Sitting of 19 April 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Standing Orders, Mr. Carew added.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Third Reading—Keble College [Lords], negatived.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government (England and Wales) [182] [Fifth Night], debate adjourned; Land Law (Ireland) Act (1887) Amendment [207].
Committee—Fishery Acts Amendment (Ireland) [32]—R.P.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Ordered—First Reading—Pier and Harbour * [221].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  KEBLE COLLEGE BILL [Lords].
  (By Order.)
  KEBLE COLLEGE BILL [Lords].

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that in rising to move that the Bill be now read the third time, he ought to apologize to the House for taking up its most valuable time by explaining the object of a measure of this kind at so late a stage. The course, however, which had been taken by the hon. and learned Member for the Barnsley Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Courtney Kenny) necessitated this, and it was a most unusual one. It was a Bill which had passed the other House of Parliament through all its stages, not merely as a matter of form, but after having received full consideration there. As far as he knew, no opposition had been raised to it at any stage. It then came down to that House, and had passed the early stages in the usual way. Having been read a second time, it went before the Chairman of Committees, who made a special Report upon it, and now, having passed all the other stages, it came before the House for a third reading. He must apologize for occupying the time of the House on a matter of that kind; but there was no other alternative left, seeing that hon. Members opposite sought to throw out the Bill upon the third reading. No doubt, it was within the right of hon. Members to take objection, even to the last stage of the Bill; but in consequence of that action it became necessary that he should explain to the House, in a
    1688
    few words, what the objects of the measure were. "The Mortmain Act," so-called, of Geo. II., was passed with the object (according to Williams on Real Property) of preventing improvident alienations or dispositions of landed estates by languishing or dying persons, to the disherison of their lawful heirs. This Statute provides—
    "That no lands or hereditaments …. shall be conveyed or settled for any charitable uses, unless such lands or hereditaments …. be conveyed by deed …. 12 calendar months at least before the death of the donor or granter. And all gifts, conveyances, and settlements for any charitable uses whatsoever made in any other manner or form than by that Act is directed, are declared to be absolutely and to all intents and purposes null and void. Gifts to either of the two Universities, or any of their Colleges, or to the Colleges of Eton, Winchester, or Westminster, for the support and maintenance of the scholars only upon these foundations are excepted.
    Now, Keble College did not come technically within that enactment, and, therefore, the Bill had been introduced for the purpose of placing that College on the same footing in this respect as that occupied by the other Oxford Colleges. He should have thought that it did not require any great argument to recommend a Bill containing such provisions to the favourable consideration of the House. After all, what did the Bill do? It merely enabled Keble College to receive bequests of property in the same way as the other Colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. It was stated that Keble College was not like the other Colleges, either in Oxford or Cambridge; that it had special privileges, and did not come under the operation of the ordinary law. That was the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney Kenny), but even if there were misguided persons who chose to waste their money in making bequests of this kind, he (Mr. Talbot) could not see why their wishes should have no effect and they should be prohibited from doing so. The hon. and learned Member or his Friends were apparently under the impression that people attached to Keble College were likely to endow it with a large amount of property. There was, however, this Proviso in the Bill, that Keble College should only be empowered to hold real estate devised by will to the value of £5,000 per annum. That was not an alarming amount of property for a College to hold. There was only one

