cases where private soldiers had been allowed to return home from India. Of course there was the money difficulty for the passage; but commanding officers did consider the welfare of their men, and would strain a point, if a troop-ship were going home, and there was room for them, to obtain them a passage; whilst this Bill was necessary, because His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught hold the position of Commander-in-Chief in Bombay. He admitted that the Government had made a tactical mistake in calling it the "Duke of Connaught's Leave Bill," and should be glad if it were extended to all Commanders-in-Chief, which would probably have mot the objections of hon. Members opposite. He (General Goldsworthy) had himself been Assistant Adjutant General of the District in the South of Ireland at the same time as His Royal Highness was serving there. It was a long time—[An hon. MEMBER: Six months.]—more than that. His Royal Highness was in
  1706
  command of a battalion and performed his duties to the full satisfaction of the General, and as well as any officer could do. He (General Goldsworthy) himself could also bear testimony to the efficient way in which His Royal Highness performed his duties as an officer, and to the fact that he was never in the habit of taking advantage of his position as a Member of the Royal Family to ask for any special privilege which any other officer might not have asked for. He should support the Bill.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the state of the matter was this—that during the last century the voyage to and from India occupied not less than a year, or even a year and a-half. In 1833, when the voyage took nine months, or even a year, it was thought right by Parliament that there should be a distinct prohibition put upon a practice, in former days not very uncommon, under which officers appointed to very high positions in India spent a large amount of time in this country. The Act of Parliament provided that the officers holding certain high appointments in the Military and Civil Services in India—namely, the Governor General, the Governors of the Presidencies, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Commanders-in-Chief of the Presidencies, should not be permitted to leave their posts without ipso facto vacating them. But what was the present position of the matter with respect to persons holding high offices, whether civil or military, in distant parts of the world? When he held the Office of First Lord of the Admiralty and Secretary for War, it was in his power to give leave of absence to persons holding the highest military and naval positions at greater distances than India. During his tenure of Office at the Admiralty, leave had boon given to the Naval Commander-in-Chief in China, and to the Naval Commander-in-Chief in the Pacific. In the same way leave could be given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Ambassadors, and by the Secretary for the Colonies to Colonial Governors. Only a few years ago it was proposed by a Royal Commission that the Commander-in-Chief of a Presidency should cease to be so designated, and should, for the future, be entitled, "the General commanding in the Presidency of Madras or Bombay." Now, if this proposal had been carried into effect, the officer holding the position filled by His

  1707
  Royal Highness the Duke of Can-naught could have obtained leave of absence from the Secretary of State for War. Under these circumstances, it would be altogether wrong to reject this measure, and for the House to lay down that an officer holding an appointment of that kind ought to be restrained from having leave, if the Governor General and the Secretary of State thought it right that he should have such leave; and more especially when officers holding similar appointments at a greater distance might obtain it. Then the question arose, was it reasonable to maintain a distinction by which one class of officers should be absolutely prohibited from leaving their commands, while others in similar or more important positions should be at liberty to do so. How should they deal with this particular Bill? It seemed to him that the clause in the Act of 1833 was altogether obsolete, and that it would be desirable, at the earliest possible moment, to bring in a Bill in order to repeal the restriction which he had pointed out and enable the Governor General and Secretary of State to grant leave to all the high officials whom he had already named. If the House was of that opinion, the next question they had to consider would be, whether they should pass the present Bill, or let it to be postponed with a view of passing within a short time a Bill repealing those restrictions. Considering the pressure of Business, he thought it would be inexpedient to substitute for this Bill a general measure; and if they received an assurance that the Government would, as soon as possible, bring in a Bill repealing altogether the clause in the Act of 1833, he could not see why the House, under all the circumstance?, should reject the present proposal.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I rise at once in response to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. The Government will certainly introduce the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. We feel that there is not only no objection to the course indicated, but that very great advantage is to be derived from it in the public interest. There are occasions on which the public interest is greatly served by an opportunity of consulting with officers high in command and holding positions of great responsibility in different parts of the world. In the
  1708
  administration of Departments, I have found great advantage in being able to confer personally with officers who have come straight home from those commands, returning again to them. Therefore, the circumstances being so completely changed from what they were when the Act of 1833 was passed, render it advisable in the public interest that these officers in India should be in a position to be recalled home for a few weeks to confer with the Government, and to obtain that leave which every other officer subordinate to them is entitled to, and does obtain, at the present time. The hon. Member for Northampton has a doubt as to the application of the Act with regard to pay and allowances to His Royal Highness. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that Her Majesty's Government are advised that the Act operates to prevent the pay and allowances being given; but, whether it does or not, I will undertake that His Royal Highness shall not draw either pay or allowances during the period of leave. It is hardly necessary that I should refer to the observations which have been made by hon. Gentlemen with regard to this measure. The Government have acted frankly in bringing it forward in the form in which it has been presented to the House; and we have not the slightest doubt that it will be accepted by the House as a reasonable and proper measure under the circumstances. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) referred to the fact that it was only reasonable to suppose that His Royal Highness should return to take part in an event which affords satisfaction to the whole of the United Kingdom. I think that any man who stands in the relation of parent to a family mu3t feel that it is not only reasonable, but most fitting and desirable, that the Family of the Queen should be around her upon an occasion which is one of rejoicing, of satisfaction, and of happiness to the whole of Her Majesty's subjects. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Cremer), there is no officer serving Her Majesty under the rank of Commander-in-Chief in India who is entitled to leave under circumstances such. as these who does not get it with pay and allowances, and leave is given in every reasonable case if the exigencies of the Service permit. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for

  1709
  Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) to the condition of India and the duties of the Commander-in-Chief. I can say, without any hesitation whatever, that neither His Royal Highness nor the Governor General of India will be any party to the neglect of any duty which falls upon His Royal Highness. If the circumstances of the day are such as to render it at all desirable or necessary that His Royal Highness should remain in India when the time comes for his departure, we may regret the circumstances, but certainly His Royal Highness will not come home. There is, however, no reason to believe, from the events which are happening, that the departure of His Royal Highness will have to be postponed, or that any of the sinister forebodings in which the hon. Member has indulged will be fulfilled. I trust the House will not be put to the trouble of a Division on a question of this kind; and that, although there may be some difference of opinion on the subject, hon. Members will allow a measure of this character to be accepted by the House with that unanimity which is usually extended to proposals of this kind, which in themselves are reasonable and justifiable, and which, I am sure, will be accepted by the country as graceful and fitting under all the circumstances.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid. he did not think this was so exciting a question as some of his hon. Friends around him seemed to think, nor did he consider it to be a matter of high Constitutional policy which need keep them there till 6 o'clock in the morning. The real point was whether the Bill was, on the whole, for the public good. Now, there were three parties to the Bill. First, there was the Duke of Connaught himself; secondly, there were the people of India; and thirdly, there were the people of England. With regard to the Duke of Connaught—[cries of "The Queen!" from the Ministerial Benches.] Some hon. Members opposite said "The Queen!" He begged to assure those hon. Members that it was a most unconstitutional practice to bring the name of the Sovereign into the debates of that House, and whatever might be done on the other side of the House he should scrupulously abstain from doing so. If the Duke of Connaught wanted to come home to the Jubilee, why should he not? It might be a pleasure to His Royal
  1710
  Highness, though, for his part, he should think it would be the greatest pleasure to keep away from such a performance. It appeared to him to be one of the most intolerable of nuisances. However, if His Royal Highness wished to come, and thought it a matter of duty, why should he not? Then there were the people of India. His hon. Friend below him seemed to be greatly alarmed at what might happen in India. But did his hon. Friend really think that the Duke of Connaught's presence in India would do anything to avert any danger which might be impending? That was a most extraordinary idea. There were plenty of officers who might be sent out to take his place. There was, for example, the hon. and gallant Member for Hammersmith (General Goldsworthy). The third party to be considered were the people of England. It had been solemnly declared from the Front Bench opposite that this step would not cost the people of this country one penny, and it would give them, the great pleasure of bringing the Royal Duke home to be stared at when the Jubilee celebrations took place, and that was an amusement which the English people liked better than any other people in the world. Under these circumstances, he did not see any great objection to this Bill, and so he would vote against his hon. Friend.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he did not so much object to the Bill as to the waste of the time of the House of Commons in introducing what he considered to be a totally unnecessary Bill, especially when there were many more important measures waiting to be discussed. He thought it would have been much less invidious if the Government had taken upon themselves the responsibility of saying that it was a reasonable thing that the Duke should be allowed to come away entirely without pay, and of re-appointing him. There were grave objections to the proposals of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh to introduce a general measure, which would lead to a still further waste of time.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that they had seen the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) get up and propose some sort of transaction to the right hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite him. There was one sound rule in that House which he trusted

  1711
  would always be followed, at least in that part of the House where he sat. It was that whenever there was the slightest sign of a bargain or arrangement between the two Front Benches they ought invariably to upset it. He should not be surprised if the general Bill referred to by the right hon. Gentleman were blocked; a strong proof that the proposal was an improper one was that it was necessary to bring in a Bill to give effect to it. Whether it was desirable or undesirable that these great and lucrative places should be given to Royal Princes was open to question; but he thought when any of these places were given to a Royal Prince the holder of it should sink the Prince in the soldier. If any Governor General or Commander-in-Chief, who was not a Royal Prince, wished to come home to see his mother, or if his mother was anxious to see him, would anybody bring in a Bill to enable him to do so? He should say not. [Ministerial cries of "Divide!"] If there was any discussion on a Bill introduced by the Government, there was an immediate cry of Obstruction, and the Leader of the House began to lecture them. They were perpetually told by the right hon. Gentleman that they were obstructing the Coercion Bill—["Order, order! "and "Divide!"]—for which everything else was set aside. ["Divide!"] The action of the Government showed how hollow all their protests were against Obstruction, when they set aside important Business in order to bring forward this Bill. ["Divide!"] If hon. Members opposite persist in their interruptions, he would move the adjournment. He told them that he and his hon. Friends were not going to be crushed down by a Party who tried to break, destroy, and put an end to the debates in the House. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Question before the House.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that he was about to invoke the Speaker's protection. Important Business was being delayed, and the House was asked to occupy itself with a Bill which was an obsequious and servile Bill, brought in to suit the private convenience of a Royal Prince. He would leave it to the country to judge between the Opposition and hon. Gentlemen on the other side as to who were most anxious that the
  1712
  real and true Business of the country should be proceeded with.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENsaid, that the First Lord of the Treasury had given them an undertaking that the Duke of Connaught would not draw any pay and allowances during his absence from duty. He wished to ask whether there was any objection to insert the words ''without pay and allowances" in the Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: That is wholly unnecessary. Surely my undertaking is sufficient.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN: I quite accept the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking. But this Bill is a precedent for the general measure now announced.
  MR. SCHWANNwished to know whether it was clearly understood that the travelling expenses of the return of the Duke of Connaught to this country and back to India would be defrayed by His Royal Highness or by the Treasury?
  No audible answer being given,
  DR. TANNEEsaid, he must complain of the want of courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman. The question put by the Member for Manchester ought to be answered. He considered that no sufficient reasons had been advanced in support of the Bill. The Chief Secretary for India had drawn attention to the dangers and difficulties that beset India; and was this a time when the Commander-in-Chief should evacuate his post? He thought they had not received the assurances from the Government that they were entitled to receive, and if they obtained those assurances, the Irish Members would agree to the Bill without a Division.
  Question put.
  The House divided:— Ayes 318; Noes 45: Majority 273.—(Div. List, No. 135.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think, Sir, I may now make an appeal to the House to pass this Bill through its remaining stages—[Cries of "No!" from the Opposition Benches]—if that is in accordance with the general sense of the House. [Renewed cries of "No!"] In dealing with a measure of this character, which is confined and limited, I think it is only reasonable and fitting that the House should expedite its passing,

  1713
  ["No!"] I beg to move, Sir, that you do now leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  MR. DILLWYN: I appeal to you, Sir, whether it is in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to take the remaining stages of the Bill now?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is perfectly in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to make the Motion, if it is done with the general assent of the House.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Can it be done without the unanimous assent of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The general assent of the House is all that is necessary.
  DR. TANNER: Notice has been given of opposition to the Motion for going into Committee upon the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is impossible, the period for receiving Notices on that stage not having yet arrived.
  DR. TANNER: I have just handed the Notice in.
  Question put. [No, no!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that sufficient general assent has been given. What day does the right hon. Gentleman propose to fix for the Committee?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: As the general assent of the House has not been given to the Motion I will put the Committee down for to-morrow.
  Bill committed for To-morrow.

ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [5th April],
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to examine into the Army and Navy Estimates, and to report their observations thereon to the House."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  DR. CAMERON: I should like to know whether it is intended that the Committee shall have power to call for persons, papers, and records?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to examine into the Army and Navy Estimates, and to report their observations thereon to the House."

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

POST OFFICE PATRONAGE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. CONYBEAEE: Sir, in rising to call the attention of the House to the question of Post Office patronage, I feel it necessary to explain that I find myself placed in a position of some little difficulty. I am most anxious to proceed with the Motion which appears in my name on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, and I am naturally all the more anxious, because, upon a former occasion, when it was expected that this question might be discussed, it was not reached until a very late hour of the night, and it was the general sense of the House on that occasion that so important a matter should not be proceeded with when there was no possibility of securing for it adequate discussion. In this instance, I have been called upon suddenly to proceed with the Motion, and the difficulty I find myself in is this—owing to the Division which took place a few minutes ago, I was hurriedly summoned into the Division Lobby from the dinner table; but I had understood that there would be some discussion on the Question which has been just put from the Chair on the first Motion upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Henniker-Heaton), for cheapening and facilitating postal communication between all parts of the Empire. Believing that that discussion would take some time, I am obliged to admit that I have not got with me, at the present moment, the notes and papers which I had prepared, and which are necessary to enable me to go on with my Resolution. I have them in my locker. I do not wish hon. Members to suppose for a moment that I have any desire to shirk the matter. I am perfectly willing to deal with the matter as well as I am able without the assistance of my notes, if it is the desire of the House, although I should be in a much better position to do so if the House would allow me first to go to my locker. I only make this statement in order to explain the difficulty of the

  1715
  position in which I find myself placed. Having said this in order to explain the reasons why, under existing circumstances, it will be impossible for me to deal with the question as fully and completely as I should wish, I propose to give a brief and, I am afraid, only an imperfect outline of my complaint. There has been a good deal said in the public Press with regard to certain appointments which have been made by the Postmaster General during the present year. As I understand, the question resolves itself into two branches, the first of which has reference to the transference of certain clerks in a particular department of the Post Office from one class to another. It has been alleged that certain transferences have been made which have not been in accordance with the usual rule which prevails in the Post Office, and not in accordance with the information and advice supplied to the Postmaster General by the permanent heads of the department who are cognizant of the work done by the different clerks, and are, therefore, best able to judge of the propriety of the particular appointments made. It is alleged that the course which the Postmaster General has taken in this matter is not only a novel course, but is so opposed to the regulations which are issued in respect of competition for appointments in the public service relating to the Post Office as to constitute almost a breach of contract between the Post Office and those who have entered the service of the Post Office by moans of public competition. I understand that, in one particular case, a gentleman has been promoted by the Postmaster General on his own responsibility, and against the wishes of the permanent officials of the Post Office, who were best able to judge whether he was the most competent person to be promoted to a higher position. There have been other and extraneous matters imported into the question; but I hope it will be clearly understood that I do not refer to the matter in order to make any personal charge against the Postmaster General. I say so because, in answer to a Question which was put to him, the right hon. Gentleman gave a firm denial to the charges which have been made. The allegation wa3 that, in making these appointments, some regard was had by the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the persons promoted were, in some
  1716
  way or other, connected with him by family ties. The right hon. Gentleman took the earliest opportunity of denying those allegations, and I am glad that it was so. The right hon. Gentleman also stated, in answer to a Question addressed to him by myself, that he had no acquaintance with the gentlemen in regard to whose appointments these stories had been set afoot. That remark, however—that he had no acquaintance with the gentlemen he promoted—only goes to confirm the contention which is made, that he must have been unable to know whether he was appointing the best and most suitable men. The whole gist of the question is, that the right hon. Gentleman appointed persons in the teeth of the direct opposition of the permanent officials, who were the persons best qualified to judge of the fitness of the gentlemen promoted. If the right hon. Gentleman tells us that he made these appointments without knowing anything about the individuals, or the work they had been doing, we are certainly justified in our contention that it would have boon much better if he had followed the practice which had previously prevailed. Another important point which I wish to raise is, that the right hon. Gentleman, in making appointments to Provincial post master ships, has on various occasions made alterations in the amount of salaries, with the view of keeping these offices as a part of the political patronage of the Government of the day. I have had cases placed before me which fully bear oat that allegation—cases in which the right hon. Gentleman has reduced the salary below £120, which is the amount beyond which the political patronage of the Post Office cannot be exercised in England; and in other cases below £100, which is the amount beyond which the political patronage of the Treasury cannot be exercised in Ireland and Scotland. I am not prepared to contend that it is solely with a view of indulging in political patronage, and for the sake of giving these appointments to the supporters of the Government, that these reductions have been made; but the fact remains that, in some cases, they have had the effect of making the offices to which they are attached a part of the political patronage of the Government; and there is this remarkable coincidence—that where these reductions of salary have been made appointments of a Tory rather than of

  1717
  a Liberal or Radical complexion had taken place apparently as a consequence. The conclusion is, therefore, forced upon the public mind that the reductions have been made with the express purpose and intention of keeping these appointments in the hands of the Government of the day, and of turning them into political and Party appointments. If my contention is right, I have good reasons for bringing the matter before the House, and for complaining that such a state of things should exist, because I look upon it as introducing into our system of administration some of the worst features of the American Civil Service system, which have always been presented to us on this side of the Atlantic in the most odious light. Whenever anything is said of political corruption in America, the allegation is always coupled with a reference to the fact that whenever a change of Government is made in the United States every petty official through-out the country is changed at once. That is a system which we rightly regard as a mischievous system; and if I had no other ground, I should feel it my duty to resist any attempt on the part of a Minister in this country to introduce a system which could have the most remote resemblance to that mischievous example. I am not saying that this is so; but an impression has got hold of the mind of the public that it is so, and the facts which have been brought to light go a long way towards bearing out that impression. What we desire is that these appointments should be given to the most fit and proper persons. In appointing a postmaster in a country district, what is wanted is to secure the services of a person who has sufficient time at his disposal to enable him to discharge the duties properly, whose fitness is admitted, and whose character is above suspicion. If the appointments are to be given to the friends of this Party or of that, just as a Liberal or Tory Government happens to be in power, it will be impossible to prevent jobbery and scandal. I look upon this as the strongest part of my case; and I propose to make the Resolution I will venture to place before the House sufficiently wide to deal with the question not merely as a personal question relating to the administration of the Post Office by the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the position of Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes), but in such a
  1718
  form as to place on record that this House desires to see all these appointments kept carefully clear from Party jobbery. I do not use that expression as relating to one Party more than another; but I apply it to all Parties. What I desire is that these appointments should be kept clear altogether from Party influence, and that there should be some general principle laid down in regard to the administration of the Civil Service generally, and especially in regard to the Post Office. The Post Office is an institution which we have always regarded with pride. We have seen it attain gigantic dimensions; and it is one of the few paying institutions with which the Government have any connection. I hope it will long continue to be well administered; but I am afraid that if we once allow the minor appointments in the Post Office to be drawn into the whirlpool of Party strife, the result will be that the high character for efficiency which it has hitherto enjoyed will speedily vanish, and we shall have to regret the innovations which have apparently been introduced for the first time by the present Administration. In reference to the question of appointing partizans to these humble positions, I will only quote one case which has been brought to my notice. I refer to Appledore. A complaint has been laid before me by persons who say that the postmastership has been given to a particular individual who had been promised the post, even before a vacancy, by the secretary of the Tory local organization or society. That fact proves, to a great extent, the proposition I have advanced that there is a tendency in these days to place these appointments in the hands of persons connected with the Party in power, and that they are given as a piece of political patronage. I think the right hon. Gentleman the present Postmaster General would do well to signalize his holding of the Office by doing all he can to remove these appointments from the atmosphere of politics and Party influences. The Resolution I propose to place before the House is—
  "That is is desirable, in the interests of the efficiency of the Post Office, that the present system of Post Office patronage, so far as it depends upon Party influence, should cease."
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to move any Resolution inasmuch as he has given no Notice

