Sitting of 12 April 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—House of Commons (Admission of Strangers), Sir Wilfrid Lawson disch.; Mr. Lawson added; Pilotage, Dr. Fox added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Postponed Resolutions [April 9] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Marriages of Nonconformists (Attendance of Registrars) (No. 2)* [205]; Partnership* [206]; Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887 (Amendment)* [207].
First Reading—Excise Duties (Local Purposes)* [204].
Second Reading—Local Government (England and Wales) [182] [First Night], debate adjourned.
Third Reading—Customs, Isle of Man* [195], and passed.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT 1887 (CONVICTION OF MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN AFFIRMED).
MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House that he had received the following Letter relating to the conviction of a Member of this House:—
Kilkenny,
April 10th, 1888.
Sir,
I have to inform you that an Appeal by Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Member for Monaghan, against a Conviction by Magistrates, under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," sentencing him to three months' imprisonment, was this day heard by me. The Appeal was dismissed, and the Conviction affirmed.
I have the honor to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
T. DE MOLEYNS,
County Court Judge of Kilkenny. To the Right Honble. the Speaker,
&c., &c., &c.

QUESTIONS.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION) ACT— TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1884.
  MR. BUCHANANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Scottish Trustees can take advantage of Clause 27 of the National Debt Conversion Act, and legally invest the proceeds arising from the sale under that clause of Stock held by them in securities authorized by the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1884?"
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)asked the hon. Member to address the Question to the Lord Advocate.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I will answer it to-morrow.

  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES—MONACO.
  COLONEL HAMBROasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If, in response to the application of the numerous British residents in the Principality of Monaco, a Representative of Her Majesty's Government will be appointed to that State?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Arrangements are being made for Consular representation in Monaco.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS FOR THE BALTINGLASS UNION.
  MR. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the statement in The Leinster Leader of the 7th instant, in reference to the recent election of Guardians for the Baltinglass Union, that an ex-Guardian and a candidate, W. R. Douglas, commanded the rate collector, Mr. Driver, to put a false date to a receipt for rates, in order to give a qualification to one John Plant, in the following terms:—
  "Confidential.
  "5th March, 1888.
  "Dear Mr. Driver,
  "John Plant, of Ballyhubbock, has been nominated (in case Mr. Wynne succeeds in
  1036
  Stratford). See that his receipt for the Eadestown rates is dated 3rd March. The money is ready any time you call for it.
  'Mr. Dennis asked me this morning to write to you about it.
  "Yours very truly,
  "W. R. Douglas."
  whether the Mr. Dennis referred to is Mr. E. A. Dennis, the present Chairman of the Baltinglass Board of Guardians; and, whether he will order an inquiry into the facts?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he was informed no such letter was received by the rate collector referred to.
  MR. CLANCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to state the letter was not written?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I am not able to state that.
  MR. CLANCYasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he would order a sworn inquiry into the circumstances, especially as an offer had been made to prove the genuineness of the letter at such inquiry, and that the offer had been rejected by the man incriminated.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he understood there was no letter of the character referred to in the Question at all received by the person mentioned.
  MR. CLANCY: I must press this matter a little further, as it is most important. An allegation has been made that this letter was written, and it was not delivered because it was intercepted. An offer was made to establish its genuineness at a sworn inquiry, and the offer was rejected by a majority of the Baltinglass Guardians at the suggestion of the person incriminated.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not reply.

  LOTTERY ACTS—CONFECTIONERS' PACKETS OF SWEETS.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware of the practice which obtains in some large towns of confectioners selling parcels of sweets to children, some few of which contain money, thereby encouraging a spirit of gambling among young children; whether he will take steps to enforce any provisions of the existing law which condemns such practice; and, whether he will introduce a Bill to punish not only the retailers, but also

  1037
  the makers and wholesale dealers of such packages?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have called for, and have received, Returns on this subject from Birmingham, Nottingham, Sunderland, and York—the places named in the letter addressed to me by the hon. Member. In three of those places proceedings have been taken under the Lotteries Act, with the view of checking or preventing the practice complained of. At York, the Chief Constable cannot ascertain that the law has been infringed. I think that the law, as it stands, gives sufficient power to the Local Authorities to deal with any real gambling; and if any instances of the law being evaded, or of the Local Authorities not taking action, are brought to my notice, I will do what I can to secure the observance of the law.

  ARMY (INDIA)—ARMS OF THE ROYAL ARTILLERY.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a statement which has appeared recently in an Indian newspaper, alleging that the whole Royal Artillery in India, both Horse and Field, are still only armed with the obsolete 9-pounder field gun; whether this statement is correct; and, if so, how far; whether he can hold out to the House any hopes that this state of things will be amended at an early date; and, whether he can, with due regard to public expediency, indicate to the House any approximate date at which our Artillery in India may be expected to be put into a state of efficiency for field service, by being armed with a more modern field gun?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: Three batteries armed with 12-pounder breech-loading field guns have been sent to India, and six more will be sent this year. The time within which the new guns can be supplied to the whole of the batteries in India depends, as I explained on May 23, 1887, on financial and other considerations.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANgave Notice that, inasmuch as he regarded the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman as not wholly satisfac-
  1038
  tory, he should, if the matter were not settled in the meantime, call attention to it on the Indian Budget.

  EGYPTIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, How the Egyptian General Assembly, which was convoked for the 24th of December last, was constituted, whether by nomination or election; how far in this matter the decrees consequent on the Earl of Dufferin's recommendation have been carried out, how far left in abeyance; if there has been any sort of election to the General Assembly, how it was carried out; and, whether any Reports on the subject are available?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The constitution of the General Assembly is described briefly in Sir Edward Malet's despatch of September 7, 1883 (Egypt, No. 1, 1884, page 28). The elective Members are elected for a period of six years. The elections took place in 1883. Some account of the proceedings will be found at pages 21, 31, and 34 of the same Blue Book. A complete list of the Assembly is given at pages 113 and 114. It met in September, 1885, to consider Colonel Moncrieff's projects of irrigation, and has not been convoked since until the recent occasion.

  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS—TENDERS FOR IRONMONGERY AND CUTLERY.
  MR. D. CRAWFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in the advertisements for tenders for ironmongery and cutlery stores for the Navy, it is announced that forms of tender and patterns will be shown in London, Birmingham, Bristol, Sheffield, Dudley, and Wolverhampton, but not in any town in Scotland; and, whether he will favourably consider the claim of manufacturers in the West of Scotland, that forms of tender and pattern should also be on view in Glasgow?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): There are two sets of patterns; one of them is always on view at the pattern room in London, where many firms prefer to see them, and the other is exhibited at the centre of the trade concerned. Thus, hardware patterns are on view in

  1039
  Birmingham or Wolverhampton; cutlery at Sheffield; glass at Dudley; carpets at Kidderminster; textile goods at Dundee; and so on. It is impossible to do more without incurring very heavy expense, amounting to thousands of pounds, in providing additional sets of patterns. Glasgow, although a large centre of industry, can hardly be regarded as a headquarters of the trade in any one of the class of articles asked for; although, perhaps, it has greater claims for the exhibition of black ironmongery and gun-metal ships' fittings, in which it does a very considerable business, than for other articles. If, as elsewhere is usually the case, the Chamber of Commerce will provide accommodation for such patterns as may be sent to Glasgow and undertake their charge and exhibition free of expense, arrangements might be made to show some patterns occasionally at Glasgow. If the Chamber of Commerce will place themselves in communication with me, I will see what can be done. It should be added that no manufacturer has hitherto complained of patterns not being exhibited at Glasgow.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (METROPOLIS)— MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, at the Middlesex Sessions on Saturday last, Mr. Commissioner Kerr and a jury dismissed in unbroken succession half-a-dozen cases, and that Mr. Commissioner Kerr remarked that for some reason which he knew, but would not disclose, several cases had been improperly sent for trial; who was the magistrate who committed each of the defendants, whose names are F. Warren, J. Connor, P. Merritt, E. Blanchflower (49), E. Blanchflower (23), L. Groves, J. O'Connor, R. M'Arthur, and L. Luff; and, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Judge that in five, not six, small cases tried before him on Saturday last the defendants were acquitted by the jury. The Judge seems to have been misreported; for he informs me that, although the jury acquitted, in his opinion the cases gene-
  1040
  rally were of such a nature that the magistrates were justified in sending them for trial. Under these circumstances, I see nothing in the matter to call for my interference.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Did all the cases come from the same magistrate, or from the same Police Court?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware. I will inquire.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: But that was part of my Question. I will repeat that part of it.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—SENTENCE ON DR. MAGNER.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that in Dr. Magner's case the County Court Judge offered to remit the sentence if Dr. Magner would cease to be a member of the National League; and, what authority the County Court Judge had to make such a demand in a district where the National League is a perfectly legal body?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have received no information from the learned Judge; but I believe it is not unusual to remit sentences on terms.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: When a sentence is remitted on terms it means that the party accused is to abstain from any illegal practice; but in Dr. Magner's district the National League is a perfectly legal organization, and has as good a right to exist as Her Majesty's Cabinet; and, therefore, I say the Judge had no right to require from Dr. Magner that he should abstain from attending perfectly legal meetings.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite understand the drift of the hon. Member's Question; but it would be improper in me to ask the learned Judge the reason why he remitted the sentence on the accused. The learned Judge is independent of me and of this House.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE CART AND WHEEL TAX.
  MR. F. HARDCASTLEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether a cart, otherwise exempt from taxation, becomes subject to Cart and Wheel Tax if used by a farmer in "working out

  1041
  his rates" by carting material for repair of highroads by arrangement with the Surveyor of Highways?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The conveyance of materials for the repair of roads by ratepayers will not render their carts liable to duty if they would be otherwise exempt.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION FOR FISHERMEN.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Government will consent to insert in the Local Government Bill power to County Councils or other Authorities to provide proper harbour accommodation for fishermen, and to charge the cost thereof on the district benefited by the expenditure?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): Whether or not it may be desirable that County Councils, when constituted, should have vested in them powers of providing harbour accommodation for fishermen, I cannot assent to the insertion in the Local Government Bill of provisions on this subject. I cannot propose that the Bill should be burdened with alterations of the general law which are not in any way essential to the constitution of the County Authority.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE NEW LONDON COUNTY AUTHORITY.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Statement showing separately for the Metropolis the effect of the financial proposals of the Government, giving, on the one hand, the ascertained or estimated proportions of the various taxes to be handed over to the new London County Authority, and, on the other hand, the cost of the services which will have to be borne by it in future, and showing the probable balance in relief of the Metropolitan Rates?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): This is
  1042
  one of several Questions put to me publicly and privately with reference to the financial results of the Bill individually and collectively, and I hope I may be allowed to give a somewhat general answer on the whole question thus raised. I have to say that it is quite impossible to give any information of such a kind as that sought for which could be regarded as in any degree reliable as a guide to the ultimate financial results to individual counties or areas within counties, for the following reasons:—First, the Licence Duties to be transferred are collected in what are called "collections;" and there is no statement obtainable showing the amounts collected separately in the boroughs and other areas within counties. This is with reference to the existing Licence Duties; but as to the proposed new duties, there is no possibility of forming any reliable estimate of the amount to be obtained from particular districts, Further, if it were possible to obtain any approximate estimate of the amounts at present collected, that would be a very insufficient guide as to what amounts will be collected when the Bill comes into operation, and it becomes the interest of those who require the licences to take them out in particular localities. The financial proposals in the Bill have not been based on estimated results in particular areas, but on general principles, which we believe to be sound. What will be the effect in particular areas can only be ascertained by experience.

  REGISTER HOUSE, EDINBURGH— RIGHT OF INSPECTION.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Lord Advocate, If it is a fact that William Meikle (miner), Lesmahagow, Lanarkshire, has been denied access to the Register House to see some titles referring to a property he claims in Lanarkshire, called Auchenbay; and, if so, whether such refusal was legal?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am not aware of the fact stated in this Question. Inquiry has been made, and the officials of the Department report that they know of no such case.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)— CASE OF PETER GOWIE, OF PERTH.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been directed to the case of Peter Gowie, of Perth; and, if he can obtain any redress for his imprisonment, and the wrong he has had?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I presume the hon. Member means the case of Peter Gorrie, of Crieff. If so, my attention has been called to it on several occasions. Assuming that any wrong was done to him, I have no power of giving him any redress. He allowed his term of imprisonment to expire before making any complaint; and he did not avail himself of the remedy provided by law by bringing the sentence under review of the Superior Court.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (METROPOLIS)— SIR CHARLES WARREN'S PROCLAMATION.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If Sir Charles Warren's prohibition of public meetings extends to Clerkenwell Green?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I presume the hon. Member refers to the notice issued by Sir Charles Warren with reference to Trafalgar Square; this notice does not, of course, apply to other parts of London.

  PUBLIC STREETS (METROPOLIS)—REMOVAL OF STALLS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that in Poplar, and other parts of East London, the police have recently removed all stalls from market streets unfrequented by vehicular traffic, where such stalls had been used without complaint for many years; why, and at whose instance, such action has been taken; and, whether he will ascertain the opinion of the Local Authorities in regard to such interference?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Commissioner of Police
  1044
  that the police had removed no stalls from the market streets alluded to; but in certain cases, where the stalls rendered the footpaths and streets practically impassable, they first cautioned the owners of the stalls, and, where that was ineffectual, they applied for summonses against the worst offenders, and in all the cases the magistrates convicted. The police had no other object in view than to keep the streets and roadways free for ordinary traffic. Any representations that the Local Authorities may address to me will be fully considered.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONinquired, whether one woman who had had a stall at one spot for 23 years had been summoned?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware of the fact. If she has caused an obstruction for 23 years that gives her no right to continue to do so.

  WAR OFFICE—COURT MARTIAL ON MAJOR TEMPLER.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any special reasons existed for placing Major Templer under arrest for two months before bringing him to trial on a charge in which an alibi was at once established; whether it is usual to hold a Court of Inquiry previous to a formal Court Martial, and why the custom was departed from in this instance; what was the amount paid to the Aclands in connection with this case; whether it is true that State secrets which Major Templer was charged with disclosing were actually disclosed to the Representative of a Foreign Power by the special orders of the War Office Authorities themselves; and, what steps the Government proposes to take, with a view to amend the Regulations, and strengthen the discipline of Government Offices and Works as to the secrets of warlike and other inventions in its possession?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): In accordance with the practice usual in such cases, Major Templer was placed in arrest as soon as a primâ facie case against him was disclosed; which was the result of inquiries made at Birmingham by the Criminal Investigation Department, and of his identification by witnesses. That step having been taken, it became the duty of the Trea-

  1045
  sure Solicitor to pursue the further inquiries necessary, and to put the evidence into shape before instructing counsel for the prosecution. During this period Major Templer was in open arrest. It was not obligatory, and it seems to have been impracticable, to hold a Court of Inquiry, as the principal witnesses were civilians; and such a Court has no power to compel the attendance of witnesses, or to examine them on oath. A Court Martial, with full judicial powers, was necessary, in the interest both of Major Templer and the State, to dispose of the grave suspicions which had been cast on that officer. In answer to the third Question, the Aclands were paid £1 a-week for nine weeks, and 25 s. a-week for three weeks. This was to keep them at hand, as they were necessary witnesses for the prosecution, and had been turned out of their coffee house at Birmingham. They were not paid anything until after they had identified Major Templer. I am informed that no disclosure of State secrets concerning balloons was made by order of the War Office. But the whole of the circumstances attending this Court Martial, and the construction of balloons at Chatham, are now undergoing careful investigation; and I should prefer to make no statement on the subject at the present moment.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to give Notice that on the Vote for the War Office I will call attention to this case, and also to the apparent absence of proper precautions against the betrayal of secrets in the Government Offices and Works.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— NATIONAL TEACHERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government propose to take any steps this year to improve the position of the National Teachers in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the Government had at present no definite intention on the subject. The Question appeared to him to be rather a Treasury Question; and he would suggest that the hon. Member should address himself to the Representative of the Treasury.

  WAR OFFICE—DEFENCES OF THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD, asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can inform the House of the probable date when the defences of the Cape of Good Hope will be complete in all details—namely, forts finished, guns, ammunition, and stores delivered?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): As my noble and gallant Friend is aware, the defence of Table Bay has been undertaken in consequence of an agreement entered into between Sir Thomas Upington, on the part of the Cape Government and myself last year. Under that agreement the unskilled labour is being provided by the Cape Government; and I am unable to say exactly when the works there will be completed, though they will be pushed on, so far as we are concerned, as quickly as possible. The works at Simon's Bay, which have been undertaken by the Imperial Government, are almost complete. The armament is in a forward state. With the exception of two 9·2-inch guns, all the remaining guns proposed are either ready or are provided for in this year's Estimates, and should be completed within the year. All guns will be sent out with ammunition.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—COOKERY CLASS—CODE, 1887.
  MR. SINCLAIRasked the Lord Advocate, If classes for Cookery, which have been, and are being, held in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of last year's Code in schools the school year of which has not yet terminated, will receive the grant in accordance with the terms of that Code, and not in accordance with the less favourable terms of the proposed new Code, which was laid upon the Table of the House on the 6th of March last, and has not yet been sanctioned?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The conditions required by the New Code will come into force at the end of the present month; and the arrangement of cookery classes ought to be brought into conformity with these conditions as speedily

  1047
  as possible. But the grant will not be forfeited, although these conditions have not been fulfilled throughout the whole of the current school year.

  INDIA—CASE OF MR. W. TAYLER, FORMERLY COMMISSIONER OF PATNA.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the case of Mr. William Tayler, formerly Commissioner of Patna, has ever been investigated and decided by any Secretary of State for India; if so, whether he has any objection to stating the terms of, and reasons for, any such decision; whether it is the fact that the late Earl of Iddesleigh, then Sir Stafford Northcote, left the case partially investigated and undecided at the term of his Office as Secretary of State, and that his Successor at the India Office never proceeded with the investigation, but recorded his opinion against re-opening the case; and, whether any investigation of the case has ever been completed, or any decision made upon it?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The case of Mr. W. Tayler was first investigated and decided by the then Secretary of State for India, the Earl of Derby (then Lord Stanley), in 1859. His decision was to confirm the action of the Government of India and the Court of Directors, for reasons fully set forth in a despatch, dated June 1, 1859, which has been presented to Parliament. The communications between Mr. Tayler and Sir Stafford Northcote in 1867 are not recorded in the India Office. It appears, from Mr. Taylor's Memorial to the Secretary of State of October 13, 1868, that what Mr. Taylor originally asked Sir Stafford Northcote for was "a public and suitable recognition of his services." It is the practice of the India Office that all applications for honours are dealt with by the Secretary of State personally. There is no ground for the supposition that the Duke of Argyll neglected to investigate the case, or recorded an adverse opinion without due inquiry into the merits. The case has been investigated and decided by every subsequent Secretary of State. The grounds of their decisions have been generally that no facts or arguments were adduced to render it right, in their judgment, to reverse the deci-
  1048
  sion of Lord Stanley in 1859, or those of their subsequent Predecessors in Office.

  SPAIN—FIRING ON A PORTUGUESE LIFEBOAT.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any information regarding the alleged firing by Spanish Custom House officers on a Portuguese lifeboat which was going to the assistance of the crew of the British Princess, shipwrecked near the Hispano-Portuguese Frontier?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Full inquiry has been made by the Consul at Oporto, who states that the report was incorrect. The only survivors of the crew were rescued by Spanish boatmen. No Portuguese lifeboat was on the spot. After the survivors had been rescued, some shots were fired to prevent Portuguese boatmen from seizing floating wreckage. This appears to have given rise to the report.

  DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON TRADE MARKS—THE REPORT.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, When the Report of the Departmental Committee on Trade Marks, presided over by Lord Herschell, will be laid upon the Table?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICHS-BEACH)said, the Report would be laid on the Table in the course of a few days.

  ARMY (INDIA)—HONORARY SURGEONS TO THE VICEROY.
  SIR GUYER HUNTERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether honorary surgeons to the Viceroy of India have been prohibited wearing the aiguilette heretofore used by them; if so, by what authority and on what grounds?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): Under the Dress Regulations of the Army, honorary surgeons to the Viceroy have no authority to wear such a decoration. If they have been in the habit of so doing, it has been an irregularity.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—LICENCES ON CARTS—THE WHEEL TAX.
  COLONEL GUNTERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, if a farmer carts coal for labourers on his farm, carts the labourer's furniture when entering his service from another farm, carts coal for his landlord, whereas by his farm agreement he is bound to do, he will be required to take out a licence as for a trade cart?
  MR. HALLEY STEWARTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the Wheel Tax would be levied on a waggon used by a farmer for bringing back coals from a Railway Station for the use of labourers living and working on his farm, even if the waggon were habitually used for that purpose?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I am afraid that it is impossible to provide for all special cases in an Act of Parliament, which must be general in its term. Such details must be left to administration; but there is no intention of working the Act in an unduly severe manner. I do not think the case contemplated by the hon. Member for Spalding is at all likely to arise.

  ALLOTMENTS ACT, 1887—COMPULSORY ACQUIREMENTS OF LAND ON LEASES.
  MR. COZENS-HARDYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, by means of a Provisional Order under "The Allotments Act, 1887," a Sanitary Authority can compulsorily acquire land upon lease instead of purchasing the fee simple; and, if not, whether the Government will introduce a Bill to confer this power upon Sanitary Authorities?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE), in reply, said, a Sanitary Authority could not compulsorily acquire land upon lease instead of purchasing the fee simple; and, for the reasons which were stated in the debate which arose on this question when the Allotments Bill was in Committee, it was not the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill conferring this power on Sanitary Authorities.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—ELECTIVE COUNCILLORS.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it will be possible for the Board to lay before the House a Statement of the proposed number of Elective Councillors for each county before the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE), in reply, said, he could not undertake to lay the Statement before the House until the Committee stage.

  INDIA (BOMBAY)—THE NEW DOCK.
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, When the controversy with the Indian Government on the question of the payment of the cost of construction of the proposed new dock at Bombay will be brought to an end, and the dock itself taken in hand as promised last Session, and as has been strongly recommended by successive Naval Commanders-in-Chief on the Indian Station during the last ten years as a vital necessity for the Fleet; and, whether, if the two Departments cannot agree to divide the cost of construction between the Imperial and Indian Governments, he will be pleased to refer the question for arbitration to a Naval Member of Parliament for prompt and decisive settlement?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Admiralty are fully alive to the importance of bringing the negotiations on the subject of the proposed Navy Dock at Bombay to a termination; and with this object it has been agreed that a Conference shall be held as soon as can be arranged between Representatives of the Departments concerned, the difference being not as to the necessity for a dock, but as to its dimensions, the Navy requiring a depth and width in excess of commercial wants. The extra requirements of the Navy entail a large additional expenditure, and the apportionment of that outlay is not easy of adjustment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that the question be referred to a Naval. Member of Par-

  1051
  liament; and though I am much obliged for his kindly offer of personal assistance, as the decision involves expenditure and taxation it must be left to those who are personally responsible for such matters.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE HORSE TAX.
  MR. RANKINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, under the Budget Resolution No. 7, which places a tax of £5 upon "every horse which shall start or run for any plate, prize, or sum of money or other thing," it is the intention of the Government to enforce this tax upon horses run in hunt or other local races, and which are, for the most part, hunters in the possession of tenant farmers; and, whether the Government have considered the serious blow that such a tax would be to all small country hunt races?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): No, Sir. The clauses imposing the duty on racehorses will be so framed as to exclude horses competing in races expressly confined to horses regularly and bonâ fide used as hunters, or to horses which are the bonâ fide property of farmers of a particular district or locality, and which have not been trained for the race in any training stable.

  PARKS (METROPOLIS)—BATTERSEA PARK—DISMISSAL OF WORKMEN.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, as representing the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether it is true that 19 workmen employed in Battersea Park have received notice of dismissal, some of whom have been employed upwards of 20 years; and, what the Board propose to do with the ornamental stonework from Burlington House, which has been so long, and still is, lying in Battersea Park?
  MR. TATTON EGERTON, in reply, said, that 19 out of a total of a staff of 53 received notice of dismissal, and each individual case had been fully considered by the Committee on the Report of a superior officer. Of that number three were over
  1052
  70 years of age; five were over 60; and seven over 50. Of the remainder one was dishonest, and the others were unfit for work. As regarded the ornamental stonework it was still lying in the Park; and the Board had no purpose to which the stones could be advantageously applied. The First Commissioner had accordingly been asked that they should be removed.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—TRANSFER OF CONSTABLES OF THE A DIVISION.
  COLONEL WARING(for Mr. KELLY)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that a number of police constables, who for years have been attached to the A Division, have recently been transferred to Outer Metropolitan Districts without any proper notice, and in such a manner as to cause very great inconvenience and loss to themselves and to their wives and families; who is the officer responsible for the transfer of such police constables; and, will the Government consider the desirability of preventing the transfer of any more of the constables usually placed on duty in the House and its precincts to other Divisions?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The facts are not as suggested by the Question of my hon. Friend. Of the married men transferred I am informed that only five have been in the Division over three years and three over two years. The Commissioner of Police is responsible for these transfers. The Government do not think it desirable to interfere with the discretion of the Commissioner of Police in directing transfers of constables with a view to the better distribution of the force.

  EXCISE—WINE AND SPIRIT LICENCES.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the minimum percentage of alcohol in a beverage which the Commissioners of Excise consider as bringing it within the category of drinks requiring a Wine and Spirit Licence for their sale?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): In the case of wines professedly fermented a licence is required,

  1053
  irrespective of the amount of alcohol present; and in the case of other beverages the limit adopted by the Commissioners is 3 per cent of proof spirit, beyond which a spirit or other licence is required, according to the nature of the article.