    1689
    other argument with which he would trouble the House. Since the passing of the Mortmain Act of Geo. II., to which he had already referred, similar enabling Bills to that which he had now the honour of submitting bad been passed by Parliament. Exemptions had been granted by Private Acts—in the cases of the Royal Naval Asylum, by an Act of 1811; the St. George's Hospital, by an Act of 1834; and the University College of London, by an Act of 1869. All those Acts had been passed to relieve the Colleges from the restrictions imposed by the Mortmain Act, and he only asked that Keble College should have the same immunity. He knew there were some hon. Gentlemen opposite who took a denominational view of the matter; but he should have thought that, on general Liberal principles, there would have been no objection to allow Keble College, within such reasonable limits, to possess real property. It had been stated that if Keble College had been incorporated, it would have enjoyed the same immunities which other Colleges at Oxford now enjoyed. He maintained that that was not necessarily so, because the College had been founded after the passing of the Act of Geo. II., and it might be contended that the immunities granted under the Act of Geo. II. applied only to Colleges existing at the passing of the Act. He knew of no other objection to the passing of the Bill, which in itself was a most reasonable measure. It would remove any possible misunderstanding in future. He was sorry to take up the time of the House at any length on a question of this kind; but, before sitting down, he desired it to be understood that the duty of taking charge of the Bill devolved itself upon him as a Representative of the University of Oxford, and that he had been in no way influenced by the fact that a near relative of his was the Warder of Keble College. He was simply acting as the Representative of the Governing Body of the College, and he begged to move the third reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
    MR. COURTNEY KENNYin moving, as an Amendment—
    1690
    "That it is inexpedient that the privilege of exemption from the Mortmain Act, enjoyed by the Colleges in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, should be extended to any College which, though situate at Oxford, is not incorporated with the University, and which is restricted to the members of a particular Church,"
    said, the hon. Member who moved the third reading of the Bill (Mr. J. G. Talbot) had complained of what he called the unusual course he (Mr. Kenny) and his Friends were taking. He desired, therefore, to point out, at the outset, that those who were opposed to the measure had been compelled to adopt the course they had followed, of moving the rejection of the Bill on the third reading, in consequence of the promoters of the measure having thought fit to introduce it as a Private Bill, and not as a public measure. The first intimation conveyed to the great majority of Members of the House that such a Bill had been introduced was contained in the Report of the Select Committee to whom the Keble College Bill was referred. That Report, which the hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded to, but had not read to the House, said that the Bill contained an alteration of the general law; and under those circumstances, the Committee, although they passed the Bill without amendment, decided that it ought to be submitted to the judgment of the House. Such a Report ought not to be a mere form, and so important an alteration of the general law ought not to be passed silently and unchallenged, without an explanation and without discussion. The hon. Member complained of the action of the opponents of the Bill in provoking discussion on a measure of the kind; but he (Mr. Kenny) would remind the House that they had the authority of Sir Erskine May for saying—
    "Provisions in a Private Bill which repeal or amend a Public Act require particular vigilance, lest public laws be lightly set aside for the benefit of particular persons or places."
    He had listened with some interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, in order to learn the grounds on which the Governing Body of Keble College sought to be emancipated from the restrictions of the Statute, which had now regulated the bequests of property to educational institutions for a century and a-half. Unless they were, through Private Bill legislation, merely to play and trifle with the law of the land,

    1691
    for special and peculiar exemption from the general rule of law, they should have an equally special and peculiar reason. What reason was there for the exemption which this Bill proposed? They were not called upon to discuss the policy of the Mortmain Act; but it had been the law of the land since 1736, and had recently been confirmed by both Houses of Parliament, seeing that the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Bill had passed the House of Lords this Session, and was read a second time in the House of Commons on the 23rd of March, only four weeks ago, without a Division. As Keble College did not oppose that Bill, it might be taken that it accepted the principle of it. It, however, disliked having the principle applied to itself. The hon. Member had referred to the precedent of the University College of London. That was the only precedent the hon. Gentleman could produce, and it was a curious illustration of the anomalies which arose, when Private Bills were introduced, to evade the general rules of law, for, although the University College obtained this exemption, its Mother Institution, the University of London, had no such privilege. Nor had the University of Durham. Yet those bodies were National Universities, whereas Keble College was not a University and was not National. Moreover, the University College of London was open to all sects, whereas Keble was confined by its Charter to the Established Church. He was surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have brought forward the case of the University College, as it afforded such a striking illustration of the evil of dealing with cases of this kind by the anomalous action of special Acts of Parliament. The hon. Member was entitled to allude with just pride to his personal connection with Keble College, and he (Mr. Kenny) congratulated the hon. Gentleman on the success of that College; but, with all his respect for that College, he must point out that it could not be regarded as a National Instition. The hon. Member had quoted it as an instance of a College which closely approximated to the exemptions embodied in the Act of Geo. II. but said that by mere technicality it did not come within the provisions of that Act. Now, he ventured to submit that there was much more than a technical dis-
    1692
    tinction. There was a political and Parliamentary distinction between Keble College and the Colleges which really formed part of the University of Oxford. What was that distinction? No Nonconformist Denominational Institution enjoyed the favour which this Bill would give to Keble College. It was said that all the Colleges incorporated with the University of Oxford were exempt. Yes; and if Keble College so incorporated itself, it would possess by ordinary legal right what it now sought to obtain by extraordinary legal privilege. The Governing Body of Keble College had a Charter authorizing them to incorporate the College with the University. They had that right, but during their 18 years of existence they had never availed themselves of it, because if they cast in their lot with the University, they would have to follow the fortunes of the University. If Keble became part of a National Institution it would come under the direct control of Parliament, and would subject itself to the liability of being reformed whenever Parliament again applied itself to the reform of the National Universities. Oxford and Cambridge and their colleges were exempt from the operation of the Mortmain Act of 1736, because Parliament naturally put no restraint on the increase of endowments which were not mere private trusts, but were directly subject to Parliamentary control and correction. It was said that the Collegiate exemption ought to be extended, because of the recent legalisation at Oxford of various new extra-Collegiate classes of foundations like Keble College. If that were proposed, it would have to be remembered that the University might at any time revoke its connection with these foundations, including Keble College. He ventured to submit that the proper course was not to ask for special privileges for Keble College, but to alter the general law relating to the University. At present no general exemption was proposed. Keble College asked only for piecemeal legislation to benefit herself, and not to benefit similar foundations. He was not quite sure, however, if such a measure were passed, and new foundations were allowed to have the benefit of it, that Keble College would be able to put forward as strong a claim as that of other