  1719
  of it. The Order of the House is that a Resolution must be in the hands of Members, and due Notice must be given of it. The hon. Member cannot spring, so to speak, a Resolution upon the House.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am sorry if I have transgressed the Orders of the House; but your ruling, Sir, relieves me of a difficulty. I have called attention to the matter as I was bound to do, and, having done so, I will leave the matter in the hands of the House without moving any Resolution at all. I will only apologize to the House, not so much for having sprung a Resolution upon hon. Members, because I did not intend to do anything of the kind, and I was not aware that it was necessary to do more than give Notice of my Motion in the form I have done; but for having acquitted myself in a very feeble way in consequence of having the matter rather sprung upon myself, owing to the circumstance which I have already mentioned.
  MR. M'LARENin supporting the contention of the hon. Member (Mr. Conybeare), said, that persons who had been connected with the Post Office assured him, from their knowledge, that there had been cases since the right hon. Gentleman obtained control of the Department which tended to the well-founded belief that patronage in the Post Office was not exercised solely in the interest of the public, but very largely for Party ends. That remark applied specially to the appointment of medical officers. It was alleged that there was a decided tendency to fill these posts with gentlemen of Conservative principles. In that way, great political influence might from time to time be exercised. With regard to the charge that salaries of £120 in England had been reduced to £119, and of £100 in Scotland to £99, in order to bring the posts within the sphere of political influence, whether the motive alleged was the right one or not, it at any rate gave grounds for great suspicion, and while he did not mean to say that the Postmaster General wished to make those appointments for political purposes, he thought the House ought to protest against any such thing being done. He hoped the Postmaster General would declare, not only that such things had
  1720
  not been done, but that they would not be done for the future.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would not, at all events, be suspected of an undue leaning towards Her Majesty's present Advisers; but he was bound to state that he had never seen anything to justify the great outcry which had been made a little while ago with regard to the manner in which the present Postmaster General exercised the power entrusted to him. The right hon. Gentleman had a very difficult post to fill, and it appeared that the difficulties in his way had been exceptionally great. Certain appointments had been made, on the right hon. Gentleman's own responsibility, which did not meet with the approval of his subordinates, and something like a public scandal, something like an organized opposition to the Postmaster General by gentlemen who constituted his Staff, had been the result. His (Mr. Arthur O'Connor's) own experience of the Civil Service generally was that there was a great deal too much power in the hands of the permanent officials. He believed that, to a large extent, the excessive expenditure in connection with the Civil Service, and also of the Army and Navy, was due to the fact that the permanent Staff had too much power in their hands, and had been able to control the Parliamentary officials who, for some time after they came into office, were necessarily largely at the mercy of the permanent officials; and, after that, were to a great extent broken in to the established lines and modes of thought in the different Departments. The Postmaster General had dared, what few Ministers had dared, to think for himself; and, as a consequence, those who ought to be subordinate and obedient to him had opposed him. For his part, he was glad to see the dignified and firm attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. If Ministers were to be held responsible for the administration of their Departments, they must have the authority which should be concomitant with the responsibility; and it would never do for that House to deprive Ministers of the authority which was necessary to maintain and enforce their responsibility. The result of such interference would be that the permanent officials would have everything in their own hands. If Parliament allowed the

  1721
  higher portion of the permanent Staff to interfere with all parts of the organization, the country would have to pay for it. If we had Ministers responsible to Parliament, let them be held responsible for the expenditure and for every single detail; but, while we did so, let us have the justice to leave them with a free hand.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I am sure the House will condole with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) who has brought forward this subject on his misfortune in having been called in from his dinner, although they will probably have heard with some feeling of satisfaction that the hon. Member had left his papers behind. But I think we must commiserate the hon. Member even in a greater degree upon the misfortune that he has at last been brought to book. These charges have been hanging over for many weeks and months, and what is the position in which the House now finds itself? The hon. Member, who is so anxious to arraign the conduct of a Member of Her Majesty's Government, has had upon the Paper for something like two months a vague charge which he has never thought fit or never found himself able to put in any practical or articulate shape. When at last the hon. Member is called upon to substantiate his charges before the House, he has not even been able—although two months have been allowed to him—to put them in any practical form so that a vote may be taken upon it; and the House is now called upon to deal with this case in the absence of those precious memoranda which the hon. Member has found it convenient to leave elsewhere, and under circumstances in which the House cannot pronounce an opinion upon his statement. I venture to think that it has never before happened, in the history of this House, that a Minister has been called upon to reply to such a charge. I do not know really what the charge is. The hon. Member conies down to the House without materials, and he has failed to place on the Paper any Notice which it is possible to deal with in the form of argument or contradiction. Nevertheless, I feel that it is my duty to notice the very general statement the hon. Member has made in support of a Motion which he has been precluded from putting to the House in
  1722
  a formal way. The hon. Member has dealt very largely in innuendo. I observe that that is a growing practice among certain classes of politicians in this country—namely, the practice of not making positive and categorical charges, but of insinuating that there may be something in some kind of charge. The hon. Member has talked about the transference of certain clerks. Can the hon. Member offer the slightest shadow of justification for the use of the plural in this case? There never has been any question of more than one particular appointment having been made against the wishes or advice of the permanent officials. Nevertheless, the hon. Member talked about certain clerks as if it were a general practice, insinuating that there has been a general departure from the usual practice of the Post Office in this matter. He has mentioned no name but one. A more unworthy manner of treating such a question as this could not have been adopted. In regard to the whole case the hon. Gentleman has mentioned only one person in reference to whom this preposterous mass of insinuation, innuendo, and suggestion has been brought forward. The hon. Gentlemen did not think fit to be present on a former occasion when a Question which stood upon the Paper in his name was reached, and when his accusation could have been properly met.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I think I am entitled to say a word by way of explanation. I did explain to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General on a former occasion that the only reason why I was not in my place on that occasion was because I had not intended to put the Question that evening. I gave you, Mr. Speaker, Notice of my intention not to put the Question, and I understood that you had marked the Question as one which was not to be put. As the right hon. Gentleman had not the courtesy to send me any reply to my note, but insisted upon answering it, although it was not put, I do not think I am to be blamed for not having been in my place.
  MR. RAIKES: The statement made by the hon. Member is exactly what I was going to say myself. When the hon. Member talks of courtesy, I certainly cannot understand what his notion of courtesy is. The hon. Member placed a Notice on the Paper impugning the action of a Member of the Government,

  1723
  when the Question relating to the matter was reached. It is true that at the last moment he sent me a notice which I had no opportunity of replying to, or of acknowledging his note, intimating that it was not his intention to put the Question. That Notice only reached me after I had taken my place in the House on the night in question. No, Sir, in these circumstances, I cannot accept the explanation of the hon. Member as a satisfactory explanation. He has now repeated a matter which I think was sufficiently disposed of on a former occasion, when the hon. Member had an opportunity of bringing his Motion forward and dividing upon it, but did not think proper to do so. I am about to deal with the ease of the one gentleman whose name has been given in connection with these charges. I have already stated in this House, and I will repeat the statement now, that the gentleman to whom reference has been made, and whose promotion has been called in question, was very nearly at the head of his class. As a matter of fact, he was second in his class, and there was no question whatever of the promotion of the gentleman who was first in the class, and who was the only clerk who was senior to him, seeing that he had been passed over upon at least 20 different occasions, and that, in fact, he was regarded as one who could not expect promotion. I believe that every one of the assistant secretaries in the Post Office had been promoted over the head of that gentleman. What was it that I was asked to do? I was asked to promote a gentleman who was much lower down in the class—a gentleman who was third or fourth in the class, and to place him over the heads of his colleagues. This I declined to do. I made inquiries in the office, and I found that the gentleman who was promoted was a meritorious officer who had discharged his duties with adequate ability, and, therefore, I thought there was no reason for promoting over his head, and over the heads of one or two other competent officers, a junior official who could well afford to wait his turn. I acted in the interests of the Public Service, and especially in the interests of the Department itself. The hon. Member still speaking in the plural number, went on to talk about some of the persons whom I had promoted being con-
  1724
  nected with me by family ties of some sort or other. I think I sufficiently exploded the groundlessness of that charge on another occasion. The gentleman who was promoted, although a connection of some relative of mine, was not a relative of my own, and so far from being influenced by considerations of that nature he was personally unknown to me, nor was I, nor am I, acquainted with his political opinions. I hope the House will not consider that it is necessary I should answer that charge further. I come now to a more important question—namely, the question of the appointment of persons upon political grounds to Provincial post masterships to which the hon. Member has referred. It seems to be almost in vain to endeavour to beat into the heads of some politicians a solid and simple fact, and here, again, I have to meet what has already been contradicted, and to state that I have made no reductions in the salaries of provincial postmasters in order to gain patronage for political purposes. The country is, perhaps, not aware, although I think the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) will be aware by this time, that the patronage of the Post Office is administered by the Postmaster General in cases where the salary exceeds £120 a-year in England, and £100 in Scotland and Ireland, and that all the lower appointments are in the gift of the Lords of the Treasury, and not of the Postmaster General. The allegation is that in certain cases I reduced the salaries in order to place the patronage in the hands of the Treasury. Now it is not the fact that I have reduced the salary of any postmaster, either in this country or in Scotland or Ireland, in any single instance, in order to bring the patronage into the hands of the Treasury. Then what does the hon. Gentleman mean by coming here and giving currency to statements which have not a single atom of truth to support them?
  MR. CONYBEARE: There was the Pershore appointment.
  MR. RAIKES: Does the hon. Member say that I reduced the salary in that case in order to take the patronage away from the Postmaster General and place it in the hands of the Treasury? Why I find that the salary of the Postmaster at Pershore was £ 80 when I went to the Post Office, and that it has been

  1725
  and he absented himself from his place raised to £110. That is a sample of the sort of facts which have found currency in the mind of the hon. Member. I hold in my hand a list of 35 appointments in which I have raised the salaries, since I have been in Office, above the Treasury limit, thereby bringing them within the patronage of the Postmaster General. I think, therefore, that I am entitled to complain of the loose way in which charges of this kind are preferred. Here are 35 cases in which I have raised the salaries, since I have been in Office, above a Treasury limit, and have placed the appointments in the gift of the Postmaster General—namely, 20 in England, 4 in Scotland, and 11 in Ireland. There are 16 other appointments in connection with which I have raised the salaries, although the salaries themselves have not reached the Treasury limit, and one of those is the Pershore case. In regard to every one of the 16 cases, of which 11 were in England, 4 in Scotland, and 1 in Ireland, I have made a substantial increase in the salary of the postmaster, and, while doing so, I have not thought it necessary or desirable to make a greater increase, because I believe that the increase allowed affords adequate and sufficient recognition of the services of the officer. The House is probably aware that, in regard to the offices in the gift of the Postmaster General, they are filled up by the appointment of persons already in the service of the Department. I think that in all important Post Offices it is exceedingly desirable that the postmaster shall be a person of actual experience and knowledge of the work of the Department. In very large and important towns that course is universally adopted; but in regard to the smaller towns, where the salaries are very small—rarely exceeding £120 or £125 a-year—I confess that I do not think that it is always for the public interests that the postmaster should be an officer who has no other means of livelihood than the £120 a-year that he gets from the Post Office. I am bound to say that in such circumstances, a respectable tradesman, who has a good shop and business, and who is respected and popular in the place in which he lives, is more likely to make an efficient public servant than some poor clerk, brought from a distance, entirely un-
  1726
  connected with the neighbourhood, with a salary of little more than £2 or £2 10 s. a-week, who has to fit up the premises with borrowed money, and has, in addition, to have recourse to some guarantee society for a security, thus making a further inroad upon his small salary, and who may be placed under extreme temptations in consequence of the inadequacy of the remuneration he receives to maintain him, and who is forbidden to increase his income by engaging in any other pursuit. I may be wrong, but I cannot help thinking that it is to the public interest, when we cannot make the salary such as would enable a man fairly to live upon it, and to maintain a position of respectability and responsibility, to leave the appointments as they are—in the gift of the Treasury, who fill them up by persons with a local connection, and who are able to improve their position by other means. My connection with the Post Office has tended to confirm the opinion which I previously entertained, that it is quite possible not to do any really good service to the neighbourhood, or to the men you appoint as postmasters, by an indiscriminate raising of the salaries above the Treasury limit, thus taking them out of the Treasury patronage, because in such places you would put men who have no other means of earning a livelihood in a position which they ought not to occupy in the town in which they live. It is a mistake to suppose that by raising the salaries of those who fill these appointments I secure any additional patronage either for myself or my Party, because no appointments will take place until vacancies arise. Although the Post Office may have obtained no increase of patronage from what has been done, the appointments under the now regulations are left to be filled up on the next vacancy, and probably by the time they arise another Government may be in Office. So far from exercising the patronage entrusted to me in the interests of the Party to which I belong, I have only been guided by two considerations in the matter; first, the convenience of the public; and, secondly, the propriety of recognizing the claims of the present holder of a particular office. There is no doubt that a good deal of inconvenience does arise in the filling up of the very small appointments. I believe they are some-

  1727
  times conferred by the Treasury upon their political friends, and I may say that the very last person who applied to me to appoint a postmaster was the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall himself. I received his letter only a few days ago. I have forwarded his letter to the Treasury in whose gift the appointment is, and not in mine. He also referred to a place called Appledore, the postmastership of which is not in my gift, but in that of the Treasury. I do not know who is the postmaster there, but the name submitted to me by them was, of course, sent down and reported upon to me by the surveyor of the district. The nominations to these appointments are made by the Treasury in the ordinary course, and checked by the permanent Post Office Authorities. I have no interest whatever in these appointments, not even so much as the hon. Member for North-West Cornwall appears to have himself.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I did not at all mention the case of Appledore with the intention of making any charge or complaint against the right hon. Gentleman. I think I was careful to explain that my remarks were directed against the system. In the particular instance referred to I was desired to make the application. I very much regret, that, in the performance of my duty to my constituents I should be required to make an application of such a nature. It is a kind of political patronage which I think ought to be abolished, and, for my own part, I would rather not be troubled with matters of that sort.
  MR. RAIKES: The hon. Member disclaims any personal object in connection with the case of Appledore. I will only say that it is difficult to see anything in the speech of the hon. Member in which he gave any fact to support the insinuations with which the speech itself abounded. I am inclined to agree with the opinion which I know has been expressed by some hon. Members of this House, that as regards the extremely small appointments, they might with advantage be preferred to the head postmaster of the locality in which they have to be made. Of course, we cannot guard altogether against favouritism or jobbery of some kind or other, and a local postmaster would probably be quite as likely to perpetrate a job as a Secretary to the Treasury. At the same time, I think it would be a convenience to the
  1728
  Treasury—I am speaking upon a matter with regard to which I have had no official communication with them—I think it would be a convenience if they were relieved of this tiresome duty of finding postmasters for these extremely small places. That would leave for the Treasury what I may call the lower middle-class appointments, and those, I think, ought not to be given to the Postmaster General, because he cannot have the local knowledge which would enable him to select the most proper men. I have only one word more to say, and that is in regard to the observations of the hon. Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire (Mr. Mc Laren), who made some reference to medical officers. He spoke of the great political influence which medical officers can exercise; but, for my part, I do not know what form that influence can take, unless it is in the administration of drugs to particular persons to prevent them from attending the poll on particular days. These appointments are very small ones—worth from £20 to £50 a-year, and I do not see how a medical officer holding an appointment of even £50 a-year is likely to exercise any great amount of political influence. I may tell the hon. Member for Crewe that the only case with which I am acquainted in which an appointment has been in any way cavilled at by anybody on the spot, is a case in which a gentleman wrote to complain of an appointment I had made, and to say that he had voted for the Conservative candidate, and, therefore, thought it hard that he had not been appointed himself. That is the only complaint which has reached mo in regard to the exercise of this patronage; but as I have said the value of these appointments is extremely small. I am always glad to obtain reliable information on the spot, and what I do generally is to get from the surveyor of the Post Office a list of candidates whom, on the whole, he may believe to be suitable for the appointment, and if I know anybody on the spot, I then refer to him in order that I may chock the surveyor's report with an opinion obtained privately, and by that means secure the appointment of the most qualified person. I will undertake to say that no question of a Party nature has influenced any of these appointments; but that I have always endeavoured to obtain an unprejudiced opi-

  1729
  nion from the local surveyor, and any other information that it is in my power to obtain. The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has alluded to a certain difference of opinion which existed some time ago between myself and some of the experienced and very able gentlemen who act as my professional advisers. I shall speak of them with all respect. The great services they have rendered to the country and their large experience entitles them to respect, and I should be extremely foolish were I Dot to recognize fully the value of their services. I am delighted to avail myself whenever I can of their matured opinion, but I claim for myself the right to differ from them when I consider it my duty to do so. I should be very sorry to hold my present Office for one day if I felt that I was bound to endorse every paper that is put before me. As long as I have the honour to serve Her Majesty in any capacity whatever, I shall endeavour to maintain the respect that is due to the experience and ability of the permanent officials; but I shall also have regard to that sense of public duty which ought to animate every public man who is placed in a position of trust.

MUSSEL BEDS IN TIDAL WATERS (SCOTLAND).—RESOLUTION.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, he rose to call attention to the recent prosecution, by the Procurator Fiscal of Ross-shire, of Lossiemouth fishermen at Tain, for dredging for mussels to be used as bait; to the alleged existence of private rights in mussel beds in tidal waters; to the injury to the prosperity of the fishing industry caused by such alleged private rights; and to the advisability of vesting all mussel beds in the tidal waters of Scotland in the Scotch Fishery Board; and to move—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire as to the existence and extent of private rights in mussel beds in the tidal waters of Scotland, and to inquire generally as to the nature and value of such rights, and to report as to the advisability of compelling the transfer of all such lights to the Fishery Board for Scotland."
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
MR. ANDERSONsaid, his Motion raised several of the most important
1730
questions concerning the fishing industry in Scotland that could possibly be brought before Parliament. The prosecution mentioned in the Notice arose out of the fact that certain fishermen who resided at Lossiemouth, in Elginshire, were dredging for mussels for bait in the Dornoch Firth on the 25th of May, 1886. and took away about two tons of mussels which were lying below low-water mark, where one could suppose private rights of property could not exist. These men were summoned at the instance of Major Rose of Tarlogie, the charge being that they had stolen the mussels, which were alleged to be his property. The case was heard at considerable length in the Sheriff's Court, and the men were fined £10. It was stated at the trial that Major Rose had put buoys to warn people for infringing on the mussel beds in question, and that notices were published to the same effect. But fishermen had been in the habit of taking away mussels for 30 years, and at the trial they stated their willingness to pay for the mussels if Major Rose could establish his title. In such circumstances it was perfectly extraordinary that any conviction could have taken place; but the men had been convicted, and the verdict had been affirmed by the Court of Session.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, the question had been decided by the Justiciary Court.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, the matter was the subject of an appeal, and had been finally decided. They had heard of a good many startling claims made by lairds, but of all the rights they had succeeded in establishing in the Courts of Law, that, to his mind, was one of the most monstrous. The fishermen were dependent for their existence on getting cheap bait, and he maintained that, by all natural laws, they had a right to dredge for it in the deep sea. The fishing industry was a very precarious one. Owing to the difficulties connected with the conveyance of their fish to market the fishermen had often to sell their fish by auction, at a ridiculously small price, sometimes not realizing more than 3s. or 4s. for their take, and out of that small sum they had to pay the laird from 1s. 6d. to 2s. or more per basket for the mussels with which they baited their

1731
hooks. In the Western Highlands of Scotland the laird did not charge these poor men for the mussels, which were habitually gathered for local consumption without interference on the part of the proprietor or the factor. When they were collected for sale the right of purchase in some rare instances had been limited to particular agents paying rent to the proprietors. Thus that extravagant charge for bait was not made on the Western Coast of Scotland, but on the North Eastern Coast of Scotland it imposed a very heavy burden on the precarious industry of the fishermen. Indeed, so onerous was the charge made by the factors for those mussels on the East Coast of Scotland that the fishermen there had actually to get their bait from Glasgow and the Western Coast instead of from the mussel beds of their own districts. Those lairds thus compelled the fishermen to pay enormous railway rates, the freight being £1 per ton from Glasgow to Lossiemouth or Burghead, although coal was carried for 10 s. a ton. Those matters called for the interference of the House of Commons, and he could not imagine any case of greater importance. He had endeavoured to see his way to bring in a Bill to legislate on the subject. But it was necessary, in the first place, to ascertain the nature, extent, and value of these private rights in the mussel beds, and how it came to pass that the law of Scotland should have recognized anything of the kind. He had himself put questions on that subject, and he had been told that the Scotch Fishery Board could not give any information regarding it. It was natural that the lairds should give none. They were thus left completely in the dark as to the nature, extent, and value of those rights; and therefore it was necessary that there should be an inquiry instituted before any legislation was introduced on the subject. He did not propose that the Commission should lead to the confiscation of any rights of property which had been legitimately acquired; but he believed that in many cases those alleged rights did not legally exist. The Commission, however, would ascertain how that matter stood, and what sum, if any, was required for compensation. In the next place, he thought that those bait beds, instead of being left to the care of the proprietors or of persons who were not proprietors, should
1732
be placed under some authority in the public interest who would look after their proper preservation. They were far more important than oyster beds. Many complaints had been made about the Scotch Fishery Board, but he understood that the Board was to be reconstituted and made efficient; and he could not think of any better way of using the Scottish Fishery Board than by vesting in it the right to all these bait beds. They had at present a staff of inspectors who received good pay, but had practically nothing to do; they might be usefully employed in looking after the mussel beds. Then the revenue which the Board would derive from the sale of mussels would be sufficient to recoup any expense which might be incurred for that purpose, and also pay the interest which might be necessary to meet the lairds' claims to compensation for any well-defined legal rights; while the poor fishermen would get their mussels at 6d. instead of 1s. 6d., 2s., or 2s. 6d. per basket. That was the scheme which he suggested, and he did not see what objection there could be to it. He was sorry to say he believed the Government were going to object to it. He had had communications on the subject with the present Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) when he was Secretary for Scotland. That right hon. Gentleman had taken a great interest in the subject, had gone into it thoroughly, and had been satisfied that it was a case in which Parliament ought to interfere, and the right hon. Gentleman had agreed with him that the course he proposed was the proper one. He had even gone so far as to say that if a discussion were brought on there would not be much objection to the proposal. He had, therefore, received great encouragement from the late Secretary for Scotland, and had congratulated himself on the thing being done. But since that time several serious changes had taken place, one of them being (he transfer of the right hon. Gentleman from the administration of Scotland to that of Ireland, to the disadvantage of both countries. He had addressed a communication to the present Secretary for Scotland, but, instead of receiving the answer he expected, Lord Lothian had sent him a letter in which he stated that he could not consent to any inquiry of the kind. It was most unfortunate that on an important ques-