  MECHANICS' INSTITUTES AND FREE LIBRARIES—SUPPLY OF BLUE BOOKS.
  MR. CALEB WRIGHTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has provided in the Estimates for supplying Parliamentary Returns of Expenditure for County Government, and Returns of National Expenditure, to Mechanics' Institutions and Free Libraries, in accordance with the promise made last Session?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: The hon. Member is, I think, in error in supposing that such promise was given as regards Mechanics' Institutes; but some provision has been made in the Estimates for Papers such as he describes for Free Libraries.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE "COMPENSATION CLAUSE."
  MR. T. FRYasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he has formed an Estimate of the total value which the vested interest of the liquor trade would amount to in case the "Compensation Clause" in the Local Government Bill became law; and, if not, if he will furnish the House with such information before the Licensing Clauses are reached in Committee?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I have not attempted to form any Estimate of the total value which the vested interest of the liquor trade would amount to in case the Compensation Clauses of the Local Government Bill became law; neither does it appear to me that if it were possible to make anything like an approximate Estimate—and I think that it would be impossible—it would be of any practical value. The compensation will only be payable in the particular cases in which renewal of a licence is refused; and it is only in those cases that the question of the value for the purpose of compensation will arise.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE SUBCOMMISSION AT ANTRIM.
  MR. DILLONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a decision of Mr. Edward Greer, Chairman of the County Down Sub-Commission, delivered at Antrim on Monday last, whereby he dismissed the fair rent application of a leaseholder, named Edward Nelson, who is a tenant on the estate of Sir Richard Wallace; whether Mr. Greer held, on the authority of "Donoughmore v. Forrest," that the assignee of a lease which contains a clause against alienation, even though he had been accepted as tenant by the landlord many years ago, is not entitled to the privileges of the Land Act of 1887 unless the lessor or landlord had, by endorsement in writing, consented to the alienation; whether it is a fact that upwards of 75 per cent of the agricultural leases in Ulster contain covenants against alienation, and that the practice generally followed on the assignment of leaseholds there was merely to enter the name of the assignee in the rent-book as the new tenant, and give him the rent receipts in his own name; whether he is aware that, if this narrow interpretation be put on the word "lessee" in "The Irish Land Act, 1887," more than half of the leaseholders in Ulster will be debarred from having fair rents fixed; and, whether, considering the importance of the subject, and the danger with which these leaseholders are threatened, the Government will take steps to have the benefit of the fair rent clause secured to all the leaseholders to whom it was intended to apply?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)(who replied) said: I do not think the grievance is of so far-reaching a character as the hon. Member seems to suggest; but I think it is, or it may become, a real one. The Government have had their attention drawn to the matter, and have prepared a clause which would meet the difficulty. Since doing so I have been informed that the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) proposes to ask leave to bring in a Bill for a similar purpose. I shall be glad to confer with the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and to consider whether the ob-

  1055
  ject could best be attained by his Bill, by a Government Bill, or by a new clause in the Land Commission Bill. Of course, it must be distinctly understood that the Government cannot consent to any amendment in the Leasehold Clauses of the Act of last year; except one which will carry more perfectly into effect what was universally understood to be the intention of the Government which brought in the measure and of the Legislature that passed it.
  MR. DILLON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bring in a separate Bill, and not tie up its fate with his Land Commission Bill.

  IRELAND—THE RIFLES AT DERRYBEG CATHOLIC CHURCH.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state if the Rifles stationed at Gweedore Hotel, and a number of police, with their respective officers, and under the command of Mr. Bourke, R.M., proceeded to Derrybeg Catholic Church on Sunday last, and stood under arms awaiting the dispersion of the congregation and exasperating the people, though there was no meeting held and no speeches were delivered; what instructions were given to the officer in command, or by him to the forces; and, whether he will state for what reason the soldiers and police have been sent to Gweedore?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Rifles stationed at Gweedore Hotel and a number of police, with their respective officers, and under the command of Mr. Bourke, R.M., proceeded to Derrybeg on Sunday last and stood under arms awaiting the dispersion of the congregation. They went there for the purpose of protecting shorthand writers and longhand writers who were ordered there on duty. The Rev. Mr. M'Fadden had previously announced that he would on that day address the people for the last time, and that it would be remembered hereafter, or words to that effect, and he actually stated in his sermon that day that he would afterwards address the people outside. The soldiers and police are at Gweedore for the purpose of preserving the peace.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE CART AND WHEEL TAXES.
  MR.STEPHENSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the event of the tax upon vehicles and wheels passing into law, he will consider the case of traders and salesmen employing vehicles as moveable market stands—for instance, carts and vans used to expose hay and straw upon for sale in markets as proper for exemption, having regard to the slight use of the roads by this class of vehicle, and to the fact that the proposed new tax charges would operate with great hardship upon trades affording only a very narrow margin of profit?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): This is not a Question which I can very well answer without knowing the weight of the carts, and the manner in which they are employed while not standing in the market. The general principle I have in view is that carts using the roads should contribute directly towards their maintenance; but if the hon. Member wishes to raise the point in Committee on the Bill of course it could be discussed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—CLAUSE 69, SUBSECTION 3.
  SIR WILLIAM CROSSMANasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, by sub-section 3, Clause 69, of the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill, it is intended that the accounts of those towns which are proposed to be dealt with as separate counties shall be audited by the District Auditors appointed by the Local Government Board?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): Subsection 3, of Clause 69, is included in Part V. of the Local Government Bill, which relates to finance; and it will be seen from Clause 30 (5) that that part of the Bill will not apply to boroughs which are to be treated as separate counties, except so far as is expressly provided by that part. The accounts of boroughs which will be separate counties will not, therefore, be audited by auditors appointed by the Local Government Board.

  COLLIERY ACCIDENTS—DOUGLAS BANK COLLIERY, WIGAN.
  MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can now give any information relative to the shaft accident which occurred at Douglas Bank Colliery, Wigan, on Friday last; and, whether he can say what steps will be taken to ensure a searching investigation into the cause of the accident?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received a Report from the Inspector as to the Douglas Bank Colliery accident, who informs me that he has made a careful examination of the shaft and fittings, and he found that the bucket in its descent had become entangled with a wire signal rope, and was thus upset. The bucket ought to have passed about four feet clear of the signal rope. The Inspector was himself lowered rapidly in the shaft to see what clearance there was; and he considers it to be ample, and that the machinery and fittings are excellent. The inquest is being held to-day, when I hope that the causes of this sad accident will be fully elucidated.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSION—FAIR RENT APPLICATIONS FROM ANTRIM.
  MR. DILLON(for Mr. M'CARTAN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can now state how many of the fair rent applications of leaseholders, and also of present tenants, served on the Land Commission from the County of Antrim still remain undisposed of; whether he has received a copy of Resolutions adopted by the tenant farmers of Larne Union District, at a meeting held in the Town Hall of Larne on the 28th March last, complaining of the delay in fixing the fair rents there, and requesting the appointment of a Sub-Commission for the County Antrim; on what date the next sitting of a Sub-Commission will be held for the County of Antrim; whether he can now give the names of the gentlemen who will constitute that Sub-Commission; and, whether Mr. Davidson, J. P., Rademon, County Down, who was among the first appointments of Sub-Commissioners made under "The Land
  1058
  Law (Ireland) Act, 188]," is one of those recently re-appointed, or whether it is his intention to re-appoint him; and, if not, whether he can state what objection is there to the re-appointment of Mr. Davidson, considering that he was selected as one of the scrutineers to report the prices of produce under "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887?"
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform me that there are now 1,260 unheard applications of leaseholders and 625 of yearly tenants. I have received a copy of the Resolutions referred to. The Land Commissioners state that, as at present arranged, the Sub-Commission which has been recently sitting in the County Antrim will probably return there after May. The names of the gentlemen forming that Sub-Commission are Messrs. J. J. Guiry, H. Johnston, S. Mowbray, and F. O'Callaghan, with Mr. E. Greer as legal Commissioner. The gentleman mentioned in the last paragraph ceased to be an Assistant Commissioner in July, 1883, when the number of Sub-Commissions was reduced. Without in any way referring to the case in question, I would point out that the duty of appointing Assistant Land Commissioners is vested by statute in the Irish Government. In making the appointments they act with a full sense of their responsibility; and they cannot undertake to enter into any discussion in regard to individual cases, from which no public advantage could be derived.

  POLICE (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT)— ATTENDANCE AT THE HOUSE.
  MR. PICKERSGILLwho had given Notice that he would ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will suspend the operation of the recent Regulation changing the police in attendance on this House until the House itself has had an opportunity to express an opinion on the subject, said, that he was informed that the new Regulation would not come into operation until the close of the Session; and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as he believed that hon. Members in every quarter of the House felt a strong objection to changing the Parliamentary police and placing in a position of anxiety and uncertainty a body of men

  1059
  with whom they all were in friendly relations, he did not see his way to cancel or withdraw that Regulation?
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, also wished to ask, whether it was true that many of those men had foregone their claims to promotion in order to remain on the staff of the police at the House of Commons; and whether, if that was true, it would not be unfair to allow that order to be carried into effect?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am unable to answer the Question put by the hon. Baronet; but, if desired, I can procure information on the point. In answer to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that the recent Regulation concerning the police in attendance on this House has been made by the Commissioner of Police in the exercise of his discretion as responsible for the good conduct and discipline of the Force. I cannot suppose that the House would wish me to interfere with this discretion ["Yes"] without reasons which, so far as I am aware, do not exist; and I therefore do not propose to suspend the operation of the Regulation.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, that he would make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. He had already given Notice of a Motion on that Question; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the answer which had been given by the Home Secretary, he would not afford the House an early opportunity of discussing and pronouncing an opinion on that Regulation?
  MR. BRADLAUGH, before the First Lord of the Treasury replied, wished also to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he did not think that the convenience of hon. Members ought to be considered to some extent before changing officials who were in attendance on the House and who knew hon. Members for persons who did not know them, and who would, therefore, be at a disadvantage in delivering their letters, &c.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I would say, in answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, that, undoubtedly, regard must be had—and I hope always will be had—to the convenience of
  1060
  Members of this House; but I am not aware that any arrangement has been made that will in the slightest degree affect their convenience. As to the appeal made to me by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, as he himself has mentioned, this Regulation does not come into operation till the end of the present Session. There will, therefore, be full opportunity on the Police Vote for him to make any observations that he may wish to offer; but, having regard to the responsibilities of the Chief Commissioner of Police, we should be slow indeed to interfere with the duty cast upon him of securing the efficiency of the Force and the good conduct of all its members.
  SIR JOHN SIMONasked, What reason, if any, had been assigned by the Chief Commissioner for the issue of the Regulation?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no official information of the reason. I only gathered from private communication that, in the judgment of the Chief Commissioner, the prolonged service of constables in attendance in the precincts of the House was not conducive to the good discipline of the Force. It is a privilege which is very much desired by members of the Force; and if for a long period of time it is confined to particular members of the Force it may excite jealousies. There are also other reasons that might be suggested which make it undesirable that the same persons, as a matter of permanent employment, should be always engaged on the same duty.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend the same principle to the Army, and make all the Line soldiers occasionally Guards to Her Majesty?
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked, Whether, as this was a matter of Privilege, the Home Secretary would cause any of the heroes of Trafalgar Square to be appointed to serve in the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—THE DISTURBANCES AT ENNIS.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has any further information to give the House

  1061
  with reference to the conflict between the people and the police and military at Ennis on Sunday last; whether he still adheres to his statement that stones were thrown from the building where the meeting was held; and, if so, whether this was done before, during, or after the police had been ordered to charge, whether any of the police or military were seriously injured, and, if so, how many; and, how many of the people received serious injury?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Sir, stones were thrown before and after. No one was seriously injured. The reporter of
  The Irish Times appears to have been most hurt, but his injury is not serious.
  MR. PARNELL: I must request the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer to my Question. I have asked, in addition to whether stones were thrown both before and after, whether any stones were thrown from the building where the meeting was held; and, whether these stones were thrown during, before, or after the meeting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a Question which I have answered. Stones were thrown from the building both before and after the meeting.
  MR. PARNELL: Were any of the military or police injured?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already answered that Question. I told the hon. Gentleman that the reporter of The Irish Times was most injured, but his injury is not serious. So far as I am aware, no one was seriously injured.
  MR. PARNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether any stones were thrown from the yard where this attack was made?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: From the yard?
  MR. PARNELL: Yes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware. I cannot answer that. I rather think not; but I will not be sure.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in addition to the reporter of The Irish Times, the reporter of the The Freeman's Journal was also seriously injured by a baton stroke?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I am not.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD(for Mr. W. REDMOND) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the fact that two gentlemen representing The Freeman's Journal and Irish Times were seriously wounded by the Hussars and police on last Sunday in the town of Ennis; and, whether an investigation will be held to ascertain how it was that two representatives of the Press, in the exercise of their duty, were so assaulted by the forces of the Crown?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Divisional Magistrate reports that sundry representatives of the Press appear to have been present on the occasion in question. The reporter of the Irish Times seems to have been most hurt; but the doctor who attended him has stated that the injury is not serious. It is to be regretted that any representative of the Press should have suffered. All the circumstances of the case will, doubtless, come fully before the public in connection with the trial of the persons to-morrow who are charged with stone-throwing.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—COST OF CONTESTED ELECTIONS.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the President of the Local Government Board, If the Government have considered or made any calculations, first, as to the total additional charges which may be thrown upon the rates by the cost of contested elections in Electoral Divisions under the Local Government Bill; and, secondly, as to the cost per head of the voters on the Register in each Division in respect of such elections; and, if so, whether he can state what is the estimate they have arrived at?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The only reliable information in possession of the Government on this subject is a Return of the cost of the Parliamentary Elections of 1886 in England and Wales, which has been presented to the House. By that it appears that the total amount of the Returning Officers' charges, in both contested and uncontested elections in that year was £109,000. The rateable value of England and Wales is £148,900,000; so that if these charges had fallen on the rates they would have

  1063
  amounted to about one-sixth of 1d. in the £. It is, however, to be borne in mind that of the £109,000 nearly £42,000 represents the cost in respect of Parliamentary boroughs. As it is proposed that the election of County Councillors should take place at the same time as the Municipal Elections, it may be expected that in Municipal boroughs there will be no very considerable increase of the present cost. I have no doubt, therefore, that the actual cost of the elections of County Councillors will be very considerably less than an average sum of one-sixth of 1d. in the £.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE HORSE TAX—HORSES AND MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the fact that medical practitioners are now allowed to deduct the expenses of their horses in the calculation of Income Tax, as being necessary for the carrying on of their business?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Yes, Sir; if the horse be used wholly in the exercise of the profession. I think I see the drift of the hon. Gentleman's Question.

  SHIPPING DUES OF FOREIGN STATES.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it would be possible to lay upon the Table of the House a Return giving the Taxes and Dues levied on shipping, and the purposes to which the proceeds may be appropriated, by the Governments of Foreign States?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The information in question would be extremely useful; and I will confer with the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade upon the subject.

  THE EXECUTIVE (IRELAND)—THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the following statement in Monday's
  Times is true—
  1064
  "Lord Ashbourne, the Irish Lord Chancellor, was engaged throughout Saturday at the Irish Office (in London) in connection with the proclamation of the Nationalist meetings in Ireland yesterday;"
  and, if not, can it be ascertained how this information was communicated to that journal?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will probably himself feel it is no part of my business to inquire as to how Members of the Government occupy their time. I have no special information as to how the report got into the newspapers, and I would recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman to consult some journalist.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that he did not ask any such frivolous Question as that suggested by the Chief Secretary. His Question really was, whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland discharged any executive functions?
  [No reply.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Answer, answer!
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. T. M. HEALYrespectfully submitted that his Question was regular and proper. He wanted to know whether, contrary to the practice of previous Lord Chancellors in Ireland, and contrary to the practice in England, the Irish Lord Chancellor had any duties except those of a purely judicial character—whether, in fact, he discharged executive functions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman must be perfectly aware that the present Irish Lord Chancellor is a Member of the Cabinet, and that the Lord Chancellor of England is always a Member of the Cabinet. I can assure him that the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland no more exercises executive functions than his Predecessors have done.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it a fact that the Irish Lord Chancellor was—
  "Engaged throughout Saturday at the Irish Office in connection with proclamation of the Nationalist meetings in Ireland"
  on Sunday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already told the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is no part of my duty to state how Members of the Government occupy their time. I do not, however, wish to give offence to the hon. and learned Gen-

  1065
  man, and I will depart from the general rule I have laid down so far as to tell him what I think he might conjecture for himself—namely, that the arrangements with regard to the meetings on Sunday were made long before Saturday last.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE FRANCHISE— COUNTY COUNCILS.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the President of the Local Government Board, If the views of the Government as to the franchise to be created by the Local Government Bill are correctly expressed in the Marquess of Salisbury's speech in Carnarvon, as reported in The Times of the 10th instant—namely,
  "They (the Counties) return members by precisely the same franchise as that which will return these bodies (the County Councils);"
  and, is it intended by the Government that the Parliamentary franchise shall be the franchise under the Local Government Bill instead of a rating franchise?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I have had no opportunity of ascertaining whether the report in question correctly describes the Marquess of Salisbury's remarks; but there is so little difference between the two franchises that I think anyone would be justified in alluding to the franchise under the Bill, which is the municipal franchise, as a similar franchise to the Parliamentary, especially when, as would seem to have been the case in this instance, a parallel was being drawn between the position of Parliamentary and County voters under the new proposal of the Government.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it would be possible for the debate on the Local Government Bill that night to include the discussion of the principle involved in the next Order on the Paper—Local Government(England and Wales) Electors Bill?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the two Bills referred to were essential parts of the same measure, and it would be convenient that both Bills should be discussed on the Motion for the second reading of the Local Government Bill. He believed that that course would be
  1066
  in accordance with the Regulations of the House, and he would ask the Speaker to say whether it could be adopted.
  MR. SPEAKER: Under the circumstances of the case, and considering the close connection between the Bills, I do not think I ought to raise any objection to a general discussion taking place upon the two measures.

  ADMIRALTY—DEPUTY ADJUTANT GENERAL, ROYAL MARINES.
  MR. P. STANHOPEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is intended the present Deputy Adjutant General, Royal Marines, shall, after his promotion in the Corps in May next from Lieutenant General to General, continue to hold his present appointment; and, if not, whether a Colonel Commandant will be selected to fill the post, it being a Colonel's appointment?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Order in Council governing this appointment specifies that the officer selected for or holding this appointment shall not be below the rank of Colonel. I am not prepared to bind myself beforehand to the particular use to which I may put the discretionary power thus given.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION)— PROGRESS.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What is the total amount of Consols converted up to date?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): As the House is aware, to-day is the last day up to which assents can be given for the conversion of Consols and Reduced into New Stock. I have not yet got the statistics of today; but I think I may tell the hon. Member and the House that the assents to the conversion of Consols and Reduced will not fall short of £280,000,000 by this afternoon, which will be exclusive of the assents given in later on by Trustees. Taking this, together with the conversion of the "New Threes," the total Stock converted amounts to about £450,000,000.
  In reply to Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.),
  MR. GOSCIIENsaid, that he would to-morrow state the amount of the Debt remaining still unconverted and liable to be paid off.

  RAILWAYS AND DEEP SEA FISHERY HARBOURS (IRELAND).
  COLONEL NOLANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government intend to take early steps to give effect to the recommendations of their Royal Commission regarding railways or deep sea fishery harbours in Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I answered a similar Question on the 23rd of last month. I am sorry to say the Government have not yet been able to arrive at any decision in the matter other than that which I expressed on that occasion—namely, that sufficient time has not yet been allowed for the purpose.

  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND)—LEGISLATION.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury inform the House when the Government intend to introduce their long-promised legislation on the subject of Irish Public Works?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have answered that Question before. I have got no Notice of this particular Question; and if the hon. Gentleman puts it on the Paper I will answer it.

  THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he intended to ask the House to give precedence to-morrow to the Local Government Bill over the other Orders of the Day?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Certainly, Sir; I intend to adhere to the understanding at which the House and the Government arrived before the holidays—that is, that we should give precedence to the Local Government Bill to-morrow, in order that progress may be made with it.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to give Notice that when the First Lord of the Treasury moves for precedence, I shall oppose the Motion.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: When the conversation on the subject took place, although I was desirous to expedite the Bill, I think the understanding of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks was simply an understanding of his own intention.
  MR. SETON-KARRasked, whether, supposing the debate on the Local Government Bill was not concluded on Monday night, the First Lord of the Treasury proposed to ask private Members to give way on Tuesday? He bad an important Notice in reference to State-aided colonization on the Paper for that day, and he was anxious not to lose the opportunity of bringing it before the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not doubt the hon. Member will have ample opportunity of bringing on the interesting subject named, and I should be glad to have a subject of that importance discussed; but I must ask permission to decline answering a Question as to what may be done on Tuesday, although I cannot doubt myself that the House will conclude before that day the debate on the Local Government Bill.

  NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE, 1882— RULE 2 (ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE).

    THE DISTURBANCE AT ENNIS.
    MR. PARNELL: Sir, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the attack on the people of Ennis on Sunday last by the Police and Military; and the conduct of Colonel Turner and other officers in charge, together with the policy of the Irish Executive, as evinced by these and other proceedings in directing the Police and Military to assault persons taking part in alleged illegal meetings, instead of proceeding against such alleged offenders according to law.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he did not think the Motion would come within the Rule as to a definite matter of urgent public importance unless the hon. Member struck out the reference to "other proceedings."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would assent to the words referred to being omitted.
    The words "other proceedings" struck out.
    The pleasure of the House not having been signified,
    MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
    MR. PARNELL: Sir, I regret very much to have to intervene for a short time between the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) and the very important and interesting subject which he is to introduce to the notice of the House to-night. But it is one of the misfortunes of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. A. J. Balfour) is carrying out his functions, that we are compelled to notice often and frequently his arbitrary proceedings; and although I have always endeavoured that debates on this Irish Question and the action of the Executive should take place at times of as little inconvenience as possible to the Government, and to the House generally, yet we are undoubtedly driven, in view of these occurrences in Ennis, upon the present occasion to take the earliest opportunity of bringing the matter before the attention of the House. Sir, when I read on Monday last of what had happened at Ennis my blood boiled at the horrible result of the barbarity there perpetrated, and it was with difficulty I could restrain myself from taking immediate notice of the attacks on the people; but I abstained from doing so, because I saw it was the right of the Chief Secretary to have ample opportunity of giving any excuses he might have, of his getting the facts of the case together, and of presenting this horrible occurrence, if he could, in a somewhat different light than that in which it has been presented to the public by no less than three different newspaper correspondents. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has not thought proper to take advantage of the various opportunities given him to give a full and satisfactory explanation, I am bound to assume that the right hon. Gentleman has sought refuge almost in silence, because be has no explanation to give. These oc-
    1070
    currences are now familiar to the House and to the public; but I wish to say, in the first instance, in reference to the statement of the Chief Secretary made a little while ago, in reply to a Question, that proceedings were to be taken to-morrow against the persons charged with stone-throwing at Ennis, that in what I have to say I shall not say anything in reference to the persons charged with throwing stones, or who possibly may have thrown them, and I shall confine myself to the action of the police against these persons who were in the yard, and who could not consequently throw stones from the upper windows of the house, the very and only place about the premises from which it is alleged stones were thrown. Therefore, it will not be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman, in any remarks he makes, to say that the matter is sub judice; because the question which is to be sub judice to-morrow is the question of the stone-throwing, according to the right hon. Gentleman; and I have no remark to make, no criticism to make, against the action of the police in reference to persons who threw stones. If the people throw stones, the police or the military are entitled to grapple with and arrest them; but the question is quite different with regard to persons charged with a breach of the law and nothing else, such as taking part in an alleged illegal meeting, where the question of the illegality of the meeting has still to be decided, as well as the question as to whether the meeting was legal at all. Independently of any such investigation the police and military have taken the action of which I complain against those alleged offenders, and it is because of that action I complain, and not of the action of the police against the alleged stone-throwers, that I bring this Motion for the adjournment of the House. It may be said that if any person is aggrieved by the action of the police in Ireland, he has the same remedy as in England—he may take out a summons against the policeman who assaulted him, and that summons would be investigated in a Court in the ordinary manner. But one of the crying injustices in reference to the control of the police in Ireland is that there is no possible way of identifying a police constable who exceeds his duty. The police in Ireland do not, like the English police, wear numbers—they are a

    1071
    military force, as we well know, and they do not partake of any of those elements of a civil force which belong to the Metropolitan Police. Consequently, persons assaulted by policemen in Ireland have no remedy. In all probability these policemen had been brought from a district 100 miles away into the town for that day, and returned the same night to the place where they came from, and, therefore, there is no chance of injured persons identifying their assailants. So it happens that police brought into contact with people in Ireland have, practically speaking, full immunity against identification if they exceed their duties. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that there was stone-throwing—I think he said showers of stones. He said to-day some stones were thrown from the building, in question before the attack was made by the police on the people—before the baton charge was ordered to be made upon the people by the police. He also stated that to the best of his information he does not believe stones were thrown from the yard in question; and, therefore, in what I have to say, I will confine myself to the incidents that took place in the yard—to what was done by the people in the yard and what was done to the people in the yard by the police and soldiers. I shall ask the House to agree with me that because stones were thrown at the police from the top storey of the building was no reason why the people who were in the yard should be attacked and assaulted in the way they were. Even the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, short as it is, that some stones were thrown from the building is not corroborated by any independent account, or by the statements of the three newspaper correspondents who were present from The London Times, The Freeman's Journal, and The Irish Times—a Conservative organ in Dublin—all of whom assert that there was no stone-throwing, that there was no riot or assault committed by the people at all until after the arrests had been made and the building had been cleared, and then the correspondent of The Times admits that one or two stones were thrown. Let us take the description of the occurrence given by the correspondent of The Irish Times first of all. He says, after describing how the meeting had been held—
    1072
    "As the people were going out through the gateway leading from the yard into the lane they found the gateway flung in and policemen taking the names of those who left. One or two reporters declined to give their own names, but gave those of their newspapers. I endeavoured to make my way to Colonel Turner, who was apparently in charge of the mounted soldiers. The 3rd Hussars were drawn up in front of the gateway. I was then close enough to speak to Colonel Turner. There was no hooting or cheering, no missile thrown, and the men were leaving quietly and giving their names to the police, when at the very moment I was about to escape from the gateway Colonel Turner turned in his saddle, and, addressing the officer in charge of the dragoons, said—'Draw your swords and clear them out of that.' Then the police, and afterwards the hussars, charged the people in the archway. The baton charge of the police swept over me, and then I was ridden at by a mounted soldier. I was the only person there wearing a silk hat. With his sword he pierced my hat and just missed my scalp. Wheeling his horse he rode again at me, and, raising my right hand to save myself from the blow, he cleaved one of my fingers to the bone, and striking a back-handed blow disabled my other arm. My brother journalist from Dublin had already gone under the baton charge. The people made no resistance, and four arrests were made."
    The Freeman's Journal correspondent, Mr. Murray, says—
    "The gate was opened and the police entered the narrow archway, which was the outlet from a rectangular shaped yard in front of the stores, the roadway boundary being on the other side of them. In the roadway was drawn up a troop of the 3rd Hussars, and about 50 men of the Derbyshire Regiment, with a large number of police. Colonel Turner was about three yards from the entrance, and he directed the police to take the names of the people who had been at the meeting. Some of the policemen were engaged doing this, when Colonel Turner ordered the police to draw their batons. The order was executed with savage alacrity, and the police rushed in among the people. I was standing along with some representatives of the Press at the gate, as already stated, within a few feet of Colonel Turner, who was in a state bordering on frenzy, his eyes protruding, and apparently quite beside himself with agitation. The policeman who was in front rushed at me, and dealt me a staggering blow of his baton on the top of my head, which made me reel backwards, the blood flowing profusely down my face. The people were beaten in the most wanton and unmerciful manner, a portion of the police running amuck among the meeting right and left with ferocious savagery. However, not content with this, Colonel Turner ordered the hussars to charge the people, and they instantly made their way into the small yard, with drawn sabres, cutting at the people. Mr. John G. Hill, the representative of The Irish Times, was slashed at by a hussar, who passed his sword through Mr. Hill's hat. He then slashed downwards at him. Mr. Hill raised his hand to shield his face, and received a very severe wound. The soldier took another