    1693
    new foundations. The hon. Member had spoken of Keble College throughout as if it were connected inherently and by the necessity of its existence with the University of Oxford; but if he had read the Charter, he would have seen that it in no way connected her with Oxford, either by requiring her Governing Body to be Oxford men, or by requiring her buildings to be permanently at Oxford. There was not a single syllable in the Charter which required even the keeping up of the geographical connection with Oxford, and if ever a gathering storm should threaten the University, Keble College would be able to shake off all connection with it, and go away. And she had purposely kept her chapel unconsecrated, because consecration might introduce difficulties in regard to the exercise of some such powers given to the Governing Body by the Charter. At any moment Keble College would be able to sell her present site. Not only had her endowments no indissoluble connection with Oxford, but they were not even connected indissolubly with education itself. In their sedulous care to put Keble College beyond the reach of the reforming hand of Parliament, the framers of the Charter had authorized the Governing Body and the Visitor of the College to surrender the Charter, and dispose of the College property "as they shall judge expedient." He thought he had given adequate grounds for asking the House, even at this stage of the measure, to reject it, and not suspend the general law for the purpose of giving undue facilities to Keble College for the acquisition of property which, immediately after acquiring, she would be able to dispose of. He opposed the Bill, because it aimed at conferring exceptional legal privileges for the acquisition of property upon a Corporation which would have power to apply it to purposes at present unknown, and because to confer this privilege upon Keble College would be to place a premium upon the creation of Institutions which aimed at enjoying the advantage of University life, whilst repudiating the comprehensive national character and the complete national responsibility which Parliament had seen fit to stamp upon all the Universities of this country. He had great pleasure in moving the
    1694
    Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    MR. J. E. ELLISseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient that the privilege of exemption from the Mortmain Act enjoyed by the Colleges in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge should be extended to any College which, though situate at Oxford, is not incorporated with the University, and which is restricted to the members of a particular Church,"—(Mr. Courtney Kenny,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, he was not aware that the Bill was coming on that day, and had, therefore, not come down prepared to speak upon it. But he was much surprised that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Kenny) should have moved the Amendment, because his (Mr. Parker's) impression was—and he should be glad to be corrected if he was wrong—that no College in Oxford was incorporated with the University, but that the University itself was a Corporation, and each College formed a separate Corporation. If so, they would find themselves in a false position in resolving to exclude a College from certain advantages because it was not incorporated. The Bill itself, it was true, recited in the Preamble that Keble College had not been incorporated with the University, and assumed that other Colleges had been. He trusted that some hon. Member would tell the House whether that was so or not. As to the substance of the Amendment, he was surprised that his hon. and learned Friend, in moving it, should have expressed pleasure in doing so. He (Mr. Parker) should have rather thought it was a painful duty, because it should be borne in mind that Keble College was founded and endowed by members of a particular Church, in order that they might enjoy education at Oxford in connection with the University. Not a farthing of its resources came from any source other than the subscriptions of that Church. When Keble College was founded, there was a movement