1733
tion of this sort the Minister who had to decide whether this inquiry should be granted or not was not in the House of Commons to listen to the arguments adduced in support of it. In his opinion, it illustrated the inconvenience of having the Secretary for Scotland a Member of the House of Lords. He was sure if Lord Lothian had heard his statement he would have been satisfied that his proposal was a reasonable one. They had reason to complain of the manner in which Scottish Business was conducted in that House. Neither the First Lord of the Treasury nor any other Member of the Government who could give a satisfactory reply was present. The Lord Advocate had, no doubt, received his marching orders from Lord Lothian. This was not the way to treat Scotland, and Scottish Members were placed in a very great difficulty. He hoped, however, that before the debate was concluded they should hear something really hopeful from the Government, who could do nothing better than accept his proposal, if they really wanted to do anything that would conduce to the prosperity of the fishing industry. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.
MR. ESSLEMONTin seconding the Resolution, said, he did not think any good purpose would be served by continuing the discussion at great length. He could not share the despairing feelings of his hon. and learned Friend in supposing that nothing was going to be done by the Government in regard to this question. That was a larger question than might be supposed. Although the mussel itself was of no apparent value, yet for the line fishing—on which thousands of people depend in Scotland—it was essential for the carrying on of the industry. The fishing on the coast of Aberdeen was a larger source of annual revenue than the whole of the land in the county—that was to say, that the produce of the sea around Aberdeenshire represented a greater value in money than the produce of the land. A great deal of attention was paid to the Land Laws and to the interests of agriculture; but the Legislature remained blind to the enormous interests involved in the fishing industry. He was of opinion that the object which his
1734
hon. and learned Friend had in view could be attained without the expense of a Royal Commission. He could suppose no better business for the Scottish Fishery Board than to inquire into this subject, and there was no great necessity at the present stage for appointing a Royal Commission. The Scottish Fishery Board, if properly constituted, would have a greater knowledge of the fishing industry, and of the importance of this question, than any Royal Commission that could be appointed. Why not give to that Board the powers which his hon. and learned Friend asked for a Royal Commission? His hon. and learned Friend might disagree with him, but he (Mr. Esslemont) had been longer acquainted with the East Coast of Scotland than his hon. and learned Friend, and his hon. and learned Friend must not suppose that he had any superior information in regard to this question than he (Mr. Esslemont)claimed to have. On the other hand, he was quite sure that he represented as large a fishing interest as any Member in the House. But his purpose was to get the information they required with the least possible expense, and in the best form; and he hoped the Lord Advocate, if he would not agree to the appointment of a Royal Commission, would at least give them an assurance that the subject would receive the attention of the Government, and that he would communicate with the Fishery Board, and see by what means they could best bring about the result they all desired. In one fishing village in his own constituency, with about 14 boats, a sum of £224 was paid annually for the right of laying down mussels in the river Y than and picking them up again. The right seemed to be leased to a firm, and was sub-let by them to the fishermen, who were practically obliged to pay that large sum or cease to carry on the industry of white fishing. He did not desire that any private rights should be violated, but only desired in the meantime full information. He begged to second the Resolution.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire as to the existence and extent of private rights in mussel beds in the tidal waters of Scotland, and to inquire

1735
generally as to the nature and value of such rights, and to report as to the advisability of compelling the transfer of all such rights to the Fishery Board for Scotland,"—(Mr. Anderson.)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, that there were two points involved in the Motion of the hon. and learned Member—the first relating to the prosecution of the Lossiemouth fishermen at Tain, and the second affecting the general question. Now, as regarded the general question, there could be no doubt whatever that from far distant times legal rights had been established to mussel beds on the coasts of Scotland. Of that there could be no more substantial proof than the fact that an Act was passed under the Government of Lord John Russell in 1847, the Preamble of which set forth that certain rights had been established by law to mussel beds in Scotland, and that the Act was passed for the purpose of making the taking of mussels from such beds by persons who had no right to take them an act of theft. Therefore, about the general question that such rights had been recognized, not only by the Law Courts of Scotland, but also by Parliament, and that within recent times, there could be no question whatever. Whether that was a wise state of things was a different question, regarding which people could have their own opinions. So far as he know, where such rights did exist, they were well-defined rights, and rights which could be ascertained by reference to documents and to practice. Even if the Government were prepared to assent to a Royal Commission on a matter of this kind, the last thing they would think of referring would be the question of law as to whether individual proprietors had those rights or not. It was quite plain that to set aside the Courts of Law which had to deal with those matters would be perfectly out of the question. For instance, the case of Tarlogie was a case in which, as regarded the legal right, there could be no question whatever, and no room for an inquiry, by Royal Commission or otherwise, as to whether the right existed or not. In regard to that case, the questions ap-
1736
pealed to the Court of Justiciary were these—"Had Major Rose a good title to the mussel beds?" and the answer was "Yes." The second question was —"Could said title be held in a question with the public to convey an exclusive right to mussel fishing below low-water mark?" and the answer was also "Yes." It must be remembered that those mussel beds were in an estuary, and not in the open sea; but whether below or above low-water mark, it was only right to say, in this public assembly, that, as regarded what was done by the fishermen who were put on their trial, he had not the slightest doubt that on the occasion in question their object was not to go surreptitiously and as knaves to take the mussels, but that they went openly in the face of day for the purpose of having the right tested, and that any theft committed was not a malicious or immoral theft; and the decision having been against them, the fishermen had, so far as he knew, submitted to it, and had not again trespassed. He thought it due to them to say that. Having said that on their behalf, he was bound to say, on behalf of the proprietor, that he had taken pains and trouble to give intimation to those who might interfere with his rights as to the extent to which he claimed those rights, and the ground which they covered. It was perfectly well known that he asserted his right by letting out the mussel beds, and that the extent of them was carefully marked by buoys, about which there could be no mistake. The only remaining question, then, was whether the Government were to consent to the appointment of a Royal Commission upon this question. There was no doubt that the existence of a proper supply of mussels for fishermen on the coast of Scotland was a most important matter for their industry; but he thought all who knew anything about it would bear him out in saying in all fairness that the existence of those mussel beds had, to a great extent, tended to keep up the supply of mussels. They knew perfectly well that fishermen in most places, and certainly in Scotland, were sometimes a little careless of the gifts of Nature when they had them in their own hands; and that in the past, whatever might be advisable in the present, what was needful to the fishermen in the prosecution of their

1737
industry was, to a great extent, protected for them by the fact that there was some legislation regarding it. The question was whether now—he understood the Motion to go that length—it was advisable that all the mussel beds in Scotland at present possessed by private individuals should become the property of the nation, not, as the hon. and learned Member fairly said, by way of confiscation, but by taking them over, and giving compensation to the present owners. The hon. and learned Member asked for a Royal Commission to investigate the matter. Now, whatever the hon. and learned Member's individual conversations might have been with the late Secretary for Scotland, he did not know; but he would accept the hon. and learned Member's statement regarding them—namely, that the reading of those conversations was that a Royal Commission would be assented to if he made a good case in that House. But Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to assent to a Royal Commission, and that for two reasons. In the first place, they did not think it was necessary for the purpose of inquiring into this matter; and, in the second place, they thought that whatever inquiry was to take place could take place in a much cheaper and better way. At the same time, the Government did think that this was a matter which ought not to be overlooked; and he could assure the hon. and learned Member that they had not got to begin that work, because they had already been in communication with the Fishery Board, and had obtained some information and some of their views on the subject. He was glad the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont) agreed with him that the Fishery Board was a competent tribunal to look into this matter, and perfectly competent to advise the Secretary for Scotland, first, as to whether anything should be done, and, in the second place, as to what should be done. He could assure hon. Members that the matter would not escape the careful attention of the Government; and the Secretary for Scotland was quite alive to the necessity of full and accurate inquiry. He, therefore, hoped the House would not accept the Motion of the hon. and learned Member, but, after the statement he had made, would allow it to be negatived, and he was sure his
1738
hon. and learned Friend would accept the assurances he had given on behalf of the Government.
DR. CLARKsaid, he had hoped they should have heard something more definite from the Lord Advocate in this matter. As to the suggestion to consult the Fishery Board, he did not think there was much confidence in that body amongst Members who represented fishing constituencies; but that Board was to be re-constituted this year, and if the new Board contained representatives of the fishermen and fish-curers, they would be glad to have the question referred to them. That Board might then have full control of the mussel beds, and where there were private rights they should be bought over. Whether there were private rights or not, it was most important that the mussel beds should be protected, or they would be altogether destroyed. Another matter which should be considered, either by the Fishery Board or by Commissioners, was the pollution of the mussel and oyster beds on the West Coast by sewage. The filth dredged from that great canal the River Clyde was carried down to the fertile mussel and other beds in the lochs at the foot of the Clyde, and these beds were destroyed by the malign substances deposited upon them, to the great injury and loss of the fishermen in those parts. In consequence of the destruction of mussel beds, supplies of mussel bait had to be brought over at great expense by steamer from Ireland to the North-East of Scotland. With regard to the right of private individuals to buoy out several acres of ocean, he thought that that was a matter which might be brought before the Crofter Commission when their duties extended to the whole of Scotland, as would soon be the case.
MR. COLERIDGEsaid, he regretted that Courts of Law had lent themselves to a process of constantly whittling down the effect of Magna Charta, which had made it illegal for the Crown to grant out to a private individual any rights of fishing in tidal waters that might belong to it. The provisions of the Oyster Fisheries Act sanctioned the marking out of oyster beds for miles along the coast, one being six miles long by half a mile in breadth. Poor people whose sole industry had been the collection of mussels were not allowed to lake thorn from these oyster

1739
beds, and. so were deprived of their means of existence.
MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the Lord Advocate to the great injury now being done to the mussel beds and fisheries in Loch Long and Loch Goil by the deposit of enormous quantities of silt. He supposed there was a difficulty in taking the dredging vessels used on the Clyde to where they would meet the real action of the sea; but he was told—he spoke without personal knowledge to justify an opinion—that if it was possible to take the whole of that silt down as far as Ailsa Craig, it would not come back to Loch Long and Loch Goil. He had seen long lines baited with mussels which, after lying through the night, were so coated with absolute filth as utterly to prevent the fishermen from earning a livelihood. These men were an industrious and sober body, and it was clear they had not been protected in this matter. They had no means of protecting themselves against a powerful Corporation, such as that which had the charge of the dredging of the Clyde; and he therefore trusted before these men were ruined that the Lord Advocate, or whoever was in a position to act, would be able to take some steps to prevent the utter annihilation of their industry on that part of the coast.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he could assure the hon. Member that this matter had been brought to the notice of the Government; it was undoubtedly an evil which required their attention.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 108: Majority 22.—(Div. List, No. 136.)
Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MERCHANT SHIPPING—MEDICAL SERVICE ON BOARD TRANSATLANTIC LINERS.—OBSERVATIONS.
DR. TANNER, in rising to call attention to the entirely insufficient medical requirements and supervision on board Transatlantic liners for emigrants and steerage passengers; also to invite inquiry into the great risks incurred by master mariners and seamen on board vessels making long voyages, in consequence of the former being obliged to act as physician and surgeon to the crew, in addition to his
1740
other duties, said, the Irish people were leaving our shores in vast numbers, and, as an Irishman, he felt bound to try in the best way he could to safeguard those people when undergoingthehorrors—because it was a fact that horrors did exist on board those steamers—on their passage across the Atlantic, notably in the inclement season of the early spring and in the winter. The medical men who were on board those steamers might practically be divided into separate classes. First, there were men who went on board those vessels, such as the White Star steamers and the American liners, for a certain period. During that period they hoped to enjoy themselves, and did not look for any pecuniary advantage. At the same time, they always tried, as most men did, to endeavour to make their responsibility as small as they possibly could. Then there were men who went on board those steamers, and who undertook the care of the passengers in course of transport across the Atlantic, as a means of livelihood. Unfortunately, the major portion of those medical men were men who could not always get other employment—they were men who possessed minor qualifications; and he maintained that if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry De Worms) inquired into the qualifications of the medical officers on board most of those Transatlantic liners, he would find that, with the exception, of course, of some of the great Companies, and some of the excellent and super-excellent steamers, the major portion of the men so employed possessed qualifications which he would term totally inadequate to the responsibility entrusted to them. The position of the doctor was also very unsatisfactory. He was not treated as a gentleman, and had no authority. He wished to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the doctors on those emigrant steamers, though appointed by the Board of Trade, practically speaking, were not allowed to report to the Board of Trade. The doctor on one of these ships ought, no doubt, to be subject to the authority of the captain; but he ought to have in his own department sufficient authority, and to be responsible to the Board of Trade. Only three years ago the Board of Trade issued a form, which required that all ships'

1741
surgeons should report any complaints made by passengers on the voyage. That Order had never been complied with; and why? Simply because, like many other Orders which had been formulated in that House, which had received the sanction of that House and of the responsible Government, the Government, and possibly the House, were not strong enough for the shipmasters. The owners of the vessels were practically too strong for them, and although the Order was given it had not been carried out. The Shipping Companies, in defiance of that Order, stated that the doctors who complied with the Order would be instantly dismissed the Companies' service. Now, he maintained that that in itself would certainly warrant him in calling attention to this subject. The letter of Dr. Irwin, which appeared in The British medical Journal in February, 1884, first drew attention publicly to the matter under discussion. He stated that the average shipowners took a person whose qualifications complied with the minimum requirements of the law, and who could be judiciously silent when it might be inconvenient to speak and judiciously blind when not intended to see, but who would act as a buffer between negligence on the one hand and public indignation on the other when the health and interest of passengers came into opposition with the money interests of his employer. Dr. Irwin at the present time occupied a distinguished position in America, and it was stated in the medical journals of America that if the Government of this country did not pay attention to these facts it would become the duty of the American Government to fill up the gap. Dr. Irwin went on to state that practically the public did not see the danger; and what he (Dr. Tanner) maintained was, that in due course of time, if they did not safeguard the position, they would have a calamity which might be a very grave one on some of these ocean-going steamers, and a calamity which might be easily guarded against if they only paid attention to these facts which he brought under their attention. Dr. Irwin stated that his statistics were disregarded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) when he was President of the Board of Trade. He (Dr. Tanner) sin-
1742
cerely hoped that the present occupant of that position would practically go in and win. Cargo ships were often sent to sea as emigrant vessels, and emigrants wore condemned to wretched quarters which could be patched up on an emergency. A great number of vessels were sent from Liverpool to America with goods. They brought back cattle, and then, without being sufficiently cleansed, they received large numbers of emigrants. Ought not that to be seen to? Then, there were no interpreters on board these vessels. He also wished to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there was insufficient hospital accommodation on board those oceangoing steamers. If he were to take any hon. Member of that House into same of these little dens which were dignified by the name of hospitals, they would be surprised at the miserable inadequacy of the accommodation. The hospital was generally a small apartment not the size of the Table in that House, miserably fitted up, and totally inadequate to meet any emergency which might arise. Practically speaking, there was only one line of steamers—the White Star Line —which carried such a thing as a surgery. There ought to be ample accommodation on board every ocean-going steamer for treating cases of sickness, and a proper place where medicine and medicinal appliances could be made out and put at the disposition of the medical men. There should also be some isolated place set apart for the treatment of infectious cases. On one ship capable of carrying 1,500 steerage passengers there was only one water tank. the House could appreciate the danger of such a state of things. In many cases the accommodation for steerage passengers was wretched in the extreme, and passengers were huddled together in a manner which it would be horrible to describe in detail. He hoped the Government would give their earnest attention to this question, and take steps to bring about a better state of things.
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I have listened with attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner),who has brought his professional knowledge to bear upon the subject; but the question was narrowed to much smaller limits than the speech of the hon. Mem-

1743
ber by the Notice which he placed upon the Paper, and which is—
"To call attention to the entirely insufficient medical requirements and supervision on board Transatlantic liners for emigrants and steerage passengers; also to invite inquiry into the great risks incurred by master mariners and seamen on board vessels making long voyages, in consequence of the former being obliged to act as physician and surgeon to the crew in addition to his other duties."
It is scarcely necessary for me to point out to the hon. Member that the regulations of the Board of Trade are simply the embodiment of the Act of Parliament which relates to the carriage of passengers on ships, and the sections which bear specially on the question are Nos. 41, 42, 43, and 44. These sections of the Passengers Act clearly lay down that every passenger ship must carry a duly qualified medical practitioner. I quite admit that the words "duly qualified" are somewhat elastic, and may be construed in one way by some persons, and in a different way by others. I would only point out that those particular cases in which practitioners have not proved themselves fit for the situation they occupied are not, as a rule, reported to the Board of Trade. In nine cases out of ten the Board of Trade are utterly-unaware of the condition of things as stated by the hon. Gentleman. When a passenger ship leaves Liverpool with emigrants on board, it is accompanied by a doctor, and it is inspected, before it leaves, by an official from the Board of Trade, who inspects the ship in the first instance, goes down below and sees that the berths for the emigrants are in accordance with the rules laid down by the Passengers Act—for instance, that every passenger has so many cubic feet of air, and that there are proper divisions between the different sexes. The officer in charge of the emigrants has all the emigrants paraded before him for inspection, and if there is the slightest symptom or suspicion of infectious disease the emigrant is sent on shore. So far as the Board of Trade is concerned, every possible precaution is taken to prevent the spread of infectious disease on board ship, and to see that the regulations founded on the Act of Parliament are rigidly carried out. As to the qualifications of the medical officers, the Board of Trade have very little authority. A "duly qualified medical practitioner" is deemed to mean
1744
one who has taken a diploma as a doctor, or surgeon, or, in some cases, as an apothecary. I am bound to say that I do not think that an apothecary ought to be considered a duly qualified medical practitioner; and I hope that this view may be adopted generally on board passenger and other ships. With regard to doctors or surgeons, it is impossible for the Board of Trade to ascertain whether the officer is duly qualified or not. If a medical officer turns out to be incompetent, and his incompetence is brought to the notice of the Board of Trade, the Board would have a right to exercise the power of causing such person to be dismissed. I believe that in the large lines of Transatlantic steamers the proprietors do their utmost to procure the services of competent medical officers, but the difficulty is that there are a great many young medical men who are anxious to take a passage on board these steamers in the summer months, as a matter of pleasure, who go away when the more inclement season arrives. No doubt that circumstance does give rise to difficulty; but in dealing with that difficulty the Board of Trade are in no way called upon to assist the Steamship Company. We have nothing to do with the selection of medical officers, although we might interfere in a flagrant case of incompetency. It is in no way my province to provide medical officers for ships. As to the hospital accommodation, it is such as the proprietors of the steam ships deem adequate; but I am not prepared to say that it always is adequate. I am informed that in cases of infectious disease they are invariably isolated. No doubt the accommodation for such cases is occasionally inadequate, and certainly, so far as the Board of Trade is concerned, it is our endeavour to do all that is possible to improve the accommodation for emigrants, and to see that the rules as to cleanliness and hygiene are properly observed. The hon. Gentleman says that the accommodation for emigrants is insufficient in certain very important particulars. I believe that the hon. Member is right in that statement, although I know that in all new ships of the White Star, Inman, Cunard, and other great lines, those arrangements are being perfected and great improvements are being introduced. In every ship a list of drugs in store is required to be kept.
DR. TANNER: I said nothing about that. I merely spoke of the inadequate provision for the storing of drugs.
BARON HENRY DE WORMS: The Board of Trade is extremely particular, not only with regard to the storing of drugs, but to the general surgical accommodation.
DR. TANNER: The point I called attention to was the want of adequate surgical accommodation.
BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I do not think the hon. Member is correct in his objection to the arrangements in that respect.
DR. TANNER: In many cases there is not only inadequate surgical accommodation, but no proper place allotted for the storing of drugs.
BARON HENRY DE WORMS: There is a special cabin fitted up for surgery. In some of the largest steamers provision is made for every surgical appliance. The hon. Member will find, if he chooses to inquire, that every possible precaution is taken in the large oceangoing ships, and that they do fulfil, as far as possible, the requirements of the law. The Board of Trade have no further responsibility in the matter than to see that the requirements of the Passengers Act are thoroughly carried out, and I can assure him that so long as I have had the honour to be at the Board of Trade no charge of negligence or gross violation of the provisions of the Passengers Act on the part of a medical officer has been received. I can only say that if the hon. Member will bring forward any definite case that requires investigation it shall receive the fullest inquiry. It is our desire to see that the regulations are fully carried out, and that the rules which concern the comfort and well-being of the passengers and emigrants are fully carried out.
DR. TANNER: May I be permitted, by the indulgence of the House, to say one word? I am afraid that I did not sufficiently explain myself in regard to the difficulty in which ship doctors are placed. It unfortunately happens that their grievances cannot be brought forward properly on account of the paramount influence of the shipowners. If the ship doctors were to parade their grievances and the consequent grievances to which the emigrants are subjected, they would inevitably lose their place and their means of livelihood.