    1073
    try, and succeeded this time in maiming Mr. Hill's other hand. The police continued to strike the people, pursuing them into corners and lofts where they had made their way. In one of the lofts the people barricaded the entrance in order to protect themselves, and the infantry were ordered to dislodge them. While the people were making their way out, nearly everyone bearing traces of wounds, District Inspector Hill called out,—'Well done, boys! Is the fun all over?'"
    Well, Sir, I now come to the report of The London Times' correspondent, Mr. Reeves, who was there also, and in his report wired over, which appeared on Monday, he says—
    "When the people had descended into the yard for the purpose of leaving, a number of constables barred their exit. Considerable confusion was the result of this step, and the noise in the yard reaching the ears of the police and constabulary now massing outside the gate in the lane, Colonel Turner ordered the yard to be cleared by constables carrying staves. The order was executed. The police who had forced the gateway, plied their staves indiscriminately, and sent the people inside running up to the lofts for shelter from their batons. To make matters worse, some of the cavalry rode into the yard, and wounded two Press men, one of whom (Mr Hill,) a reporter to The Irish Times, had the hat cut off his head by a sabre stroke, and the small finger of one of his hands almost severed by a second blow from the trooper. Another man had his skull laid bare by a policeman's baton. The people inside the yard retook possession of the upper rooms in the store, and here, after a scene of imminent danger and great excitement, about 75 persons were subsequently arrested, and the store was cleared……A stone was flung at one of the hussars on patrol duty."
    Then, according to the London correspondent of The Times, corroborated by the other correspondents on the spot, the showers of stones mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman dwindled down to the fact that one stone was flung at the police when the whole thing was over; and I submit, Sir, that entirely independent of the proceedings against the stone-throwers, we ought to get some explanation from the Government regarding the attack by the police and military on a small enclosed yard of people, who, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own admission, had done nothing at all, had committed no offence except that of taking part in an alleged illegal meeting, who were doing what the police asked them to do—quietly giving their names, making no resistance whatever, and inflicting on these persons, for an alleged offence before its investigation by a proper tribunal, additional
    1074
    punishment in the shape of serious injuries and nearly loss of life. Under the Coercion Act of last Session, the Executive took powers to inflict hard labour as a consequence of sentences by tribunals on persons who took part in illegal meetings; but if you had the desire to get the right to massacre or maim the people who took part in such meetings, you should have taken such power under your Act. The Act of last year did not give you the power to use the forces of the Crown in killing and maiming innocent people, and the House should be careful to see that the Irish Executive does not exceed its powers as it did on the occasion to which I am referring. We have the very vague statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, that some stones were thrown from the top of this store. We have it advanced as the only excuse and defence for the attack by the police. I, however, submit it is not an excuse for the attack by the police. It is not an excuse for the action of the police against many different persons in entirely different places. It is not an excuse for permitting Colonel Turner to order the constables to rush pell melt into the yard—into an enclosed yard—and to baton unfortunate people indiscriminately who are doing nothing. It is not an excuse for Colonel Turner to order the hussars with drawn sabres into this enclosed yard, to slash right and left; and it was no excuse for ordering the foot soldiers into the yard with fixed bayonets, when the people were quiet and using no force. I submit that, from your own point of view, Colonel Turner not only exceeded his duty, but behaved with almost incredible barbarity. This gentleman, I believe, is the same gentleman who during the Viceroyalty of Lord Aberdeen was a great Home Ruler. He has soon turned round, and is now equally great on the other side, and I can only suppose he thinks it necessary to purge himself from the taint of Home Rule by actions such as these. I cannot account in any other way for his conduct. It may be said that, being in charge of such a large force, he lost his head on the occasion; but he should not have repeated his conduct so frequently in the direction of which I complain. He might have been excused perhaps from ordering the police in—although it was an intemperate and rash act—to baton

    1075
    people, but, following that, to order the hussars in with their horses and sabres, and further, to order in the infantry soldiers with their bayonets fixed on their rifles, were most reprehensible acts. In view of the spirit which has been exhibited by a section of the military in Ireland, it is exceedingly dangerous to be employing them in such a manner—to send them indiscriminately among the people, especially into buildings where they cannot possibly be under the control of their officers, and it might have led to considerable loss of life at this meeting. The soldiers are armed men—young, lusty men who are trained to bloodshed and war, and they are not in the position of the Irish constables—they do not understand the feelings of the people—and it is exceedingly dangerous to allow these armed soldiers to get away from the control of their officers and into unarmed crowds. If you persist in this course, all I say is, that the responsibility upon the heads of the Irish Executive and upon the head of the Chief Secretary will be a very great one if there should be loss of life. By all means, put your Coercion Act in force as you have got it. You have seen that imprisonment has no terror for the Irish people. But that is no reason why you should invent new punishments—these infamous attacks and assaults by armed forces of the Crown—this punishment of men by having their lives set upon by soldiers, and having their hats transfixed by the sabres of dragoons. If the right hon. Gentleman wants these powers, let him ask Parliament for them; but, until he has got them, I submit that he is not entitled to use them. If he wishes to proclaim martial law, let him do so, and then the people would know what they have to expect. But let him not take the matter into his own hands; let him not use such officials as Colonel Turner to inflict on large bodies of men additional punishment to those the law provides. I beg, Sir, to move the adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has raised in the course of his speech two different points, which he
    1076
    intermixed in a way which renders it rather difficult to deal with them. I will, however, take them separately, as I shall thus be able to deal with them more easily. The first point relates to the handling of the police and troops by Colonel Turner on the ocasion of the storming of this warehouse, when unfortunately the reporter of The Irish Times was injured. His larger point was whether the meeting was illegal, and whether, even if illegal, the action of the Executive was justifiable. The hon. Member said that whether the meeting was legal or illegal, the Government ought not to have interfered with it. [Mr. PARNELL dissented.] Does the hon. Gentleman deny that he raised the point as to the legality of those meetings?
    MR. PARNELL: I did not raise the question of the legality of the meeting.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I certainly understood the hon. Member to raise the question clearly, but I will take the questions in their order. I entirely differ from the hon. Gentleman with regard to the facts of Sunday's occurrences at Ennis. The hon. Gentleman has relied on the reports of two or three reporters present on the occasion, but the reporters were in the yard and could not possibly be eye-witnesses of what was proceeding outside—namely, the stone-throwing from the upper windows of the building. He has tried to distinguish between the crowd in the yard and those who were not in the yard, but you cannot make that distinction. They formed one body of men collected together for the same illegal purpose. Those in the yard, it is true, were not engaged in stone-throwing, but they were legally, morally, and actually part of the same crowd engaged in the same work. What occurred? Colonel Turner came to this building with his forces. According to the report in The Freeman's Journal a meeting had been held and a resolution had been already passed which of itself constituted the meeting illegal. As soon as Colonel Turner appeared before this building, where this unquestionably illegal meeting took place, stones were hurled at him from the upper windows. Colonel Turner then ordered—as he was bound to do under the circumstances—an assault to be made on the building. The police and military entered the building, and

    1077
    took into custody a certain number of persons, and these will be prosecuted in the ordinary course to-morrow.
    MR. PARNELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman read the extract from Colonel Turner's report which bears upon this matter of the stone-throwing?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not the text of the report by me, but in any case I do not think it would be a proper course for me to read any part of the report to the House, as I might then, not unnaturally, be asked to lay the whole of it upon the Table, and this I could not do, as it is a confidential document. Stones were undoubtedly thrown, and a stone struck Colonel Turner's horse and his orderly. As illustrating the views and intentions of the persons engaged in this illegal meeting in this building, I may mention that stones piled up were found in the upper story prepared for a siege. They were not all exhausted in the process of stoning the police. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman express his righteous indignation at the practice of stone-throwing. Colonel Turner would have been failing in his duty if he had not taken immediate and effective steps to put an end to such an outrageous violation of the law. The hon. Member has laid down the theory that public meetings ought never to be stopped, but that, if they are illegal, subsequent prosecutions should be resorted to against those who were present. But that has never been the theory of any Government. It is a course which might occasionally be pursued, but it could not be followed universally, nor is it expedient, for, in many cases, the evils which it is sought to prevent would be past remedy, and the mischief would have been done. This meeting at Ennis was one of a number of illegal meetings which were organized to take place last Sunday, and which necessitated the accumulation of a considerable force in that part of the country. These forces were obliged to disperse by violence illegal assemblies in more than one part of Clare. When we remember what slight injuries were inflicted we must feel convinced that the police and military acted with judgment and control. It is absolutely impossible to have baton charges and so forth, which are necessary to disperse an assembly, without some
    1078
    injury being inflicted on some members of the crowd. I regret that such injuries are necessary, but I congratulate myself, and I think the House ought to congratulate itself, that, on the whole, these meetings were dispersed in Clare and Kerry with so few injuries and so little suffering caused. In so far as there was suffering, the responsibility rests upon those agitators who, in deliberate defiance of what they knew to be the law, asked their countrymen to engage in illegal transactions.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I am not unaccustomed to questions of this kind being raised with regard to occurrences in Ireland, and when I was Chief Secretary I know it was my habit to watch very carefully the speech of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) who raised the question, and to distinguish in that speech between the facts which he stated and which he said required explanation and any political principles which he laid down and with which the Government might differ. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has taken exactly the opposite course. If I may say so with respect, I do not think you, Sir, would have been justified in allowing the adjournment of the House to be moved if all that we were to have was a general peroration about law and order such as we have heard just now; but it was well worth while to have the adjournment of the House moved in order to have two or three specific points of extreme importance placed before the House and answered with greater precision than the right bon. Gentleman could indulge in within the limits of an answer to a Question. The hon. Member who moved the adjournment of the House relied not upon private information, but upon the statements of the reporters of three very leading papers of different politics, and he stated there was a crowd of people in the court-yard of a house whose names were being taken down by the police when they were charged by the police with batons, and that afterwards the hussars were let loose upon them. The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is that heavy stones were thrown from the upper windows of the house into the street. That might possibly afford a satisfactory explanation for a

    1079
    chief magistrate who had lost his head, and who in a great hurry ordered the police to go into the yard in hostile array and clear the yard, and then ascend the stairs. But what explanation was it for sending the Cavalry into the yard? If the police were being brutally assaulted in the yard, that might justify the bringing of the Cavalry into the yard, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary did not allege that the police were assaulted in the yard. He has absolutely given no explanation whatever for the Cavalry being sent among the people except that they wished to storm the upper stories. That is no explanation at all. It is, I think, a most serious thing to allow Cavalry loose upon a crowd. I am one of those who think that no force should be used except for the purpose to which it is adapted, and that troops should never be used with lethal and deadly weapons except those weapons are necessary. It is just possible that on certain occasions Cavalry may be advantageously used to back upon the people or press them in any desired direction, but on this occasion the Cavalry were told to draw their swords. [Mr. BALFOUR: No.] Well, then, they drew them without orders, for swords were undoubtedly drawn. I think the House has a right to ask for more specific information than has, so far, been given to it, and that, until such information is given, all general expressions about law and order, so far from increasing the respect of the Irish people for law and order and the confidence of England and Scotland that the law is being fairly and properly administered in Ireland, will only tend to diminish those two most wholesome feelings.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether I can at present supplement the information which I have given to the House. The right hon. Baronet seems to think that my speech consisted chiefly of peroration.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is not bound to confine himself strictly to facts and not to indulge in rhetoric?
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is only entitled to speak by the indulgence of the House, and he will, no doubt, confine himself to the question
    1080
    on account of which that indulgence was given.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the first place, I stated that there was stone-throwing of a serious kind, both before and after the assault on the building.
    MR. PARNELL: From the building?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, from the building.
    MR. PARNELL: Not from the yard?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not so far as I know. Colonel Turner on the occasion of the first stone-throwing ordered an assault upon the house; that the crowd in the house and in the yard was one crowd gathered for one purpose; and that the soldiers were not ordered to charge as the right hon. Gentleman appears to think. I believe it to be true that one or two soldiers, irritated by the stone-throwing, did use the flats of their swords till they were stopped by their officers. That is the sum of the information—very briefly—which has reached me and which I have at my command. It seems to me to be strictly specific and clear, and if there are any further facts to be elicited, they will be elicited at the trial in the Court to-morrow.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: I must compliment the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) upon the altered tone, and, I think, the somewhat lowered tone, of his boasts about his exploits in Ireland. I must do him the justice to say his speech appears to savour less of the jubilation of the banquet of last night than of the depression of the morning. He will find—the longer he lives the more he will learn—that the task of dragooning Ireland is not such a simple matter. The whole story of the right hon. Gentleman, I understand, rests upon the authority of a story supplied to him by Colonel Turner—the same Colonel Turner who supplied him with the story that the National League in the South-West of Ireland was a thing of the past. I will come in a moment to the value of Colonel Turner's testimony, and to the value of the right hon. Gentleman's own testimony. But now, assuming for one moment even the truth of Colonel Turner's story, I ask any Englishman who has listened to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, is this attack upon unarmed people an affair Englishmen will be

    1081
    proud of? Is it an affair any Englishman with a spark of humanity can listen to without feeling most heartily ashamed of it? Colonel Turner, in his telegram to a Dublin paper—The Irish Times—describes this yard into which these soldiers and Infantry and Hussars and Constabulary charged as "a densely-packed yard." Sir, can anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said in his few perfunctory observations tonight—can anything weaken the force of that admission of Colonel Turner that this was a densely-packed yard, into which that mass of armed men charged with savage ferocity? What possible necessity has the right hon. Gentleman shown for the charge into this yard? What proof has he given of the necessity of it? Here were a lot of men cooped up in the yard as in a closed trap. They were as helpless as, practically speaking, a lot of pigeons in a trap. There was not a firearm among them; and the right hon. Gentleman has not pretended that there was the smallest possibility of their offering one moment's serious resistance to the immense armed forces under Colonel Turner outside the gate waiting for them. What did he want to charge them at all for? I want to know what was Colonel Turner and his force afraid of? Seventy-five men, we hear, submitted to be arrested without any resistance. The right hon. Gentleman has not dared to say one resisted; and if these men could be arrested after this savage violence, why could they not have been arrested as they were leaving the building and their names were being taken? The very same thing happened at Loughrea. We held a meeting of the representatives of all the suppressed branches in Galway. A large force of police was in attendance in the street outside. They did not dare force their way into the place. They took the names of everybody who attended the meeting as they came out, and they went away satisfied, and so did we. I want to know why was not the same thing done at Ennis? As to this story of Colonel Turner's, that these people in the building or in the yard pelted showers of stones at the police, it is absurd and incredible on the face of it. If the police had come up before the meeting was held, or if the police had endeavoured to prevent it, it would be
    1082
    easy to understand their being attacked; but if there is one thing on which every newspaper man is agreed—and the right hon. Gentleman has not endeavoured to dispute it—it is the concordance of the newspaper testimony on the point that this meeting was all over before any collision at all took place. The people were leaving quietly by one exit, the gate of the yard. They had accomplished their purpose. They had held their meeting without any interruption whatever; and the idea of these men deliberately challenging a collision with this enormous armed force drawn up outside the gate, hemmed in as they were in the yard, without weapons, without the slightest chance of defence or of escape, why Colonel Turner's story, I submit to this House, is an insult to common sense. It is the story of a man who is driven to the wall for an excuse, or a man who imagines when it is a question of attacking and maltreating a defenceless Irish crowd, he, like every Irish official, imagines that no excuse is too preposterous to go down with the men who are ruling Ireland. On the face of it, on the internal evidence, without referring for one moment to the evidence—the crushing evidence—of all independent witnesses, of Conservative journalists and others, I hold the story of this alleged attack by the people who had held their meeting, and whose only interest would be to get themselves out of this cul de sac, is a palpable invention and fabrication, and it is because he feels that, that the attempt is made to bolster up his case by the statement heard to-day, for the first time, of the showers of stones coming from the windows of this building.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have previously made a statement to that effect in answering Questions put a day or two ago.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: I was not present when the right hon. Gentleman made the statement in his answer, but I read it in The Times newspaper—and that is an authority which the right hon. Gentleman will not question—and according to my reading of that answer, his statement was that showers of stones came also from neighbouring houses, which is a totally different thing. Anybody who knows the place, knows his position of to-day is an impossible one, and that it would have been impossible

    1083
    for showers to come from the windows without the persons in the yard seeing and being cognizant of them. But is it for one moment to be held or tolerated that because stones are thrown from windows of neighbouring places that these cavalry men are to be at liberty to lay about with sabres and bayonets among a perfectly defenceless crowd, who, in the position they were in, in that archway, would have been downright lunatics to have provoked a collision? I hold that the right hon. Gentleman's position to-day is a thoroughly new one, and Colonel Turner knows perfectly well that it is quite indefensible. But I will even admit for a moment that there is some truth in the story that stones were thrown by persons from the windows; but I ask this House to ask themselves "Where are the killed and wounded?" The right hon. Gentleman states now that Colonel Turner's orderly and horse were struck by a stone, and that is the full extent of the catastrophe sustained by this huge armed force on the street and which rushed in through the gate. That is all which is to justify him in hurling this force on a defenceless and unarmed crowd, and it is on the strength of this incident that all this violence and onslaught is perpetrated. If there is any sort of reality in this attack, the Government have a right to be able to produce some evidence that somebody or another has been injured. If this is not forthcoming, let them take care of the lesson that statements like that of the right hon. Gentleman and like those defences which are constantly put forward by him in the House will teach the Irish police that they may perpetrate all sorts of barbarities of this kind with the most perfect impunity. The Irish police officers are paid immense and sumptuous salaries—they have really no risk to endure but the risk they incur on an occasion such as this—men to whom you give deadly weapons to protect themselves with, and men among whom I venture to say there are fewer lives lost and fewer injuries sustained than in any body of railway servants or firemen or any other body of men in the world, and certainly very much less than among Irish Pressmen, who have to perform their duties under circumstances such as this, and who do not grumble nor try to kill any-
    1084
    one when they are injured. I tell you that the feeling amongst policemen that they are Sovereigns over the people is rife enough already in Ireland. I say the lives of these men are never in danger, and how different did the police act to the soldiers. Last Sunday in Loughrea I saw a soldier struck on the breast with a stone, and he laughed good humouredly and said—"It's a very bad shot." A stone passed near the head of a policeman, though it did not strike him, for he was beside me, and I could see it, and he instantly raised his rifle and took deliberate aim at a person in the direction from which the stone had come. The fact is, this brutality on the part of the police is not for one moment to protect themselves, but simply to strike terror into and to wreak vengeance upon the people because the people have outwitted them, because they have defeated them, and because they have exposed their failure to suppress the local branches of the National League and exposed the falsehood which was attempted to be palmed off upon this House that the National League was crushed. I say whatever wretched story is fished up now about this miserable stone-throwing, I will ask will any man—and I see there are soldiers in this House, and there is at least one sailor—will any brave man or any soldier stand up now and defend the action of the man who gave that cowardly and cruel order to the soldiers and police to dash into the midst of those defenceless people and to hack and slash them with their batons and sabres? For my own part, I deeply regret that apparently these particular soldiers took rather kindly to their orders. I am sorry for it, and I think it is a stain on the profession of a soldier; for I say it cordially that my own experience of soldiers acting in Ireland is very different, and the right hon. Gentleman may yet find that it is rather awkward for him to see in the future regiment set against regiment in opposite camps on these political questions in Ireland. I do not blame the soldiers. The right hon. Gentleman told us this moment that they were restrained by their officers. But what is the fact? They were headed by their officers, and they were marched through the streets of that wretched town of Ennis yelling "Rule Britannia"—[Cheer]—aye, gloating

    1085
    over the unarmed people; gloating and exulting over them and insulting them. It would have been as brave for them to have sung "Rule Britannia" after a pigeon-shooting match. I am sorry, as I said, for it; but I do not blame the soldiers, for the soldiers were only setting the right hon. Gentleman's Irish policy to music. They were just giving a rude rendering in music to the sneers and jibes at the Irish people in which he indulges in this House and out of it. Colonel Turner had on Tuesday the audacity to send a telegram to Dublin expressing his regrets for the misconduct of the military; but he would have been much better employed in apologizing and expressing regret for his own misconduct, for it was he alone who was responsible for the disgraceful and dastardly scene of last Sunday. It was he who sent the Hussars in after the police, and the Infantry after the Hussars, to dash in and attack those unfortunate people; but the secret of this man's brutality and panic on the occasion is not very far to find. It was he alone who provoked this whole series of demonstrations of last Sunday. It was on his authority, I dare say, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary committed himself in this House to that fatal assurance that the National League was a thing of the past. To cover his own incompetency and failure to suppress the local branches of the National League, and the meetings which are held every week in every parish in Clare, and in order to cover his own incompetency, Colonel Turner represented, I dare say, to the right hon. Gentleman—for I do the right hon. Gentleman the justice of believing that he had some information as a foundation for his statement—that there were bogus meetings, and he trusted to the power of the local police terrorism to prevent people from giving him the lie in the open daylight. That was Colonel Turner's position. Luckily for us, however, he is a clumsy tactician. While Colonel Turner was getting the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to stand up in this House and say that those meetings reported to be held weekly in Clare were bogus meetings, Colonel Turner was himself giving the lie to himself and the right hon. Gentleman by going about Clare, and threatening to quarter extra
    1086
    police in every parish from which the newspaper in Dublin published a report of meetings which the right hon. Gentleman asserted never took place. Between Colonel Turner's action in Clare and the right hon. Gentleman's statements in this House on his authority there is a discrepancy which can only be accounted for on the theory that there is a lie somewhere—a shabby and scandalous lie. Because these Sunday meetings brought that question to a test, because Colonel Turner found himself convicted of having uttered a falsehood, an untruth, and a fraud to this House and to the English people, and because he found himself outwitted and defeated in endeavouring even to prevent this very meeting in Ennis—that is why Colonel Turner lost his head. The Nationalist Party have hitherto spared Colonel Turner. He was a Home Ruler of the Home Rulers, if not something more. He was a wretched creature, and the best excuse I ever heard for him was that he had a large family unprovided for, and that his situation was in danger owing to the extent to which he had championed the League and to which he had made public his feelings and views on the Irish Nationalist cause. I presume he was now re-established himself in the confidence of Dublin Castle, for he is now acting in its service with all the zeal of a renegade. He has now taken up his quarters in Clare. This most impartial instrument of the Government, who is supposed to make no distinction, to know no difference between man and man, has taken up his quarters in Clare in the mansion of one of the most detested exponents of cruel and rack-renting landlordism—Mr. Stackpole, of Eden Bay. I will not say anything more about him. [Cries of "Goon."] It is possible that I might go on, and very materially add to the evidences of this gentleman's unfitness for the position assigned to him if there were occasion for doing so, but there is not. If there was ever any suspicion in Dublin Castle—as I believe there was—that Colonel Turner was secretly in favour of the National League, and if that suspicion was strengthened by his ridiculous reports as to the suppression of the organization, his conduct on Sunday has relieved him of the imputation, and is surely sufficient to prove him a worthy servant of the Executive Government in Ireland. I will say no

    1087
    more about Colonel Turner; I will leave him to his own reflections as a person who was once a soldier and an honourable man. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has challenged us, by his usual policy—I will not say prudence—to hold those meetings of last Sunday, and he has spoken as to the illegality of such gatherings. Now, I do not give any opinion about their legality or their illegality. I assert that there is nothing that we can do, nothing that an Irish Nationalist can say or do at this present moment in Ireland, that may not be made illegal if the right hon. Gentleman sends down an order from Dublin Castle. I, therefore, offer no opinion as to their legality, but I know there is something higher than legality, and that is truth; and I know that the object of these meetings was to establish truth as to a matter of fact, which it is of the greatest possible importance, both to the English and to the Irish people, should be cleared up. And I am here to say that, whatever the legality of Sunday's meetings may be, they have cleared up that matter once and for all; and if the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite were not satisfied with the evidence, and should still consider that the evidence on that point is still incomplete, I can tell him and them that we will go on with these meetings, and we will pile proof until there will be no room for doubt as to the existence and activity and energy of the League, even to the most Archaic Tory mind. The right hon. Gentleman has challenged us. He has pledged his authority in the face of this House to an assertion—which every man, woman, and child in the suppressed districts knows to be deliberately at variance from truth—namely, that the Land League is suppressed in Clare. He would have made political capital for himself by that statement if uncontradicted and unrefuted. It is quite possible that it might have shut up the English people in a fool's paradise about Ireland for many a day, and may have involved many a year of struggle and misery in Ireland, aye of murder and crime, to undo the effect of that untruth. But the Irish people gave their answer to it last Sunday, in the only way open to them by which they could make the truth reach the hearts and ears of the people of England and Scotland—the only way except that which the hon.
    1088
    and learned Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) seems to prefer, by retiring into secret societies and answering by murder, midnight lodges, and outrages. They delivered their answer last Sunday in open daylight, in the face of most villainous and cowardly police intimidation; and in doing that they exposed themselves to the brutality of men like Colonel Turner. They exposed themselves to 20,000 or 30,000 prosecutions that will follow if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has the courage of his convictions. I say, Sir, it is a most cruel and deplorable thing that the Irish people should be obliged to subject themselves to those risks week after week in order to establish a truth which is as notorious in Ireland as the noon-day sun. It is lamentable, I say, that the English people—and the character of England—should so easily let themselves be made the victim of every ridiculous boast the right hon. Gentleman makes in this House in response to the provocative representations of the London Press. I hope Englishmen will not much longer stand by and allow the Irish people to be subjected to such barbarities of the kind as were enacted on Sunday simply because they are endeavouring to establish the truth. So long as there is a shred of life or liberty left, it will not be the fault of the Irish people if every man in England and Scotland is not made to feel that the right hon. Gentleman's task as coercionist of Ireland is not done, but only beginning; and that when he and his policy exists only in the memory of man, and those wretched barbarities will have vanished into the things of the past, the National League in Ennis and in Ireland will thrive and live, and will yet conquer in Ireland.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he was not quite sure that, as the case now stood, further discussion was likely to lead any further towards a conclusion. He was not at all surprised at the vehemence with which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. W. O'Brien) had spoken. He (Mr. John Morley) was sure in all quarters of the House it must be felt during the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and the counter statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the