    1695
    against it both in the University and outside the University. There was a contention then that it was the policy of Parliament that the Colleges in the University should be thrown open on equal terms to all denominations, and that no new College should be founded at Oxford on different terms. But when the question was discussed publicly there was a strong preponderance of feeling in favour of allowing the members of the Church of England, or of any other Church, to provide such a College at their own cost. What was proposed by the present Bill was to give Keble College the benefit of an exemption which other Colleges enjoyed from the provisions of die Mortmain Act. Already under their charter Keble College could purchase and hold landed property to the extent of £5,000, the Bill would simply further enable a testator to leave such property to them within the same limit of £5,000. No one could doubt that the Committee upstairs had acted rightly, and in accordance with precedent, in referring the question to the House itself, because it was most undesirable that any Committee upstairs should alter the general law without obtaining an expression of the opinion of the House upon it; but he hoped the House, now the question had been referred to it, would see no objection to allowing this College, which, for all practical purposes, was admitted to rank with the other Colleges in the University, to be on an equal footing with them as regarded the Law of Mortmain. He trusted that the House would not be so narrow-minded as to stop the progress of this Bill, but would consider it desirable that all the Colleges of Oxford should be equally free to receive endowments in land. He did not see why Keble College alone should be disabled merely because it had been founded by and for the members of one Church.
    MR. COZENS-HARDYsaid, he had before him the Charter of Keble College, and it contained express power enabling the College to obtain incorporation with the University of Oxford. He also held in his hand an extract from the Charter of Jesus College, which provided that it should be incorporated with the University; and the same course was pursued in the charter of Pembroke College. He believed that it
    1696
    would be found that the same provision applied to the rest of the Colleges. Hitherto Keble College had not availed itself of the provision of its Charter enabling it to obtain incorporation with the University. If the promoters of the Bill would apply all the general legislation relating to Oxford University to Keble College, then let the College have the benefit of the Act of Geo. II.; but as long as Keble College said there were two Statutes affecting it, the advantages of one of which it was entited to claim and the disadvantages of the other it was entitled to reject, then he objected. He hoped the House would not confer that special privilege on Keble College. There were at present a number of educational institutions throughout the length and breadth of the land, and why should not they be entitled to those privileges as well as Keble College? If it was a matter for general legislation, then let it be so considered. Let the restrictions now imposed by the Act of Geo. II. be removed from all Colleges; but do not let the House, by a Private Bill, confer upon this strictly and purely denominational College a privilege which was now denied to all the other educational institutions throughout the country.
    SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYhoped the House would agree to the third reading of the Bill, and would reject the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Barnsley Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Courtney Kenny). The first objection raised to the measure was that it was a Private Bill. So far as that objection went, he (Sir John R. Mowbray) might point out that one College—namely, University College, London, had come forward and obtained an Act of Parliament for the holding of land in mortmain. The hon. Member said that no such privilege had been given to the University of London. As a matter of fact, the University of London had never asked for such a privilege. The University of London was an examining body, and had no necessity for such privilege; but if circumstances should arise to necessitate the University of London asking for the same privilege, he felt sure the House would grant it at once. He thought the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of