PUBLIC MEETINGS (METROPOLIS)— SOCIALIST MEETINGS ON OPEN SPACES—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. JAMES STUART: I rise to call attention to the interference with public meetings in open spaces in London. I do so at the present moment because there are very few opportunities for any private Member to call attention to a matter of this kind, and also because the present is a very apt opportunity for doing so, inasmuch as the old formula of grievance before Supply is particularly applicable in this instance. I believe that there is a real grievance in this matter, as I hope to be able to show to the House before I have done. I may also say, in my own behalf, and on the behalf of thos9 for whom I speak, that I am not bringing forward this matter from any sympathy with the views of those who are most concerned in it —I mean the Socialists. It is the misfortune of those who have to contend for any important principle that they frequently have to contend for that principle in the persons of those with whom they do not agree. I do not propose to follow that point farther at the present moment. All I say is that the action of the Socialist body, which is mostly interested in what I have to deal with, has been as lately in Northumberland to the detriment of interests which I, for one, deem to be important. At the same time, I feel that I am bound to maintain, as far as I can. the right of public meeting when I believe that that right has been violated in any way. I believe that, whatever may be the views of any body of persons, there is great advantage to the community in allowing those views to have free expression, and that injury is done to the community if there is any prevention of, or even appearance of preventing, that free expression of opinion. I think, also, it is necessary to call attention to anything we may believe to be an interference with the right of public meeting in the open spaces of London on account of the peculiar situation of London itself, and of the few facilities which it affords for the holding of public meetings. There is no town in England so badly off in regard to facilities for the holding of public meetings as London. Take Bradford with its great St. George's Hall, capable of

1747
holding 5,000 or 6,000 persons, and used as a large meeting place for the people of that town. Go to the East End of London, and you will find that probably the biggest hall is that of Shoreditch, which is only capable of containing 2,000 persons, whereas the population drawn from, on the occasion of a public meeting there may amount to six or seven times the population of the entire town of Bradford. I am sorry to say, also, that the School Board of London does not afford those facilities for the holding of public meetings in the board schools which is given by the authorities of Birmingham, Bradford, and other large towns. I merely mention this fact in order to show the importance of the question I am about to bring forward, and I may add that I have myself given Notice of my intention to move a Motion upon the subject of the application of board schools, under proper conditions, to the purposes of public meetings. I think that it is especially the duty of those hon. Members who, like myself, represent the populous districts of London, to draw the attention of the House to what has recently taken place with respect to meetings which have been held in the open spaces of London, and especially in regard to the relations of the police with such meetings. In the case of a meeting held at St. George's Hall, Bradford, the duty of the police is simply to protect the meeting, and not to interfere with it. What we desire is to be placed in a similar position in respect to the meetings which we are compelled to hold in the open spaces of the Metropolis, so long as such meetings do not interfere with the ordinary traffic. There is also another matter with respect to London to which it is necessary for me to call attention in connection with the right of public meeting. It is this—that whereas the police of other towns are under the government of the Municipality, and thereby under the government of the people themselves, the police of the Metropolis are in no sense whatever under the government of the ratepayers of the Metropolis. On the contrary, they are under the government of the Chief Commissioner, and are directly under the Home Office. The head of the police of London is, therefore, a member of a political Party in this House, and, therefore, he ought to avoid
1748
the appearance of any partizanship with respect to the control of political meetings in London, as far as the interference of the police may be concerned. As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State for the Home Department is ultimately the responsible party for the action of the police in London, and that fact may be regarded as a further apology for my bringing this matter before the House. Whereas the ratepayers of other towns have an opportunity of appealing to their Town Council or their Watch Committee, in London, if they desire to raise a question of the kind, they are compelled to bring their complaint under the notice of this House. I will, however, pass from that point without further comment, in order to get to the special matter with which I desire to deal this evening, and I shall in no sense wander into the general question of the right of public meeting in London, but I will confine myself to one particular case. There have been several instances occurring lately in regard to such meetings, and I wish particularly to refer to two meetings which have been held in San-croft Street, near the Kennington Road, on May 1 and 8. These were meetings of the Socialists, and I am informed that meetings of that body have been held for a considerable time on Sundays. Those meetings have not been disturbed until of late, when disturbances began to arise in consequence of the interference of a body calling themselves the Primrose Society. In an answer given by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) to a Question put to him recently, he referred to the meeting which was held on the 8th of May, and spoke of two rival meetings being held. I have made what inquiry I could into the matter, and I have not been able to find that the society calling itself "The Primrose Society" has in any sense endeavoured to hold any public meeting at all. I am unable to trace their meetings as existing in any way other than as an endeavour to disturb the meetings which have been held by the Socialists. The principal mover, as far as I can make out, in the Primrose Society is a greengrocer and a boxing man, connected with a school of arms in Lambeth Walk, and I take it that the supporters of the society generally partake very much of the same character. The

1749
result of the interference of the Primrose Society with the meetings of the Socialists has been, that a disturbance has taken place on several Sundays between the two rival bodies, as they are called. In the week preceding the meeting of May 1 an application was made by the Socialists to the Lambeth Police Court in regard to an interference which had occurred at one of their meetings; the case was reported fully in The Daily News and The Standard, and the report says—
"A disturbance took place between the rival bodies on Sunday week, and during the week an application was made by a Socialist at the Lambeth Police Court with regard to the interference with their meetings, and Chief Inspector Chisholm then informed the magistrate, that in order to stop these disturbances, neither party would be permitted to hold these meetings."
There is a point to which I shall refer a little later on. But this is a statement made by Chief Inspector Chisholm in reference to the meeting of the 1st of May. A considerable gathering of Socialists took place in the Sancroft Road on that day, and Superintendent Brennan and Inspector Chamberlain were both present. After the meeting at the corner of Sancroft Street, where it joins the Kennington Road, there were seen marching down Sancroft Street from the other end a body of the Primrose Society with yellow favours and a large primrose coloured banner with an inscription on it. It was known beforehand that they were coming, and it was perfectly well understood why they wore coming. They approached quite close to the Socialists who had attended the meeting, and then orders were given by the Superintendent and Inspector to 100 police, stationed about 50 or 100 yards off, to come up to the place. This body of police charged the crowd, charging first against the body of Socialists. If the facts, as I state them, are wrong they can be easily contradicted. I am only stating them as they have been represented to me. The Daily News says—
"Finding it was impossible to quell the opposing force, Superintendent Brennan forced his way into the ranks of his men, and the police then charged in a compact body, scattering-members of both bodies right down the street, and dispersing them in all directions …. Some of the leading Socialists were severely handled by the police, and one of their members, after a sharp chase down the Kennington Road, was taken into custody. Small bodies of men assembled in the Kennington Road, but were immediately dispersed by the police. The mem-
1750
bers of the Primrose Society, however, succeeded in re-assembling in Regent Street, and forthwith marched to Saville Place, Lambeth Walk, where a large crowd had assembled, in the expectation that the Socialists would hold a meeting there. No meeting was held, but the members of the Primrose Society came across two Socialists and chased them down the Lambeth Road into Church Street. The men were overtaken and a fight ensued. One of the Socialists was knocked down and kicked, but the police put in an appearance, and the injured man was put in a cab and taken home with two fellow Socalists."
This is what took place on the following Sunday, and here I quote again from The Daily News—
"Having regard to the possibility of a renewal of the previous Sunday's disturbance in Sancroft Street, Kennington Road, the police, under Mr. Superintendent Brennan, of the L Division, made ample arrangements yesterday to prevent a collision between the Socialists and their opponents, the Anti-Socialists. For some time past the Lambeth Branch of the Social Democratic Federation has held peaceful meetings at the head of the street. After the occurrence on the previous Sunday it was resolved to hold a meeting at the same place yesterday to protest against the conduct of the police. It would seem, however, that the proposal was abandoned. The Battersea Branch alone appeared in organized form, and, finding that access to the street for the purpose of a meeting was barred by the police, made no attempt to assort their claim."
Now, what I wish to point out is that, in my opinion, it would have been proper in regard to the first meeting on the previous Sunday for the police to have barred the approach of the threatening crowd in Sancroft Street. And this leads me to make the remark that we have here an instance of a meeting prohibited, practically, by the police, because, in addition to the newspaper report that no meeting was held, I find this report of it in the Socialists' own paper—
"We were not allowed to hold our meeting on Sunday morning at all. There was a strong force of the police and a good muster of our comrades and sympathizers, but we were kept continually moving. Chapman, on his arrival, was immediately arrested. Afterwards we made a move to the Albert Embankment, followed by mounted police and constables who emerged from the stable yard of the London Tramway Company. Arrived at the Embankment, Rossiter had no sooner mounted the box to open the meeting for Ward than we were hustled from our position. A temperance meeting was not interfered with, and a religious meeting was going on the whole time at the corner of a street at Vauxhall Cross. The police would give us no explanation. Bail for Chapman was refused."
And now let me refer the House to what

1751
took place in 1882 at Weston-super-Mare when the Salvation Army was frequently assaulted by a body called the Skeleton Army. I quote from the case of "Beatty v. Gillbanks, "reported in The Law Journal of 1883, vol. 51, page 117, which was an appeal by the Salvation Army against the decision of the magistrates. The report says—
"A riotous mob had assembled on the 23rd March, 1882, to prevent the Salvation Army meeting. This caused great terror and alarm in the minds of the peaceful inhabitants of the town, who believed, and had good reason to believe, that the procession would lead to a repetition of disturbance, and would endanger life, property, and the public peace; and who in consequence brought the matter to the notice of the sergeant of police in charge of the town, and made divers complaints to him thereon. The Justices in consequence placarded a notice stating that, 'as there are reasonable grounds for apprehending a repetition of such riotous and tumultuous assembly in the public streets of Weston-super-Mare, we do hereby require order, and direct all persons to abstain from assembling to the disturbance of the public peace in the public streets.'"
In the appeal it is further stated that—
"The appellants intended to parade their procession through the principal streets and public places of the town and to collect on their march a large mob of persons to accompany them, and they had good reason to expect that they would come into collision with the Skeleton Army and the other persons antagonistic to themselves, and had good reason to expect that there would be the same fighting, stone throwing, and disturbance as there had been on previous occasions, and intended, on meeting such opposition, to force their way through the streets and places as they had done on previous occasions."
The hon. and learned Gentleman the present Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) contended for the appellants that—
"There was no intention to commit an unlawful act, nor to do a lawful act in an unlawful way. No definition of an unlawful assembly goes so far as to include a case where the assembly is with a lawful intent, and not in its nature tumultuous or riotous, but where, by reason of the riotous conduct of others, a tumult is likely to ensue. An act which is right in itself does not become wrong by reason of the apprehension of misconduct in other persons."
In giving the judgment of the Court, Mr. Justice Field said—
"They certainly did assemble in great numbers, but such assembly to be unlawful must be tumultuous and against the peace. The finding of the Justices," the Court declared, "comes to this —that a man may be indicted for doing a lawful act if he knows that his doing it will cause another to do an unlawful act. There is no authority for such a proposi-
1752
tion, and I, therefore, think the appeal must be allowed."
The result is that—
"A lawful assembly is not rendered unlawful by reason of the knowledge of those taking part in it that opposition will be raised to it, which opposition will in all probability give rise to a breach of the peace by those creating it."
I have already shown that in the case of the Salvation Army at Weston-super-Mare there was a formal proclamation by the Justices of the Peace, and that the endeavour to prevent the meeting in London was made by an application from the Superintendent of Police to the magistrate in the terms I have already read, when he "informed the magistrate that in order to stop these disturbances neither party would be permitted to hold these meetings." There had not in any sense been an offence committed, nor had it been hinted, in the reply to a Question given in this House by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, that there was anything at all in the nature of a riotous proceeding in connection with the meetings of the Socialists in Sancroft Street, other than had arisen from the attacks made upon them by the Primrose Society as it is called. On the 5th of May the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) said—
"The Commissioner of Police informs me that Inspector Chamberlain did not call upon the meeting held in Kennington last Sunday to break up, and that he did not direct the police to break it up. The mere contemplation of violence by Primrose Societies gives to the police no additional power of interference with peaceable meetings."
I take that to be a correct statement of the law. I put a further Question to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State on Friday last, and his reply to me was—
"Except a general police order, which has been public property for many years, and the substance of which is that the police are not to interfere with persons attending political meetings unless specially ordered by the Commissioner, there are no general instructions upon which the police are authorized to act in respect to public meetings in open spaces. Each case must depend on its own particular circumstances, and must be left to he dealt with according to the discretion of the Chief Commissioner."
On Tuesday last, in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr.

1753
Picton), the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary stated—
"I have before informed the House that the police have no special instructions to prevent Socialist meetings as such, and I am assured that no such instructions, nor any special instructions at all, were given in the case of last Sunday's meeting."
Now, what I want to ask is this—that if no general instructions were given with regard to that meeting, and the Socialists were acting in accordance with what the Government admit to be the law, how was it that the police interfered to prevent the holding of a meeting when the only danger to the public peace arose from a possible attack upon it by other persons? In the same reply to the hon. Member for Leicester the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary said—
"I am informed that meetings have been held in Sancroft Street on Sundays for about six months past. Chapman and Kemp were arrested under a warrant issued by a magistrate sitting at Lambeth Police Court charging them with unlawful assembly."
I maintain, judging from what I have quoted of the law, that the assembly was in no sense an unlawful assembly, and that it is a very dangerous thing indeed that the police of London should get into the habit—whether for (Socialists or any body of persons—of considering an assembly to be rendered unlawful because of the knowledge of those taking part in it that opposition will be raised to it, which opposition will, in all probability, give rise to a breach of the peace. If the police hold this view, and act upon it, it is particularly dangerous to the general political life of the Metropolis. When, for instance, I stood for the borough which I now represent, I should think I am not wrong in saying that two-thirds of the meetings which I held had to be held in open spaces. Had a threat been held out by any opponent that those meetings would be disturbed, and the public peace endangered by their opposition, I should apparently have been in danger of having my meetings suspended. I take it, therefore, Sir, that, at any rate, I have a right to hope that, in the future, we may see given to the police of this Metropolis some directions in regard to their duty in the matter of public meetings in open spaces—some intimation that it is part of their duty to prevent interference with orderly public meet-
1754
ings in the open spaces of London, and that it is not their duty to prevent the holding of such meetings on account of threatened opposition, which may give rise to a breach of the peace by those creating it.
MR. PICKERSGILL: As a Metropolitan Member, and one, therefore, especially interested in this question, I desire to make a few remarks. It cannot be denied, I think, that the opinion very extensively prevails in the public mind that recently the police have unduly interfered with the right of public meeting in London, and also that the action of the police has been inspired from very high quarters. Of course, I accept most fully and implicitly the statements which have been made from the Treasury Bench, that in particular cases no explicit instructions have been given from the Home Office. It would be quite unnecessary that such instructions should be given, and, as it would be unnecessary, I can quite believe that to give them would be an indiscretion, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) would not be guilty of such indiscretion. But, Mr. Speaker, this suspicion in regard to the conduct of the police undoubtedly prevails, and—even though it should be ill-founded—the existence of it is mischievous, and justifies us in calling the attention of the House to this subject. I desire, Sir, to confine my attention to one particular case, and I am anxious not to put before the House any facts in regard to which there may be possibly a conflict of evidence. Now, in regard to the meeting of the 1st of May, in Sancroft Street, these facts were admitted in evidence by Chief Inspector Chamberlain. It is admitted, in the first place, that meetings have, for several month?, been peaceably held in that street; it is admitted also that during the week preceding the 1st of May a gang of roughs had publicly threatened to break up the meeting on the following Sunday; it is admitted that just when the meeting was on the point of starting a gang of roughs, calling themselves the Primrose Society, were seen advancing, obviously with the intention of carrying their threat into execution. Then, it is admitted in the evidence of Chief Inspector Chamberlain that he called upon the Socialists to

1755
break up their meeting. I submit that that order, which Chief Inspector Chamberlain admitted in the Lambeth Police Court, was clearly illegal. The law was settled, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart) has already informed the House, in several cases, of which the "Queen v. Beatty" is the most important, and in which the Salvation Army was concerned. This case most clearly decided that a lawful meeting does not become unlawful although it is certain to be resisted by force. I say, then, that to give the order which is admitted was given was illegal. These Socialists, who appear to be better acquainted with the law than are the Metropolitan Police, declined to disperse, and the police then cleared the street. Well, looking at the broad facts of this case, what do they amount to? They amount to this—that a gang of roughs publicly threatened that they would break up a peaceable meeting, and that, with the assistance of the police, they succeeded in effecting their purpose. How would it be possible, Sir, to give greater encouragement to rowdyism? The right of public meeting is no right at all, unless it is held to imply a right to protection in the exercise of that right of public meeting. In this case you have this gang of roughs, who had threatened to break up this meeting, who were at the time advancing—they had. in fact, begun to put their threat into execution—and I submit it was the clear duty of the police, under such circumstances, either to keep off the Primrose Society from the Socialist meeting, or, if it were necessary, to disperse the Primrose Society altogether. Now, I desire, Sir, to call attention to one consequence arising out of this business. I asked a Question to-day of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) with regard to the arrest of two men. I admit that the reply that I received was perfectly courteous, as far as I was concerned; but it seemed to me very unsatisfactory as regards the police. Now, what are the facts as regards the man Chapman? Chapman, it is admitted, was present at the meeting on the 1st of May. For some reason—which, apparently, is not known to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary—he was not arrested on that day.
1756
Nothing, in fact, was done in regard to him until the 4th of May. On the 4th of May a warrant was obtained against this man Chapman on a charge of having taken part in an unlawful assembly. Now, an unlawful assembly is only a misdemeanour, and a misdemeanour not of a very heinous character; and I submit that the natural, proper, and usual course would have been to take out a summons against this man Chapman. But, Sir, if the offence was so serious as to render it necessary that the police should take the somewhat extraordinary step of obtaining a warrant, one would naturally suppose that the police would have immediately put that warrant into effect; but they do nothing of the kind. Nothing was done in regard to this warrant until the 8th of May; and on the 8th of May, when Mr. Chapman was about to take part in the meeting in Sancroft Street, he was arrested. Well, now, what is the natural inference from that? I think it is that the warrant was obtained in order to be held in terrorem over the head of Mr. Chapman, and that a particular moment was chosen for putting the warrant into execution when the arrest of Mr. Chapman would be likely to strike terror into the minds of all those who, within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police, might be disposed to exercise what I thought was a Constitutional privilege—the right of public meeting. The conduct of the police in itself is serious enough; but it does not stand alone. There are, upon many sides, indications of an attempt—which may be, perhaps, a last and despairing attempt—on the part of the privileged classes to put the people down. There is, if I may so express it, a spirit of coercion in the air, which finds its chief embodiment in a Bill upon which much of our time this Session has been expended, and which also takes on many other forms. We see it in the Boycotting and intimidation which is practised by the Primrose Party, and one cannot travel, oven for a quarter of an hour in a carriage on a suburban railway, without hearing expressions of the same spirit in the terms in which the readers of The Globe and The St. James's Gazette refer to their fellow-citizens— terms which I do not hesitate to characterize as inhuman and most unwise. Well, Sir, in such circumstances as these, I conceive that it is peculiarly the