    1089
    Chief Secretary, that the affair at Ennis on Sunday, whatever might be urged to the contrary, as regarded the rights of parties, was a matter of great importance. They could not wonder that the occurrence in Ireland was felt to be one of importance, and he should be very much surprised if the people in England and Scotland did not also feel the importance of it. He wanted the House to consider the position in which it stood in reference to this matter. The hon. Member for the City of Cork read statements from three newspaper correspondents giving their impression of the events which passed before them on Sunday last, and the Chief Secretary then rose and gave what he (Mr. John Morley) thought the House believed to be a most meagre and perfunctory reply. He wanted to ask him whether he could or could not produce some report from Colonel Turner as to what actually took place. It was quite obvious there was a great deal of contested matter, and that there were statements on one side which had not apparently been brought to Colonel Turner's knowledge, and with which the Chief Secretary did not deal. He was quite aware of the official reserve which guarded communications to the Government, and he was not at all anxious that it should be indiscreetly broken through. He was, however, going to make two requests to the right hon. Gentleman. First, he asked that he should produce to the House some report from his officers and agents which would enable the House to test and measure the version of the occurrence given by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. The second suggestion he would urge upon him was rather wider than that. The House had heard a great deal of Mitchelstown, and although the Chief Secretary at the beginning of the Session charged them with having forgotten Mitchelstown, he (Mr. John Morley) told him then, and he would tell him again now, that in thinking so he was labouring under a great mistake. What they asked the Chief Secretary to do in regard to Mitchelstown, and which he had not done, he now asked him to do in the case of Ennis. During the time he (Mr. John Morley) was Irish Chief Secretary, there was only one grave trouble in Ireland, and that was in Belfast. Serious rioting took place in Belfast, and some hon. Gentlemen
    1090
    now sitting behind the Chief Secretary were in no small degree responsible for the events of that time, and they talked of him (Mr. John Morley) as the present Chief Secretary might now complain of being talked about by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. What did he do? He did not stay in London and go to banquets to explain to his political friends that the Irish Question was a huge joke. He went over to Ireland, and within three or four days of the occurrences of which complaint was made, with the ready consent of the Lord Lieutenant, he directed that the House be informed that a Commission of Inquiry should be held. If they were going to have a repetition of these occurrences of Sunday last—and he was afraid from the policy they were pursuing that they were not unlikely going to have them—if the Chief Secretary was going to indulge in these childish and provocative boasts in this House, if this policy was to be pursued, and if these incidents were to recur time after time, he submitted, in the interests of law and order, which they professed to be so anxious for, and to satisfy the public mind in this country, as well as to give the people in Ireland some excuse for believing that the action of the police was impartially and discreetly directed, it could only be done by means of a Commission of Inquiry. The Government had a precedent in the Belfast case, and he asked them to now do in regard to Ennis what they had managed to evade in the case of Mitchelstown.
    MR. DILLONsaid, he considered the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland as absolutely unsatisfactory. It was a most serious thing that Cavalry should be ordered to charge upon people under any circumstances whatever, but for Cavalry to be ordered to charge against unarmed people in a courtyard demanded the most ample discussion. It was miraculous that so little damage was done under the circumstances. It was a really important fact for the House to remember that the statement of facts presented by his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) was based on the reports of every single newspaper correspondent on the spot at the time. These newspaper correspondents all united in saying that no missile was thrown before the charge was ordered,

    1091
    and if their statement was true a more infamous act was never done by a magistrate than the sending by Colonel Turner of horse and foot soldiers into the yard. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, if they accepted it as true, was most preposterous on the face of it, and could not hold water for a single moment. The right hon. Gentleman had said that preparations were made by the crowd in the building to stand a siege by the military and police, and that it had been piled up with stones for that purpose, and that as soon as Colonel Turner appeared with the military they were received with stones from the top window of the building; but in support of that statement the right hon. Gentleman was not able to allege one single scratch as evidence. Could any hon. Member believe that the people were so eager to withstand the police as to take a small building, and deliberately barring the door, seek to defend it without any arms against a force of 250 armed men? He know his countrymen very well, and, while he was not in the habit of calling them cowards, yet nothing had occurred in recent years which would justify the idea that the Irish people were such idiots as to believe that unarmed they could defend a small place against 250 armed men. They know, from past experience at Mitchelstown and other places, when a policeman got so much as a cut on his little finger, the police were ready to say that they had been generally struck with stones, but when not one of the police had complained, they were forced to the conclusion that no man last Sunday on the side of the forces of the Crown was even struck. The statement that stones were thrown before the police went into the yard was also preposterous. Now, look at the behaviour on the other side. Two of the newspaper correspondents represented Unionist organs, and one a Nationalist journal, and they all corroborated each other. He would point out that the Government had received no report of an official of the Crown which could be compared with the statements made by the hon. Member for Cork, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was forced to take as his authority Colonel Turner, the very man whose conduct was impugned. He asked if it was to be laid down as an accepted principle of the House that
    1092
    when charges of the most serious kind were made on the faith of independent testimony against officials of the Crown in Ireland, the accusers were to be met with only the sort of denial of those officials the House had just listened to, to be sneered at, and to have absolutely no satisfaction given to the people? This was a most serious state of affair, and the effect of it would be to induce the people to resist the officers of the law. He asked hon. Members if they realized what would be the result of such proceedings? When the people at Mitchelstown resisted the officers of the law, and hunted them into their barracks, everything they complained of was remedied by the Government. During the Mitchelstown debate the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in his lofty and most sneering style, said it was a most intolerable thing that the officers of the law in Ireland should have to ask the promoters of meetings for accommodation for a Government reporter at Nationalist meetings. What was then so described had been systematically done ever since that date. Why, he (Mr. Dillon), at a meeting he attended last Sunday—and for which he believed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was after issuing a warrant for his arrest—he was approached by the officers of the police and asked would he protect the police reporter; and he said—"Most certainly I will;" and there were several present. The lesson the Government were teaching the Irish people was that if they successfully resisted the officers of the law they would be listened to; but if they did not they would be ridden down by Hussars, bayoneted by foot soldiers, and then arrested and handcuffed together. He warned the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that his sneers and after-dinner speeches would not carry on the Government of Ireland, although they might do for the Tory Party. The right hon. Gentleman was now entering upon a course which was widening and making more unbridgeable the chasm which separated the officers of the law and the people of Ireland, who had lost all confidence in the administration of the law, and had ceased to regard the police as their friends. If this brutal system were carried on the Government would in-

    1093
    evitably increase the feeling. He maintained that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was bound, if he had any adequate idea of his responsibility in the Office he now held, to meet the Irish Party on two or three points. He was bound to explain whether the police, when they went into the yard, were resisted by the people, whether any attempt was made by the people to resist arrest or to refuse to give their names; and if the police were not resisted he was bound to say why horse soldiers were sent into a confined space like that with the most terrible risk. He had not answered those questions, and had made a futile effort to explain away the statement of the newspaper correspondents that Colonel Turner's words to the soldiers were—"Draw your swords and clear them out of the yard." He wished to refer to the responsibility which was taken by a magistrate. Suppose the police drew their sabres without any excuse, and the people threw a stone which struck the soldiers, could such an operation be carried out without much bloodshed or a tremendous and serious loss of life? The importance of this question they must keep in their minds—not what did occur, but what might have occurred. It proved how peaceable the people must have been that such a military operation was carried through without serious loss of life. It was partly with a view to prevent, if possible, the repetition of such proceedings that they brought this matter before the House. In his opinion these proceedings on the part of Colonel Turner ought to result in his being removed from the County of Clare. The hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) said it was of great importance that Colonel Turner, forgetful of every consideration of decency and what was becoming to his office, had taken his course and had taken up his quarters and was living at the expense of the chief land agent in Clare. He who was there to do justice between all classes was seen to be riding about the county of Clare in Dick Stackpoole's carriage and obeying his orders instead of those of the Government. He had in the last month turned the police into soldiers—into liveried servants of Stackpoole. That was an outrage which was liable to provoke violence and resistance to the law. In the whole district in which he was placed,
    1094
    what peasant of Clare could believe that he had to deal with an impartial administration of the law under such circumstances? He (Mr. Dillon) would make an earnest appeal to the hon. Members of the House whether they considered it was fair or just to the people of Ireland that this officer should be allowed to carry on such operations, and to lead to such tremendous risks of loss of life as Colonel Turner did at Ennis on last Sunday, and to remain at the same time the guest of one of the chief land agents in Clara? Colonel Turner was a most obnoxious and unpopular man.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): Sir, I should not have taken up the time of the House even for a few minutes if the Rule of the House allowed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to reply to the remarks that have been made by hon. Members. Now, with reference to the speech and the remarks addressed to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), I would ask does he seriously mean to contend for a moment that the occurrences at Belfast to which he referred have the slightest resemblance to, or can afford in any way a precedent regarding what has taken place at Ennis? We know that for days riot had been going on at Belfast which were attended with loss of life.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I said that for three days the riots had been going on after the Commission had been issued.
    MR. MADDEN: I am quite aware that after the Commission there was rioting; but the rioting had been going on for days and days before; but does the right hon. Gentleman mean to contend that what had taken place for three days before the Commission was directed to Belfast had the slightest resemblance to the occurrences in the yard at Ennis? With reference to the suggestion which has been made that the report which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has received upon the subject of the occurrences of last Sunday should be read, it would involve the consequence of its being laid on the Table of the House. It is the fact that during the tenure of Office of the right hon.

    1095
    Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) there were collisions between the police and the people which led to injury and sometimes to loss of life; and the Government will see what precedent exists in relation to those occurrences for taking the course which is suggested. Now, Sir, I certainly do think that anybody who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien), and who drew a mental picture of the occurrences in the yard at Ennis, will find it was one compared with which the reality would fall very far short. The hon. Member speaks of barbarity, of savagery, and of the military hacking and slashing with sabres. Now, if that be the impression on the mind of the hon. Member, I certainly would be disposed to put a question which he put in reference to the stone throwing, and say, "Where is your list of killed and wounded?"
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: They took very good care to conceal the wounds from the police.
    MR. MADDEN: Then, if they took care to conceal the wounds from the police, I ask the House to judge of the correctness of the picture which has been drawn. I do not think the House will be much impressed by a statement of that kind. Has anyone been seriously injured? Is there anybody in hospital or infirmary as the result of the operation which was found to be necessary for clearing this yard? I think that affords a very fair test that the operation was done with reasonable care and caution, and the result has been that no proof has been given that anybody has been seriously injured. The hon. Member who moved the adjournment of the House (Mr. Parnell) has said he would not inquire into the legality or the illegality of the meeting. I will follow his example, but I ask the House for a moment to realize the position. There was a house, and a yard to that house. That yard, according to the statement read by the hon. Member, was closely packed with people. This house contained a still unexhausted store of ammunition consisting of large stones. The people in the house and in the houses opposite went on throwing stones at the military and the police as they passed by. So far as regards the illegal meeting that might possibly have been dealt
    1096
    with in the manner suggested by hon. Members opposite by taking the names of those present. But as regards the serious danger of stone throwing, that had to be put a stop to, and it could not be done without clearing the yard. Then what was to be done? Orders were given to clear the building, and if that was not done, the military and police would have been actually at the mercy of the persons who had the control of these largo stones. You could not do it without clearing the yard. Now, Sir, as to the statement that there was a charge of cavalry—that is not the fact. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has stated what occurred. The use of sabres—the backs of sabres—was resorted to under circumstances of great provocation; but the officers at once put a stop to it, and it was discontinued. With reference to these occurrences, I can hardly add to the statements which were laid before the House by the Chief Secretary; but I submit that the authorities dealt prudently and effectively with a very serious state of things.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Although I am not satisfied with the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, I shall endeavour to deal with it so as to make the best of it, and to extract from it as much good as I can—from motives which I am sure in part actuated my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley)—that we are especially desirous on the present occasion to bring this discussion to a close in order to go forward with the very important question appointed for the regular business of the evening. I must notice two things, at any rate, in the speech we have just heard, because I think, if our fears are reasonable, even if further inquiry be made by the Government, that inquiry will be approached, if judged by the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, with an inadequate sense of the importance and gravity of the matters we are discussing. It is quite plain, after hearing that statement, that the subject we are debating is exceedingly important, and that for the due examination of it the circumstances are perfectly incomplete. The due examination of precedents is of great importance; but the allegations are so grave and the contradictions so serious

    1097
    that it is the absolute duty of the Government and of the House to prosecute the matter until we can really have full and authentic information of the occurrences on this unfortunate occasion. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this was an occasion of much less magnitude and moment than the occurrences at Belfast, into which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle granted a public inquiry. In one sense it is so, because I believe there had been only the loss of a single life at Belfast at the time when the public inquiry was granted. [Murmurs of dissent from the, Ministerial side.] I am not quite certain, but I believe there was only one single life lost. Certainly the proceedings were taken at the beginning, and not after a long series of proceedings. But there is another point of view to be considered. This is a question much graver even than the riots at Belfast. The riots at Belfast were disturbances between two opposing parties, with respect to whom the object was to ascertain who was to blame, but there was no imputation on the public authority of any kind. But here, setting aside the stone-throwing, and setting aside the simple illegality of the meeting, which is also a distinct question, it is the public authorities, and the public authorities alone, that stand arraigned. That appears to me to give an exceedingly grave character to the present proceedings. Again, the hon. and learned Member said, with regard to the charging of the Cavalry, that it was necessary to obtain access to the house—and I perfectly agree as to the propriety of obtaining it, even by force if necessary, but not as to the necessity of sending troops into the yard. Was it a rational proceeding to send a body of Cavalry into a yard with regard to which we have it from Colonel Turner himself that it was densely packed? Then the hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Cavalry did not charge; but he is aware that on this matter accounts differ, and we ought to have the matter cleared up. In his speech the hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was no charge of Cavalry, but that one or two of the men unfortunately made use of their weapons under extreme provocation. Now, Sir, what was this extreme provocation? Was it stone-throwing? If there had been
    1098
    violent stone throwing on the level, I might understand some hasty proceedings on the part of the Cavalry; but because there had been stone-throwing outside the yard, therefore the Solicitor General says that there was extreme provocation, which went far to justify and excuse the men, and to account for the use of their weapons by the Cavalry soldiers within the yard against a body of men who had taken no part in the stone-throwing. I must express a hope that the Government will not go into the consideration of a further inquiry with a disposition to minimize the importance of these transactions. It is a question in which the conduct of the public authorities is concerned in the gravest manner. If, as we hope may be the case, the reports which the authorities have given are proved to be true, we shall be considerably consoled. But, if the statements which the hon. Member for Cork has made on the concurrent and consistent testimony of three reporters of important public journals, who did not write from the same political point of view, be substantiated, then it certainly appears to me, without having consulted any legal authority upon the question, that in that case the conduct of the Public Authorities at Ennis will be open to the charge not simply of a want of humanity, prudence, or policy, but of gross illegality similar to that which disgraced the conduct of the Constabulary at Mitchelstown. I hope that the allegations of the newspaper correspondents will be disproved; but they have been made with a degree of responsibility, and even authority, from the concurrence of so many witnesses, which gives to them an exceeding gravity when the importance of the allegations themselves is considered. The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to suppose that there is a disposition on the part of my right hon. Friend near me to press for the production of a confidential Report which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said he was not prepared to lay upon the Table. I will only say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that he had no such desire whatever. What we want is to get to the bottom of the facts. The hon. and learned Member has promised that the Government will seriously consider what further steps, if

    1099
    any, they will take for the purpose of elucidating the whole matter. That being so—
    MR. MADDEN: As a matter of fact the statement which I made was not what the right hon. Gentleman supposes. In reference to the suggestion as regards the Report, I said we would examine the precedents which had occurred, and see what can be done as to making public the Report. My promise was not of such a general character as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Perhaps, Sir, it was my extreme desire to put a favourable interpretation on his words, and to avoid a Division, that made me construe too liberally the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but still there was, at any rate, a disposition to consider whether information should be produced which has not yet been laid before us, and of which we know nothing but fragments conveyed to us across the Table. I could not pledge myself to be contented with the production of documents of such a kind. What I would press on the Government is this—that we are bound in duty to get to the bottom of this case. I do not now say how we are to do so, but we are bound to ascertain and elucidate the case. It is far too grave a matter to be treated as trivial, and it ought on no account to be hushed up. I hope that the Government will give us its aid in this matter, and, as in the Belfast Riots, so in this case they will themselves become the primary agents in the investigation. It is not merely a question of harshness, severity, or imprudence, but a possible charge of illegality, and that is a matter with regard to which I think we have a right to ask that the Government shall give us their aid in instituting a most efficient inquiry. As to the production of documents, for the moment I wait for the opinion of the Government on that subject. Something they have promised us; let us wait for that, and let us take no hostile measure at the present moment; let us refrain even from the formal manifestation of dissatisfaction by dividing the House on the question of the Adjournment. But I think it right to give notice that should the information given to us by the Government be anything short of a full and satisfactory elucidation of the
    1100
    entire matter, the Government must not suppose that this matter has terminated or that it can terminate at the point where it now stands. It will be matter of solemn and sacred obligation with us to prosecute it further, and to learn the real merits of the case in justice alike to the welfare of the people of Ireland and to the honour of the Government, which is deeply involved in this matter.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, this was a matter of extreme seriousness to the Irish Party, and they were extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving the statement he had made. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) had said there was no charge alleged; but he (Mr. Healy) thought a charge of Cavalry was enough. Then, as to the charge of illegality, he (Mr. Healy) was extremely cautious not to do anything illegal; but the Government could easily hire men for £2 or £3 a-week to say that he had been guilty of an illegality. Was it not a reasonable thing, when a Ministerial statement was made which admitted of only one effective mode of disproof—namely, the assembly of the organization that was declared to be a thing of the past, and to have been wiped out of existence—that that assembly should be called together. The League assembled in its peaceful multitudes, and it did so in order to prove whether the Chief Secretary's statement was true or false. A Minister had made a statement that was overwhelmingly absurd—he would not say false, for that would not be allowed—and the League had taken the only means in their power to prove that it was untrue. Of course, they were aware that it was in the power of the Chief Secretary to put their lives in peril, and to take their liberties away in so doing. They were told that it was hard to argue with the master of many legions, but it was harder still to argue with the master of many Resident Magistrates. He would put it to the House whether it was fair of the Chief Secretary to make the statement he did, and then, when they tried to disprove it, subject them to the risk of being murdered? The Chief Secretary could have prevented it all by holding his tongue. He (Mr. Balfour) said that the Nationalists had brought what occurred on themselves; but he (Mr. Healy) retorted that the Chief Secretary brought it on

    1101
    them. It was his folly and foolish braggart statement that had brought about what had occurred. The National League simply arranged for a plebiscite or poll of the people on Sunday to prove that the Ministerial statement was false. They took the only means in their power. He (Mr. Healy) had himself no great fault to find with the police, so far as they came under his notice on Sunday last. He was at Kanturk, and there the police were not commanded by cadets who were appointed solely on account of their blue blood. They were commanded by what the University cadets called a "ranker"—that was, a man who had risen from the ranks; a man of the people like themselves. County Inspector Carey, the man in question, acted with much judgment, and no great harm was done. Those who assembled there did so with no idea whatever of resisting the police, for they were not such fools. They assembled, so to speak, to take a poll merely on the statement of the Chief Secretary. The moment they were asked to disperse, they were moved more easily than a mob in Regent Street or Charing Cross would be. They knew the police were armed with powder and ball, and therefore there was no idea of resistance. With regard to the use of the bayonets and the Cavalry charge he regretted that Colonel Turner, with whom at one time he (Mr. Healy) was on friendly terms, when an aide-de-camp to Lord Aberdeen, should have been mixed up in such a matter in the initial stage of a massacre in fact. The Government refused inquiry. The Chief Secretary in his speech the previous evening, with that curious intellectual side in his character so characteristic of him, said that he felt great interest in Ireland. Well, he (Mr. Balfour) was an object of interest to Irishmen, although they could not say that they had any great affection for or doted on him.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is not now discussing a matter of urgent public importance. The merits of the Chief Secretary have nothing to do with the Adjournment of the House.
    MR. T. M. HEALY(continuing) said, the Chief Secretary, with that remarkable way of twisting statements that was so peculiar to him, was in direct conflict with the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland as to the legality
    1102
    of the meetings. The right hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had put the legality or illegality of these meetings at issue. The Solicitor General for Ireland admitted that his (Mr. Healy's) hon. Friend had done nothing of the kind. But the Chief Secretary, knowing that their legality or illegality must be decided to-morrow by one of his own magistrates, gave them what was known in London slang as "a friendly lead." All over Ireland those who read the Chief Secretary's words, and where they would pass current for good law, it would be taken that the meetings were illegal. The 84 Resident Magistrates would take it as good sound Saxonian learning, and they would all decide that the meetings were illegal. The right hon. Gentleman would have been better advised if he had abstained from giving the magistrates that advice as his official opinion. He wished to allude now to a matter which had in it the germs of future mischief, and that was to the objectionable singing of "Rule Britannia" by the military. He did not object to the song being sung by the British Army, even until they were hoarse, and he believed that after dinner the British Army was very fond of singing it. That was not objectionable even to the majority of Irish ears, and he had no objection to a ballad the words of which he was wholly unacquainted with. It was the same with the majority of his countrymen, so that it was impossible the song could have any offensiveness to them. It all depended upon the sense and the circumstances under which the song was sung at Ennis, apparently with the sanction of Colonel Turner. There was a song formerly sung is Ireland, called "Croppies lie down," and it was intended to be objectionable to a particular part of the community; and if the soldiers sang "Rule Britannia" for the same purpose of offending the people, and showed that such was their intention by their gestures and demeanour, that was quite a different matter. They sang the song at Ennis on Sunday when marching through the streets while the people were at worship, and a second time after the arrest of the 75 prisoners, and, as he said, with the deliberate purpose of offending the people. He saw the Secretary of State for War in his place, and he wished to make an appeal

    1103
    to him. The Army was very popular in Ireland, and, undoubtedly the people liked the soldiers, who gave them very little trouble. There were, however, English and Irish regiments, and he was sorry to see, in this morning's newspapers, that there had been a row between English and Irish regiments. Once you began this sort of thing you did not know where it would end, and it was a characteristic of Irishmen that whenever they thought an insult was offered to their country, were it even so far as the North Pole, it was felt and resented by the Irish race always. Officers then should not begin to lead off the chorus. He would commend to the right hon. Gentleman and the House the wisdom of acting with a little common sense in the matter. It was in the interests of prudence and policy that he recommended the Government to use some little wisdom in dealing with Ireland. The people of Ireland at the present had their ears and their hearts open in sympathy with the English people, and whilst they reciprocated every kindness they resented every insult. In all these matters, whether it was Ennis or Mitchelstown, they should grant an inquiry and let the people see that justice was absolutely impartial, and that whether the malefactor was Colonel Turner or John Smith, he would be liable to equal punishment. It was because they did not show the Irish people that there was that equal justice that they hated and detested the present régime.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In order, Sir, to prevent any misconception with regard to the statements made on behalf of the Government, I think it right to explain. The right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken appear to think that we have promised to lay the results of an inquiry on the Table of the House That, however, is not the case, and it is just as well to have the thing quite clear. What we have promised is to consider whether the statement referred to can with propriety be laid on the Table of the House, and to consider that question in the light of what has previously been done in the cases of collisions of a more serious character between the people and the police in Ireland.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I only wish to say, Sir, that a very important
    1104
    precedent occurred when I was Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that was the death of a young man who was killed at Dromore in consequence of a meeting held there. In that case the facts were put before the House and the country, first before the country in the newspapers, and afterwards before the House very plainly in a long debate. My impression is that an inquiry was refused with the consent of the right hon. Gentleman who then sat on this Bench, and I remember especially that amongst others Viscount Cross decidedly applauded the refusal of an inquiry, because there was no doubt about the facts on either side. If that is a precedent on which reliance is to be placed, I do not think it is a proper one. If any desire had been shown on these Benches for an inquiry on that occasion, I think it would have been granted.
    MR. DE COBAINsaid, in the case of the Belfast riots a Royal Commission was not granted until after a number of lives had been lost, nor were the disturbances in Belfast occasioned by malefactors, but were largely owing to the action of the police themselves and their attitude towards one section of the people.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not think the hon. Gentleman is keeping to a definite matter of urgent public importance.
    MR. DE COBAINsaid, he could bear personal testimony that in the case of the Belfast riots the action of the police was utterly and palpably—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is out of Order in discussing the Belfast riots.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I may say that my authority as to what I have said is to be found in the Report of the Royal Commission.
    MR. DE COBAIN: I am well aware he founds his remarks on what is called the Report of the Royal Commission, but that Commission was very unsatisfactory.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that questions of this kind placed him in greater difficulty than any other questions which came before the House. He had, however, experienced no difficulty in deciding in his own mind as to the necessity for an inquiry into the Belfast riots, because many lives were lost, hundreds of people injured, and

    1105
    thousands of pounds worth of property destroyed. Neither would he have had any difficulty as to the Mitchelstown affair, but in this case he asked what was to be inquired into. Was it the legality of the meeting? If so, then he submitted the case was one for a Court of Law, and not for the House of Commons. Was it the fact of the meeting itself? They had before them reports from three different newspapers, and the case was practically this—that one reporter was assaulted and injured, and there was no record of a single man who had gone to hospital or who appeared to be injured by police or soldiers.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that the reporters mentioned that people bore marks of the batons of the constables.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, if in this case men had been killed or seriously injured he would have voted with hon. Members below the Gangway in favour of a public inquiry. As to sending Cavalry into the yard, he was not sure that the use of Cavalry under circumstances like these was not better than the use of other force. He could quite understand that a body of horse soldiers dispersed a crowd much better than a body of policemen. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) asked what more terrific responsibilty could there be than that of ordering the soldiers to enter the yard. There was only one responsibility more terrific, and that was convening the people in such circumstances. Under these circumstances he should have to vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork if he pressed it to a Division.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Government, without binding themselves as to form, have said they will take care that we shall be placed in possession of full and authentic information of the whole merits of this case. I now understand the Government to limit that statement, and that they by no means intend to convey to us that they will assist us in the examination of the case. In the circumstances I feel bound to withdraw the recommendation I made that no Division should be taken.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 179; Noes 249: Majority 70.

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Glam.)

    Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

    Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Acland, A. H. D.

    Graham, R. C.

    Acland, C. T. D.

    Grey, Sir E.

    Allison, R. A.

    Gully, W. C.

    Anderson, C. H.

    Hanbury-Tracy, hon. F. S. A.

    Asher, A.

    Asquith, H. H.

    Harrington, E.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Harris, M.

    Austin, J.

    Hayden, L. P.

    Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Barbour, W. B.

    Healy, T. M.

    Barran, J.

    Howell, G.

    Barry, J.

    Illingworth, A.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Jacoby, J. A.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    James, hon. W. H.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Joicey, J.

    Bruce, hon. R. P.

    Kennedy, E. J.

    Brunner, J. T.

    Kenny, C. S.

    Buchanan, T. R.

    Labouchere, H.

    Buxton, S. C.

    Lalor, R.

    Byrne, G. M.

    Lawson, Sir W.

    Cameron, C.

    Lawson, H. L. W.

    Cameron, J. M.

    Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

    Campbell, H.

    Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

    Lewis, T. P.

    Lyell, L.

    Carew, J. L.

    Macdonald, W. A.

    Causton, R. K.

    MacInnes, M,

    Channing, F. A.

    Mac Neill, J. G. S.

    Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

    M'Arthur, W. A.

    M'Donald, P.

    Clancy, J. J.

    M'Donald, Dr. R.

    Clark, Dr. G. B.

    M'Ewan, W.