    1697
    Committees had acted rightly in calling the attention of the House to the provisions of the measure. The hon. Gentleman, while pointing out that this was a Private Bill, accompanied his remarks with a statement that University College, London, had obtained a similar privilege by means of a Private Bill in 1869. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Cozens-Hardy), who spoke last, said this was a privilege which had been denied to other educational institutions. That was not so, and he challenged the hon. Member to name an institution which had asked for it, and had not received it. Other institutions had obtained similar privileges. Another objection to the Bill was the remarkable and technical one that this was not a College incorporated with the University of Oxford. The hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. C. S. Parker) asked in what condition a College would be placed which was incorporated with the University of Oxford? He could only point out that incorporation was an old and obscure process, and he was not able to enlighten the hon. Member as to the effect it would have. He did not know whether any Professor would be able to enlighten the hon. Member; because, as he (Sir John Mowbray) was informed, no College had been incorporated with the University since 1612. The Charter of Keble College was granted on the 6th of June, 1870, John Keble having died in 1865. A large sum of money was collected, and an arrangement was made to build a College to his memory for which a Charter was granted in 1870. In 1871, this fact being well known, the University passed a series of Academical Statutes on new foundations, especially adapted to meet the case of Keble College. What did these Statutes say?—
    "Any society or house founded since January the 1st 1870 for the purposes of education shall have the privileges which, under the Statutes of the University, are or shall be possessed by the Colleges within the University, on the condition and with limitation following—namely, on the condition—A. To be member of Convocation, or B.A., or B.M., or to have graduated in some other University in the United Kingdom. B. That if new buildings be provided suitable for the reception of students situate within the precincts of the University, the fulfilment of this condition to be ascertained and certified by the Vice Chancellor and Proctors. C. That its members be incorporated by Royal Charter. D. Society or house to be admitted to privileges by vote of Convocation after 14
    1698
    days' notice. Provided that these conditions be satisfied, the persons admitted as students or graduates by the University, or for incorporation into any such Society or House shall have in relation to the University the same privileges and obligations as if they had been so admitted one of the previously existing Colleges or Houses, and all Statutes of the Universities in which mention is made, generally and without distinction of Colleges and. Houses, shall be deemed to include and apply to such newly-founded Society or House. The head shall, in regard to members of the Society or House, be subject to all such obligations and enjoy all such rights and powers as are assigned in the Statutes of the University to the heads of the University Colleges or Houses, but this Statute shall not be construed as conferring upon him any other right, privilege, or distinction whatever."
    He did not know the extent of that limitation, but he believed it was that the head of the College was not entitled to become Vice Chancellor, nor could the College itself supply Proctors to the University under a cycle regulated by a Statute made 200 years ago. He thought the passage he had read effectually disposed of the argument that Keble College had not been received into the University by the Statute passed in 1871. He had been surprised to hear the hon. Member for the Barnsley Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire say that it afforded him pleasure to move the rejection of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was himself obliged to admit the success of Keble College, and all he said against it was that it was not tied to the University of Oxford. Now, it was tied to Oxford University by one of the surest bonds—namely, that it had expended at least £100,000—probably £150,000—in land and in bricks and mortar. It was, in point of fact, a splendid College built by the liberality of Churchmen within the precincts of the University of Oxford. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that if the House passed this Bill there would be a multiplication of these Colleges. For his own part, he should be very glad to see a multiplication of them. He rejoiced at the success which had attended Keble College; and he would remind the House that since the foundation of Keble College, another College had been projected in connection with the University for the Nonconformist Body—namely, Mansfield College. The only privilege asked for by the Bill was that donors might bequeath property to Keble College in the same way that