1757
duty of this House to maintain the right of public meeting, a right which has been, and is, one of the chief safeguards of the liberties of the people; and I think it is the duty of this House to guard that right all the more jealously, and all the more vigorously, in the persons of men from whose political opinion we may very widely dissent, and whose conduct in some respects we may condemn.
MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, I claim the indulgence of this House for a few moments to say a few words on this question, which I consider a most important one, and I do so all the more readily as I am not in the habit of trespassing often, or at great length, upon the patience and time of this House. I can quite imagine hon. Gentlemen opposite will say—What is the good of making a row about a lot of poor devils of Socialists? I do not think that anything very serious has been charged against these Socialists, though your Socialist is a fearful wild fowl. It is not long ago that the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) was looked upon as Lucifer or Beelzebub, and hon. Gentlemen opposite said they could never sit with him in this House. Now they manage to take their dinners with him, and digest them very well; and I dare say the day is not far distant when we shall see the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Northampton occupying a place above the Gangway, and not below it. I believe that those Socialists have been dispersed in their meetings simply and solely because they are poor, because their doctrines are not popular, and because no one cares to stand up and incur the odium of speaking for them. England is a free country— thanks to Heaven! It is a free country for a man to starve in—that is a boon you can never take away from him —but it appears in the future it is not going to be a free country to hold public meetings in. What with the closure in the House of Commons, coercion in Ireland, and the suppression of meetings in London, we are getting to an almost Russian pitch of freedom. And, Sir, should we succeed in arriving at the priceless boon of that freedom, we cannot wonder if the people at last shake themselves clear of their apathy, and take the
1758
matter a little into their own hands; I think it is not unlikely that, while we are talking here, the people will make a determined effort to assert their undoubted rights. I do not suggest that the people of England are ripe for revolution yet; they will be soon enough, especially in face of the Bills which are now presented to this House; but I do say that I can see no just motive whatever that—because a man's doctrine, or political faith, differs in some measure from that held by the rest of the community—free speech, which has always been considered the birthright of an Englishman, should be denied to him. Neither do I say that the police have acted on their own motion in this matter; we know perfectly well who stands behind them; we know that by the way in which questions have been dealt with, by the paltry, shuffling manner in which they have been put off—and I am not here to say one word against the police of London; I consider them to be one of the finest bodies of men in the Kingdom; I am here to compassionate with them in having to do such dirty work as to break up meetings, and to behave in a manner which cannot but be repugnant to their feelings. Now, I think every hon. Member of this House knows Buffalo Bill—Colonel Cody—and I would suggest, very respectfully, to this House that a select deputation of the Unionist Party should wait upon Colonel Cody to ask him for the loan of a few thoroughbred Unionist Indians to coerce the people of London. As this House, after all, represents but a small portion of the community, and as nothing is gained nowadays without agitation, I hope the public will not let this matter rest, but will agitate and bring it before the attention of this House, so that we shall be obliged to concede freedom of speech and the right of meeting to every class of the community.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): Mr. Speaker, I agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart), when, in the temperate speech in which he introduced this subject to-night, he said that considerable inconvenience is felt in London from the want of suitable places of meeting. It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that open

1759
spaces are few and separated by considerable distances, and that there are very few halls which can accommodate large meetings, especially of the character of the Socialist gatherings to which people in all parts of the Metropolis are invited to attend. Now, Sir, it seems to have been assumed by some hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is at the Home Office, or in my mind, some particular animus against Socialist meetings. I assure the House that that is absolutely untrue; I have not troubled myself a bit about Socialist meetings. all that I know of them is from what I have read and heard. I have never given any directions of any sort or kind with regard to Socialist meetings. The only directions I have given have tended to prevent obstruction in the streets; and here let me point out one fallacy, if I may use the expression without discourtesy, entertained by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart). He said that Sancroft Street is an open space. It is nothing of the kind; it is an ordinary street. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that many of the open spaces of the Metropolis are vested in the Board of Works, and that the Parks are, by special regulations, appropriated to public meetings. As a rule, there can be no objection to large public meetings held in the Parks, because they do not tend to obstruct the ordinary traffic of the Metropolis. If any body of men, whether the Socialists or the Primrose Society, chose to hold large meetings in streets, and inconvenience arises, and interruption of traffic takes place, they ought to be dispersed.
MR. JAMES STUART: I think I stated, Mr. Speaker, that there have been no complaints of these meetings interrupting the traffic, and that, what is more, the ground given for the opposition on the part of the police to their being held was not that of an interruption of traffic.
MR. MATTHEWS: I do not think any ground was alleged by the police. Now, the hon. Member has said—and said, I believe, with truth—that for six months meetings have been held every Sunday in Sancroft Street, and not interfered with by the police, and not interfered with by anybody, and held in a perfectly peaceable manner. Sancroft Street is a street in which, I believe, on
1760
Sunday mornings, there is very little traffic; consequently, these meetings for the last six months have not impeded the traffic, and, therefore, the police did not interfere. The meetings were held peaceably and quietly; but, unhappily, on the 1st of May, that happened which the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) described in very classical language—namely, that the people took the matter into their own hands. The people living in Kennington, strongly opposed to the views of those who form the Socialist meetings, disliking their eloquence, and disliking the presence of these Socialists in their midst, determined to take the matter into their own hands, and not to allow the meetings; and, accordingly, on the 1st of May what occurred was this—that a crowd of 2,000 or 3,000 persons appeared, marching in a body on the Socialist meeting then assembled in Sancroft Street, with obviously hostile intentions. As I am informed, the police, seeing this body of men approaching with obviously hostile intentions, advanced and stopped them in their advance on Sancroft Street. Meanwhile the Socialists, very wisely, and with commendable prudence, withdrew from Sancroft Street down Kennington Lane, and the police having stopped and dispersed the people who call themselves the Anti-Socialist Primrose Society—[Ironical cheers]—I say they call themselves the Lambeth Anti-Socialist Primrose Society; but I know nothing of their composition; all I know is that they are inhabitants of the district and dislike the Socialists—having encountered and stopped the Anti Socialists, the police followed, no doubt, in the rear of the Socialist meeting, always remaining between them and those who proposed to attack them. Upon that, I regret to say, some members of the gathering, which had originally been a Socialist meeting, became extremely violent to the police, and two men —Chapman and Kemp—called upon their followers and supporters to turn back and fight. The police, in. preventing them doing this, were assaulted, and one man, as the hon. Member has stated, was taken up for assaulting the police in the riot which ensued in consequence of the incitements which were given by Chapman and Kemp to their followers, and one man. named

1761
Blackwell. Warrants were forthwith applied for against Chapman and Kemp for the part they had taken in the riot. That is what occurred on the 1st of May. The police applied for the warrants, and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) has complained that that was an unusual procedure. Whether rightly or wrongly—I think rightly—the police applied for warrants instead of applying for summonses, because, as the hon. Member knows perfectly well, when a warrant is asked for, it is in the discretion of the magistrate to grant or to refuse it. An information on oath must be made, and the magistrate has an opportunity of hearing what is deposed upon oath, and exercising his judgment upon the case before anyone is called upon to appear at all. The police thought that would be a fair and proper course; they thought that in a case which might boar a political complexion the fairer course was to bring the facts before a magistrate in the first instance, before the defendants wore called upon to answer the charge, and let the magistrate say whether it was a proper case to be brought before the Court. That is the reason why the police resorted to the process by warrants instead of by summons. The warrants were not executed at once, for the very simple reason that the residences of Messrs. Chapman and Kemp were not known to the police, and were not contained in any of the ordinary publications relating to residences. Therefore, the police were unable to execute the warrants until the 8th of May, when Mr. Chapman came again to address another meeting in the same locality. Under the circumstances, I put it to the fair and candid consideration of the hon. Members for Shoreditch and Bethnal Green, whether the police could have acted otherwise. In the interval between the 1st and the 8th of May the meetings were held of both parties. At the meeting of the Socialists it was announced that boxes of cartridges had been provided; that there would be a regular fight next Sunday; and that, if the people who had come the Sunday before for the purpose of attacking the Socialists came again, they would meet with a warmer reception. On the other hand, the Anti-Socialists, also meeting in Kennington, determined that non-residents of Sancroft Street and the locality
1762
should not be allowed to meet there again. A Petition signed by 63 people living close to Sancroft Street, was presented to the First Commissioner of Police, objecting to these meetings in the street as being a great nuisance to them and praying him to prevent the gatherings. In consequence of that, I think, the First Commissioner of Police acted strictly in accordance with his duty in ordering double patrols to be on the spot the next Sunday. Accordingly, there were some 200 police sent down to Sancroft Street, and the street very soon became tilled with an angry crowd which never assumed the character of a meeting on either side, because the Socialists and the anti-Socialists were more or less mixed. Accordingly, the police prohibited no meeting, and stopped no meeting; but they did what was a wise and sensible thing to do, they kept the crowd constantly on the move in order to prevent a conglomeration of persons on either side to take place on one spot, because there is no doubt that if these two bodies, so filled with inflammable material, had come together the consequences would have been terrible, for a breach of the peace would have been inevitable. This further occurred, that Chapman appeared on the scone; he was then got at for the first time by the police, who arrested him under the warrant they had. These are the simple facts as they are laid before me, and I think that if the state of things which I have described had been allowed to continue, the First Commissioner of Police and the Home Secretary would have deserved the severest censure. There has not been the slightest political bias in the action of the authorities; the same measure of justice has been meted out to the anti-Socialists as to the Socialists. The crowd was kept moving, and the intervention of the police was caused solely by the imminent danger of a breach of the peace if these hostile bodies had been allowed to come together. They certainly would have come to blows if the police had not interfered, and compelled the one party and then the other to move on. In any of the proceedings there has not been the slightest partiality shown on behalf of either party. The sole duty of the police is to keep the peace in the Metropolis; their duty is not to interfere,

1763
I quite agree, with any public meeting held in a place where the traffic of the street, or the convenience of the inhabitants, are not interfered with. Of course, when they have such good and substantial grounds for believing that a serious breach of the peace is going to be committed, the police would be neglecting their primary duty if they did not take measures to prevent such an occurrence.
MR. BRADLAUGH: The subject of public meeting in the Metropolis is one in which I have taken considerable interest and made great exertions for some 40 years of my life. I will first put to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) what I conceive to be the law on the subject. By the Metropolitan Police Act, I understand, that the Chief Commissioner of Police, and no other person, has the right to make such regulations as, in his discretion, he may think fit, for the regulation of traffic in every thoroughfare, making special regulations when he considers, from the processions announced, or from the probability of large assemblies of people, such regulations may be necessary. I do not understand that there is any other power whatever put by Statute in the Home Secretary or in any other person. As far as meetings in London are concerned—and when I speak of London I mean the Metropolis—I think I am right in saying that, with the exception of some few occasions when great feeling has been evoked in connection with some special question, large public meetings have been more orderly during the last 50 years than probably they have been in any other city in the world, and that the tendency of the people has been to preserve order. I would suggest that it is the interest of every Government in this country, whatever its politics may be, to allow the widest latitude with reference to holding reasonable public meetings, and that the exercise of this right constitutes a kind of safety-valve for the expression of public opinion. The House should bear in mind that there are many people who have taken part in such assemblies who would have been excluded from a meeting held in a public building by the mere impossibility of hiring a public building for the purpose, and I maintain that it is to the
1764
advantage of the public peace that these persons should have reasonable opportunities of meeting and discussing any matters of grievance. There has been considerable difficulty in my mind in speaking on this matter, because I fear there are men who have during the last few years done much to imperil the right of public meeting by the needless provocation offered sometimes to the authorities and sometimes to persons with whom they disagreed. Although I regret that, I think it ought not, on the other hand, to influence our judgment in dealing with the general question, and I think that a great deal is due to the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart), who has raised the question this evening, and I would point out what seems to be a great want of attention to their duties as guardians of the peace on the part of the police. According to the statement which we have listened to, of the Homo Secretary, I understand him to say that a number of inhabitants, hostile to the holding of meetings in Sancroft Street, took the law into their own hands and announced that they intended to prevent by force, if necessary, the holding of such a mooting. Now, the meeting was either lawful or unlawful. If the meeting was unlawful, these inhabitants were not the persons to de-clave the law and enforce it; if the meeting was lawful, the police had knowledge of it, and it was their duty to take steps in order to restrain those who threatened to break the peace. I do not go to the length to which the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch wont, who said that the right to public meeting involves the right of protection on the part of the police of the meeting. I cannot say that I accept this as a matter of law, or as a matter of policy. I am inclined to think that the less the police have in any way to do do with public gatherings on political or social questions, until a breach of the peace has commenced, the better for all concerned. I have never needed the assistance of the police, and I have never given the police more trouble than I could help in connection with any meeting that I have held. I have always tried to keep within the law, and I hope that I have done so. Although I have sometimes disagreed with the Home Office as to what the law was, I have never admitted

1765
the right of the Home Office to interfere with a public meeting convened for a lawful purpose in London. I remember on one occasion, about 15 years ago, a meeting announced to be held in Trafalgar Square was forbidden by a proclamation from the Home Office. I replied to the Home Office proclamation by a notice to the Home Office and the Chief Commissioner of Police that I intended to hold that meeting, and that it was a lawful one, and that any attempt to interfere with it would be illegal and would be resisted. The meeting was held. The Chief Commissioner of Police was present, and I presume that he was satisfied with it, because I have never heard anything on the subject since. I am of opinion that any kind of interfering by the police in gatherings of this kind often provokes disorder which might otherwise be escaped. Although I have no love for those persons who call themselves Socialists—they are not complimentary to me—yet I am bound to say that since they have hold their meetings in and about London, there has been a great deal of harsh treatment shown to them which has never been shown to street preachers, who very often assemble in places where they stop the traffic and cause inconvenience to the neighbourhood. I will undertake to drive the Home Secretary round in a Hansom cab next Sunday morning, and show him 200 or 300 such meetings in places where the traffic in the streets is certainly greatly impeded. While I am claiming the right of public meeting to the fullest extent, I would also claim a generosity of construction with regard to what may be the light to hold public meetings, and that it should not be tied down by exact legal technicality; because I think that if you give the public—especially the poorer classes of the public—any sort of notion that you deal a harsher measure to them than you do to other classes, you provoke feeling which otherwise would not exist, and you give them power which they would not otherwise command. The police in the East of London interfered with a meeting at a corner of Dodd Street; the conduct of the police was undoubtedly in that ease, if their own expression may be judged, prompted somewhat by their disapproval of the opinions expressed there, and I suggest that this was no business of the police whatever. They
1766
have nothing to do with the views expressed at meetings, whether by Socialists, or the Salvation Army, or by those people who habitually gather a number of persons around them to sing—whatever their opinions may be, it is no part of the duty of the police to consider them. At Dodd Street the audience used to number about 20; after the police interfered they increased rapidly to 2,000 or 3,000; and it is in this way that interference gives prominence to men who would otherwise have to stand or fall by their own arguments. What happened in Dodd Street will always be the result in similar cases of interference on the part of the police with public meetings. The meetings which have taken place since the Chartists' movement up to the present time may be said, on the whole, to have tended to make a people wiser, and better, and more law-abiding. There is, at the present moment, danger of contagion from abroad, where repressive laws have been resorted to against a class of people bearing the name of Socialists, and if those to whom that name is applied in this country are given the same ground of complaint, we shall be playing into the hands of a class of men, and assisting them in sowing the seeds of mischief among the people.
MR. J. ROWLANDS: Having regard to the neighbourhoods in which public meetings are held, there are few questions of more importance than that of the right of public mooting in open places. There is, I believe, no one of us who represent East End constituencies on this side of the House who has not had to avail himself of open spaces in that district for the purpose of addressing his constituents. I am pleased to hear that the Home Secretary has given no directions whatever to the police with regard to these meetings, and the statement coming from him is one which we welcome with the utmost satisfaction. Meetings at street corners in London are not at all exceptional; you find them in streets where there is a small amount of traffic, and where, I venture to think, they do very little harm. The noticeable circumstance in the present case is that the party who wanted to break up the meeting alluded to by the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch, and who succeeded in doing so, had no de-

1767
sire themselves to hold a meeting. They did not declare that they wanted to hold a meeting; but that they wanted to pre-vent the other side from doing so, and the moment the police kept the people on the move, they succeeded in their object. I think it would have been better to prevent the two parties coming together, and to have allowed one party to hold its meeting, rather than to keep both parties on the move. I do not think the police did well to give as a reason for applying for warrants against Mr. Chapman and Mr. Kemp, that their addresses could not be found. I find that when the case went before the magistrate, the detectives admitted that the men were well known to them, and that they were allowed to go away on bail without sureties; and I say it is an extraordinary thing, if they were so well known, that the police should have had any difficulty in tracing them. I do not know of one instance of such persons being out of the way when called upon by the authorities, and I have no doubt that the whereabouts of these men could easily have been ascertained by the police. I was sorry to notice, while my hon. Friend was seriously discussing the right of public meeting, a levity on the Ministerial Benches, which, I think, warrants us, as Members having the right of open-air meeting at heart, in thinking that it would be better at once to fight out this question in the House of Commons. There was an article which appeared in one of the public journals in relation to public meetings, which, among other things, said that this question was of so serious a nature that unless it was settled at once "we should find ourselves in the throes of a social revolution." That was said with reference to the Hyde Park demonstration that took place on Easter Monday, and which was one of the largest and most orderly gatherings ever drawn together in the country. If such language is written with regard to a meeting of that kind, I ask how long it would have taken writers in the public Press to inflame the people still more, if that meeting had been interfered with, and how long it would have been before they went one step further? I am bound to express my belief that the right of public meeting has in other times been the salvation of the country, and that the people should be allowed
1768
to meet for the purpose of discussing their grievances in the light of day, because, under those circumstances, those who hold extreme opinions have those opinions modified, and in that way public attention is directed to grievances which exist. I believe that all hon. Members will admit that in this way the public weal is benefited. I hope we shall soon find that these disturbances in London will cease, and that the right of public meeting will remain as sacred in the future as it has been in the past.
MR. CREMER: I have listened attentively to the observations addressed to the House by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, and I am not so clear in my interpretation of his views, with regard to the instructions given to the police, as the hon. Member for East Finsbury (Mr. J. Rowlands) seems to be. I hope, however, that the interpretation which my hon. Friend has placed on those utterances is correct. And if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not rise and deny them, we shall, of course, consider that his remarks were faithfully interpreted by my hon. Friend, and feel more secure that no attempts will be made hereafter to suppress the meetings of Socialists, or any other class of our fellow-citizens. I have no particular love for the doings of the Socialists, and I think that ought to be made clear, because, otherwise, we might hereafter be accused of sympathizing with their actions. Most of us on this side of the House, especially Members of the Party to which I belong, have been roundly and scandalously abused by the men who have been imprisoned through the action of the police, and who are now posing as martyrs. But this question of public meeting is dear to us, no matter whether it be in connection with street preachers, Socialists, the Salvation Army, or any other class of our fellow-citizens, and we shall feel bound to defend their right of meeting, because we have seen the beneficial results which have followed its exercise. I am surprised that the Government have not profited by past experience in this matter. It is not more than 23 years ago since a Tory Government entered upon a crusade of this kind against the people of London. We were not then enfranchised, and the masses were not represented in this House. It was in the year 1864

1769
that a Tory Government attempted to put down a gathering of peaceable citizens on Primrose Hill. For a time they succeeded, and my ribs for weeks afterwards bore testimony to the efforts of the police engaged in that operation. The crusade continued until those famous riots occurred in Hyde Park. We know that the Government attempted to suppress the right of the people of London to meet in their open spaces and express their opinions with regard to the great Constitutional changes they desired; we know that the people were shut out from Hyde Park, but that by some accident the railings fell down and the people went into the Park. the Government failed then to put down the meetings on Primrose Hill, in Hyde Park, and elsewhere. And what was the result? An enormous impetus was given to the Reform movement of that day, and the people shortly afterwards entered upon their political heritage. If it had not been for the attempts to suppress the meetings on Primrose Hill and Hyde Park, we should have gone on toiling, year after year, to attain that position which the Government speedily secured for us by their hostility. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) has referred to the advertisement which the Government are giving week after week to the Socialist Party. In consequence of the action of the police, thousands of people now flock to hear what the Socialist have to say, and the result is, that a large number of converts are made to what some persons regard as very pernicious doctrines. If the Government do not want to continue this advertisement, they will certainly discontinue the prohibition of meetings in open spaces. They should remember the words of Scripture—"If this work be of man, it will come to nought"— and allow the Socialists to go on preaching to their hearts' content. The same result has followed the prohibition of public meetings in Germany. I have been present in Berlin, and have witnessed the efforts made there to suppress the right of public meeting, and, during the last few years, I have seen the number of Socialists doubled and trebled through the efforts of Prince Bismarck to put down their meetings by force; whereas, if they had been free to preach their doctrines, I venture to say, from practical acquaintance with the Leaders of the
1770
Social Democracy in Germany, that the strength of the Party would not have increased as it has done. Now, Sir, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary or some other Member of Her Majesty's Government will, before this debate concludes, give us distinctly to understand that these open air meetings will not be interfered with. A large number of our constituents who have not the slightest sympathy with the doings of the Socialists, knowing as they do that their object is to advertise themselves—to get upon a pedestal in order to propagate their doctrines, are nevertheless anxious that free speech should be preserved. I sincerely trust that we shall receive a distinct pledge from Her Majesty's Government that this persecution will cease. If they desire to prevent these men from propagating what they conceive to be pernicious views they will give the pledge for which I ask.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): Sir, in submitting this Estimate, I am sure the Committee will allow me, and, indeed, expect from me that I should take this opportunity to give some further and fuller particulars of the services for which this £17,000 is asked than would have been possible to exhibit on the face of such a formal document as this. It is not necessary for mo, and indeed it would be impertinent on my part, on this occasion, to dwell on the deep and respectful sympathy which we all feel for the desire which Her Majesty has expressed to signalize this Jubilee year of her reign by offering solemn and public thanksgiving for the prosperity and happiness with which Providence has blessed her and her people during 50 years of her life and of her rule. I am also sure that all will agree with me that it is right and fitting that this great National Thanksgiving should be made in Westminster Abbey, where Her Majesty and all her