    Cobb, H. P.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Colman, J. J.

    Mahony, P.

    Conway, M.

    Maitland, W. F.

    Conybeare, C. A. V.

    Mappin, Sir F. T.

    Cossham, H.

    Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

    Cox, J. R.

    Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

    Menzies, R. S.

    Craig, J.

    Montagu, S.

    Craven, J.

    Morgan, right hon. G. O.

    Crawford, D.

    Cremer, W. R.

    Morgan, O. V.

    Crilly, D.

    Morley, rt. hon. J.

    Crossley, E.

    Morley, A.

    Davies, W.

    Mundella, right hon. A. J.

    Deasy, J.

    Dillon, J.

    Murphy, W. M.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Neville, R.

    Dodds, J.

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Duff, R. W.

    Nolan, J.

    Ellis, J.

    O'Brien, J. F. X.

    Ellis, J. E.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Ellis, T. E.

    O'Brien, W.

    Esslemont, P.

    O'Connor, A.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    O'Connor, J.

    Fenwick, C.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Finucane, J.

    O'Kelly, J.

    Firth, J. F. B.

    Paulton, J. M.

    Flower, C.

    Pease, Sir J. W.

    Flynn, J. C.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Forster, Sir C.

    Picton, J. A.

    Fry, T.

    Playfair, right hon. Sir L.

    Fuller, G. P.

    Gardner, H.

    Plowden, Sir W. C.

    Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

    Power, P. J.

    Gill, T. P.

    Price, T. P.

    1107

    Priestley, B.

    Sutherland, A.

    Pyne, J. D.

    Swinburne, Sir J.

    Randell, D.

    Thomas, A.

    Redmond, W. H. K.

    Thomas, D. A.

    Reed, Sir E. J.

    Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

    Roberts, J.

    Roberts, J. B.

    Tuite, J.

    Roe, T.

    Waddy, S. D.

    Rowlands, J.

    Wallace, R.

    Rowlands, W. B.

    Watt, H.

    Rowntree, J.

    Wayman, T.

    Samuelson, G. B.

    Whitbread, S.

    Sheehan, J. D.

    Will, J. S.

    Sheehy, D.

    Williams, A. J.

    Simon, Sir J.

    Williamson, S.

    Slagg, J.

    Wilson, C. H.

    Smith, S.

    Wilson, H. J.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    Wilson, I.

    Stack, J.

    Winterbotham, A. B.

    Stanhope, hon. P. J.

    Woodall, W.

    Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

    Woodhead, J.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    Wright, C.

    Stevenson, J. C.

    Stewart, H.

    TELLERS.

    Stuart, J.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Sullivan, D.

    Reid, R. T.

    Summers, W.

    NOES.

    Addison, J. E. W.

    Brookfield, A. M.

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Brown, A. H.

    Ainslie, W. G.

    Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.

    Aird, J.

    Allsopp, hon. G.

    Burghley, Lord

    Ambrose, W.

    Caine, W. S.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Caldwell, J.

    Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

    Campbell, Sir A.

    Campbell, J. A.

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Campbell, R. F. F.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Carmarthen, Marq. of

    Baden-Powell, Sir G. S.

    Cavendish, Lord E.

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

    Chamberlain, R.

    Banes, Major G. E.

    Chaplin, right hon. H.

    Barnes, A.

    Charrington, S.

    Barry, A. H. Smith-

    Churchill, rt. hn. Lord R. H. S.

    Bartley, G. C. T.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Clarke, Sir E. G.

    Bates, Sir E.

    Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.

    Baumann, A. A.

    Bazley-White, J.

    Coddington, W.

    Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

    Coghill, D. H.

    Collings, J.

    Beadel, W. J.

    Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

    Beaumont, H. F.

    Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

    Beckett, W.

    Bentinck, W. G. C.

    Cooke, C. W. R.

    Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

    Corbett, A. C.

    Corbett, J.

    Bethell, Commander G. R.

    Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

    Cross, H. S.

    Bickford-Smith, W.

    Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

    Bigwood, J.

    Cubitt, right hon. G.

    Birkbeck, Sir E.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

    Curzon, hon. G. N.

    Dalrymple, Sir C.

    Bolitho, T. B.

    Davenport, H. T.

    Bond, G. H.

    De Cobain, E. S. W.

    Bonsor, H. C. O.

    De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P

    Boord, T. W.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    Borthwick, Sir A.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

    Dixon, G.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D

    1108

    Dorington, Sir J. E.

    Hill, A. S.

    Duncombe, A.

    Hoare, E. B.

    Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

    Hoare, S.

    Hobhouse, H.

    Ebrington, Viscount

    Holloway, G.

    Edwards-Moss, T. C.

    Hornby, W. H.

    Egerton, hon. A. de T.

    Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

    Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

    Howard, J.

    Elliot, hon. H. F. H.

    Hozier, J. H. C.

    Elton, C. I.

    Hubbard, hon. E.

    Ewart, Sir W.

    Hughes, Colonel E.

    Ewing, Sir A. O.

    Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

    Farquharson, H. R.

    Feilden, Lieut.-Gen. R. J.

    Hunt, F. S.

    Hunter, Sir W. G.

    Fellowes, A. E.

    Isaacs, L. H.

    Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

    Isaacson, F. W.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Field, Admiral E.

    James, rt. hon. Sir H.

    Finlay, R. B.

    Jennings, L. J.

    Fisher, W. H.

    Kelly, J. R.

    Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Fitzwilliam, hon. W. H. W.

    Kenrick, W.

    Ker, R. W. B.

    Fitz-Wygram, General Sir F. W.

    Kerans, F. H.

    Kimber, H.

    Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

    King, H. S.

    Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

    Fowler, Sir R. N.

    Fulton, J. F.

    Knowles, L.

    Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

    Lafone, A.

    Laurie, Colonel R. P.

    Gedge, S.

    Lawrance, J. C.

    Gent-Davis, R.

    Lawrence, W. F.

    Gilliat, J. S.

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

    Lees, E.

    Leighton, S.

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

    Lethbridge, Sir R.

    Goschen, right hon. G. J.

    Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

    Granby, Marquess of

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Gray, C. W.

    Long, W. H.

    Green, Sir E.

    Lowther, hon. W.

    Grimston, Viscount

    Lowther, J. W.

    Gunter, Colonel R.

    Macartney, W. G. E.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

    Hall, A. W.

    Hall, C.

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    Halsey, T. F.

    Maclean, F. W.

    Hambro, Col. C. J. T.

    Maclure, J. W.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    M'Calmont, Captain J.

    Madden, D. H.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J.

    Mallock, R.

    Hamilton, Col. C. E.

    Maple, J. B.

    Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

    Marriott, right hon. W. T.

    Hanbury, R. W.

    Matthews, right hon. H.

    Hankey, F. A.

    Hardcastle, E.

    Mattinson, M. W.

    Hardcastle, F.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Mayne, Admiral R. C.

    Milvain, T.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir H. M.

    More, R. J.

    Moss, R.

    Heath, A. R.

    Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

    Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

    Mowbray, R. G. C.

    Heaton, J. H.

    Mulholland, H. L.

    Honeage, right hon. E.

    Newark, Viscount

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Noble, W.

    Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

    Norris, E. S.

    Northcote, hon. Sir H. S.

    Hill, Colonel E. S.

    1109

    Norton, R.

    Stanley, E. J.

    Parker, hon. F.

    Stewart, M. J.

    Pelly, Sir L.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Penton, Captain F. T.

    Temple, Sir R.

    Plunket, right hon. D. R.

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Townsend, F.

    Pomfret, W. P.

    Vincent, C. E. H.

    Price, Captain G. E.

    Waring, Colonel T.

    Quilter, W. C.

    Watson, J.

    Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    Rankin, J.

    West, Colonel W. C.

    Ridley, Sir M. W.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Ritchie, right hon. C. T.

    Whitley, E.

    Whitmore, C. A.

    Robertson, J. P. B.

    Williams, J. Powell-

    Rollit, Sir A. K.

    Wilson, Sir S.

    Round, J.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Royden, T. B.

    Wood, N.

    Russell, Sir G.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Russell, T. W.

    Wright, H. S.

    Salt, T.

    Wroughton, P

    Seller, A. C.

    Yerburgh, R. A.

    Seton-Karr, H.

    Young, C. E. B.

    Sinclair, W. P.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

    Smith, A.

    TELLERS.

    Spencer, J. E.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 128.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Long.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 128.]

    SECOND READING. [FIRST NIGHT.]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) in introducing this measure had appealed for the sympathy and assistance of the House. He stated that the subject was difficult and complex, and said that he could not hope to succeed in the conduct of the Bill, unless the House gave him that sympathy and assistance. The right hon. Gentleman was undoubtedly entirely correct in speaking of the difficulty and complexity of this question. He (Mr. Stansfeld) did not mean, and the right hon. Gentleman did not mean, that the solution of the problem was not simple; but that, though the way might be clear, there were great difficulties in the way—difficulties which it was not easy to ex-
    1110
    pound and render intelligible to assemblies like the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had made a special appeal to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the Government needed the assistance which he had reason to believe that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) would not be unwilling to give in the furtherance of Public Business as far as this measure was concerned; and the right hon. Gentleman had added that he hoped that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian would find that his measure was based upon a broad and popular basis, such as would justify him in rendering the help in passing it which he had held out that he was ready to give. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to describe the new authorities which he proposed to create. Those authorities were to be purely elective, the ex officio element and the principle of election by two degrees having been entirely set aside. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he desired that the members of the County Councils should be elected upon the broad basis of popular suffrage, that of household and occupation suffrage of the Municipal Corporations of England defended by the principle of the Ballot. That statement of the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman as to the principles upon which he had founded this measure left nothing to be desired from a Liberal and Radical point of view, using those terms not in a Party, but in a political sense. The right hon. Gentleman had thus clearly expressed his conviction that popular bodies such as those he proposed to create in the shape of County Councils must be placed upon a popular basis, and he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that by the creation of such bodies, the commanding influence of the country gentlemen in these County Councils of the future would not in the least be endangered if they chose to enter them. That powerful statement of the right hon. Gentleman had been received with cheers from the Opposition side of the House that were spontaneous and were unpremeditated, and hon. Members around him were disposed to assume a good deal in favour of the measure from an administrative

    1111
    point of view. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, however, were no longer quite at liberty to continue to utter expressions of their favourable prejudices with regard to the Bill, inasmuch as one higher in authority than the right hon. Gentleman—Lord Salisbury—had told them at Carnarvon, a day or two ago, that this was not a Radical measure at all, that they were entirely mistaken in that supposition, and explained to them their own mental position and their own purposes with regard to it. Lord Salisbury said the Radical Party knew that they were un-popular with the great majority of the constituencies, and that therefore, if they wished to oppose a measure, they had only to say that they liked it in order to tinge it with and obtain for it a share of their own unpopularity. Lord Salisbury said that there was a good deal of ingenuity in this Radical policy with regard to this measure; but, in his opinion, all the ingenuity lay with Lord Salisbury. The Radical Party were not an ingenious, they were an ingenuous Party. He (Mr. Stansfeld) hoped that they had not been deceived by the right hon. Gentleman; but it was not easy to express approval after such a declaration. If Lord Salisbury had expressed the real view of the Government in this matter, then the Government must not be surprised if the Radical Party were not quite so ready to look at all the provisions of this measure in the future in the favourable light they had been disposed to in the past. As evidence of the good faith of the Radical Party, and in order to relieve the Government from the fear that, by giving their approval too largely to the Bill, they might injure it, he might say that a closer investigation of the Bill, from an administrative point of view, as regarded its provisions, had led the Radical Party to discover many grave defects in the measure, which it would be their duty to expound and to endeavour to amend. But, at the same time, he felt bound to say, speaking for himself and for his hon. Friends on that Bench sitting near him, that the points to which he had alluded as those to which they took more or less exception were not of a kind that would induce or justify them in proposing any Amendments upon the second reading of the Bill, and that they would confine their
    1112
    efforts to amending the provissions of the measure at its Committee stage. He would assume that they were all agreed upon the great object of establishing local government, and upon its main principle; because the subject was one that had been working up in the public mind to his personal knowledge for the last 20 years, and public opinion with regard to it had been consolidated and crystallized into a certain number of distinct ideas and propositions by which the Government could be guided, and he gladly recognized that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in framing this measure, had endeavoured to embody the conclusions at which the public mind had arrived. As regarded that main principle, he would lay down three points. In the first place, what was required as the foundation of local government was simplicity, and by that he meant simplicity of areas, and thus to do away with the multiplicity and consequent confusion of areas and of Local Authorities. In the next place, it was desired to enlarge and elevate the functions of the Councils as regarded local government in those areas; and, lastly, to inform the whole system with life from the parish, which was the unit, to the county. Nothing less than those three objects would satisfy the bonâ fide Local Government Reformers, irrespective of Party. As he had already admitted, the difficulties in the way of simplicity of areas were great. To simplify the areas it was necessary to begin at the bottom, with the parish as the unit, and to build up from it. Any larger area must be constructed out of those units, which must not be divided, and they must proceed by that process until they reached the boundary of the county. That, however, the Government had not done. He need scarcely say that he was laying down a general principle which ought to be their guide, rather than asserting that there could be no exception to it. In order not only to simplify the area, but to enlarge and elevate the Local Authority as far as possible, they must seek to concentrate all Local Government functions for one area in one Governing Body, for the sake of simplicity and an elevation of the functions of the body. By that means the best men would be induced to enter those bodies. In order to put

    1113
    life in those bodies and into the system they must, in the first place, build upon the basis of popular franchise. That the right hon. Gentleman opposite had done, and he thanked him for so doing. And, in the second place, they should begin with the smallest area, which was generally the parish, and induce and enable the people to take part in its management and life. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman could dissent from that proposition. He had carefully studied the provisions of the Bill as to simplification of areas, and he found them upon the whole to be large, comprehensive, satisfactory, and complete. In order to explain the process of the simplification of areas, he would deal with that part of the Bill which treated of them clause by clause. By the 51st clause the present Urban Sanitary Districts, the Urban Districts of the future, were to be held to be within the boundary of that county in which the greater part of them was, and by Clause 41 the Rural Districts were to be dealt with in the same manner by County Councils and the Local Government Boards. By Clause 56 the County Council was bound to take into consideration the report of the Boundary Commissioners. By Clause 59 any requisite changes in any areas, save the borough areas—but including the parish—could be made by the County Council or the Local Government Board; and by Clause 60 the Local Government Board might sever Unions for indoor and for outdoor purposes. He desired to point out that there was absolute completeness in the clauses relating to all these boundaries, that the whole ground was covered, and that full power was taken by the Government to carry out any amount of simplification of areas which might be thought advisable; and yet, in spite of having created a perfect machinery for the purpose, their Bill stopped short and failed to deal with the parish or with the Poor Law Union. The parish was the historical unit, but it was a very variable quantity. Many parishes were absurdly too small; some were too large. But the right hon. Gentleman had taken power to deal with this area, and all that was wanting was to add some simple provisions for the popular exercise of whatever functions might be suitable to the for-
    1114
    mer, in order to perfect in this respect his scheme. But the greatest blot in the Bill, from the point of view of a Local Government Reformer, was the entire exclusion of the Poor Law system. And the consequence of that exclusion was that the measure was more complex than it otherwise might have been, instead of embodying the simplicity at which the right hon. Gentleman was aiming It was of no use for the Government in constructing new machinery for Local Government to half do the work. They might defer questions as to the imposition of certain responsibilities, and the conferring of certain powers, but they ought to start with as perfect a machinery as they could. In Rural Districts the rural members of the Board of Guardians were the sanitary authority, and the sanitary duties the Guardians discharged with case after the Poor Law business was disposed of. In these districts there was to be a new Body, based upon popular election. Some of them would be so small that it would be difficult, unless they were enlarged, to find a sufficient number of candidates for the new Council, and yet it was to be created side by side with the Board of Guardians who formed the present substitute for the Council. The Guardians were not elected by household or occupation franchise, or by ballot, but by a system of plural votes and voting papers, and there were ex officio Guardians. Thus there would be side by side two authorities, the old ones formed upon lines discarded on the creation of the new. The simplification of areas was not half effected if the parish and the Poor Law system were left untouched. The right hon. Gentleman had given no reason for leaving out the Poor Law system, save that the attempt to deal with it might have imperilled his Bill. But that did not seem to be a sufficient reason. The first thing to do was to construct machinery, and having done that, you might to some extent defer the devolving of responsibilities and powers. There was no question of sentiment here as there was in the case of county boundaries; they were merely questions of convenience and finance, and these questions might very well be dealt with by the Department. He was convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman determined to include the

    1115
    Poor Law system, there would be no insurmountable difficulty in doing it, and there were different ways in which it might be done. But let them look again at the incongruity of the situation in which the right hon. Gentleman placed matters. He left the Poor Law system untouched and Union assessment untouched; and then he created a County Council and gave it the power of levying rates for the county at large. He did nothing to ensure that the County and the Union assessment should be identical; and if a reform of the kind he advocated was not carried out there would be no unity of rating. Further, he said that the Justices in Quarter Sessions should still have the power of fixing the basis or standard of valuation. No one could deny that these were serious defects which must be made good sooner or later; and his argument was that there was no sufficient reason why it should not be done now. There were some minor points in the Bill which he thought in certain respects were objectionable, and on which the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman were not consistent with the principles he himself had laid down in reference to popular control. The right hon. Gentleman laid down the principle of popular election, of establishing a direct relation between the County Councils and those who elected them, and of trusting the County Councils. He believed that the country gentlemen instead of being swamped would hold their own, and more than their own, in the County Councils. The County Council would have to be held in the county town, and for a county councillor to do his duty, he must be able to attend the session there; and it was clear that there would be a very limited number of persons competing with the class out of which the magistrates had been hitherto chosen for the performance of those functions in the county town. But the right hon. Gentleman would not even trust them to elect their own chairman. They could not elect a man as chairman unless he was qualified to be a justice of the peace for the county. Why should they not be allowed to choose their own chairman, without having such a restriction as that laid upon them? It would be far better to say that the Lord Lieutenant should
    1116
    not select as magistrates men who were not members of the County Council. He was not recommending that; but it might, at any rate, be an inducement for men to join the Council who might not otherwise be disposed to do so. He had, however, a suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman did not care much about that restriction, and when they came to discuss it, perhaps the House would not care much about it either. Then the right hon. Gentleman declined to give the County Council the control over the police. The Quarter Sessions were to appoint the Chief Constable, and the Police Force was to be under the control of a Joint Committee of Quarter Sessions and the County Council. The right hon. Gentleman gave rather a curious reason for that extraordinary provision. He said that the inhabitants of boroughs had been for many years accustomed to municipal government, and had become educated to it to a degree that it would take the counties some years to attain. He (Mr. Stansfeld) did not know what the country gentlemen, the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman, said to the proposition; but, for himself, he was not prepared to endorse it at all. First of all, people must learn. The municipalities had learnt how to administer their police, and the county magistrates, who would largely compose those Councils, had been accustomed from time immemorial to control and regulate the police in the county in which they acted. Lastly, there was the question as to the selected members, as to which everybody knew that the clause in regard to Aldermen in Municipal Councils was introduced in the House of Lords on the Motion of Lord Lyndhurst, and there was a general consensus of opinion, he thought, on that (the Opposition) side of the House—he did not know how it might be on the other side—that that clause had not operated by any means beneficially. He would show how unreasonably it might operate in the County Council. Suppose that they had some Party spirit in a County Council consisting of 41 Members, and that they had a division on the question of the Selected Members, in which there were 21 on one side and 20 on the other. The 21 by a bare majority would be enabled to appoint all the selected members. Evidently, that would give an unfair opportunity

    1117
    and chance to those who happened to be in a majority, and would be a source of difference and irritation, as had sometimes been the case in the Municipal Corporations in the country. Why should the right hon. Gentleman, who was in favour of the principle of popular election, insist on an arrangement of that kind? Then by Clause 8 it was proposed to transfer, by Order of the Queen in Council to the County Council, the powers of certain Government Departments, such as the Local Government Board, the Board of Trade, and the Home Office.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): Subject to submission to Parliament.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, They knew by their experience in the case of Provisional Orders and the like that this condition was of small practical value, and that those things were generally passed sub silentio in that House. He did not want to express a positive opinion upon that point; but it was certainly rather a serious matter to authorize such an unlimited transfer of powers as the clause contemplated. Then, if he correctly read the Bill, the Local Government Board would have power to settle the number of representatives in the County Councils. That was a large power to be exercised simply by a Department of the Government. He did not doubt the impartiality or the ability with which they would perform that task; but, after all, the determination, within some limits, at any rate, of the number of Councillors to be elected to the County Councils was a function which Parliament ought to be able to exercise. Whether the number ought to be very large, or very limited, was a question of political importance, and some conclusions might be arrived at by the House and laid down in the Bill for the guidance of the Local Government Board. He did not propose now to enter into the contentious question as to the licensing system, which would, no doubt, in due course, be discussed by those who were well able to deal with it. As to the subject of finance, he confessed that he had heard with regret the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to a Question put to him by his right hon. Friend the Member for
    1118
    Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre)—namely, that it was quite out of his power to put on the Table of the House any financial statement or explanation such as that question suggested, A very large sum was now going to be handed over from Imperial taxation to the local Governing Bodies, and yet the right hon. Gentleman said he could give the House no idea as to how that sum was going to be distributed. He (Mr. Stansfeld) thought the House ought, to some extent at least, to be in possession of the facts. Clause 22 was calculated to suggest that some of the Local Governing Bodies would suddenly find themselves in possession of an unexpected income, which would be larger than their expenses; and all those Bodies would have to consider how far they would have a share in this largesse. The House and the country, he thought, ought to have some general idea as to how this part of the Bill would operate. After detailing certain purposes to which the income of the Councils was to be devoted, the same clause also referred to a surplus, a remainder, a residue, and a balance. In fact, the clause seemed to be specially constructed so as to tantalize the District and County Councils throughout the country, and it would seem that they would not be satisfied until they got an insight into its probable working and effect. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would admit that it was due to the House that some fair estimate of the financial consequences of so large a measure should be given, and they were fairly entitled to some further explanation of the matter. The sole remaining question on which he wished to speak was that of the transference of powers. He found that by Section 8, and by the First Schedule, many of the powers of the Local Government Board were made over to the County Councils; but some of those powers were practically retained under Section 23, in connection with the distribution of grants. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that, by virtue of those sections, the Local Government Board retained the power over grants, and might insist on certain conditions. Besides this, there was a long list of restrictions and exceptions, and there was nothing to show which

    1119
    powers were transferred and which were retained, so that the House had nothing before it to enable it to measure the amount of decentralization which would be accomplished by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had based his Bill largely on the idea of decentralization, and the House should understand exactly how far it would effect that object. The Bill was drafted in a peculiar way, and it was owing to that, that a great deal of its difficulties originated. It was largely drafted by reference to former Acts and special clauses, and it was, therefore, exceedingly difficult to understand. His right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board could not hope to pass his measure, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to do so without making it intelligible to Members of that House. That, however, could not be done without some further information in the shape of official statements being laid on the Table of the House to be studied at leisure. The Local Government Board was an exceedingly able and hard-working Department. He (Mr. Stansfeld) knew it well, and he undertook to say that there was no more hard-working Government Department in this country, and that its staff was by no means over-paid. Perhaps, it had one besetting sin, and he did not know that it stood alone in that respect. It was, like all other Departments, too fond of paper; but it did not shirk its work. H hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would do what he could to remedy that defect. If the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in taking from the Board any considerable exercise of its power and responsibility, that reduction would be shown in a subsequent reduction of its staff. He was quite sure, however, that no portion of its staff could be reduced without a reduction of the work which it had to perform. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman could tell the House what reduction of the staff he contemplated as the consequence of his measure, that would be the best possible evidence of his having succeeded in the policy of decentralization. He (Mr. Stansfeld) was interested in the passing of the Bill with certain Amendments. It was not a Bill which could be forced or hurried on. It was not a Bill to the discussion of which they could with ad-
    1120
    vantage apply the Closure. The Government could not hope to pass such a measure without addressing themselves successfully to the understanding of the House, without persuading and convincing the House. In order to do that, ample time must be allowed for discussion in the House, and they could not pass the Bill without convincing the country. Ample time must be allowed for the country to master the subject, which it was only just beginning to understand. He would suggest that, in this case, as in some others, the most haste might be the worst speed. The best policy, as well as the right course, was for the Government to treat the House as it deserved, by taking it into its confidence on this question, not to restrict the time of discussion, but to trust to the general feeling of the House to press some such measure as this to a successful completion.
    MR. FELLOWESsaid, that as one of the latest elected Members of the House, he desired to be allowed to say how heartily he approved of the principle of this Bill. He was extremely glad that the great question of Local Government, which had been before the country for so many years, and promised by successive Governments, was at last going to be treated in a fair manner, and in a manner in which he believed would be permanent. The House would agree that if this Bill had been of a tinkering nature, it would not have received the approval of the House or the country; but, on the contrary, would have been received with disdain and contempt. He believed that the Bill was approved of by all parties in the country. He had consulted with many of those whom he had the honour to represent, and he was in a position to say that they were of opinion that the principle of the Bill was sound; that, of course, there were certain details in it which wanted alteration, and that there were certain matters requiring attention which were not altogether dealt with in the Bill. The most satisfactory point in the Bill was that there was to be no great alteration in the boundaries of our counties. They would all remember the excitement there was during the Autumn and Winter when the Boundary Commission went

    1121
    out to inquire into the boundaries of the counties. The President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), in his speech in introducing the Bill, said that this was a question of sentiment, and so he (Mr. Fellowes) believed it was, and he was very grateful to the Government for not having made any great alteration in the boundaries. He felt certain that if there had been any great alteration in the boundaries, there would have been much discontent and great heart-burning, which might possibly have largely impeded the progress of the measure in the House. They were told that in the future County Councils were to arrange their own boundaries. He had not the slightest fear on that point, because the men who would be elected on the County Councils would take good care of their own interests, and also of the ancient landmarks of the counties. Now, as to the formation of the Councils, there were some people in the country—and he believed there were certain Members of the House of Commons—who feared that those who had in the past done good work in Quarter Sessions, and who had done their work in a fair and economical way, would be swamped. He, personally, did not believe a word of it. He firmly believed that if those gentlemen who had in the past done such good work in the different counties would only consent to allow themselves to be put up for the County Councils, in nine times out of ten they would be elected to those Councils. Judging from the remarks which had been made lately in Quarter Sessions, county magistrates were determined to come forward for the County Councils, and he strongly hoped they would stick to that resolve. The only thing he feared in the County Councils was that it might come to pass, as it happened in the present time in our Municipal Councils, that there would be one side Conservative and the other side Liberal. He trusted earnestly that this would not come to pass, because if it did it could only be detrimental to the proper transaction of county business, in regard to which all Party feeling ought to be put aside. They were told that the elections for the County Councils were to take place every three years. He noticed that those who ought to know something about this matter thought that a man ought to be elected
    1122
    for a longer period—for five years. Personally, he was greatly in favour of a longer period, because he thought that at the present time we had plenty of elections going on. Besides, he thought that if the elections were, say, every five years, it would conduce more to the stability of the Councils, and would be much more economical. Now, as to finance, they were told that large sums were to be handed over to the County Councils for them to use, and also that the Councils were to be given large powers for borrowing, for emigration, and for other matters. He thought that some check ought to be placed on the County Council, so that no Council could run the ratepayers into any extraordinary extravagance. Moreover, he did not like at all the proposal to hand over the County Police to a Joint Committee of the County Councils and Quarter Sessions for many reasons. One reason especially was that the handing over of the police to this Joint Committee would lead to great friction between the County Councils and the Quarter Sessions, and that was a matter which ought to be avoided as much as possible. There were some people who wished that the police could be handed over wholly to the County Councils. He did not agree with that suggestion, because the County Councils under the Bill were to have no judicial administration at all. As the Bill gave the Quarter Sessions power over the Chief Constable, both of dismissal and of appointment, and also kept the magistrates in their judicial positions, he would much rather see the police put under the Quarter Sessions also. He knew there were some people who thought that the police ought to be wholly under the Home Office in London. The Home Office had plenty of work to do at the present time, and, therefore, he did not think that such a suggestion would meet with much favour. The chief reason why he rose was to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) in respect to occupation roads, of which the right hon. Gentleman made no mention in his speech. In many parts of the country there were roads called occupation roads. In his own constituency there were many roads, fen roads, which were bad at