    1699
    property was allowed to be left to other Colleges. No case had been made out for raising an objection to the progress of a College which had been doing exceedingly good work during the last 18 years. Surely it should be open to all classes of the community to found new Colleges, either upon denominational or non-denominational principles; and, if so, it should certainly be open to the Church of England to found Colleges for its own denomination. On these grounds he supported the third reading of the Bill.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY)said, he thought the House would expect him to say a word in regard to the question before they proceeded to a Division, though the main object of his observations would be to point out to the House that there were two distinct questions involved in the discussion. The first question was simply this—whether a College established at Oxford, such as Keble College, and in principle any other College which might be established there under the same conditions, should, in a limited degree, be emancipated from the restriction imposed generally in respect of the receipt of land devised to public bodies in mortmain—whether there should be a departure in the case of a now College, such as Keble College, or any similar Colleges, from the policy of the law as it now existed under the Statute of Geo. II.? That was a question which might be fairly argued, and a strong case, he thought, might be made out why Keble College, or any Roman Catholic or Wesleyan College which might be set up, should be relieved, under certain and proper limits, from the restriction of the Mortmain Act. But then came the second question—ought that emancipation to be effected by a Private Bill; or whether, being a variation of a public law, it ought to being brought before the House in a Public Bill instead of a Private Bill? He had more than once laid before the House a strong opinion that it was in the highest degree undesirable that any such departure from public law should be made in a Private Bill. In the first place, hon. Members did not know what had been done until after it had been done, and then they found, to their surprise, that an alteration had been made in the general
    1700
    public law by a Private Bill. Such a course opened a wide door to abuse; and if it were adopted we might find many gaps made in the public law by Private Bills which were passed without attracting notice at the time, but which might afterwards excite resentment. He was sorry that he had not hitherto been always able to persuade the House to adopt his view. He was afraid that the matter had been regarded as a pedantic and technical one. He denied that it was either pedantic or technical; on the contrary, it was sound and reasonable, and, in his opinion, the present Bill ought not to be proceeded with on the present lines. Whether a variation from the law of Geo. II. ought to be permitted was another matter. He would point out that even now it would not be too late to proceed this Session by Public Bill. There was at that moment before the House a Public Bill brought in by his hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) to exempt from the same Statute Victoria University. That was an example of what he considered the right way of proceeding; and if it were followed in the case of Keble College, and the Bill were framed in more general terms, it might be dealt with this Session, and the impolicy of proceeding with a special Private Bill in respect to a public matter might be avoided. There was still another course which might be pursued, though he should not recommend it. There was a Public Bill now before the House for consolidating the law relating to mortmain and land held for charitable uses. If, as he understood, that was to be made not only a consolidating, but also an amending Bill, the introduction of half-a-dozen lines saying what was desired by the promoters of the present Bill and of the Victoria University Bill might be accomplished by the alteration of that one Bill; and then that Bill would contain the public law, with the exemptions from it which might be sanctioned by Parliament. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Member for the Barnsley Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Courtney Kenny) that if he would amend his Amendment by making it declare that it was inexpedient to do what was now proposed by a Private Bill, he should feel constrained to follow him into the Lobby.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid, the objection of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Courtney) seemed to be chiefly a theoretical one. The hon. Gentleman, in quoting the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. and learned Member for the Barnsley Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, appeared to have left out the real gist of the Amendment, which was contained in these words—"And which is restricted to the members of a particular Church." Now, it seemed to him that this argument, which was mainly relied on by those who had opposed the Bill, implied that exemption from the mortmain restriction depended upon the undenominational character of the Institution. That, however, was not at all the case. The exemption was given to all Colleges of Oxford at the time that they were denominational institutions, and it had never been proposed during the time they were denominational Institutions to take off the exemption on that account. Nor was he aware that in the debates on the abolition of trusts it had been urged in favour of the change that the Colleges of Oxford enjoyed this exemption. He did not propose to pursue the question of law, because he did not profess to know much about the law; but he believed that the passing of this Bill, and the passing of it quickly, was a matter of importance to Keble College. Keble College was an Institution for which everyone who desired that education should be combined with a high moral and religious tone must feel great admiration. It had sent forth, during its short existence, a large army of earnest workers in this and other countries, and, for practical reasons, the House would do a great injustice if it deprived it of a privilege which belonged to every other College in Oxford which was side by side with this. He had much pleasure in supporting the third reading of the Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 127: Majority 2.—(Div. List, No. 76.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment in line 3, after the word "extended," to insert the words "by a Private Bill."—(Mr. Courtney Kenny.)
    Question, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Question,
    "That the words 'it is inexpedient that the privilege of exemption from the Mortmain Act, enjoyed by the Colleges in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, should be extended by a Private Bill to any College which, though situate at Oxford, is not incorporated with the University, and which is restricted to the members of a particular Church,' be added after the word 'That' in the Main Question,"
    put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Resolved, That it is inexpedient that the privilege of exemption from the Mortmain Act, enjoyed by the Colleges in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, should be extended by a Private Bill to any College which, though situate at Oxford, is not incorporated with the University, and which is restricted to the members of a particular Church.

  VAUXHALL PARK BILL.

    INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE.
    MR. KELLYin moving—
    "That it be, an Instruction to the Committee on the Vauxhall Park Bill, That they do provide that the purchase of the Park be not made until the opinion of the ratepayers of Lambeth has been taken on the desirability of such purchase,"
    said, that the Instruction was similar to that which was moved for by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) some time ago in reference to Brixton Park, and acceded to by the House. Before the ratepayers were made responsible for the expenditure of a large sum of money, they ought to be called upon to say whether they were in favour of the scheme or not. He could not understand upon what grounds the Motion should be opposed. It was a singular fact that the adoption of his Motion would involve no additional expenditure of money whatever, inasmuch as the Bill must go before the same Committee as the Brixton Bill, and it contained identically the same powers as those which were provided in the Brixton Bill. He desired to point out some rather curious facts in reference to this Park. In the first place, the owner of the Park and the vendor of the land to the ratepayers was a vestryman, and those who had taken the most active part in the matter were the ground landlords of the houses facing the proposed Park. He be-