  1771
  Predecessors for well nigh 600 years have been crowned as Sovereigns of England. Sir, I do not think it necessary to say more on that subject, for I hope and believe, indeed I am confident, that upon it there will be an absolute unanimity of feeling amongst all the Members of this House. But I am very glad of this opportunity of explaining the nature of the preparations which it will fall to my duty, in conjunction with the Lord Chamberlain, to make on this occasion—and more especially as I know that some misapprehension prevails amongst Members of this House, and, indeed, amongst some members of the public out-of-doors, with reference to the objects to which this Vote of £17,000 is to be applied. I think if the Committee will allow me to occupy its attention for a very few moments, that misapprehension I shall be easily able to dispel. Sir, the object of this Estimate is perfectly truly described as "for the preparation of Westminster Abbey," for this ceremony and nothing else. The necessity for this Vote of £17,000 springs from the simple fact that it takes a little money to make such arrangements as will enable that Abbey to contain 10,000 men in a space which usually accommodates, I suppose, about a third of that number, and especially when it is remembered that the Abbey is so full of very old sculpture and statues of priceless historical value, which might very easily be defaced, or even destroyed. Of course, if you were simply to open the doors of the Abbey and invite only the Members of the two Houses of Parliament to walk in, there would be very little expense; but it has been felt—and, I believe, the feeling will be shared universally—that on such a great and solemn and historical occasion all classes and all interests that together make up the people should, as far as possible, be represented, and that the representation should not be confined merely to the inhabitants of this country, but should also include Her Majesty's faithful subjects in the Colonies and the great dependency of India. Now, Sir, the first and principal item in this Estimate is a sum which has been estimated at £9,000 for the erection of galleries and the necessary staircases leading to them for the accommodation of this large number of people, and for the making of such structural alteration
  1772
  as may be necessary for providing access to all parts of the building, and for other consequential expenses. I may say that this sum of £9,000 corresponds with the sum of £10,700 which was spent in 1872, when, as I suppose, a great many Members of this House recollect, there was a Thanks giving Service at St. Paul's Cathedral for the recovery of the Prince of Wales. And before I pass away from that item, I should like to explain to the Committee exactly how we have arrived at the amount which it will be necessary to spend for this object. It was detemined, as this was so large and important an occasion, it would be well to ask several of the leading firms of the builders and contractors in London to send in tenders for the work. We invited tenders from Messrs. Holland and Hannen, Messrs. Cubitt and Co., Messrs. George Trollope and Sons, and Messrs. Mowlem and Co. These four firms, as many Members of the House are doubtless aware, are amongst the most eminent in London. They sent in their estimates as we desired, according to a schedules of prices; and, of course, the estimate which was lowest—that of Messrs. Mowlem, which was 17 per cent. lower than either of the others—was accepted. The next principal item is also necessarily a large one, and it is as near as we can calculate it, £5,600. It is for the covering of seats with calico for the convenience of those who attend the ceremony and the carpeting of the passages. I may say at once that this work will be done on the most economical basis possible. we have endeavoured to make arrangements corresponding as nearly as possible, to those carried out on the occasion of the Thanksgiving Service for the recovery of the Prince of Wales, to which I have already referred. It is not easy to make an exact estimate of this item; but I have gone into the matter very carefully, and I hope it is more likely that we shall fall short, rather than exceed the Estimate I have given, and, in that case, the money we have over will be paid back into the Treasury. These two items together of £9,000 and £5,600 will amount to £14,600. Then there is the item of £1,300 for the Dean and Chapter. I know that it has been said that the Dean and Chapter will gain considerably by

  1773
  this ceremony, and that part of the money given under this Vote will go into their pockets. I am glad to have this opportunity to deny that statement; of course, it is not the fact—not one penny will go into the pockets of the Dean and Chapter. The item will be paid as insurance against such injuries as may be done to the Abbey in spite of the care that will be taken. [Laughter.] Well, if hon. Members will consider that the Abbey is very full of ancient, historical, and priceless statuary and sculpture, they will see that it is absolutely impossible to say that some slight damage may not be done, although we have taken the greatest precautions against that by shielding the monuments with wood. And so there is the sum of £500 allowed as an insurance against any such structural damage as we may, in spite of all our care, inflict upon the building. We also allow a sum of £250 for musical services and a sum of £300, their loss of foes during our occupation, which fees, I believe, are usually applied in payment of the guides. Finally, there is an item of £1,100 for the necessary printing and stationary and clerical assistance in the Lord Chamberlain's Department. We have adopted that figure from the corresponding item in the expenses that were incurred in 1872 on the occasion of the Thanksgiving for the recovery of the Princes of Wales. That was the sum actually spent in 1872; and, judging from the tide of correspondence already rushing in upon the Lord Chamberlain, I should not think that this item could well be put at less. These make together the £17,000; and I may say, in concluding this portion of my statement, that I hope the necessary arrangements will be fully covered by the Estimate. I assure the Committee that no effort will be wanting on my part to secure that result. I have taken into account the expenditure which has been incurred on similar occasions, and I believe this Estimate may be relied upon as correct. There is one other subject in which I am sure the Committee will be interested. I should like to satisfy everybody as to the accommodation which we will be able to provide, and as to the persons to be invited to attend the ceremony. For instance, it has, I am aware, been a burning question with. Members of
  1774
  this House as to whether they will be allowed to bring their wives. Only this evening a friend of mine said to me— "If you do not make room for Members' wives—if you do not settle this point in our favour—even your own Party will vote against you.'' I said—"Yes; but if I do include Members' wives, no man of any Party will dare to vote against me." Well, I hope we shall be able to make satisfactory arrangements on this point. With regard to the accommodation, I may say that I to-day received a letter from the Lord Chamberlain, in which he says—
  "It may be convenient for you to know the arrangements which I have been commanded to make for Her Majesty's Jubilee Thanksgiving Service in Westminster Abbey on the 21st of June."
  I am glad to take this opportunity of saying, in my own defence, that I shall have nothing whatever to do with the giving away of seats, although applications for admission to the ceremony are falling upon me in showers.
  "It is wished that it shall be of a thoroughly national and representative character; and I therefore propose, in the first place, to set apart the whole of the lower level of the transepts of the north and south of the Abbey for the Members of the two Houses of Parliament. I shall hope to provide here and in the Galleries above also for the wives of Members; but this must, to some extent, depend on the number of Members who express their intention to be present. Upon this, however, I propose to consult the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker."
  I have myself no doubt at all that we shall, on this point, be able to make satisfactory arrangements, and that it will be possible to avoid giving disappointment to hon. Members.
  "In addition to these, I shall have to provide for the Corps Diplomatique and other distinguished foreigners; for the representatives of the Army, the Reserve Forces, the Navy and Marines, and the Civil Service; for representatives of the Colonies and India, the Lord Lieutenants and High Sheriff's of counties, the Mayors of the United Kingdom, as well as the representatives of trade, commerce, and agriculture who will be invited to attend. The Church will, of course, be provided for in communication with the Dean of Westminster, in addition to the Houses of Convocation; and I am sure you will be glad to learn—
  This may be taken as an answer to a Question which was addressed to me the other day, and which I was only able at the time to answer in a general way—
  "that I have already received an assurance that the various Nonconformist Bodies will

  1775
  wish to be represented, and that I shall not fail to reserve places for them."
  I quote this with pleasure, as I have said, as an answer to the Question put to me the other day—
  "I have not forgotten that on the occasion of the Thanksgiving for the Prince of Wales's recovery representatives of the working classes were provided for, and I shall most certainly follow that precedent on this occasion."
  Then the Lord Chamberlain concludes—
  "I may have omitted to enumerate some classes of Her Majesty's subjects. If I have done so, as time goes on I shall, no doubt, be reminded of them, for the innumerable applications that I daily receive show the extraordinary interest taken in all parts of Her Majesty's dominions in this interesting ceremony. I trust that you will soon be in a position to get the Vote for the preparations in the Abbey to enable me to proceed with the arrangements."
  I have to thank the Committee for having allowed me to make this explanation, and I now beg to move the Vote, which I trust will be passed without serious opposition.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum not exceeding £17,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1SSS, for the Expenses in connection with the Celebration of the Jubilee of Her Majesty's Reign."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I hope whatever decision the Committee may come to nobody will be induced to give a vote one way or the other owing to the "wife bribe" which has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not propose to discuss for a moment whether or not there ought to be a Jubilee Service. It is decided upon, and it will take place. Nor will I discuss whether it should take place at Westminster Abbey or in St. Paul's Cathedral. I can understand the sentimental feeling, though I confess I do not share in it, which gives the preference to Westminster Abbey; but the real question is what ought this Jubilee Service to cost. I hold that the scale of arrangements is ton costly, and that if it is adopted it will be open to the condemnation of being too reckless and expensive. The right hon. Gentleman has explained that there are to be a number of galleries, as I understand, throughout the Cathedral. Well, it seems to me that when you have a Cathedral with fine spaces in its interior,
  1776
  you really spoil its structural advantages and its proportions by erecting galleries. You are perpetrating, in point of fact, an artistic blunder. What you are really going to do is this—with the best intentions—you are going to convert the noble aisle into a species of race-course stand, under the auspices of some West End upholsterer. I do not think any hon. Gentleman will assert this is essentially a religious function; it is rather a Court function. We understand from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that positively a sum of money is to be paid over to the Dean and Chapter for what they will lose in the way of charges at services that will have to be suspended in consequence of this particular service. The arrangement is, as I have said, inartistic; but it seems to me that this expenditure is all the more objectionable, because, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said, most undoubtedly the classes will be invited to the ceremony, and the masses will not. It is all very well to talk about representative Bodies, but I should like to know if one constituent happened to be hungry he would be satisfied if his representative in this House were to be given a good dinner at the public expense? the right hon. Gentleman says Members of the House of Commons may go to the Service. I doubt whether I shall go. Certainly, if I had any desire to go but was kept out I should not be satisfied if my Representative in Parliament were allowed to go. Now, we are to pay £9,000 for the erection of these high galleries, and £5,600 for cushioning the seats in the galleries. I estimated, while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, that if there are 10,000 persons present, the expenditure will be at the rate of £1 14 s. per head. Hon. Gentlemen know what is the average cost of seating people. The cost of seating people in a large hall or chapel—a permanent building—is £2 per head, only 6s. more than you propose for this one show. In addition to this expenditure for galleries and cushioning the seats you propose to grant £1,300 as a species of insurance—[Mr. PLUNKET: £500.]—£500. This sum is to be given to the Dean and Chapter. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Abbey is filled with monuments, which are invaluable. Now, these monuments,

  1777
  if they are broken, cannot be replaced or mended, and the £500 will undoubtedly go into the pockets of the Dean and Chapter.
  MR. PLUNKET: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that not one penny will go to the Dean and Chapter. The £500 will go to the general fabric fund of the Cathedral.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: If we were asked to vote something to the fabric fund of the Cathedral, I could see that reasons might be urged in favour of the proposal. But here, under the guise of voting a sum of money for this Thanksgiving Service, we are called upon to contribute a sum of £500 to the fabric fund of the Cathedral. I think we really ought to object to that. £9,000 is far too much to spend upon wood. Let hon. Gentlemen consider what can be done in the way of building for £9,000; besides, it must be remembered that in this case this sum is only for the loan of the wood. I have seen the wood that is being taken into the Cathedral. It consists of battens and pieces cut into lengths for flooring. The greater portion of it will be precisely as good when it has been used as now; and, therefore, we are practically called upon to pay £9,000 for the loan of this wood for one day. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has put out a schedule to the various builders. I do not say it has occurred in this case, but has the right hon. Gentleman not heard of builders standing in? When half-a-dozen builders are asked to tender for certain work, it is frequently the case that they agree amongst themselves not to cut each other out; and, although I say I do not know it of my own knowledge, I think there are evidences that there has been a little standing in in this case. The right hon. Gentleman has cited the case of the Thanksgiving Service in St. Paul's; and he seems to consider that if he can show a like expenditure previously, we ought to cordially and thankfully acknowledge that he does not propose to expend more than he ought. I asked the right hon. Gentleman, a few days ago, what was the total expenditure upon the Thanksgiving Service in St. Paul's, and he said that, in round figures, it was precisely the sum asked for now. One would suppose that £17,000 is the sum we are to be called upon to recognize as the par value of such Services as
  1778
  these. I hope we shall establish a very different precedent. I propose to reduce the amount to the sum of £2,000. I consider this is amply sufficient. It seems to me that all that is wanted in the Cathedral—for everybody knows that the Cathedral itself is one of the finest buildings in the world—is a däis for Her Majesty and those in attendance upon her, and a few special seats for the Corps Diplomatique. I have seen a good deal of these Services abroad; but I never heard of such reckless, such ridiculous expenditure as that proposed in this case. Those who will go to the Cathedral upon this occasion will not go for religious purposes, but to see and to be seen. If £17,000 is to be expended upon Jubilee festivities, it might be expended to better advantage in various other ways, because, in all these matters, the best way is that which will please the greatest number of people. I am not advocating for a moment any expenditure of this character; but we have to deal with this positive fact, that there is to be this Jubilee Service, and the real point is, what is it to cost? Now, we are frequently asked to vote money after it has been spent; we are told we must vote it. But we have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that he would not think of spending 1s. of this money until it has been voted. It is quite true that a large quantity of wood is being taken into the Abbey; who, I wonder, is it who is paying for it? Anyhow, we have the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would not for a moment countenance the idea of one farthing being spent before we vote the money. We are, therefore, perfectly free to say whether the money expended shall be £1,000 or £2,000, or whatever sum we think proper. Speaking broadly, I think that, considering the atrocious want of taste in the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, considering that all these galleries will only be used one day, and that they will vanish like the
  "Baseless fabric of a vision,"
  considering the many better ways in which this money could be expended, considering the reckless extravagance which characterizes everything which the Lord Chamberlain and such people

  1779
  in anything they have to do with, considering that the right hon. Gentleman can offer no better reason for the expenditure of this money than that there was a like expenditure in St. Paul's, and considering that, if we do spend this money, future generations will be called upon occasionally to act similarly, we owe it, as a duty to the country and to ourselves, to protest against this expenditure Although I have moved to reduce the Vote to £2,000, I do not want to stick at £5,000 one way or the other. Some Gentlemen think I am not proposing to reduce the Vote sufficiently; others may think I am proposing to reduce it too much. What I want to do is to reduce the Vote from £17,000 to something like £2,000. Perhaps we can make a bargain with the right hon. Gentleman. If, for instance, he is prepared to accept a Motion to reduce the Vote to £3,000, I will gladly move such a Motion. All I want is that, in a matter like this, we should say to the authorities—to the Lord Chamberlain and others—"Take £2,000 or £3,000; make the best of it, and give us as good a show as you can for the money." I beg to move that this Vote be reduced to £2,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum of £2,000 be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Mr. Courtney, I understand the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) to be distinctly of opinion that a Jubilee Service should be held in Westminster Abbey. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: I am not of that opinion. I accept the fact.] At all events, he recognizes the propriety of a Jubilee Service in Westminster Abbey; but he suggests that the Jubilee Service should be held under circumstances which would render it impossible for the Representatives of the Constitution of this country to take part in it. He proposes that only the sum of £2,000 should be spent, and that the galleries which he protests against as being an evidence of want of taste, and as being destructive of the architectural beauty of the building, should not be erected. The result of that would be, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman himself will realize, that, instead of 10,000 persons taking part in the ceremony, it would be utterly impos-
  1780
  sible for more than 2,000 persons at the most to be present to do so. And therefore all the people nominated by the Lord Chamberlain as representing the several elements of the Constitution could not be present. I do not think that that is a result which will be acceptable to the House of Commons. I believe that the House of Commons desires that opportunities should be afforded to the representatives of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects to take part in a ceremony which they regard with infinite satisfaction and pleasure, as one which reflects honour upon Her Majesty, honour upon the nation over which she reigns, and in which the people desire by their Representatives to show a lively and real interest. Sir, there is a universal feeling of thankfulness and gratitude that we have been permitted to see the 50th year of a Reign during which the country has advanced in prosperity, has advanced in liberty— [''Oh, oh!" and ironical Home Rule cheers.] I am sorry to say a single word upon an occasion like this which would afford the slightest opportunity for a difference of opinion. I thought I was fairly representing the views and the feelings of the great majority of the subjects of the Queen; but I will refrain from pursuing the topic. Perhaps I may express my own feeling, and that is that it is with infinite thankfulness that I have lived to see the accomplishment of a period which I believe will be memorable in the history of this great Empire, as a period in which certainly great advance has been made in the happiness and prosperity of all classes of the inhabitants of this great Empire. It would be only fitting and proper that an opportunity should be afforded to the Representatives of these classes to take part in a ceremony which fittingly and properly marks the occasion. Sir, the hon. Gentleman has referred to a sum of £500, which is included in this Vote, as a contribution to the fabric fund. I wish it to be distinctly understood that this is given precisely in the sense in which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Plunket) has referred to it. It is impossible, notwithstanding the greatest possible care used in the introduction of the timber, that some damage should not be done to the building. Any damage to the Abbey must be repaired out of the fabric fund, and therefore we felt that a

  1781
  sum of £500 would not be an extensive contribution towards that fund. Not one single farthing of that money goes to any individual connected with the Abbey. If the amount is in excess of the cost of any repairs which will be necessary, the excess will simply go as a contribution towards the fund for maintaining a building which in itself is a great national monument. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) referred to the possibility of the builders standing in. The Office of Works took every precaution which it is possible to take, in order to satisfy themselves that the amount asked for was a reasonable amount. The chief portion of the £17,000 will be spent in labour, as unquestionably much labour will be expended in the fitting up of the proposed galleries. I do not think I need recommend this Vote to the House of Commons by any further remarks of my own. It has, however, been said that there is no precedent for this expenditure other than the expenditure upon the Thanksgiving Service for the recovery of the Prince of Wales. That is not the case. I find that £55,000 was spent upon the Duke of Wellington's funeral, apart altogether from the cost of the monument. If the hon. Member would trouble himself to obtain information as to the charges which are incurred in other countries under circumstances of a similar character, he would find that those charges are enormously greater than that which is now presented to the Committee. But that, after all, is not the ground on which I recommend this Vote to hon. Members. I recommend it because the country takes an interest in this ceremony, and desires that all classes of the community should be represented in the congregation. I, therefore, trust it will be voted very cordially by the Committee.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: Mr. Courtney, I do not wish to find any fault with Her Majesty's Government in having this service in Westminster Abbey, but, on looking at this Estimate, I was struck, as I feel other Members of the House must have been struck, by the large amount of money which is to be spent upon the service; indeed, I very much doubt whether we shall get value for the £17,000 proposed to be expended; £17,000 is £1 14 s. for every seat, as-
  1782
  suming that 10,000 are provided. It has been said that a similar expenditure was incurred upon the occasion of the Thanksgiving Service in St. Paul's Cathedral for the recovery of the Prince of Wales; but surely hon. Members are perfectly aware that timber is down in price since that day something like 50 per cent, that working-men's wages are down 5 to 20 per cent. ["No, no!"] I am speaking of what I know. the Thanksgiving Service in St. Paul's was in 1872, a year in which the wages of the working classes ranged as high or higher than they have been for some years past. I will not say there has been any collusion between the builders who were invited to tender in this case; but it is well known that London tradesmen have a great propensity for "standing in" with each other. I dare say I know a great deal more about tendering than the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket). I certainly know how tendering is often done, and I cannot help thinking that we are asked to spend a great deal more than we ought to spend considering the accommodation which is to be provided. I have no doubt that the First Commissioner of Works adopted what he considered to be the best plan; but to me the course he took to obtain tenders seems most extraordinary, as I understand the process described. The Office of Works sent out a schedule of prices, and then asked the builders to say for how much below those prices they would tender. The tenders that I am in the habit of seeing go out with specifications and with quantities supplied by a professional man, and with schedules to be filled up with prices. A tenderer fills in his schedule with prices which ought to correspond with the gross amount of his contract, with such addition as he may make after by way of making the total sum even money. In this case, the schedule of prices should not have been sent out, but a blank schedule to be filled in with prices. I merely say this because I think it is our duty, however much we desire to celebrate Her Majesty's Jubilee, to endeavour to get a fair return for the taxpayers' money that we expend.
  MR. AETHUE O'CONNOE: Mr. Courtney, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) who introduced this Vote seemed to think it