    1123
    almost every period of the year. Indeed, he could not help thinking that the Members of the House of Commons who invaded his constituency last August must have felt that the roads were in a very bad condition. Certainly there ought to be something done with regard to these occupation roads, and he begged the right hon. Gentleman to take into his serious consideration the great importance of making some provision for the systematic repair of these roads, which were of the greatest public benefit. He thanked the House for having listened to his remarks with so much patience.
    MR. HOBHOHSEsaid, he must congratulate the Government upon the boldness and foresight they had shown in dealing with the difficult and complicated subject of Local Government Reform in a broad and liberal spirit. He assured them they had already increased their credit in the country, and added to the respect with which many hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House regarded their legislative efforts. Of course there were great omissions from the Bill, many of which had been criticized—and he thought very fairly criticized—in the very able and moderate speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). But all hon. Members who had studied the difficult and complicated subject of Local Government must feel that there must necessarily be great omissions from any one Bill which was brought in to deal with the subject. Having given his best attention, however, to the main lines on which this Bill was drawn, he was fully convinced that within those lines there was plenty of room for supplying all the omissions, and also for correcting all defects. Indeed, he felt confident, if the main lines of the Bill were adopted by the House, as he felt sure they would be, that within a few years, whatever Government might be in power, we should have a comprehensive and well-organized system of County Government built up on a broad and popular basis. Having said this much, he would not be misunderstood if he went on to make some rather adverse criticisms upon some of the leading provisions of the measure. In the first place, he confessed he was sorry that the Government had not
    1124
    seen their way to adopt the County Parliamentary Franchise rather than the Municipal Borough Franchise. He could fully appreciate the strong reasons the Government had for adopting the Municipal Borough Franchise. There, no doubt, was a specious uniformity, a uniformity more apparent, he thought, than real, in putting country districts under the same franchise and the same constitution as the municipal boroughs were already. He quite admitted there was a certain attractive simplicity about the Municipal Borough Franchise, but he thought the Government would have been wiser to have withstood the temptation, and to have adopted the franchise which already regulated the election of Members of Parliament throughout the country districts. In the first place, there would then have been a single system of election both for Parliamentary and for local purposes, and that simplicity would have commended itself to the minds, not only of Local Government Reformers, but of every elector in the country. In the second place—and this was the point he wished more especially to urge on the Government—by the adoption of the County Parliamentary Franchise, they would have avoided defects which certainly existed in the Bill; they would have avoided inflicting serious injustice on several classes directly concerned in Local Government and Local Taxation. He did not know whether it was within the knowledge of every Member of the House, but it certainly was not within the knowledge of everybody interested in the Bill throughout the country, that under the Bill no owner of land would have a vote for the County or District Council unless he occupied a building within the county or district, and resided within a certain distance of the county or district. There were a large number of gentlemen very deeply interested in Local Government, and in the incidence of local taxation, who owned large properties in districts within which they did not occupy land or reside. He supposed it was not disputed in the House that these gentlemen paid a large proportion of the local rates. If any argument were needed to convince the House and the country that owners were ratepayers to a very large extent, he would only refer hon.

    1125
    Members to that admirable Report written by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in the year 1870, which dealt with all the complicated questions that surrounded the reform of local rating. If, as that Report showed, an owner might be a large ratepayer, it was not evident, to his (Mr. Hob-house's) mind, why an owner should be disfranchised for the purposes of this Bill. He reminded the Government that the case of towns was very different from that of country districts in this respect. There were comparatively few owners of property who did not reside within, or within a short distance of, the municipal boroughs in which they were interested, and if they were non-resident their buildings and property were usually let for such terms of years, and under such conditions, that they had scarcely any interest themselves in the rise or fall of the local rates. It was very different in country districts, where farms were usually held for very short terms, and where in these days of falling rents any increase of rates must necessarily fall on the owners of those farms. He had no doubt he would be met in this matter by the old cry of 'One man One vote'; but he must point out that this cry had nothing to do with the disfranchisement of the owners of property. The question he was arguing was not a question of dual voting or faggot voting, but a question of the total disfranchisement and disqualification of a certain class for purposes in which they were most directly interested. There was no doubt that many men who were owners of property might be doubly represented in the House by voting in more than one constituency, but that had nothing to do with the present question, because what he complained of was that if a man owned property in two counties, and only occupied premises in one, he might be totally without representation in the Council of the county in which he did not reside, and totally without representation in districts of a county in which he owned property, and not only unrepresented, but disqualified by law from sitting on the County Council or on the District Council. This was not only unjust and unjustifiable, but it was also objectionable from other points of view. There was an argument which he thought would
    1126
    commend itself to hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, bearing, as it did, directly on the present question. If they, by this Bill, denied the interest of an owner in the incidence of rating, which they did; if they disfranchised him as a county voter, if they disqualified him from sitting on the County Council, they would raise a great obstacle to any proposal which might be made in the future for placing certain portions of the rates directly on that class of men. He supposed there was no principle of reform which was more generally accepted in this House than the principle—the equitable principle—of dividing rates between owner and occupier. That was a principle which he was anxious to see adopted, but he confessed the present Government were raising an almost insurmountable obstacle in the way of that reform by denying hereafter the right of the owner to be represented on those Bodies which dealt with the local rates. How could they deny this right and then proceed to throw upon that very class whom they disfranchised the direct payment of a considerable portion of the local rates? The Committee of 1870, to which he had already referred, reported that the present system of local taxation under which the exclusive charge of almost all local rates was placed by law on the occupier was contrary to sound policy. He (Mr. Hobhouse) urged upon the Government that if they looked forward at no very distant period to a reform of the law of rating, they should think seriously before they disfranchised one of the classes who would have to bear the burden of the rates. There were other anomalies which arose from applying the borough franchise, which was distinctly a town franchise, to country districts. For instance, an occupier of land without buildings would have no vote under the present Bill. The occupiers of land of £10 and upwards were a class especially enfranchised for Parliamentary purposes within boroughs in 1884, and now it was proposed to give them no power whatever for local purposes in country districts. He had heard within the last few days of large graziers who occupied large tracts of land, but who did not occupy any building within the district, and who, though they contributed greatly to the local rates, would have no

    1127
    voice whatever under this Bill. There was another question which would be raised on the borough franchise, and that was whether the occupier, who could only claim under the service franchise of the Parliamentary Register, would have any power to vote under the Bill, and that was a question which he hoped would be cleared up by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie). The right hon. Gentleman said, in his very able speech in introducing the Bill, that it would give a qualification to all ratepapers. But whom did the right hon. Gentleman consider a ratepayer? Did he consider a labourer who lived in a cottage of the rent of 1s. 6d. a-week, and to whom it did not make the slightest difference whether the rates were high or low, a ratepayer? Again, did he consider the landowner who, as he (Mr. Hobhouse) had shown, paid heavy rates, but who did not occupy in the district, a ratepayer? Was it right to admit the first man and exclude the second? He was strongly in favour of admitting the whole class of labourers, as he believed there were other than pecuniary considerations involved in their admission, but he was also strongly against excluding any class who had a real interest, especially those who had a large interest in matters of local taxation and local government, from the benefits which it was proposed to confer by this Bill. He had no doubt that a proposal providing for the separate representation of owners on the Councils would commend itself to many hon. Members present, but he did not go so far as that. He only urged that owners should not be entirely disfranchised under the Bill. He quite admitted that there might not be very many men who would suffer, but there would be cases of glaring hardship, and he thought the interests of local government might seriously suffer in country districts from excluding these men, not only from the right to vote, but from the right to sit on the Councils. It was easy to remedy this defect without upsetting the framework of the measure. The Government need not in any way give up the principle they had adopted of the Municipal Borough Franchise, but they could put a provision in the Registration Bill that in making up every
    1128
    roll of county electors there should be added to the list of occupation voters the Parliamentary list of owners. There would be no hardship and no inconvenience in that, and he trusted the Government would take his suggestion into consideration before the Bill reached the Committee stage. He now desired to make a few remarks on the cognate subject of registration. In the first place, he would impress on the Government the great importance of making some new provision for effecting registration in country districts. At present in many parishes where there were only unpaid overseers—men without any special training, and changed regularly every year—they were already charged with the exceedingly burdensome and troublesome duty of making up the List of Parliamentary Voters. This Bill would throw upon them a still greater burden—namely, the duty of making up at the same time a List of Municipal Voters, and he was sure any hon. Member of the House who had studied, as he had had occasion to study, those remarkable documents called "precepts," which were issued every year by the Clerk of the Peace to the county overseers, would easily understand how unfair it was to call upon men, without proper training, to master the duties of overseers under those precepts, and to perform the work of preparing the Register of Voters, and to do this without any remuneration, perhaps, at the time of the year when they were busiest with their private work. The present defective system for which some remedy ought certainly to be found led to most unsatisfactory results. It was within his knowledge that three years ago, when the new Register of Parliamentary Voters had to be made up, there were whole parishes and large portions of parishes actually disfranchised by the very natural neglect of the parish overseers. Such a state of things ought not to occur. If it did occur under this Bill it would be a public scandal, and he hoped the Government, if they could not at once provide some proper machinery for keeping a Register of both Parliamentary and Municipal Voters in country districts, would make some temporary provision for this purpose. He intended to submit a

    1129
    clause in Committee providing for some temporary provision being made for the registration being performed at a slight expense in the country districts by officers who were qualified for the duty. Now, if the House would allow him, he would address a few words to them upon the subject of areas. This Bill, as had already been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), did very little to simplify areas directly, but he must say it did a great deal indirectly to simplify areas. He was sure the extensive powers obtained in Clause 59 of the Bill would in the future do very much to reduce our local government areas to a much simpler form. He believed the Government were, on the whole, well advised to omit from the present Bill the question of making the Unions conterminous with the counties. He saw nothing in the Bill to prevent them in some very short time bringing the Union as well as the sanitary district under the control of the new district authorities. He was confident if this Bill was adopted in its present shape we should not have long to wait before some proposal of the kind was made, and he believed that in the 60th clause of the Bill, which provided for contributory Unions, would be found the real key for the settlement of union and county boundaries. He believed that in adopting that plan the Government had certainly adopted the line of least resistance, and that it would in the end bring satisfaction both to the inhabitants of Unions and of counties, But he earnestly urged on the Government to think twice and thrice before they created any new areas under this Bill. They already suffered from a surplusage of areas. There were three new classes of areas proposed to be created—two for the purpose of elections alone—the electoral divisions of counties and the wards of districts, and, on the whole, he thought the provision made for preventing these new areas as far as possible from overlapping the areas of administration were satisfactory. But there was a third new area which was the area for the purposes of administration—namely, the licensing division. He did not intend to say anything to-night on the general question of licensing, but he asked the Government if it was necessary for
    1130
    their purposes to create a new area at all, and if the new licensing division would give satisfaction to the class for whose benefit the Government wished to create it? Surely it would be better to choose boldly one of the existing areas for the purpose of licensing. They could choose, of course, the whole county; but he saw great objections to that if they were really going in for what was called the principle of Local Option. But they had another alternative; they had the existing sanitary districts, the districts that they themselves proposed to make the administrative unit under the county, and he seriously asked them whether they would not give more satisfaction, from a popular point of view, if they adopted this district as the new district for licensing? It was quite possible to adopt the District Council as the Licensing Authority, and yet, if they thought it necessary, have an appeal to the County Council. He did not think that would be more complicated than giving the Licensing Committee in the first instance the right of hearing applications, and then giving the right of appeal to the County Councils. Let him point out the advantages of this course. In the first place, the Rural Sanitary Division more nearly coincided than any other existing area with the Petty Sessional Division, which was the present licensing unit; and although, no doubt, there were a great many small urban sanitary districts which it would be difficult to deal with, yet there would be no more hardship in grouping them into a reasonable district than there was at present in grouping a large number of electoral divisions into an entirely new district. There would also be in the plan he suggested this advantage—that they would avoid what seemed to many Members most interested in the reform of county local government the great danger of the elections for the County Council turning too much on the one question of licensing. If the District Council were the first licensing body, that would remove the danger from the County Council, and it would give the District Council some more and very important duties to perform. He was bound to say that, under the Bill, at all events, the District Council did not seem likely to die of overwork. He had now to speak of the election and constitution of these Coun-

    1131
    cils; and here, again, he wished to make an appeal to the Government in favour of more simplicity. The Government proposed in their Bill two different systems for the election of County Councils and District Councils. County Councils were to be elected every three years in single-membered districts, and the District Councils were to be elected, a third every year, in plural-membered constituencies. Surely one system could be chosen for both Councils. There were advantages and disadvantages in both these plans; but surely the Government ought to make up their minds which of the plans was best, and to adopt it for the two sets of elections. There was nothing that would confuse the mind of the ordinary elector more than having to elect two Bodies in different ways, and to some extent at different times, and in different proportions; and he suggested to the Government, especially in view of the fact that the experience of municipal boroughs had shown that annual elections were somewhat too frequent, that the better plan would be to elect half the Council in both cases for two years. With regard to the selected members, he must say, speaking on behalf of an agricultural district, he considered they would be very valuable elements in both Councils; but there was no doubt that care ought to be taken that the addition of the selected members should not be a means of turning the majority elected by the popular vote into a minority. There were two dangers which had to be guarded against, and both, he believed, had been felt in the Town Councils of municipal boroughs. In the first place, as had already been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, there was a great danger that at the first election a very small majority might elect the whole of the selected members, and that the results of that election might be felt for years, and even for generations. He suggested to the Government a simple plan—he had no doubt it would be suggested by other Members on the Opposition side of the House—for meeting this difficulty, and that was that every elected member of a now Council should only have the power of voting for one selected member. Then there was another danger, and that, he believed, had grown into an abuse—namely, that outgoing selected members, as
    1132
    Aldermen were in boroughs, had the power of taking part in the election of their successors. It was not at all clear that the selected members ought to vote at all.
    MR. RITCHIE: The outgoing selected members do not vote.
    MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he ought to have stated that the continuing selected members voted for the next batch of selected members. That was a danger which ought to be guarded against, for he was sure Selected Members would not give satisfaction if they did anything that would turn a popular majority into a minority. If they did not do that, they would certainly be found a very valuable element in the constitution of both County and District Councils. There was one very important subject with regard to the constitution of these Councils which he desired to press on the serious attention of the Government. They would have, when this Bill was passed, a series of popularly elected bodies. First of all, there would be the Imperial Parliament, then the County Councils, and, lastly, the District Councils; and between such bodies there ought certainly to be connecting links. No such links were provided, and he asked the Government whether they did not think it would serve the public interest and form a more complete system of government throughout the country if there were permanent links between these bodies? For instance, hon. Members could have no doubt, when they came to consider the matter, that the County Councillors ought to have the right of sitting on the District Council of their own district. They would be comparatively few in number; they would be elected by the same franchise as the District Councillors; and they would form a very useful link between the District Council and the County Council. Of course, there was another plan—which, to his mind, did not seem so satisfactory—and that was that the Chairman of every District Council should be ex-officio a member of the County Council. He thought there were much more serious objections to that plan; but, in his opinion, the Government would be well advised to take one course or the other. Thou there was the further suggestion, which he saw had already been made by a high authority, and that was that

    1133
    the Members of Parliament for the county and boroughs in the county should have a seat on their own County Council. That he should not urge in the interests of Members of Parliament themselves, for he was sure they had plenty of other ditties, but he should urge it most strongly in the public interest, because he believed it would give them a most valuable opportunity of forming a natural link between this popularly elected Assembly and the popularly elected local assemblies in their constituencies. He would not weary the House by entering into the financial arrangements of the Bill; but there was one thing he wished to say. It seemed to him, as it must to other Members who represented agricultural constituencies, that the new provisions for maintaining main roads would be a vast improvement. For the last 10 years the management of main roads had been financially in a state of chaos in the country districts, and it was a great improvement for the ratepayers to be relieved from what had been the most unjust burden of having to maintain all the main roads for the benefit of the other classes who did not contribute in proportion to their capacity to the maintenance of those roads. The new Wheel Tax he regarded as a simple act of justice to the country districts, which should have been imposed 10 years ago, when the turnpike system was abolished. He implored the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) not to abandon the tax simply because the largo towns were crying out against it. The case of the country districts was quite different from the case of towns. The towns might have a great deal to say for themselves in this matter. They parted with their turnpikes long ago, and they had not large districts of land which contributed to the maintenance of the roads, whether there were buildings on them or not. He urged the Government, if they were obliged in the last resort, as he did not believe they would be, to abandon the Wheel Tax for the large towns, to devise some other means for enabling the country districts to get proper contributions for the maintenance of main roads from all the classes who used those roads. With regard to the omissions from the Bill, they were, no doubt, very large; but he confidently looked forward to the Government dealing with some
    1134
    of them, if not in this Bill, in some measure which would be introduced this Session or the next. There was no doubt that if we were to have a satisfactory system of Local Government at all, we must have unity of rating and unity of assessment. The present system of assessment was perfectly indefensible, and great advantage and efficiency would accrue by an alteration in the mode of levying rates. Then there were certain powers which he would confess he should have thought the Government would not have hesitated to transfer to the District Council, and those were powers under the School Attendance Act, which were only conferred on Guardians because there was no other authority in the country districts upon which they could be conferred. He trusted that before the Bill left Committee the powers under that Act would be added to the powers of the District Councils. With regard to the government of small towns, there was a very valuable clause in the Bill—Clause 47. He hoped the Government would consider the advisability of extending that clause, which provided for the appointment of local committees in certain parishes—mostly town parishes—for what he might call purely town purposes. He thought that great satisfaction might be afforded to many small towns, that did not wish, at present, to have all the powers of urban sanitary districts, by providing some simple machinery such as a local committee by which they could manage the town's affairs, instead of leaving them to the management of the rural Guardians, who had not much interest in them. He was sorry to have detained the House at such length. He sincerely trusted, and he felt confident, after the very re-assuring speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), that this great national question would be treated by all sections of the House, not as a Party question, but as a question which all Parties had a great interest in seeing settled. He trusted that the Bill when passed, with such Amendments as might prove to be necessary, would reflect as much credit on the Government, its authors, and on Parliament, as the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 reflected on the Government and Parliament of that day.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax with great satisfaction. He had had a great many dealings with the right hon. Gentleman in regard to matters closely connected with some of the subjects under discussion in this Bill, and he would venture to say, with all sincerity, that the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had made to-night only embodied that which had universally characterized his conduct and action—that was to say, courtesy and consideration for all with whom he had dealings. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would state—and state most honestly and frankly—that when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Local Government Board they had always received from him, as, indeed, they had received from most Presidents of the Local Government Board, that courtesy and consideration which they welcomed from Gentlemen in whatever part of the House they might sit. The right hon. Gentleman had added a most valuable contribution to the discussion of the important Bill before the House. There were many portions of the right hon. Gentleman's speech with which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) quite agreed. Many of the right hon. Gentleman's statements would have a most beneficial effect on the mind of the President of the Local Government Board, for they would show him many considerations which ought to guide him to a great extent on many of the details of the measure, For instance, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) would not deny that it would be most useful to the House that they should get some general statement—he knew no statement could be absolutely correct—as to the finances, how they were to be applied, and who were to receive them. It was desirable that they should know what would be the difference between the towns and the country, and what they might expect and hope for in the rural districts. There was another point in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) which was a highly important and most valuable one. They did not know now the enormous powers which might be
    1136
    transferred from the Government Departments—the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade—to the County Council. He thought they ought to have that carefully stated. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that all the powers which had been conferred on the Board of Trade and on the Local Government Board by Act of Parliament, if they were transferred from either or from both those Departments, ought to be transferred by Act of Parliament, in order that the matter might come before the House. It would not be satisfactory, in his humble judgment, that these transfers should be carried out by Provisional Orders, which would lie on the Table of the House, and that then within 40 days, or whatever the time might be, would be transferred to the County Council, without Parliament knowing anything about what those powers might contain. He thought these were important questions, which deserved their most serious consideration. He had listened most attentively to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to commencing with parishes, and he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would recollect the controversy they had had over this very question of parishes. He had stated—and the right hon. Gentleman could not get out of it, because it was absolutely true and correct—that if they had to deal with parishes, they would have to add several small parishes together to make a proper area, and they would also have to divide large parishes for the same purpose. They thought that so objectionable that, if he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) recollected aright, one of the main reasons why the Bill brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer failed was because of the proposal to put numbers of small parishes together. He thought the right hon. Gentleman wanted to see parishes of less than 200 inhabitants amalgamated with other parishes, which would have brought about a greater revolution than the Bill before the House. At any rate, objection was taken to the Bill on that ground, and that was the reason why it was not adopted. There might be other reasons why the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not accepted; but he would not go into that Bill, nor would he go into the reasons why the

    1137
    scheme of Lord Basing then Mr. Sclater-Booth, was not adopted. He would simply say that, under the first measure, half the Central Council were to come from the heads of the different parishes, and the other half from the magistrates ex-officio; and under the second, or Mr. Sclater-Booth's scheme, one-third were to come from the magistrates, one-third from the Boards of Guardians, and one-third were to be elected by popular suffrage. That, he thought, was the last proposal made. Now the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board went upon a totally different principle. If he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) were asked about that great question, he should say it was a revolution—the greatest revolution with regard to County Government which they had had during the century. No doubt—and he was not going to deny it—both sides of the House, and especially both Front Benches, had pledged themselves that some alteration of this kind should take place. When he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had spoken on the question in the country, he had warned his friends that it might seem in theory an excellent thing to do; but the question was, how would it work in practice? Did they think, when it came to practice, that they would get a better or a more economical system than they had at present? That was what he had always stated, and what he stated at the present moment. But things had now gone too far; he admitted it fully. They had now to deal with a different state of affairs altogether. Lord Salisbury, in the year 1885, when he laid down the programme which was to guide the Conservative Party, stated distinctly that one portion of the programme was a County Government Bill, and, if he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) recollected aright, the Councils were to be elected on popular suffrage. And if he remembered aright, also, the authorized programme coming from the opposite side of the House—from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone)—was very much in the same direction; therefore, there were both Parties stating distinctly that if a County Government Bill was brought in, that County Government Bill must be based upon popular suffrage and popular representation. Well, the right hon. Gen-
    1138
    tleman the President of the Local Government Board—and time would show whether in so doing he was right or wrong—had followed out the principle which had been laid down, and the result was the Bill now before the House. Whether the measure would answer all the expectations of those who introduced it, whether it would answer all the expectations of the country, time alone could prove; but this much he could say for his right hon. Friend at the head of the Local Government Board—that the Bill was an honest endeavour to meet the views and opinions of those who had stated those views and opinions previously, and to meet the general view and general opinion which many hon. Members in different parts of the country had promised their constituents that they were prepared to support. Well, he should now like to say a word upon a point which he thought deserved some small consideration—and it would be very small—from him. His right hon. Friend had stated that those who had had to administer county affairs up to the present time had done it satisfactorily and economically. He could bring two witnesses before the House that he thought hon. Members—especially hon. Members on the opposite side—would not dispute or deny. He recollected perfectly well, years ago, when his hon. and most lamented Friend Mr. Cobden came to reside down in the Western Division of the County of Sussex, that gentleman, after he had been there some time, saying—"The one thing that strikes me of all others is the way in which the County Magistrates do their duty. The care and attention which they pay to their work, especially to matters of finance, entitles them to all credit." He would call another witness—namely, a newspaper which on the opposite side of the House they all respected—he meant The Daily News. The Daily News, years ago, wrote in this way. It said—
    "Look at London; see how London is governed. Hundreds of men can be added to the police force"—
    he was not sure that the statement was not—
    "thousands of men can be added to the police force, and no one in London is consulted and is able to make a remark; but what happens in West Sussex? The hon. and gallant Member

    1139
    for that Division, when it was proposed to add one single man to the county police of Sussex, was able to get up and dispute the appointment, and declare that no addition to the police was necessary. Here we are not able to say what should be done; but the Quarter Sessions are able to criticize these things, and say whether or not one single policeman is required."
    He mentioned these things to show that although the County Magistrates might not have done all they ought to have done, yet their great and their earnest desire had been to do that which they believed to be not only in the interest of the country generally, but in the interest of the ratepayers especially. He ventured to express a hope that they had failed very little, or had not failed at all, in that which they had undertaken, and had tried and were still trying to perform. He should like to say a word upon another question which had been raised by many people as to what was to happen to the County Magistrates in the future. He had read, and read most attentively, the speech of Lord Spencer down in Northamptonshire the other day, and he ventured to say that no better advice could be given to them as a body than had been given by that noble Lord. He had said as much to the Quarter Sessions with which he was connected. He had said that if they thought their services were of any use to the county they should offer those services freely and honestly, and he ventured to believe that in the future as in the past, if they only endeavoured to do their duty, they might be found useful and necessary in the carrying out of those multifarious and difficult duties which they had had for so many years to perform. He would now, for just one moment, address himself to one or two points in the Bill, and the first point he would raise—and it was one which his right hon. Friend should consider—was whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think there was some danger of over-weighting the Central Councils by imposing upon them all the duties which the Bill proposed to cast upon them? The duties were multifarious and difficult, and it might so happen that a large number of men might be elected on the Councils who had never been accustomed to deal with these questions; and seeing that the questions would all have to be carefully dealt with, it was a matter for
    1140
    consideration whether they were not going too fast in giving such people all the powers contained in the Bill. It was a question whether all these responsibilities should be placed on the members of the Councils at once, and whether they should not wait until they were sure these persons could walk before they expected them to run. As he understood it, the first members of the Central County Councils were to be elected for three years. Why should that not be a tentative time? Why should they not consider the subject in the light of growing experience during that time, and by degrees impose upon the Councils those various duties which they would have to perform? Then he had heard it said—he did not know what the opinion of the House would be on the matter, and he only threw it out for what it was worth—that if, after the first three years, things should be found to go well, and it should be found that they had good Councils, they should increase the interval and have elections only once in five years instead of once in three years. Hon. Members must remember how costly these elections would be. They must remember the people they would deter from coming forward if a heavy cost were imposed upon them. They must remember, also, that when a man had once got into his work and knew the duties he had to perform, how much more useful and how much better he was than an inexperienced man; and when the people got accustomed to a man and found that he was doing his work well, they would be very 10th to displace him. Therefore, in his humble judgment, it would be better that the Councils should last for five rather than for three years. He would now go to the next point which he thought a very important one, although he had no doubt a great many hon. Members would not agree with what he was going to say. The question was that of police. In the county with which he was connected he had been Chairman of the Police Committee for many years, and from his experience in that capacity he could say that it took a long time to understand all the various bearings of the police question. He would admit he was sorry to see, in a speech the Marquess of Salisbury made at Carnarvon the other night, he rather depreciated the services of the magistrates, and said he should think it would be well to take