    1703
    lieved that his hon. Friend the Member for the Kennington Division of Lambeth (Mr. Gent-Davis) intended to oppose the Motion, but his hon. Friend could have no wish beyond that of providing the public with open spaces. He wished to point out, however, that when this ground was originally proposed to be formed into a public Park the value of it was very much exaggerated. The original price was between £60,000 and £70,000. Even the vendor's reduced valuation of £42,000 was understood to be many thousand pounds more than he paid for it recently. In the next place, the area was spoken of as 10 acres, whereas it was little more than eight. One gentleman had reported the value as being £50,000; but the gentleman in question was not a valuer, and it was somewhat unfortunate that he should have made so great a mistake, seeing that an eminent firm of valuers in London had declared the value of this property at £14,000 at the outside. Those who were opposing the scheme declared that the value was certainly not more than £30,000, or £12,000 less than the Vestry proposed to spend upon it. He had no wish to deprive the Vestry of Lambeth of the power of acquiring this land for a public Park, although he believed that the price proposed to be paid for it was most extravagant. He should certainly not oppose the opening out of this Park to the public; but if the House accepted the Instruction he was moving, there would be no sort of danger that by doing so the public would run any risk of losing the Park. Whether the Instruction was given to the Committee or not, there would be no doubt whatever that the Park would be formed. He hoped that it would not be suggested that the ratepayers had really no interest in the matter. He had been informed that no money was to be required from the ratepayers; but, on turning to Clause 3 of the Bill, he found it provided there that—
    "It shall be lawful for the Metropolitan Board of Works or the Vestry of Lambeth, or either of them, by agreement with the owners of the land, to purchase the said land or any part thereof."
    Then, again, in Clause 8, it was provided that—
    "In the event of any agreement being entered into for the purchase of the said land or any
    1704
    part thereof by the Metropolitan Board by the authority of this Act it shall be lawful for the Vestry of Lambeth to make a contribution of such an amount as they may think fit."
    It was ridiculous, under these circumstances, to say that the ratepayers had no interest in the matter. The real point, however, to consider was, whether vestrymen, at a time when a matter of this kind had never been dreamt of, were to plunge the ratepayers into such a heavy expenditure, and whether the ratepayers were to be saddled with a large expense for the purpose of purchasing open spaces in a parish? He maintained that the ratepayers of Lambeth ought to have a voice in the matter, and the only way they could obtain that voice now was by sending this Instruction up to the Committee. It might be urged that it was too late to take action; but it could easily be explained why this Instruction had not been moved earlier. He had not been aware, until the hon. Member for West Nottingham moved the Instruction in regard to the Brixton Park Bill, what course it was desirable to take in order that the ratepayers might protect themselves. The hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Gent-Davis) had backed the Bill, and the ratepayers, therefore, knew that he was not likely to help them. In asking the House to agree to this Instruction being sent to the Committee, he (Mr. Kelly) wished to impress upon hon. Members the fact that there had been a great deal of difference of opinion upon the matter. It was suggested in a Paper which had been generally circulated to the House that there had been no division, but that the Lambeth Vestry was unanimous in its support of the scheme. He ventured to think that his hon. Friend would not care to make that statement now. On the 13th of October, 1887, the Vestry signed a Report in favour of forming the Park, but subsequently declared, by 46 to 43, to petition the Metropolitan Board of Works not to purchase the ground at all. On the 17th of September the Vestry decided not to increase the amount of its contribution to the cost; an amendment, empowering the Vestry to increase its contribution from £1,500 to £1,600 per acre, having been lost by a majority of 8 to 6. The Vestry had since declined to take up the Bill now before Parliament. He, therefore, hoped his hon. Friend would not