  1783
  necessary to refer to precedent. Well, now, the precedent which occurs to my mind most readily in connection with this Jubilee celebration is the original Jubilee from which this takes its name. It takes its name from the Hebrew word Yobel, which signifies the name of a musical instrument, which every 50 years, according to the directions in Deuteronomy, was to sound throughout the land, in notes of triumph, proclaiming liberty, and in that 50th year each man of the Hebrew nation returned into his own possessions, free in the bosom of his family. If we could have such notes of jubilation in every part of the United Kingdom as those Hebrews who witnessed a Jubilee had, there might be little question about this £17,000, or seventeen times £l7,000, to manifest the gratitude of the people, for what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) calls the blessings which Providence has showered upon Her Majesty's people during the last 50 years. In Scripture it is said that the multiplication of the people is the glory of the King, and in this country the last 50 years have witnessed an immense increase of the population. In the year 1837, the population of England and Wales was over 14,000,000; now it is 27,000,000. In 1837, the population of Ireland was over 8,000,000; now, after these 50 years of blessings, we have a population of just under 5,000,000. I wonder what the author of the Jubilee of old would have thought of these signs of blessings and of happiness of the people of one portion of the United Kingdom. Sir, when the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury talked about liberty, it appeared to me there was a tone of satire about his words, and he did well I think to drop the subject. But Sir, if the Jubilee is to be celebrated at all in a religious manner, if this is a just mode of celebrating it, perhaps it is just as well that Westminster Abbey should be chosen. It is a very interesting monument, full of the records of Royalty in this country. As Addison says in one of his essays in the Spectator— "When I consider in that place kings lie by those who have deposed them, I reflect with sorrow and astonishment upon the petty wrangles, quarrels, and debates of mankind." Well, Sir, we are to have this show, or this religious ceremony, in Westminster
  1784
  Abbey at a cost of £17,000. In the Papers which were issued to Members this morning, there were two in juxtaposition. One was the Paper which set forth the amount of money to be demanded for this particular Service, and the other was the Paper I hold in my hand. It is headed "Deaths in the Metropolitan District." It is a Return of the number of deaths in the Metropolitan District in the year 1886, upon which the Coroners juries have returned verdicts of deaths from starvation, or deaths accelerated by privation. I find that in the Central Division there were 15 deaths from starvation, in the Eastern Division there were 16 deaths, and smaller numbers in other divisions, one of the divisions being the verge of the Royal Palaces. There was no death from starvation within the verge of the Royal Palaces; those who are there are in "purple or fine linen." You are asking for a sum of £17,000, while men are dying in this same city, in the immediate neighbourhood of Westminster Abbey—dying week after week of starvation; while men, hundreds and thousands of men, are unable to obtain work, when—I am tempted to go into a number of considerations which might perhaps be looked upon as somewhat foreign to the subject-matter of this Vote. But the fact is, that there is immense distress in this country, and what do we know besides? We know that Her Majesty the Queen is probably the richest person in the world. In Eastern countries, kings barbaric scatter pearls and gold upon such an occasion as this. In this country we do not find that the donations and bounties are in the same direction. It is the poor people who are to be taxed on this occasion. Now, I want to know what earthly good this Vote will do to the poor people of Great Britain or of London. If it will do good to the people of this country, why do you not have a similar expenditure in Ireland. Why are the Irish people to be taxed to contribute towards this £17,000 you propose to expend on this ceremony? Is it because the Government feel that there is no ground for jubilation over the past 50 years in Ireland; but if that is so, why do you expect us to contribute from the Irish resources towards this expenditure? I do not know, Sir, by what process it can be arranged that the money contributed on this occasion

  1785
  should be drawn entirely from those who care for this kind of thing; but there is one single expedient by which the difficulty might be met without any expenditure at all from the public purse, and that is by testing the loyalty of those deeply religious people who are to be furnished with cushioned seats at two guineas a-head, charge two guineas a-head for admission. You will get the money over and over again. The snobocracy of the suburbs of London will crowd to get in and you will be able to make a profit out of the transaction. Sir, this Estimate appears to be simply ridiculous. Admitting all the other items, how on earth can even a lavish Board of Works justify the charge of £1,100 for stationery in connection with this service? Are the tickets of admission to cost 2s. a-piece? Why you can get them printed by hundreds for half the money; £1,100 for stationery appears indicative of the character of this Estimate. It is perfectly plain it is inflated, and altogether beyond the requirements of the case. And then we are told, and this struck mo as extraordinary, that the Abbey will hold, in ordinary times, 2,000 persons. You are going to put 10,000 persons in there. You will have to put them tier over tier, five deep. Now, what kind of galleries are you going to put in Westminster Abbey, by which you will increase its capacity five fold? There must be something wrong in the Estimate. I suspect the Estimate for standing or sitting accommodation is about as good as the Estimate for stationery. Under the circumstances, I shall certainly vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere).
  Mr. BROADHURST: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) what he estimates will be the return in the resale of timber. He mentioned nothing about that in his statement to the Committee, and that is a matter of great importance. The timber will be almost as valuable for all practical purposes when it is taken down, as when it is first taken into the Abbey. [Laughter] Hon. Gentlemen laugh about a matter which they really do not understand. One expense in the matter of timber is the difficulty occasioned by the stacking of it for a length of time to dry. There you have a process of drying
  1786
  going on to a certain extent, and to that extent the timber will be more valuable when it is taken away from the Abbey. [Renewed laughter.] These are matters about which I know something. I have one other remark to make with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statements. He said that the Office of Works had invited tenders from Messrs. Holland and Hannen, Messrs. William Cubitt and Co., Messrs. George Trollope and Sons, and Messrs. Mowlem and Co. These are the four favoured firms of the Metropolis. There are at least 300 firms in the Metropolis equally as capable of doing this work as the firms mentioned. These are firms who have been in the habit of knowing each other perfectly well for a great number of years. The last mentioned, Messrs. Mowlem and Co., was only recently admitted to the inner circle of contractors, but the three other firms have been in the habit of contracting for Government work for the last 40 years at the very least. I see a right hon. Gentleman who perhaps will be able to give us some information on this point.
  Mr. CUBITT: If the hon. Gentleman appeals to mo, I should like to say that for the last 25 years neither I nor any relation of mine has had any part in the firm of Messrs. Cubitt and Co. I think it would be well if the hon. Gentleman would got up his facts better before he speaks.
  Mr. BROADHURST: I am perfectly within my facts. the firm is carried on in the same place as of old, and it is carried on under the name of the hon. Gentleman. Well, there are at least within the Metropolis 300 firms who are equally as capable of doing work of this kind as any of the firms I have mentioned, and I am much dissatisfied myself with the exceedingly limited number of firms invited to contract for this work. Now, I have only one other remark to make, and that is in extenuation of the remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease). I am not surprised that a total sum of £17,000 is considered a very large sum indeed. I, myself, frequently worship in a Dissenting Chapel which Las been recently built to accommodate from 800 to 1,000 people. The purchase of the ground and the erection of the building, which is a very handsome one indeed—there are very few buildings in London to surpass it—

  1787
  cost £10,000. Now, that is a permanent building, accommodating nearly 1,000 worshippers, and it is very handsomely built outside, and well fitted inside. [Laughter.] I cannot say that the hilarity of hon. Gentlemen opposite displays any extraordinary knowledge on their part of the subject. I say that this permanent building has been erected for £10,000 or less.
  MR. PLUNKET: I only rise for the purpose of answering the question addressed to me by the hon. Member. I have to say that work of this kind is always done by measure, and that the estimate includes the cost of putting up and taking away.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOE: I conceive it to be my duty to join in the protest of the hon. Gentleman below mo (Mr. Labouchere) against this proposal, and I join in his protest on the merits and the principle of his proposal as well as on the details. I must say that the two right hon. Gentlemen who have proposed this Vote invited, nay, I will say, even compelled criticism from this quarter of the House. I am surprised at this in the case of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, who is so adroit as well as so eloquent and powerful a Speaker. I am not surprised that the First Lord of the Treasury should rather damage any cause he takes up and advocates. I deny altogether that this money will be expended in the manner the right hon. Gentleman declared. I deny that this money will be spent in the interests of the masses of the people. The number who this £17,000 will accommodate clearly shows the purpose for which it will be spent. the First Commissioner of Works told us that by this expenditure 10,000 people would be seated in the Abbey. Well, he might have added an adjective —he might have said "The Upper Ten Thousand." Both the right hon. Gentlemen said that it was their desire that all classes of Her Majesty's subjects should be represented at this ceremony. Well, I wonder how many working people will be provided with places to witness the proceedings? I understand that the procession to the Abbey is to be of the shortest and most private character, so that the humble subjects of Her Majesty will not have an opportunity of even seeing her face on the
  1788
  day on which this celebration takes place. I do, Sir, maintain that it is trifling with the intelligence of the House to declare that accommodation for 10,000 people does not mean accommodation for 10,000 people drawn from practically one class of society, and therefore to the exclusion of the masses of the people. That is my first objection to this Vote. I say nothing with regard to the amount of the expenditure on which criticism has already been offered by some of my hon. Friends; but I feel compelled to notice the observations as to the purpose of this celebration which were offered by the two right hon. Gentlemen. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works declared that this Jubilee was in celebration of the happiness and prosperity with which Providence had blessed Her Majesty and Her people. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman adheres to that as a statement of the purpose for which this celebration takes place. the other right hon. Gentleman declared that this celebration was for the purpose of manifesting thanks for the advance which had taken place in the "prosperity and liberty" of the subjects of the Queen. Now, I presume, when these two right hon. Gentlemen spoke thus, they did not mean to exclude Ireland from their consideration. I certainly believe that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, of whom, as an Irishman, we are all proud, however much we may differ from him in politics, would be the last man in the world to exclude from his consideration, on an occasion like this, the thought of his own country. Therefore, I must assume, when he used the words to which I have referred, that he was of opinion that Irishmen are called upon to celebrate the Jubilee of the Queen in thanksgiving for the increase in the prosperity and the happiness of Ireland. Now, I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman altogether on that, and I commend to his consideration a few figures that are already familiar to this Committee and the country. They show what has been the advance of happiness and the advance of prosperity in Ireland during Her Majesty's reign. The figures are these—that during the 50 years of Her Majesty's reign, 3,600,000 people have been evicted; that during the period that has elapsed since Her Majesty came

  1789
  to the Throne, 4,186,000 people have been driven from their homes; that in the period of Her Majesty's reign 1,225,000 Irish people, men, women, and children, have been starved to death; and that in the same period of 50 years the population of Ireland has diminished from over 8,000,000 to under 5,000,000. Now, does the right hon. Gentleman, with those facts staring him in the face, really moan to ask Irishmen to go to Westminster Abbey and to offer thanks to Providence for 1,250,000 of their countrymen having been starved to death in the course of Her Majesty's reign—starved to death by the legislation of this Parliament? Why, Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman had proposed that on the 50th anniversary of the Queen we should have a day of humiliation and of general sorrow at the amount of destruction and desolation brought about by famine and by plague, and emigration and eviction in Ireland during this half-century, then we might not have grudged the £17,000 that is asked for. lint it really is too much for him to ask us to thank Providence for a reign which has been more disastrous, according to the most rigid statisticians of our country, than the blood-stained and horrible reign of Elizabeth. There is an observation which I must make here. The First Lord of the Treasury had what I must, for Parliamentary reasons, call the courage to declare that we should offer our thanksgiving to Providence for "the advance is liberty" of the subjects of the Queen during the 50 years of her reign; and the right hon. Gentleman says that in the short interval of time between the debate of yesterday on a drastic Coercion Bill and the debate of to-morrow on the same measure. Why, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman, I think, wantonly insulted the Members on this side of the House when he said that. Coming fresh from a Motion gagging discussion in this House on a Bill depriving Ireland of the fundamental liberties of free subjects in a free country, he asks us to join him in thanking Providence for the advance in liberty of the subjects of the Queen. No, Sir; we shall vote against this proposal. We know we shall subject ourselves to misinterpretation in doing so. We are anxious not to do that, and we declined, many of us, to take part in the Division which took place at an earlier period of
  1790
  the evening on the Duke of Connaught's Leave Bill, in order to avoid that misinterpretation. But when, in the face of this House, we are asked to agree to the statement that we feel we have to thank Providence for happiness and prosperity in the midst of the terrible distress and starvation which has existed, and which is now taking place, and that we feel we ought to thank Providence for advance in the liberty when we have before us the drastic proposal of the Government for the coercion of our countrymen, we say it is too much to ask of us.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Though the hour is rather late, I should like to say a word on this matter, particularly as I shall not be here to-morrow. It is always entertaining to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) wax eloquent, and when he has so splendid a theme, which he is so capable of displaying his eloquence upon, it is really refreshing to listen to him, and I do not think his worst enemy will be dissatisfied with the manner in which he acquitted himself of the pleasing duty which fell to his lot this evening. But I cannot endorse some of his eloquent expressions as to the pleasure he thinks all classes of Her Majesty's subjects feel in passing this Vote. I will not venture to set up my experience against that of the right hon. Gentleman so far as the denizens of the Strand are concerned; but I must say, if my experience of the working classes of this country counts for anything at all, they do not care twopence-halfpenny about the whole business, and so far from allowing their Representatives in this House to vote huge sums of money for this sort of thing, when it has been shown that many of their class are starving in our streets, they would not assent to anything of the kind for a moment. When we are told, in those eloquent tones and strains which are familiar to us from Court circles, that we ought to be blessing Providence for the amount of prosperity and liberty and that sort of thing which has resulted to us from 50 years of the present reign, I would venture to ask—and I think it is a question which deserves an answer—who it is we have to thank for all the prosperity which has come to this nation in the course of the last half-century? Is it the intelligence, is it the labour, is

  1791
  it the energy of those who are the creators of wealth in this country, or is it the do-nothing, gilded luxury of the aristocracy, commencing with the Royal House itself, and descending to the lower grades of that aristocracy who simply batten on the labour of others and do not contribute one farthing in the promotion, or in the division, or in the creation of wealth? Why, Sir, if we calculate the burden which the Royal Family has been to this country during the last 50 years we find it amounts to £24,000,000; and when we are asked to put our hands in our pockets in order to provide for the interesting amusement of a few of the select aristocracy during an hour or two on a particular day, all I can say is that until we see some attempt made to reduce the vast expenditure that is going on for needless purposes in other parts of the country, I, for one, shall not consent, without a stern protest, to waste like this going on. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite wants to know what good this Vote will do, I will tell him. It will make the people very much dissatisfied with some of the institutions we are told most to reverence and venerate, and I shall not be surprised if, in a few years, the people of this country come to the conclusion that this shall be the last Jubilee celebration they will tolerate. [Laughter.] Well, some of us, no doubt, will be old men when the next Jubilee celebration takes place; but men may come and men may go, while the nation goes on for ever, and I sincerely hope that before another century has passed this nation will be a Republic and not a Monarchy. [Cries of "Order!"] I want to put one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman who has to expend this money. I want to know whether provision will be made for the servants of this House to attend the ceremonial, as well as the Members of it? I think they have quite as hard if not harder work than we have, and I think they are entitled to be considered in this matter. We are told that all classes are to be represented; but we have not yet been informed how many of the poor people, how many of the starving people of this City are to be represented. Will the right hon. Gentleman go out into the highways and bye ways and collect together a few specimens of the distressed and the starving on which Her Majesty may feast her
  1792
  eyes on this solemn occasion? I think it would have a good effect if the Sovereign were once to be brought face to face with some of the realities of life in this country. The right hon. Gentleman is fond of quoting precedents when he wants some excuse for an intolerable and unnecessary Coercion Bill. "Oh!" he says, "it is founded on the precedent of those who preceded us—on precedents coming from your side of the House." Well, if those things are founded on precedents, we have a right to ask why should not those who go to enjoy the sunshine of Royal smiles on this occasion pay for the luxury? I will give the right hon. Gentleman a precedent for our contention that those who attend this ceremonial ought to be made to pay for it. There was a banquet in St. James's Palace the other day, and I believe the Representatives of our Colonies were invited; but they were invited also to pay for their dinner. I believe the attendance was rather small, much smaller than would otherwise have been the case. I think that that is a very valuable precedent; and I think it is one that ought to have been followed in this ease. I think that those who attend Westminster Abbey ought to be charged, as has been suggested this evening, £2 2s. each for their enjoyment. There is one item, or rather, there are two items in the £17,000 I want to make a remark upon. I would, first, ask does this £17,000 include the cost of removing? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes.] I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say that, because this is a sort of thing on which we cannot tolerate any Supplementary Estimate on a future day. We are told that £500 is to go to insure "priceless treasures." I want to know what consolation this nation will be able to get out of that £500, if those priceless treasures are mutilated so as to be perfectly valueless? It is impossible that all this construction of galleries can take place in Westminster Abbey without considerable damage being done, or great danger of damage being done being incurred. I think this consideration alone ought to have been sufficient to prevent these ridiculous proceedings in the Abbey. There are priceless treasures in the building, besides sculpture and masonry—there are rusty swords, and helmets, and there is the stone upon

  1793
  which the Kings of Scotland used to be enthroned. Will these be put away during the ceremonial, or will an opportunity be given to dishonest persons, if any should find their way the Abbey, to carry away some of these treasures? I think we should have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman on that point. I see there is an item of £250 for musical services. I think we have a right to ask on what kind of musical service will this money be spent? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that there should be a special Jubilee hymn on the part of Irish Members, and poems of thankful praise for their 86 Coercion Acts? We are in the habit of regarding Westminster Abbey with feelings of veneration, and even of awe and worship; but the proposed proceedings in that splendid building incline me to apply a text of Scripture—"My house shall be called a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves."
  MR. CREMER: I only wish to say, Sir, that I sincerely hope the Vote will be reduced by the sum suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). In case it should be, and Her Majesty's Government should find themselves in a difficulty, and not have the means at their disposition to enable them to pay for the fitting up of the Abbey, I suggest that they might not only charge for admission, but put up the seats to auction. By that means a very considerable sum would be obtained over and above that which is actually required for the purpose of fitting the Abbey for this ceremony. It would be a very good test of the loyalty of the wealthier classes of our country. For instance, the man who would pay £1,000 for a seat would be considered a thousand times more loyal than the man who only paid £1. There are plenty of people, I believe, who would be ready to do this. There is an enormous amount of wealth in this Metropolis; and the Government might apply any surplus of receipts over expenditure to another institution which has been sending round the hat for some months past—namely, the Imperial Institute.
  MR. W. REDMOND(who was received with cries of "Divide!") said: I only wish to say a very few words upon this Vote, and I assure the Committee that in what I
  1794
  shall say, I shall not utter one word which can possibly be construed as disrespectful of those things which hon. Members opposite me regard with veneration. Sir, it is utterly impossible for the Irish Members to allow this Vote to pass by without some kind of a protest, and without pointing out the condition in which the people of Ireland are to-day when you are asking them to contribute towards this Jubilee celebration. Now, hon. Members opposite, Members who represent rich constituencies and are rich themselves, will not perhaps so easily understand the sentiments of men, very many of whose constituencies are among the poorest people in the United Kingdom, men who are intimate with the lives and sufferings of the poor. In Ireland to-day there are somewhere near 400,000 people in the workhouses or receiving out-door relief, that is nearly one-tenth of the whole population of our country, and under those circumstances, I think it is heartless in the extreme to expect that the people of Ireland will co-operate in a celebration of this kind which is to cost so enormous a sum of money. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has entered into the details of the history of Ireland during the past 50 years, and has pointed out how miserable the condition of the people has been in the course of that time. Therefore, Sir, it is not necessary further to point out why Irishmen, without any disrespect at all to the prejudices and the opinions of hon. Members opposite, may be expected to offer some protests against this Vote, when they are told that the celebration for which it is intended is to evince the sense of the people's satisfaction at the progress which their people and their country has made. But apart from the Irish point of view, and speaking in the interests of hon. Members who wish to celebrate the Queen's Jubilee, and I do not at all feel surprised that hon. Members who represent English constituencies should have a desire to celebrate the Jubilee of their Queen's reign, which has seen such an advance in the prosperity and greatness of England, I ask hon. Members whether, if they want to get the sympathy of their own people, they do not make their celebration in some form which will commend it to the