    1141
    away from them the management of of police. The noble Lord pointed out that the gaols had been taken away from them. That they all knew perfectly well. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was one of those who differed from the Conservative Government which took away the management of the gaols from the magistrates, and he voted against the Government on that occasion, because he thought that the local magistrates and the localities themselves could control these gaols quite as well, if not better, than a central authority could do. But what had the magistrates done? Because they had had the gaols taken away from them they had not neglected the great duty that still remained to them of visiting the gaols and the people who might happen to be confined in them. It was precisely the same with the lunatic asylums—with regard to which question he should like to say a few words in a moment. With regard to the police, he would ask his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board whether he thought a divided authority was a good thing? If the magistrates were to have all the judicial authority, if they were to be responsible more or less for law and order, and if they were to see that the police were in an effective condition, he maintained that they ought to have the sole control of the force. Many hon. Members might shake their heads and say "No;" but that was his deliberate opinion—that it would be better in every sense for the interests of the country that the magistrates should still retain the police as they dealt with them at present. And his view was the same with regard to the lunatic asylums. That was a very difficult class of business to deal with. They had built asylums and had done all they could to place the persons confined within them in a good position, and it was now proposed to throw the buildings and their inmates over to another authority though ignorant as to the manner in which that authority would deal with them. The magistrates had Commissioners of Lunacy over them, no doubt; but had they neglected their duty because of that? On the contrary, they had been most anxious to agree with all the recommendations which the Commissioners might have made; and this, again, was one of those questions which might very
    1142
    well be left in the hands of those who had dealt with it so successfully up to the present moment. He now came to another subject which was one of great importance. He should like to ask his right hon. Friend—and this, no doubt, was a matter which would cause a great difference of opinion—how he proposed to deal with the counties, certain portions of which had a very sparse rural population, and in which there were a large number of towns of considerable size. He should like to know how the right hon. Gentleman intended to deal with these? Were the towns absolutely to override the rural population? He would not say how it was to be done, but if they took the test of population alone the rural districts would be absolutely so out-voted that they would have no part in that management which was established, it was said, entirely for their benefit. On the second reading of a Bill like this they could not go too closely into all these questions. This was a very important matter which deserved the very serious attention and consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. There was another question which came immediately after that, and one that, perhaps, might be of more importance than that, especially to the poorer inhabitants of the district—he meant the question of expenditure. He did not see in the Bill those safeguards which were necessary to prevent extravagant expenditure. Whatever anyone said, they knew perfectly well that complaints were made day by day of the enormous increase which took place in the rates in towns managed by those very authorities which were now held up to the admiration of the House. In some towns local affairs were admirably managed; but in other towns, as hon. Members knew, they were recklessly managed, and what was wanted was to stop this extravagance, and to put a check upon the borrowing powers which the Local Authorities now possessed. Those were points which, he maintained, deserved the most grave and serious consideration of the House. When they came to hand over deliberately such enormous powers to any body of men, all depended on the men who had to administer them. When they had in the management of local affairs men of a certain position who did not wish to make their names known, and

    1143
    did not desire to say—"Oh, I helped to erect that magnificent building!" they would do very well; but when they had men whose great object was self-glorification—and he hoped the powers contained in the Bill would never descend to that class of men—the state of things would be reversed. Unless there was some means of checking extravagant outlay, directly they had the class of men such as he described in power a condition of things would be brought about which would give a death-blow to the Bill. He would go for one moment to another very interesting subject—namely, the question of licensing. There had been various meetings on that subject. A Committee of County Chairmen had met and had passed a resolution, he believed, unanimously—he did not know that it was unanimously; but the newspapers had stated that it was—that these clauses should be expunged from the Bill. All the communications which he had had on this question, by letter or otherwise, had been from gentlemen connected with the Temperance Party. They were all for taking these clauses out of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] He heard one "Hear, hear!" but that was not the view of the majority of hon. Members sitting in the House; but, be that as it might, the House must not forget that they had had Bills and Motions on the licensing question brought before them for years and years past. They had carried a Local Option scheme in that House, though he had always voted against such proposals. They had carried a Local Option Resolution; but that was a very different thing from carrying a Bill. They had carried Bills for dealing with Sunday Closing in various counties. The Motions as to Local Option had been confined to the House of Commons; but the Bills for closing public-houses on Sundays had been, most of them, thrown out in the other House. Why was this? Because it had been stated that before dealing with this question they ought to have prepared a general scheme. He did not say that his right hon. Friend's scheme was the best that could be devised; but it was an honest attempt to steer amongst the most difficult shoals which beset their path—to steer between the Scylla on the one side and the Charybdis on the other, and to show that there was some viâ media by which they could settle in some
    1144
    way this terribly difficult question. He should be perfectly content to see the question settled, though he should not have objected to allow it to remain as it was at present administered. But the proposal of his right hon. Friend was an endeavour to settle it, and they knew that perfectly well. He thought he might here say something which came to his notice only the other day, as it was most interesting, and did great credit to the Licensing Justices of Essex. In Essex, as he understood, and as it had been told to him, when a man came asking for a fresh licence, stating that it was for some populous place where he alleged another public-house was required, the answer of the Justices was this—"What are you going to give us for the licence? How many licences are you going to give up?" In that way, as he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) understood it, an arrangement was come to, and it was agreed that two or more licences should be given up in less populous places in order that one should be given for a district in which it was required. He commended that system to the House. He commended it especially to his right hon. Friend, because here was a way of doing business without, in such cases, any compensation whatever being paid. But when he came to the question of payment, he did not think there was a man who, if he carefully considered this question—and it was a very difficult one—would not say that if public-houses were suppressed in the country and an examination were made into the circumstances of the districts in order to see whore the public-houses were wanted and where they were situated, it would be found that the public-houses suppressed were not those of the strong men, but those of the poorer men. He should like this matter to be fairly considered. If a man had saved his money and invested it in a public-house on the faith that his licence would not be taken away from him unless he committed some act which was against the law and against common decency, the man believing that his licence was as safe as it possibly could be, it would be unfair to turn him out of his occupation without compensation. He might have a beer-shop or a small public-house, and were they going to tell him (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that it would be right, under the circumstances, to deprive such a man

    1145
    of his house, and of the living which he had piled up for himself, without giving him some compensation? It would be a downright breach of faith to do so, though he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was not pleading for great compensation. At any rate, compensation of some sort or kind ought to be given to all those who were arbitrarily deprived of their means of living through no fault of their own. He had thought it right to make these remarks, and he believed that if these questions were fairly considered—and he said it in the interest of his right hon. Friend especially, because he and his hon. Colleague, who had taken so much trouble and pains with the Bill, knew and felt the difficulty of the question—they would find it possible to arrive at a settlement. It was a question which, if possible, they ought to settle, because, if they did not settle it, they would have to deal with it piecemeal year by year, to the great disadvantage and detriment not only of the trade, but also of the country, and particularly to the great disadvantage of the House of Commons. There was another question upon which he should like to say a word or two, and that was the question of the main roads. If his right hon. Friend would take the trouble to look through a map of the main roads running through each county in England he would see how some parishes got all the benefits of the main roads while others got none. He did not think that the powers given in the Bill on account of main roads were half sufficient. This was one of those questions which interested the people in the country more almost than anything else, and he would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether he could not give them some better definition of what ought to be done. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had been asked to go down into the country next week to speak at a meeting on the subject of roads, and especially main roads. One thing they wanted dealt with was all roads leading from one village to another village, or from one town to another town. They were of opinion that wherever there was a road with a village or a town at each end of it that road, for the purposes of this Bill, ought to be made a main road. He did not say whether or not it would be wise to do this; but it showed the prevailing opinion amongst a large number of people
    1146
    who were most interested in this question. They thought that their roads should be properly kept up, and that the expense should be thrown upon those who used the roads most, and not upon those who used them very little. There was another question in connection with this matter—namely, his right hon. Friend's proposal that all parish roads should be thrown upon the District Councils. He would ask his right hon. Friend to give this matter his most careful consideration. He could take the right hon. Gentleman into the country and show him at this moment many parishes in which the roads were most admirably kept and were in most perfect order, and he could take him down into other parishes and show him roads which were in a most disgraceful state. There was also the ratione tenurœ roads, which the public could go through, but which had gates on them. All these roads which were not in a state of repair—and this was the point to which he wished to draw attention—that these particular roads ought not to be taken over by the localities, and he concluded that would be the case till they were placed in a fair state of repair. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that point, and he would also ask him to consider whether every parish, before it was taken over by the District Council, should not have its roads examined to see that they were not in first-class order, but that they were in a fair state of repair. Would it be fair or honest to say that parishes which had kept their roads in good order, immediately this Bill passed and District Councils were formed, should be called on to pay a tax to place in order the roads of other parishes, which roads had been neglected? No one would say that that was the right way of proceeding, but they would say that when the roads in that parish were put into a fair condition the District Council then would take them over, and then that the whole of the roads would be subject to one general scheme. He had spoken generally on these subjects because it would not do at this stage of the Bill to go into detail. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax in one thing. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was too much "paper" in the Local Government Office—and he (Sir

    1147
    Walter B. Barttelot) did not think the Local Government Office was as bad as many other offices in this respect. The right hon. Gentleman meant what some people called "red tape." The sooner they got out of that red tape system in connection with the Army and Navy, or whatever Department it might be, the better the Department would be served. This was a question which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would, no doubt, carefully consider, because, seeing that he was handing over so much of the business of his Department to the rural authorities, he had been invited to say how many clerks he was going to reduce in the office. Into that question he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) did not wish to enter. He desired to say that they had begun this debate, as he thought the House would admit, without a particle of Party feeling. They had, he hoped, started upon a new line which they would do well to follow. When the matters concerned in connection with a Bill of this sort were the welfare and interest of a great country, and they saw and knew that if it became a Party question Party feeling would run high and many portions of the Bill might be lost or disfigured, he ventured to hope and pray that they might continue discussing the Bill in the peaceful spirit in which they had begun. Let this be
    "The star by which we steer, Above ourselves our country shall be dear."
    They had done well in this country in days gone by, they had now got into a groove in which he hoped they would continue, and they had been held up as the most honourable and the best and most efficient Representative Assembly in the world. They had lost a little of the varnish which was accorded to them in days gone by. Let them recover that and show to the world that when they came to great questions of this kind, great questions that affected the interest and welfare and well-being of the masses of the people, they could do as they had done before, and maintain in the future that ascendancy which they had earned in the past.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he did not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Baronet either into the general criticism he had made on the Bill or into his dis-
    1148
    cussion of some of its details. He would only say that he re-echoed the views which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had expressed in the closing part of his speech. If ever there was a measure brought before the House which it seemed to him ought to be discussed apart from all Party considerations, this was the one. The Bill was one in which they were aiming to improve the local self-government of the whole country; and, although differences of opinion might occasionally arise in the discussion of a measure of the kind, seeing that a great many conflicting interests were raised, whilst they fairly argued out their respective views, he saw no necessity for imparting into any of those views what his hon. and gallant Friend had so strongly deprecated. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) did not intend to follow the hon. and gallant Baronet into a discussion of the question of licences or the question of main roads, or even into the discussion of a question which, perhaps, he might feel a little more strongly upon at the present moment—namely, the expenditure in towns. He would say, in passing, that there was one remark of the hon. and gallant Member's with which he agreed—namely, the undesirability of the police being placed under a divided authority. In the municipal boroughs they had no divided authority. They placed the police under the control of the elected representatives of the people, and, without disparagement to the management of the police elsewhere, he submitted that the police in the large municipal boroughs were managed as efficiently, as economically, and as wisely as in either the Metropolis or the counties. When they came to the discussion of that part of the Bill dealing with the police, he should be quite ready to defend the management of the police by the elected authority in the municipalities, and to express a hope that the ultimate decision of the House would be to trust the County Council at once. Let them trust it. It would be found quite competent, he thought, to discharge the duty of administering the affairs of the police. Passing from that he might say that he thought it would be a great calamity to the country if it were to be deprived of the services of those who, like the hon. and gallant Member himself, had for so many years

    1149
    devoted themselves gratuitously and with the greatest efficiency and economy to the administration of local affairs. Now, the observations he was going to make, he gave the House fair notice, would be of a very dry nature. He was about to deal with the figures of the proposal. If they were going to look at this question and discuss it in what he might call the dry light of its administration, they should be, as far as possible, clear in the figures they used. He thought further statistical information was required; but, at any rate, they had some information as to which he should like to say a word or two to the House. He took it that the object of the Bill was two-fold; they wanted to reform their local self-government and they wanted to relieve their local taxation. These subjects were inter-dependent, and they were so mixed up the one with the other, that he thought the Government had done rightly in dealing with them together—finding it impossible to deal with local self-government without dealing also with the relief of local taxation. He congratulated the Government that they had at this particular crisis, and in dealing with this great branch of the great question the advantage of the assistance and advice of the statesman who had written the ablest work on the subject, who was one of the greatest living authorities upon it, and who had now added to his knowledge his more recent experience of Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should be very sorry, and should very much doubt his own opinion on this question, if he found himself going in opposition to the views of the right hon. Gentleman as contained in the work to which he referred. In the figures he was going to submit to the House he was very much guided by the principles and calculations which the right hon. Gentleman had laid before the House and the public. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) was not going to-night to deal with the question of the reform of local self-government. That had been dealt with by his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), and would be dealt with, no doubt, by a great many other speakers in the course of the debate. He wished to confine himself entirely to the question of figures as affecting the relationship to the new scheme of the municipal boroughs. He thought he might say he was speaking
    1150
    as the first Member who had taken part in the debate as a Member representing the municipal boroughs affected by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, no doubt, represented the borough of Halifax, and in that way was a Representative of municipal boroughs; but as the right hon. Gentleman had been President of the Local Government Board, he had been obliged to take a broader view of the question altogether than he would have done had he been merely a Representative of municipal boroughs. What was the present amount of local taxation with which this Bill was going to deal, and with respect to which a large measure of relief was required? The gross receipts for local taxation, excluding gas, water, tolls, and markets levied upon the ratepayers in 1866, was £26,142,000, which for purposes of this debate and for simplicity he would call £26,000,000. That, of course, did not include all local expenditure. It appeared much larger in the local returns and statistics, and amounted to £44,000,000, but that included matters outside the purview of rates, and so far as the rates were concerned the figure was as he had stated. The first question was, how was that sum made up, where was it levied, and for what purpose? The first great item was the poor rate, and in speaking of that he dealt exclusively with what he would call the poor rate proper. Local Members would know that a large number of rates were levied in the poor rate, and that nominally the poor rate was something like £14,000,000. He was in that dealing with that which related exclusively to the poor, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had described as an hereditary burden on land. He should deal with round figures, and in this case the poor rate was practically £8,500,000. The next item in the calculation was the Metropolis, and, excluding the poor rate and the school board rate, it accounted for £3,500,000; the municipal boroughs and the Urban Sanitary Authorities accounted for £7,500,000; the school board rates for £2,300,000; County Authorities for £2,000,000; Rural Sanitary Authorities, including highways, for under £2,000,000; and the miscellaneous rates arising from Burial Boards, drainage, and other local matters made up the balance of £26,000,000. Before asking the House to form any judgment

    1151
    as to how that sum was to be divided and whence it came, they must divide the education rate. The school beard rate, last year, was £2⅓ millions; £1,000,000 of that sum was paid in London, £650,000 in the municipal boroughs, and £700,000 in the rural and partly rural districts. Thus the calculation, irrespective of the poor rate, would show a total of local taxation £17,500,000, of which £12,750,000 was the urban and £4,750,000 the rural rate, or, in other words, 72½ per cent of the local taxation of the country, irrespective of poor rate, was urban taxation, and 27½ per cent rural taxation. Then a very difficult question arose as to the apportionment of the poor rate, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he made that apportionment of local rates, had dealt with the rural and urban rates on their own separate bases. It would be unjust to attempt any adjustment of the respective incidence of rural and urban taxation unless they dealt with the poor rate. The poor rate proper was, in round figures, £8,500,000, from which £2,250,000 must be deducted for the Metropolis, thus leaving £6,250,000 to be apportioned between urban and rural districts. The rateable value on which this is assessed is £118,000,000, which, at the average rate of 1s. 1d. in the £, produced that amount. The rateable value of the municipal boroughs acting as Urban Sanitary Authorities is £35,500,000, the rateable value of the boroughs not acting as such is about £3,000,000, and the rateable value of the counties assessed to the police rate is about £80,000,000, and those are the figures composing the £118,000,000 which would show £80,000,000 rural and £38,000,000 urban. But from the £80,000,000 we have to deduct the rateable value of the Urban Sanitary Authorities other than municipal boroughs. There are 736 of these authorities with a rateable value of £20,500,000. No doubt a portion of these authorities cover rural districts. He would allow £5,000,000 for this, and the result would be that of the £118,000,000 assessed for poor rate, £65,000,000 were rural and £53,000,000 were urban. The amount of rate of £6,250,000 would be apportioned—£3,500,000 to the rural districts and £2,750,000 to the urban. The final result of these apportionments would be—
    1152

    Urban.

    Millions.

    Metropolis

    3½

    Do. Poor

    2¼

    Do. School

    1

    Municipal and Urban

    7½

    Do. do. Poor

    2¾

    Do. do. School

    ¾

    Total Urban

    17¾

    Rural.

    Millions.

    County

    2

    Rural Authorities

    2

    School

    ¾

    Poor

    3½

    Total Rural

    8¼

    That showed a percentage of 68½ for town taxation and 31½ for rural taxation. Hon. Members were all aware that there had been an enormous increase in this taxation. When the Report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which he had alluded was presented in 1871, the right hon. Gentleman calculated that the entire local taxation of the country was £16,500,000. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to say so, he thought that was rather in excess of the real amount, because there were the amounts to be taken into account for gas and water. However that might he, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had classified that £16,500,000, by assigning £5,000,000 to the urban, £3,000,000 to the rural, £8,000,000 to the poor, and £1,000,000 to miscellaneous items. He would now inquire if there had been any increase in the poor rate in the rural districts, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had described as the ancient hereditary burden on land, and which in times gone by had been a heavy and intolerable burden? That rate had been steadily decreasing. In 1856 the poor rate was 1s. 8d. in the pound; in 1866, 1s. 4½d.; 1876, 1s. 2d.; and in 1886, 1s. 1d. There had, in fact, been a steady decrease in the burden of the poor rate, not only during the last 30 years, but during the century. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that in 1803 it was 3s. 4½d. in the pound; in 1827 2s. 5¾d.; in 1868 it was 1s. 8d. in the pound, and at the present day it was a fraction over 1s. 1d. in the pound. Therefore, there had been no

    1153
    increase in the hereditary burden of poor rate. It had been steadily decreasing, and that was one of the happiest signs which they could discern in the financial condition of the country, and it reflected very satisfactorily upon the administration of the Poor Law, which, upon the whole, he believed to have been sound and financially good during the last 30 years. The Local Government Board, in their Report, said that in 1874 the entire local taxation was nearly £19,000,000, and that in 1885 it was between £25,000,000 and £26,000,000, which showed an increase of nearly £7,000,000 in 10 years. Now, he asked, where had that increase occurred? These were the figures of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—they were in his last Report, and the Local Government Board divided this increase in the following way:—Increase in Metropolitan rates £2,600,000; in exclusively urban districts, £2,700,000; partly urban and partly rural districts, £1,100,000; and the exclusively rural districts, £213,000. He wanted the House to appreciate the force of these figures. The rates of the Metropolis had increased 67 per cent; the great towns and municipal boroughs, 59 per cent; the partly rural and partly urban districts, 13 per cent; and the purely rural districts only 12 per cent. Now, there could be no difference of opinion that with such an increase the time had arrived for some relief to be given to local taxation. The right hon. Gentleman the other night had very properly called the attention of the House to the excessive manner in which the farmer was rated; he said he was rated upon the whole of his rent and, practically, upon his capital. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) entirely agreed with that statement, and he had always contended against the injustice of the present mode by which the agricultural interest was rated. But the same injustice applied to the inhabitants in towns, where you had brokers and bankers and professional men in offices and chambers paying £40 or £50 a-year rent, whereas the draper and grocer was rented at £200 or £300 a-year. It was a great injustice that the whole burden should fall on one description of property, and that it should be so unfairly assessed among those who represented it. He thought that the scheme of the Govern-
    1154
    ment in reference to local taxation was wise and generous on the whole; but he was going to ask the House to see that the sum given in relief was fairly apportioned—that was to say, that those who suffered most should benefit most, and that those who suffered least should benefit least. What was the sum which Government were going to give in aid of local taxation? He rejected at once from consideration on both sides of the account the grants discontinued on one side and re-granted on the other—that was to say, the grants in aid of Poor Law purposes, which were in future to be met by local funds and paid out of the Imperial taxation. Taking no account of this, he found that the total amount which the President of the Local Government Board proposed to appropriate was £2,969,873, from which had to be deducted for grants £2,582,434, leaving a balance of old taxes to be handed over to the Local Authorities for local purposes of £387,439. That would be the amount received of the first grant of the old taxes. Then there were the new taxes, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated at £826,000. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman was a very sound and careful financier; but he thought that perhaps a larger sum than this would be realized. The right hon. Gentleman then proposed to give in aid of local taxation £1,800,000 Probate Duty, which made the total amount to £3,013,439. The House would remember that the amount of local taxation was £26,000,000, so that this relief amounted to 2s. 3½d. in the pound, or, roughly speaking, one-ninth of local taxation proposed to be relieved out of the Imperial purse. He submitted, in the first instance, that this principle of one-ninth must pervade all classes of taxation. The urban taxation amounted to £17,750,000; the rural to £8,250,000. Then, he said, on every principle of fairness, that the urban taxation should receive about £2,000,000 and the rural taxation about £1,000,000 of this relief, which would then be in equal ratio with the burden, which, as between the two classes of districts, was two to one. Now, what did the Government propose with reference to this apportionment; and that was the first criticism to which he asked the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board

    1155
    of Trade? By this Bill it was proposed not only to hand over these funds to the Local Authorities, but it also appropriated them. They had, first, £1,800,000 Probate Duty, which was handed over to the various counties on the basis of the number of indoor paupers. But that would only account for £1,200,000, so that there remained a margin of £600,000. One hon. Gentleman in the course of that debate had said that he should like to know how this sum would ultimately be apportioned. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) thought there would be great disappointment in some quarters, and a great deal of surprise in others, at the way in which this would work out. There was no doubt that the Metropolis would get the lion's share. The number of indoor paupers in the Metropolis was 28 per cent of the total number in the Kingdom, and, therefore, it would have 28 per cent of the grant. He had calculated this, taking the number of indoor paupers as 200,000, and, if that figure were correct, he found that Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Yorkshire, and Lancashire, five counties, would take £984,000, or more than one-half of the grant. Then he found that five other counties, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Northamptonshire—fairly representative counties—would only receive £89,000. Now, he made no criticism as to whether or not this was the wisest mode of appropriation. But something might be said as to whether it would tend to increase or decrease the expense of Poor Law administration—whether it would offer an inducement to increase the number of indoor paupers and reduce the amount of outdoor relief. He did not wish the Government to think that he was dissenting from this mode of apportionment, but he wished the House to know how it would be distributed. There would then remain £1,800,000 for general local relief. The next subject he had to refer to was that of the maintenance of main roads. There was a little difficulty in the financial scheme of the Bill in this respect. The Bill said, first, that the main roads should be a general county expenditure, and, having made that provision, it said that this £1,800,000 should be applied first in discharge of the general county expenditure. But the Financial Scheme
    1156
    contemplated that the first contribution should be for the maintenance of main roads. He presumed the Government would make it clear whether or not the County Authorities were to have any option as to the application of the funds to the main roads. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated that the cost of maintenance of the main roads would be £1,040,000. How was this money to be allocated? They had the statement in the Government Returns that the grant of last year of £234,000 represented about a quarter of the cost of the main roads. Of this sum, £152,000 was allocated to the rural authorities and £74,000 to the urban authorities, and the Quarter Session boroughs only received £7,827. Thus the boroughs for which he was going specifically to plead in that House, and which were directly affected by this Bill—the Quarter Session boroughs—received the magnificent sum of £7,827. The towns received 35 per cent and the rural districts 65 per cent of this subvention. If they were to appropriate the £1,040,000 on the same ratio, they would have the country receiving £676,000 and the towns £364,060, while the smaller Quarter Session boroughs would be practically excluded from the grant. But that did not appropriate the whole of the £1,800,000; the rest of it was to be appropriated to the general county expenditure, to which all the country, including the municipal boroughs, was assessed; and in this general county fund, of course, was included the general county expenditure defrayed by the county rates. That would give something like £800,000 to the counties.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that in the debtor and creditor account which the right hon. Gentleman had given of these grants he had forgotten the £254,000 for main roads which was discontinued.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that was the difference between the discontinued grants and the new grants. The general county expenditure in boroughs, after deducting the police and main roads, which had been disposed of, was only £1,500,000, and the balance of the grant would go in relief of this expenditure. His right hon.

    1157
    Friend was perfectly accurate in saying that this abolition would relieve all the ratepayers in the counties, including, of course, the ratepayers who lived in the boroughs; and those hon. Members who were familiar with the relations between the boroughs and counties would know that the urban districts were rated for general county purposes. There were certain expenses for which the whole boroughs were liable, and his right hon. Friend would say that these were going to be relieved to that extent. But with reference to this matter he must use a legal phrase, and say that they must marshal the burdens of local taxation to which the ratepayer was subject, and then they must marshal the burdens in respect of which they were to be relieved. The lowest county rate in England was three-eighths of a penny in the pound and the highest 5¼d., the average being about 3d. in the pound. The average urban rate was 2s. 6d. in the pound, and he would point out that a 1d. in 2s. 6d. was a very different thing from a 1d. in 3d. For instance he was paying 2s. 6d. in the pound to local taxation, 1d of which went to the county; his neighbour at a short distance was paying 3d. in the pound, and if they were both going to be relieved by 1d.in the pound, one would be relieved to the extent of 33 per cent, and the other of 3 per cent. He maintained, therefore, that if relief was intended it must be proportional; it was the minimum of justice to allot the relief in precisely the same proportion to the same classes of rates, and therefore the municipal burden was entitled to be relieved in the same proportion as the rural burden was relieved. His next question was as to whence the funds came from which the right hon. Gentleman was going to make the appropriation. The right hon Gentleman was not going to take this sum of £1,800,000 from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or from Imperial taxation; he was going to take it from certain taxes paid in certain localities. If the county was to have the benefit of taxation raised in the county, were not the municipal boroughs to have the benefit of the taxation raised in the boroughs? He said that the municipal boroughs deserved well of the country; they had done their duty, they had developed the whole principle of local government,
    1158
    and the county government proposal was merely based on the desire to adopt and extend the system which had worked so satisfactorily in the boroughs; and if certain taxes paid by them into the Exchequer were to be considered, then he said that the taxes paid in them should go to the boroughs direct. They were raised in and belonged to the boroughs, and the latter had fully discharged their duties of local administration; they were fully taxed, and he put it to the Government as a matter of justice to say why it was that Birmingham should have these local taxes in aid of local rates, and Wolverhampton be compelled to hand them over to a county 50 miles long and 30 miles wide, with which it had no connection whatever. The right hon. Gentleman had said in reply to him that he could not give figures to show how this taxation scheme would work out, but he was going to give the House some figures which had been supplied to him by the courtesy of the Local Authorities in Wolverhampton, and would show exactly how the scheme would work as between Wolverhampton and the county of Stafford. Hon. Gentlemen would know that a Quarter Sessions borough with 80,000 inhabitants was a very fair type of an English borough. The county of Stafford had a rateable value of £4,260,000, and its county and police rates were between 5d. and 6d. in the pound, leaving the poor rate entirely out of the calculation. The municipal and sanitary rates of Wolverhampton amounted to 4s. 2¼d.; the school board and library rate was 7¾d; making a total of 4s. 10 d. What was the case of the county? Twenty years ago in the county of Stafford the county rate was 3d. in the pound, in 1884 2½d., to-day 3⅛d., and might practically be said to be stationary. The average for Wolverhampton for many years, including poor rate, had been 5s. 9d., and he regretted to say that this year they were 7s. 3d. in the pound. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not tell what sum the localities would get, but he had in his hand a statement prepared by the Authorities of the Inland Revenue in Wolverhampton which would give figures with regard to that borough.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was not taking into account the rates of the other areas within the

    1159
    county; he was comparing the rates in municipal boroughs with the county rates alone.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he perfectly understood the distinction; but the whole of the Government subvention would go to the county rate.
    MR. RITCHIE: No.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, his case was that, no matter how the other areas were affected, the municipal taxation was going to be taken out of the municipal borough and applied elsewhere. In Wolverhampton, the Inland Revenue Authorities estimated that the transferred licences would produce £5,334, and that the local taxes to be transferred to the County Councils would yield £2,933, making a total of £8,267 from all licences. He agreed that it was impossible to calculate what the new licences would produce; but here again the Inland Revenue Authorities estimated that the Horse and Wheel Taxes would produce £1,680, which would raise the total to £9,947. Adding 20 per cent for licences would raise the total to £11,000. The grants in aid now received amounted to £5,650, and that left a balance of £5,358, which would be paid to the county authority. The right hon. Gentleman would say he was not calculating the Probate Duty contribution for indoor paupers. It was impossible to calculate what the Probate Duty paid in the borough would be. In the whole county of Stafford there were 6,872 indoor paupers, which would entitle it to receive a grant of about £62,000, of which sum the Unions would get £42,000, and there would be a profit of £20,000. The estimated grant in respect of Wolverhampton would be about £4,000, which would give the county a profit of £1,600 upon paupers alone.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not understand how the right hon. Gentleman calculated the amount which Wolverhampton would receive for paupers.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he had only taken the paupers of the borough. The Union included other townships. His authority was the clerk to the Poor Law Guardians. If he was right, the House would see that there was about £6,000 of Wolverhampton taxation to be handed over to the county of Stafford. Wolverhampton was now, for the first time, to be brought into the
    1160
    county of Stafford for the purpose of assessment for main roads. There were in the county 688 miles of main roads. In Wolverhampton there were only two miles. Its present taxation for county purposes was 1d. in the pound. Municipal boroughs in counties ought to be self contained, and in that case the borough of Wolverhampton would receive between £5,000 and £6,000 in aid of its local taxation.
    MR. RITCHIE: Am I right in un-standing the right hon. Gentleman to say that Wolverhampton ought to receive £5,700 in addition to the sum allowed?
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Yes; irrespective of the sum on account of paupers. What was the practical bearing of his statement? His point was this—they were all agreed that this relief should be granted to local taxation, and they were, he felt sure, also agreed that it should be fairly apportioned. He fully admitted that unless the right hon. Gentleman were omniscient and infallible, he could not draw a Bill of this magnitude and complexity without its being open to criticism in some of its details. And consequently he implied no blame or censure when he said that the same measure of justice which was dealt out to the 10 great boroughs, and to the nine boroughs with their populations of 100,000, should be dealt out also to the middle class boroughs which had discharged their municipal duties, which were bearing the burden of taxation, and which were entitled to be relieved. Unless those boroughs were made independent of the counties, grave injustice would be done to them. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that so far as the boroughs were concerned there was no desire in any way to impede the work or throw any difficulties in the way of this scheme. They believed in Local Government, they desired to see it extended, but they, at the same time, asked him not to put upon the face of the Bill a taint of injustice or to give them a standing grievance. Wolverhampton was anxious that the county of Stafford should enjoy the same benefits which the inhabitants believed they had derived from an improved system of Local Government, but they urged that the borough should not be fined £5,000 to enable the county to receive that benefit. He merely

    1161
    asked that they should be given their own, and the grievance being removed, so far as the rural and urban districts were concerned, he thought there would be little ground for complaint. He admitted the difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman had to contend, but he asked him that the boroughs having their own Quarter Sessions and police, discharging all their municipal duties, and with populations approaching 80,000 or 90,000 inhabitants, should be put upon the same footing as the other boroughs. If the right hon. Gentleman would concede this point, he believed he would then remove the only sense of injustice which, so far as he was aware, had arisen with respect to the Bill. There might be some difference of opinion as to the wisdom of some of the provisions of the Bill, but, on the whole, he thought the scheme was a good one, and they wished to see it carried.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he was quite sure that no one who had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had found it in the least dull or dry. It was quite beyond his (Sir Richard Webster's) province to reply to what he might call the detailed financial argument so clearly put before the House by the right hon. Gentleman. If all other boroughs found as able an advocate as the right hon. Gentleman, he was sure the House would have no reason to regret the spirit in which the debate was conducted. The right hon. Gentleman would agree with him, however, that the figures which he had quoted ought to be checked and tested by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), or by some one who had to conduct the financial policy of the Bill. He should like to remind the House of one or two matters which ought to be considered by any hon. Member who intended to approach the question from the same point of view as that of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a comparison between the amount of rates paid in urban and rural districts. But it must be clearly borne in mind that there was a broad distinction between the purposes for which the money had to be spent in each case. There were
    1162
    some general considerations which ought not to be lost sight of. Birmingham had been referred to. He knew a good deal about the expenditure in Birmingham, and he did not take Birmingham as a typical borough. Although the Municipal Authority had done its work most admirably, he doubted whether it would be prudent for all municipalities to spend money on the same lavish scale and with the same magnificence as Birmingham. What was the reason why the rates were so high in urban as compared with country districts? Drainage and sewage works had been carried out to a much greater extent in the urban districts than in the rural districts. The expenses of paving, kerbing, and channelling the streets were infinitely more heavy per mile of road in the urban than in the rural districts. The borough buildings, too, which had to be erected were, as a rule, magnificent, and the ratepayers had still to bear the cost of them. There were also baths and washhouses, parks, and free libraries. Although, therefore, it might be true that the borough ratepayer had to pay 2s. 6d. or 4s. 6d., it had to be remembered that he received practical value for his money, because he was gathering around his dwelling improved streets, which heightened the value of his property. The same observation applied to free libraries, parks, and other buildings. It would, therefore, be most unwise to base any division of contribution to be paid in aid of local rates on a mere comparison of the amount paid by the urban authorities as compared with the rural authorities. While estimating burdens, they also must estimate the benefits. Passing to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), he (Sir Richard Webster) must say he had heard with pleasure the tone of the criticisms which it contained. They all recognized the great authority with which the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to speak on those questions. One of the most important of his criticisms upon the Bill was that it excluded from its scope the Poor Law system, but should the House consider what must have been the result of including in that measure—which was already a measure of enormous magnitude, branching out into a great variety

    1163
    of most difficult subjects—the great question of the Poor Law system. He was not arguing that that system was not one which required examination and amendment, but he maintained that if it had been taken up in connection with this Bill the Poor Law system either could not have received one-tenth of the discussion in the House which would be necessary or satisfactory to the country, or it would have occupied by itself far more time than it would have been practicable to devote to it consistently with the passing of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the question of the incidence of the poor rate and Poor Law assessment; and no doubt nothing was more unjust than the way in which that burden often fell. For example, they had a stockbroker carrying on a large business in an office in the City of London, and paying, it might be, £150 or £200 a-year as rent for his office, while he was making perhaps £10,000 or £15,000 of annual profits; and yet he, practically speaking, paid scarcely anything to the poor rate, his contribution being based only on the value of the rooms he occupied; whereas the tradesman in a town, who must have large premises, and had, perhaps, a large capital in his business, and who was only making, it might be, a return of a few hundreds a-year, was heavily assessed to the poor rate. The Government felt as strongly as anyone that if they dealt with the Poor Law system, one of the questions which must present themselves was how to adapt the basis on which the poor rate rested under the Statute of Elizabeth to the way in which in modern times incomes were earned and property was held, and it would be impossible to deal with the Poor Law system and yet to shelve that question which, if fairly handled, would itself involve probably three or four nights' discussion. Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to the necessity of unity of rating, and pointed out the anomalies which existed, mentioning that, for the purpose of county rate and poor rate, there were even now differences of assessment in some counties. It was quite necessary that those anomalies should ultimately be, if not all removed, at least greatly remedied; but let them consider what that involved. Scarcely a Session passed without a Bill being brought in by some Member of
    1164
    experience dealing with the questions of what was rateable property, whether machinery should be included, and matters of that kind; and if the Poor Law system was to be dealt with at all it must be dealt with as a whole. It would thus be impossible to include the question of the Poor Law system in this Bill without endangering the whole measure. They were now constituting a County Council, and they did not know how it would prove itself capable to do the work put upon it. It would be well to allow the County Council to gain a little experience before burdening it with all those difficult questions connected with the Poor Law. He, therefore, could not help thinking that Ins right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had exercised a wise judgment and discretion in not overloading his ship in such a manner as might endanger its prospects of safely reaching port. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax said they were setting up on one side the Assessment Committee, and on the other side the authority of the Board of Guardians. That, however, was only another incident of the compulsory exclusion of the Poor Law system from the Bill; and it would be of no use removing the question of the poor rate and Poor Law administration from the Guardians and the Assessment Committees unless they were prepared to deal with the question as a whole. With regard to the control of the police, he submitted that it would have been impossible for the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to have gone farther than he had in the present Bill. It was not possible for him to transfer at once to a new body not yet created the whole of the powers over the police. It had been said—"Why not trust the County Councils at once, and hand over to them the control of the police?" It seemed to him that such a step as that ought to be taken only after great care and deliberation, and when it was quite certain that there would be men on the Councils who were best fitted, from their experience in the past, to deal with such a matter. It would at least be prudent for a time to continue the control of the police in the hands of those who had so efficiently discharged the duty in the past. Nobody would deny that the

    1165
    county magistrates had managed the police with perfect prudence and judgment, and with very great economy. They had to remember that the judicial duties were not to be transferred to the new Councils, and it would be unwise at once to take away from the county magistrates the control over the police, when they were leaving most important functions still to be exercised by the magistrates which would involve their being brought into contact with the force. As to the question of selected members, it was not necessary, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to go into details which would be better left for the Committee stage. But he would ask hon. Members to be very careful not to impair the efficiency of the County Councils, which were likely, in his opinion, to be very materially improved by the presence upon them of selected members. He doubted whether the criticism was quite just which said that, speaking generally, selected members in boroughs had failed. He should have thought that there was not much fault to be found with the aldermanic system, although, no doubt, mistakes were to be found under all systems. One of the most pleasant things about the discussions on this Bill was that those who had served their counties well in the past had expressed themselves as willing to continue their services on the new Councils in the future. But it did not always follow that men of experience and ability were popular and would always be elected, and it was very desirable that it should be in the power of the elected members to secure the services of men of experience who were likely to be of value in the Council. If they once accepted that principle the fixing of a period during which they should serve was a minor matter. He submitted that there was an efficient and effective amount of control over the transfer to the County Councils of the increased duties which it was in contemplation to impose upon them. With respect to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse), he (Sir Richard Webster) did not think it was of any great importance, as he could not imagine anything worse than a Member of Parliament elected to a County Council being called upon to vote upon some burning question with respect to the business of the Council
    1166
    when he would have to decide the matter in the House. The same observation applied to the suggestion that members of the District Councils should also be members of the County Council. The better the selection of members for the County Councils, the better for the ratepayers; but he hoped that no proposal would be accepted by the House by which the Members of Parliament for a particular county were to be regarded as ex officio members of the County Council. The question as to whether owners should be allowed to vote was worth consideration; but it must not be thought that owners of property would be excluded from the franchise under the Municipal Corporations Act. The qualification of occupation of a house, shop, or building had been hold to include the occupation of even a wooden erection used for storing potatoes, and it would be a very exceptional case in which land was without some building in respect of which the occupation franchise could be claimed. He had now ventured to reply to all the objections taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax. The object of the Government had been so to start an improved system of local government as to remove from the question, not only in the present Session, but in future Sessions, the possibility of hostile discussion. They desired to create bodies capable of development for useful work, and on which the capacity of members for doing the county work would be likely to be cultivated and improved. If there was one thing which augured the success of the proposals it was the criticism which had been applied to the Bill, which showed that on this particular matter there was one opinion and desire in all parts of the House that the scheme should be—so far as Parliament could make it—entirely efficient and successful.
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, for more than 20 years past he had sought to gain in all parts of the Kingdom, and in other countries where free institutions existed, all the information he could collect bearing on the question of Local Government; and, with the aid of the best literary and legal assistance he could enlist in the cause, he had sought to bring the results before statesmen, Members of Parliament, and all those interested in the

    1167
    subject. With the experience he had gained he was afraid he could not take quite the same sanguine view as had been so generally expressed of the Bill as it now stood, though he hoped that, with Amendments that might be made in Committee, it would not fail, as it otherwise would fail, to carry out the objects so clearly stated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. He listened with great attention to the very able speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), with whom, or rather under whom, he had long worked upon this question, and he was afraid his right hon. Friend assumed too sanguinely that all men were actuated by the same strong sense of duty and indomitable courage that had always guided his right hon. Friend in his own public life. His right hon. Friend assumed, more than it was safe to assume, that where duties were permitted they would be performed, however difficult, unpopular, and disagreeable those duties might be. He did not think the House should assume, in dealing with the Bill, that all the duties that were permitted would be carried out with the same efficiency as those which were enacted. In what he proposed to bring before the House he would try to state the effect of the Bill, what it would produce by its positive enactments, and not assume, as they could not reasonably do, that all it permitted would be equally effective. He thought all would agree that no Ministry in modern times had ever occupied a position so commanding, to enable it to carry out a really efficient reform of local self-government, as the present Ministry. As a Conservative Ministry, they were fully assured that their measure would not be destroyed or mutilated in the House of Lords. They were allowed by their supporters to promise the widest possible extension of popular franchise. They had a Chancellor of the Exchequer who could offer £3,000,000 to the relief of local taxation from the Imperial Exchequer; a statesman who, 17 years ago, criticized in the most powerful manner our system of local administration as "chaos as regards authorities, chaos as regards rates, and the greatest chaos of all in regard to areas," and who denounced the system of rating as unfair to the weaker
    1168
    and less wealthy part of the community. From that time Liberal statesmen, and especially the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen), had enforced in the strongest manner the danger of giving relief to local rates from the Imperial Exchequer, so long as the system of local administration was so confused and complicated that it was impossible for the ratepayers to exercise any efficient control or take any intelligent interest in local taxation or administration; they could not know who was taxing or governing them. It would be merely like pouring water into a sieve, leaving local affairs less satisfactory than before, and the burden of maladministration would be aggravated. He must say, looking at the position of the Government, he was disappointed when the Bill was introduced, and when, after the most careful consideration, he had sought in vain for reform in the direction of simplification and consolidation of Local Government, that as a pupil of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he had so long laboured to promote it.
    He would give his reasons for supposing that the Bill would not do its work.
    He joined heartily in acknowledging the able and clear manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had introduced the measure, and admitted that it contained many valuable provisions. All Liberals would rejoice that the vivifying and energetic influences of free institutions were to be applied to rural districts; and no doubt it would be found that, as in municipal life, active participation in public affairs would not only promote interest in public matters, but stimulate energy and enterprize in their own country. He thought the proposal for the publication annually of a Local Budget would be a most valuable provision, enabling inhabitants of a locality to understand what had been done and what was proposed to be done for them. He also thought that it was most judicious to give relief at the rate of 2s. 4d. a-week for each indoor pauper. He believed that the cost of indoor paupers was about 3s. 6d. per week per head, and the ordinary relief to outdoor paupers about 1s. per week per head; so the provision in the Bill would equalize the apparent cost of indoor and outdoor relief, and leave the minds of

    1169
    the Guardians unbiassed by any idea of mistaken economy, and they would not be induced to give unwise outdoor relief, to the injury of the self-reliance and independence of the people. It was also a wise proposal to remedy the injustice by which personal property did not contribute towards the expenditure of localities at all in proportion to the advantages the owners of personal property derived from that expenditure. To show that he was right in his contention that the Bill did not effect the reforms required in the simplification of authorities, areas, and rating, he would endeavour to explain the results of applying the provisions of the Bill to different parts of the country. First, he would take a Northern populous Union, that of West Derby, one with which he was best acquainted. In 1881 the population was 355,000, and it was rapidly increasing. It had 10 Local Boards; one borough, that of Bootle; one Board of Guardians, three Burial Boards, one School Board, one Highway Board; in all, 17 Local Authorities within the boundaries of the Union. Ten Local Boards would remain under the Bill, but they would become local districts. The borough of Bootle would remain, so would the School Board, and the Board of Guardians, but shorn of their sanitary authority. The three Burial Boards would seem to be disestablished by the Bill. But there was no provision in the Bill for forming District Councils in large boroughs, such as Liverpool, and two of these Burial Boards were within the boundaries of Liverpool, the other partially so, so that only half a Burial Board would be disestablished. But there would be still 13 of the existing Local Authorities, though some of them under different names, and a new District Council being added would make 14, instead of 17, all in the Union of West Derby. When they examined whether these Local Districts and Councils which were perpetuated were of a size to do good work or attract able men, they found that in one of the local districts there were only 197 inhabitants; in another, 553; another, 830; and another, 2,486. In the County of the City of Liverpool, as the Bill stood, there would be hardly any change. There were 10 Governing Bodies there now; but he presumed the provisions of the Bill would disestablish five Burial
    1170
    Boards, but that was all the simplification the Bill would effect in Liverpool. He supposed this meant that the President of the Local Government Board considered the arrangements there as perfect as they need be.
    It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Postponed Resolutions [9th April] reported.
  Resolutions Four and Fourteen further considered.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) had agreed to the postponement of this Resolution until to-night, in order that he (Mr. Buchanan) might endeavour to elicit some information from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) in regard to the condition of things at Lake Nyassa and in the neighbourhood. In the Vote there was a sum of £180 voted for Consular buildings there, and two years ago a sum of £1,000 was voted for the Consulate at Nyassa; therefore, as the House had agreed to expenditure on the Consulate there, he might fairly urge that the Government should do something for the protection of British subjects in that part of the world. The House was aware of what had recently taken place at Nyassa. The settlement of Karonga had been attacked by a raid of Arabs from the North-West from the district around Lake Tanganyika, and the attack had been warded off. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary was aware of all the facts. The attack was defeated by the efforts of the settlers, but there was still great anxiety felt as to the fate of those who remained after the Consul and his supporters withdrew from the district attacked. Though the latest accounts somewhat lessened the anxiety, undoubtedly the members of the Mission Stations and the commercial settlers were in a very critical position. First they were exposed to a combined attack by Arabs from the North-West, and, on the other hand, they bad their only available route to the Lake country from the port of

  1171
  Quilimane by the Shire and Zambesi gradually being closed by the Portuguese, who were not only imposing increasing duties on whatever might be sent in, but had recently seized a British vessel there. So, not only were the Nyassa settlers in continual danger from the Arabs, but they were also in danger of having their communication with the outside world shut off by the Portuguese. Therefore, he wished to urge on the Foreign Office some means of protection for the missionary and commercial interests of British subjects at Nyassa and the African Lakes district. In the last two years we had spent more than £1,000 on the Consulate, and he would suggest that to make the outlay effectual we should increase the power of the Consul in the district, providing him with a steam launch on the Lake, and a small armed force for its protection. Also he might be enabled to raise some kind of Native Consular force for the protection of British interests where there was no administrative authority but his own. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary knew—but it was worth while recalling the fact—that this part of Central Africa was first opened up by the discoveries of Dr. Livingstone and the explorations of other enterprizing Englishmen, and the Government encouraged settlers to go there, attaching as conditions to the recognition of their interests that there should be no sale to the Natives of ammunition or liquor. He believed that these conditions had been strictly observed, and there was every promise of these becoming the most flourishing settlements in Africa. He urged upon the Foreign Office the duty of keeping open the only permanent, effective, and available route from the outside to this district by the Zambesi River. Since he had put Questions on the subject to the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary the Sultan of Zanzibar had died. The Sultan in former times exercised great authority outside the actual limits of his jurisdiction over the Arab populations. Had this influence diminished, or was it no longer exercised? Would the Foreign Office endeavour to induce the Successor to Sultan Burghash to use the same controlling influence over Arab marauders who came down to the settlements and did all in their power to revive the African Slave Trade in an
  1172
  active form? To put down this Slave Trade we had spent hundreds of thousands of pounds, and still voted tens of thousands every year, while the trade was still fostered by the Arabs. There were ample grounds for urging on the Government some steps for the protection of British interests at these Lake settlements.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)said, he must apologize to the hon. and learned Member for not being ready to answer his Question on a previous occasion, though he might be excused, because in Committee on the Vote no observations were made upon any item. Upon the points to which the hon. and learned Member had directed his remarks he might say a few words, and hoped they would be satisfactory. The hon. and learned Member had referred to recent events at Nyassa, in which great gallantry was displayed by a few European residents, acting in concert with Native tribes, between whom and themselves feelings of mutual confidence had grown up. One or two European settlements were menaced by one of those marauding Arab bands that infested the country to the great distress of the inhabitants. Joining hands with Native tribes, retaliatory measures were taken, and a blow was struck at the Arabs, which he hoped would for some time secure more peace in that region. The Arab position was carried by the Europeans leading Native tribes, who, according to some accounts, seconded their leaders but badly; but in the result the Arab position was severely damaged, and the European residents were relieved from the apprehension of immediate danger. It was most likely that in due time further measures would be taken by the settlers for their own protection. The settlers in this distant region had shown the greatest courage and the ability, so far, to defend themselves; but it could not be doubted that there was considerable ground for apprehension in the minds of those who had invested large sums of money in these Central African enterprizes. The question raised was how far Her Majesty's Government ought to give material support to British subjects in that part of the world, and it was a very serious question. They had to consider

  1173
  that these settlements could not be approached through British territory at all, or even through territory over which this country exercised a Protectorate; and it was a difficult matter to consider how, under such circumstances, military responsibility could be entered upon. He was afraid that those who went so far into the interior on commercial or missionary enterprize must be prepared to incur great risks, without any great expectations of being supported by the country, unless, indeed, engagements in that direction had been entered into such as the hon. and learned Member would not say existed in this case. The hon. and learned Member had pointed out the importance of maintaining the great highway up the Zambesi River, and, undoubtedly, this was a legitimate object for Her Majesty's Government to seek to attain. Unfortunately, it did not come within the scope of the Berlin Agreement, which had reference to the Congo River. Nevertheless, it was the object of Her Majesty's Government to maintain freedom of access by the Zambesi, which was the only route by which these settlements could practically be approached. Of course, while Africa was being extensively colonized and European influence spreading in that dark Continent, settlers must have the sea-board for a base; you cannot commence in the centre of the Continent; you would only involve yourselves in enormous responsibilities and troubles. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the beneficial influence that might be exercised through Zanzibar, and he (Sir James Fergusson) was happy to say the new Sultan appeared fully willing to carry out all the engagements into which his Predecessor entered; and he felt quite sure that all the influence the Sultan could bring to bear for the suppression of the Slave Trade, and the discouragement of expeditions into the interior would be exercised. By that influence he hoped something might be done to facilitate intercourse between the sea and the great lakes, or inland seas, by which so much had been done by Englishmen to introduce civilization into the heart of the Continent. But he should not be doing his duty if he did not state frankly that Her Majesty's Government could not undertake military responsibilities in so distant a region, and that military responsibility could
  1174
  not be limited when once an armed force was employed by the Consul there. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would be satisfied with what had been said, and he might be assured that the interests of our countrymen in that distant region would not be lost sight of as far as they could properly be followed.
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, unless something was done without delay, the Zambesi, as a means of access, would be gone altogether. Already the Portuguese had begun to colour their maps, including this in their territory.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he had intended to point out that Her Majesty's Government were fully aware of their duty in this regard, and their endeavour was to keep open this water highway.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he acknowledged the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State. By the indulgence of the House he might be allowed to say that he did not ask that any military responsibility or military expenditure should be incurred, but that the position of the Consul, upon whom we had already spent much money, should be strengthened.
  Postponed Resolutions agreed to.

MOTIONS.

  MARRIAGES OF NONCONFORMISTS (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) (No. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Attendance of Registrars at Marriages in Nonconformist Chapels, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Richard, Mr. Illingworth, and Mr. Waddy.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 205.]

  PARTNERSHIP BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel Hill, Bill to consolidate the Law of Partnership,
  ordered to be brought in by Colonel Hill, Sir Bernhard Samuelson, Sir George Elliot, Sir Charles Palmer, Mr. Whitley, Sir Albert Rollit, and Mr. Seale-Hayne.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 206.]

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. T. W. Russell Bill to amend section one of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," in regard to leaseholders, ordered to

  1175
  be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Lea, and Mr. Sinclair.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 207.]
  House adjourned at twenty five minutes after Twelve o'clock.