  1795
  people at large. There have been very many methods proposed to celebrate the Jubilee of Her Majesty. It has been proposed to establish an Institute; it has been proposed to erect statues, and it is proposed to hold on the 21st of June a costly celebration Service in Westminister Abbey. In the face of the poverty and misery of large masses of people in England, why do you not celebrate the Jubilee of Her Majesty by some work which will have for its object the benefiting of the people of the country who most need to be benefited. I am constantly hearing outside complaints from people, who are not averse to some sort of celebration, that no method of celebrating the Jubilee takes the form of establishing, or endowing, or helping some institution which would benefit the poor people. While £17,000 is to be spenton a service in Westminster Abbey, while large sums of money, hundreds of thousands of pounds are to be spent in erecting monuments in celebration of this year, not one shilling, as far as we know, is going by way of celebrating the Jubilee to a single hospital—["Oh, oh!"]—or a single institution which has for its object the amelioration of the condition of the people. I do not deny that in certain localities, individual effort has been made to subscribe comparatively small amounts to some such institutions, but not one shilling of the money which is asked from this House, or from the people nationally, is to go to any such institution or object, and I must say, Sir, that if I were an Englishman anxious to celebrate this Jubilee in a proper manner. I would say that, instead of spending large sums of money on a ceremonial of a single day, these large sums of money should be spent in endowing deserving institutions for the purpose of helping the weak and the suffering and the poor. Apart from the Irish view of the subject, it is impossible for any person who has been through the poor parts of this city, and who has seen unfortunate men and women in bitter weather at night with little children in their arms cowering in sheds and in door ways—[Cries of "Question!"]—yes, it is a very burning question. I do not claim that hon. Members opposite who reside in the West End are so liable to see the suffering people as men who live in more humble quarters; but I say it is impos-
  1796
  sible to see the streets filled with these poor and miserable people, and to vote away with a light heart such large sums of money for a ceremony of a single day. This celebration is to take place in Westminster Abbey—["Hear, hear!"]—yes, it is to take place in that Abbey, because it is considered that it will in consequence be all the more acceptable in the eyes of God, who has given the Queen 50 years of prosperity and of power. I do not think that, if the object is to signify gratitude [to the Deity, you can do so better than by spending this money well in ameliorating the sufferings of the poor, instead of spending it in enabling the ladies and gentlemen of England to attend for a few hours in costly Court dresses at Westminster Abbey to celebrate the Jubilee of the Queen. I wish to say, in conclusion, that I have made these remarks in no spirit of factious opposition at all, not because I wish to be disrespectful at all to hon. Members in regard to this Bill which is really an English, and not an Irish subject.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) whether there will be any liability under this Vote beyond the £500 in case the damage is greater than that figure? [Mr. PLUNKET: No.] Well, if that be so, I must say I regard this as a most unbusiness-like transaction. It is said that the personnel of the Abbey are not to receive any pecuniary advantage from this Vote of the Committee; but, if that be so, why should not the £500 in question be reserved by the First Commissioner of Works, and if any injury is done, or very small injury, it be provided for out of the amount? There is a very important principle involved in this question. I hope that the House of Commons will not, by a side wind, consent to grant money to Westminster Abbey under its present management. Before sitting down, I must say I can easily understand that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have heard observations from this side of the House not at all in accordance with their feelings and expectations in regard to this Vote. There is to be a skeleton at the feast, I say, which amazed the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who ventured to put forward, in the presence of Irish

  1797
  Members, the opinion that this ceremony in Westminster Abbey is to take the form of thanksgiving for the increased liberty and prosperity of the people. I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) would have met the case more fairly if he had excepted Ireland from this suggestion. Sir, the opportunities have been very few in which private Members of this House have been enabled to express what they know to be the feeling of dissatisfaction and complaint in many parts of the country in regard to the celebration of the Jubilee, and hon. Gentlemen opposite must not be surprised that even at this untimely hour (2.20) this opportunity should be taken advantage of to express feelings which many people outside hold. For my own part, I could have wished that the Committee had been spared the proposal for this Vote. I shall go into the Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), as an expression of my opinion that it would have been much fairer, under the circumstances, that a charge should have been made to that eager crowd of people who will be anxious to visit the Abbey upon the occasion of this ceremony. It would be more fitting the House of Commons should have been spared a Vote of this character, and therefore I shall divide against it.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: A large quantity of dry timber is being taken into Westminster Abbey, and therefore I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) what precautions he is taking against fire?
  MR. PLUNKET: Every possible precaution has been taken, and assurances have been effected in case of loss by fire.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: Is that included in the £17,000 asked for?
  MR. PLUNKET: Yes.
  DR. TANNER: There is one point I should like to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to—it has been possibly overlooked up to the present time—and that is, that on these Benches there are 86 Members, and that of these 86 Members, I venture to say, none of them will attend this ceremony, for the reasons which have been most eloquently explained by the hon. Mem-
  1798
  ber for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). As we, with our wives —certainly I could not attend with my wife, because I have not got one—will not put in an appearance, I think that some amount of this expenditure might be curtailed. Then I would throw out the suggestion that, instead of providing this very large and sumptuous accommodation, very considerably smaller accommodation should be provided, and a ballot be resorted to in the same way as hon. Gentlemen are accustomed to ballot for places in the Ladies' Gallery of this House, and in this way provide the means of further curtailing the expenditure upon this ceremony. I merely throw out this suggestion in the hope that it will receive at the hands of the Government the consideration which it deserves.
  Question put,
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 203: Majority 121.—(Div. List, No. l37.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACTS (IRELAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
(Sir James Carry, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Johnston.)

[BILL 176.] COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir James Carry.)
MR. T. M. HEALY: of course, we cannot expect that any pledge made by this Government will be kept. I shall say nothing on this very important Bill, as no Member of Her Majesty's Government is present; but I must say that after the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) the absence of the responsible Minister is rather remarkable.
Question put, and agreed, to
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Sir James Corry.)
MR. T. M. HEALY: I am very glad this Motion has been made, and I trust that the Government will remember that these 86 Irish Members belong to a particular Party who sometimes do expect some statement of policy from Her Majesty's Government.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

MOTION.

  EAST INDIA STOCK CONVERSION BILL.
  On the Motion of Sir John Gorst, Bill for giving facilities for the conversion of India Four Per Cent. Stock into India Three and a-half Per Cent. Stock; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Gorst and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 263.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) (72).
Third Reading—Customs Consolidation Act (1876) Amendment* (71), and passed.

BANKRUPTCY OFFICES (SITES) BILL.
Ordered, That Standing Order No. 93 be suspended, and that any petitions praying to he hoard against the Bill he received by this House which shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office before throe o'clock in the afternoon on or before Friday the 20th instant.
MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL.
(The Earl of Camperdown.)

(No. 72.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was a Bill to amend the law with respect to the weighing of cattle in markets and fairs. It was proposed to apply the Bill to all legal markets and fairs in which tolls were for the time being authorized to be taken by any Company, Corporation, or person, every such Company, Corporation, or person being called "the market authority." In every market or fair to which the Bill applied, the market authority should provide and maintain sufficient and proper buildings or places for weighing cattle brought for sale within the market or fair, and should keep therein machines and weights proper for that purpose, and should appoint proper persons to afford the use of such machines to the public for weighing cattle as might be from time to time required. If the market authority failed to comply with the provisions of this section, it should not be lawful for them to demand, receive, or recover any toll whatever in respect of any cattle brought to the market or fair for sale, so long as such failure continued. The cattle were to be weighed at the option of the seller or buyer, and persons appointed by the market authority to weigh cattle sold in the market or fair refusing to weigh cattle, or to give tickets specifying the true weight of the cattle weighed, should

1651
be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5. It was unnecessary to take up their Lordships' time by going into details in regard to the Bill; but the question of the weighing of cattle had been for some time under the consideration of agriculturists in this country, and it had been satisfactorily adopted in the United States and elsewhere. During the severe agricultural depression, it had been found that, under the present system, farmers were very often unable to sell their cattle to advantage, and it was very desirable that the buyer and seller, if they wished it, should be able to know what exactly was the weight of the animals that were changing hands. This he could do, if he had the option, for a small toll, of weighing his cattle, as was done in America. The Central Chamber of Agriculture had discussed the matter, and passed a Resolution in favour of a measure of the sort; and the Royal Agricultural Society had determined to offer two prizes for the best machines for weighing cattle. He believed the Bill would be found of a very useful character, though it was not at all ambitious in appearance. The noble Earl concluded by moving the second reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he was entirely opposed to the Bill, and hoped that their Lordships would not pass it. It was a proposal to put a duty and burthen on the owners of existing fairs and markets to which they were not liable. It applied to them provisions in the Fairs and Markets Clauses Act which were incorporated in every Bill that passed Parliament for the purpose of establishing a fair or market. When those clauses were so applied, they worked no injustice, because people came to Parliament for powers to establish a fair or market knowing on what terms they could have their market or fair if it was granted, and if they did not like those terms, they could leave the matter alone. But the Bill was to apply to fairs and markets already in existence, and which might have been in existence for 500 years. It would, therefore, impose upon market proprietors a duty to which they were not at present liable. Whether it was to be profitable or not to the person who owned the
1652
market or fair, he had to provide, according to this Bill, sufficient and proper buildings for the weighing of cattle, and machines and weights for this purpose. Was it right that their Lordships should impose that duty on the market proprietor? If this Bill passed, the result might be that it might not be worth while for the proprietor to keep open his market or fair. If providing these machines would be compensated for by the tolls for the use of them, they would be provided without an Act of Parliament. On the other hand, if such machines would not pay their expenses, it would be unfair to put the burden of providing them upon the owner of the market. The Bill would apply to all markets—a fish market and a vegetable market, as well as to a cattle market; and he noticed that cattle included horses, asses, and so on, and why horses and asses required weighing he could not understand. The measure, as the noble Earl had said, though not ambitious, was unreasonable, and therefore he moved its rejection.
EARL SPENCERsaid, the principle of the Bill was of some importance. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) had made some criticisms of great force which were well worthy of attention; but he was sure his noble Friend the Earl of Camperdown did not propose that the measure should apply to fish or butter markets. The Bill might be rather of too far a reaching nature in its present shape; and he hoped that, while supporting the second reading, it would be considerably amended in Committee. It was important that Parliament should not throw cold water on the growing desire which was finding expression among intelligent men connected with agriculture, that farmers should sell their cattle by live weight when they used the market. He (Earl Spencer) was strongly in favour of the principle enabling the farmer to adopt that system; because it eliminated one of the elements of uncertainty in the sale of cattle. He knew that many farmers entirely objected to that method, believing that they could judge of the weight of an animal much better than the butcher. But the fact was that the butcher, from his continual experience, was far better able than the farmer to estimate the weight of a live animal. He, therefore, considered it would be an immense advantage to the farmers of

1653
this country, if they fell in with the fashion of weighing their cattle, as was done in America, and by many agriculturists now in this country, who had found how valuable that system was. At the same time, he admitted that that was rather an early day to force such provisions as those contained in the Bill upon the proprietors of every market and fair. At present, the matter was in an experimental stage; but they wished to induce farmers to take it up. He thought it would be rather hard to ask every market, however small, to provide weighing places for cattle. At the same time, when public opinion advanced a little more, it would be found indispensable, he believed, that all large markets, where cattle wore sold, should have the means of weighing the animals. He did not know whether it was possible to modify the Bill in such a manner as to withdraw from it some of the grave difficulties which he could see would be urged against it; but he should be sorry to see the Bill thrown out at the present stage. As far as he was concerned, therefore, while admitting that great difficulties and objections lay in the way, he hoped the Bill would be read a second time, in order that its provisions might be fairly considered by the agricultural world.
EARL NELSONsaid, that, as an instance of the hardship that would ensue upon the carrying out of the measure, he would put before their Lordships the case of a charity school supported by tolls levied on a particular fair. These tolls had fallen in recent years to about £30 a-year. That school would be practically disendowed if, in addition to the small number of cattle sold, the authorities of the fair were obliged to go to the expense of providing weighing machines, or, in default, to lose the tolls of the fair. He did not think the Bill, being merely a tentative measure, ought to touch small fairs at the present time, because great cases of hardship, such as he had shown, might be inflicted.
THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he supported the second reading, and regarded the Bill as a not unreasonable extension of the existing law, which required weighing machines to be provided for all other commodities. It would be quite reasonable that a fee should be imposed for animals weighed.
1654
It would be easy in Committee to protect the owners of the smaller markets.
THE EARL OF JERSEY, in reply to the objections urged by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell), said, he would point out that the Bill was one which might very well be amended in Committee. He (the Earl of Jersey) was the owner of a market himself, and should not object to have the Bill applied to him. A few years ago the Privy Council compelled the owners of markets to pave their markets, and this was only another step in advance. He agreed with the view, that it would be a very good thing if public opinion could be advanced in this direction.
LORD LECONFIELDsaid, he trusted the Bill would be road a second time. Some time ago he sold a number of bullocks to a certain butcher for £19 each; but eight others, for which he was only offered £18 10 s. per head, he retained. Ten days or a fortnight afterwards, he sent those eight bullocks to a Farmers' Supply Association, through whom, curiously enough, they found their way to the same butcher. Those bullocks were sold by live weight, and he realized for each animal £21 19 s. 8d.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYalso supported the second reading of the Bill. He knew of a market where heavy tolls were taken and no accommodation given of any kind; the open street was the market. In that district a farmer had provided himself with a weighing machine. At present, in the absence of weighing machines, farmers were at a great disadvantage with the butchers.
LORD BALFOUR (LORD in WAITING)said, he was authorized by the Local Government Board to ask their Lordships to allow the Bill to be read a second time, very much on the grounds mentioned by the noble Earl on the Bench opposite (Earl Spencer). At the same time it must be understood that it is not intended, by reading the Bill a second time, to approve of all the provisions it contained, or to go the whole length that it would go if it were passed exactly as it stood. There was no doubt whatever there were great complaints on the part of farmers and others connected with agriculture that they did not get the full value of their fat stock —for this reason, that those who bought

1655
from them had greater experience than they in estimating the weight of the cattle, and were apt to overreach—ho used the word in no bad sense —and sometimes to take advantage of thorn. There was, at the same time, a growing public opinion among those interested in agriculture in favour of buying and selling more by live weight than had been the practice in the past. It would, therefore, be very undesirable if this House by its action were to do anything to prejudice the question or retard the advance of public opinion in that direction. He did not think the House was prepared to go the whole length that the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell) had gone in his opposition to the Bill; because it would not be reasonable that market proprietors should have the power to say that there should be no change. In asking the House to assent to the second reading, he would, at the same time, ask the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) if he would be good enough to postpone the Committee stage for some time, in order to afford some opportunity for the consideration of its provisions. He would also suggest to him whether, for this year, his purpose would not be served by this discussion, and by the Bill being read a second time. He was informed that there was to be a Commission shortly to consider the whole question of markets and tolls, and, perhaps, it was desirable that the Legislature should allow the question to stand over until the Commission had examined the matter, and reported upon it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in reply, said, he hoped the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) would, upon further consideration, take a more favourable view of his proposals, and not push his opposition so far as to ask their Lordships not to road the Bill a second time. Nothing like confiscation of any rights was contemplated, and the proprietors of fairs and markets would be empowered to charge proper tolls for the accommodation afforded. With regard to what had been said by the noble Lord opposite, he readily admitted that the Bill, as it stood now, applying to all markets and fairs, was too wide; but if were thought desirable, small fairs and markets could be exempted from the provisions of the Bill, and he was perfectly willing, before going into Com-
1656
mittee, to introduce words to exclude from its scope certain small fairs, which a charge of even £25 or £30 would probably kill. Such exemptions were, perhaps, specially necessary in regard to small fairs and markets in Ireland; but he understood that, in Dublin, the principle of the Bill was already in operation, and worked satisfactorily. In regard to postponing the Committee stage, he could not see the advantage of waiting until such time as the Commission which was not yet appointed had reported; but he was quite prepared to postpone the Committee stage for some weeks, at all events, in order to give agriculturists throughout the country an opportunity of expressing an opinion in regard to the measure.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that, having regard to the general current of the discussion, he should not persevere in his opposition to the second reading; but would content himself in expressing his regret that nobody seemed to think it a matter of any consequence that a burden should be put upon a man whether he liked it or not.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

METROPOLIS (STREET IMPROVEMENTS) —THE COLONNADES OF BURLINGTON HOUSE, AND TEMPLE BAR.—QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Why the colonnades of Burlington House, which were temporarily placed on the river terrace of Battersea Park many years ago, have been suffered to lie there ever since neglected and uncared for; and whether there was any intention of erecting these beautiful works of art, as originally proposed, in the Park; and, if so, when; also to ask what had become of Temple Bar, and whether that historic monument has met with a fate similar to that which had befallen the colonnades of Burlington House? said, that the facade of Burlington House, which had been described by an eminent authority as one of the finest architectural monuments in Europe, was still lying derelict on the banks of the Thames, Burlington House having been pulled down in 1866. Of this facade Horace Walpole had also said—"We have few examples of architecture more

1657
antique and imposing." It had been taken to Battersea Park, where it had been intended to erect it as a summer house; but it had been lying there utterly uncared for and exposed to every chance. Boys with hobnail boots ran from one end of the stones to the other; and, in consequence, the facade had been seriously injured, and in a short time would be absolutely destroyed. With regard to Temple Bar, it was nine years since that gross act of vandalism had been perpetrated by which Wren's beautiful arch had been taken down and the hideous griffin put in its place, which now disfigured and obstructed the thoroughfare. Where Temple Bar now was nobody seemed to know; probably, it had mot with a fate similar to that of the colonnades. As one who had passed many years of his life almost under the shadow of Temple Bar, he ventured to hope that his noble Friend would assure him that the Government would allow it to be placed in the care of the Benchers of the Temple, who would be only too glad to take charge of it, and give it an appropriate home within their domains.
LORD HENNIKER, in reply, said, that the stones which formerly composed the colonnades of Burlington House—a colonnade of whose artistic merit the noble Earl had spoken so highly—were laid on the river bank at Battersea Park in 1868, and were there still. It was decided by Lord John Manners, then First Commissioner of Works, to save this valued architectural work, and it was absolutely necessary to remove it to make room for the new buildings. It was accordingly taken down with great care—each stone was marked so as to go into its proper place again—and it was removed, with the archway and the two lodges, at no small expense, to Battersea Park, as the only available place at the time. It was not removed, as the noble Lord supposed, with any definite plan for its re-erection. He must, however, remind the noble Earl that the structure had not been complete in itself; it depended greatly on the brick wall facing Piccadilly, which, of course, was not saved. When the colonnade was taken down, it was found that a great deal of it was useless; the balustrade was worn and broken, and a great part of it was carted away as rubbish. In fact, it would not have been possible to re-erect it without
1658
considerable renovation. The question of re-erecting the colonnade and archway had been considered over and over again. Many proposals had been made, such as making it the river gateway to the Park, making a picturesque ruin of it, as the noble Lord had stated, making a summer house of it, and so on; but all the proposals had been rejected, not only on the ground of the expense they would involve, but also because they were unsuitable to the character of the architecture. It was even proposed to sell it, if a proper place could be found for it, rather than allow the stones to lie where they were. As a matter of fact, it had been designed for Burlington House, and it was most difficult to find any other suitable site for it now that Burlington House was rebuilt. Under these circumstances, the First Commissioner of Works did not propose at present to take any steps to re-erect the building. However, if his noble Friend would make any suggestion to the First Commissioner, he was quite ready to take any proposal which might be put before him by the noble Earl into consideration. As to Temple Bar, he could only repeat what his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner had said, last year, in the House of Commons. It was to the effect that Temple Bar was the property of the Corporation of the City of London, and that it was removed by them. Under these circumstances, he could not, of course, give the noble Earl the information he desired. He had been favoured, however, with the following letter from the Corporation of the City of London, in which they gave the desired information:—
"Guildhall, London, E.C.,
"May 11, 1887.
"Dear Sir,—With reference to Lord Mill-town's Question, which appears in to-day's Lords' Minutes, I have the honour to inform you that Temple Bar was taken down in 187S, a careful key drawing was made, and the stones so numbered that they could be erected thereby in their original order. The stones were deposited on some vacant land belonging to the Corporation near Farringdon Street, and arranged in such a way as to be readily and continuously available for re-erection. Many different sites have been proposed for this purpose, but there have been objections to them all. The greatest care was taken to preserve the stones in their removal; but it was found, as a matter of fact, that the stones had suffered much more from atmospheric causes and decay, and were far more chipped and injured, than there was any reason to anticipate from the

1659
general appearance of the building when standing. This, of course, will very greatly increase the cost of re-erection. It is estimated that the cost of re-erecting the old materials would be about double the cost of a similar structure new, say about £2,000.
"I have the honour to remain,
"Yours faithfully,
"G. PRIOR GOLDNEY,
"Remembrancer,
"To the Eight Hon. D. R. Plunket, M. P., "First Commissioner of Works."
He thought that that letter would give the information required by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked whether, if the Office of Works was unwilling, the Government would allow anyone else to make use of the colonnade?
LORD HENNIKERsaid, he had already stated that the Office of Works had considered the proposal to sell the stones, but without effect; if, however, a proper offer were made, and a guarantee that a proper site was provided were given, the Government would be prepared to consider the matter.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYasked, what the expense would be of repairing the colonnade of Burlington House? He had reason to believe it was past praying for.
LORD HENNIKERsaid, he did not know that he could give the noble Earl opposite any better answer than that when a proposal had been made some years ago, to erect this building in Regent's Park, Mr. Taylor, the able architect of the Office of Works, with whom the noble Earl was no doubt well acquainted, had made an estimate, and had calculated that the expense of reerecting it where it now was would be £2,500, and if it were removed some four miles, that was to say, to Regent's Park, £3,000.
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.