    1705
    say that even the Vestry were at all unanimous in the matter. Indeed, some persons who were greatly interested in the matter very strongly opposed it. He held in his hand a copy of a letter signed by the Under Secretary of the Norwood Ratepayers' Association, dated the 26th of March, stating that a resolution had been passed by the Association, declaring that in view of the exorbitant price proposed to be paid for Vauxhall and Brixton Parks, and the unsatisfactory provisions of the Bills now before Parliament, the Association respectfully urged the Lambeth Vestry and the Metropolitan Board of Works to rescind the resolution adopted by them in favour of the acquisition of the property. It, therefore, could not be denied that a great body of the public were opposed to the scheme, and he might call attention to the fact that there was only one part of Lambeth which was in favour of the Bill. In September the Vestry refused to support the Metropolitan Board of Works in purchasing the property; but the Metropolitan Board themselves, by a majority of 4, were in favour of purchasing it. If, however, it had not been for those who represented outside wards, a majority of the Vestry, amounting to one-third, would have rejected the scheme. For these reasons he trusted the House would be of opinion that the Instruction he now begged to move should be sent to the Committee.
    MR. DE COBAINseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Vauxhall Park Bill, That they do provide that the purchase of the Park be not made until the opinion of the ratepayers of Lambeth has been taken on the desirability of such purchase."—(Mr. Kelly.)
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he hoped the House would not agree to the Instruction. The point was a very small one; in fact, the hon. Member (Mr. Kelly) had ruled himself out of court, because he bad said that, no doubt, the property would be obtained with or without this Instruction ultimately. Under those circumstances, there was no reason why the people of the district should be put to additional expense, and there was no necessity of referring the matter to the parish. He thought it was a question
    1706
    in which the Vestry might be allowed a discretion. Under the general law of the land, the Vestry had full power to incur expenditure for this purpose if they thought fit. This property might have been acquired under the general Act, if it had not been found necessary to introduce other clauses into the present Bill. He thought the Vestry might be fairly entrusted with the decision of the question. The proposal of the hon. Member was that the course pursued in reference to Brixton Park should be adopted in this case. So far as he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was concerned, if he had been aware that the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) intended to move an Instruction, he should have been prepared to oppose it. There had been several other cases for the purchase of land in the Metropolis which had been effected without appealing to the ratepayers. He thought the House, if it assented to the Instruction moved by the hon. Member, would be adopting a very bad practice and a very bad principle.
    Question put, and negatived.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRE LAND) ACT, 1887 (ARREST OF MR. DILLON).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had received the following Letter relating to the Arrest of a Member of this House:—
  Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887.
  The Queen v. Dillon.
  Co. Louth.
  Drogheda,
  18th April, 1888.
  Sir,
  I have to report that, on the 17th inst., Mr. John Dillon, M.P. for East Mayo, was brought before me at Drogheda, in the county of Louth, charged under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, that he did at Tullyallen, in the county of Louth, on the 8th day of April, 1888, incite certain persons to take part in a criminal conspiracy to compel and induce certain tenants in divers parts of Ireland not to fulfil their legal obligations, that is, to refuse to pay their rents. Mr. Dillon was admitted to bail, himself in the sum of £200 and two sureties in £100 each, to appear and answer said charge before a Court constituted under

  1707
  above Act at Mell, in the county of Louth, on the 9th of May, 1888.
  I have the honour to be,
  Your obedient servant,
  JOHN M. KILKELLY,
  Resident Magistrate for County of Louth.
  The Right Honble.
  The Speaker of the House of Commons.

QUESTIONS.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—RATHLIN ISLAND, CO. ANTRIM.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government is aware of the serious difficulties connected with social and business life endured by the 350 subjects of Her Majesty in Rathlin Island, situate in the County Antrim, about seven miles from the Giants' Causeway; whether the communication with the mainland is a matter of great danger and difficulty, especially in the winter, owing to the strong currents and tides running between the Island and mainland, while the absence of any harbour not only aggravates that evil, but causes delay in the delivery of the mails, the mail boats being frequently obliged to return without delivery of the mails; whether he is aware that there is no resident medical man, and no little difficulty sometimes in providing one, owing to the danger and difficulty of communicating with the shore, while the fishing industry is seriously depressed by reason of these unfavourable conditions; and, whether the Government will secure the outlay of a moderate sum which would provide for the wants of the Island, in the construction of a sufficient fishery harbour?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I have no knowledge with regard to the subjects mentioned by the hon. Baronet; and they would not come under the notice of the Treasury unless brought forward by the Irish Government or the Postmaster General in connection with proposals for expenditure.

  LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS ACT, 1887 —MODEL REGULATIONS.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Local Go-
  1708
  vernment Board, Whether the Board has as yet drawn up any Model Regulations for the management of allotments under "The Labourers' Allotments Act, 1887;" and, if so, whether the Regulations will be issued as a Parliamentary Paper; and, in what number of cases, if any, Local Authorities have hired land for the purposes of "The Labourers' Allotments Act, 1887," by voluntary arrangement with owners, on lease or agreement?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The Local Government Board have drawn up a Code of Model Regulations for the management of allotments under the Allotments Act, 1887, and it will shortly be issued and a copy sent to each Sanitary Authority. The Board have no definite information as to the number of cases in which the Sanitary Authorities have hired land for the purposes of the Act by voluntary arrangement.

  SALMON FISHERIES BILL.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government will consider the expediency of introducing in the Salmon Fisheries Bill (understood to be now in preparation) a provision giving right to the public to fish for trout in rivers and lochs during the netting season?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J.H.A. MACDONALD): As I said in answer to a former Question, the Bill is for the purpose of regulating and protecting fisheries, and not for interfering with property.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— WATERFORD CITY—ASSIZES COMMISSION—OMISSION OF THE MAYOR.
  MR. P. J. POWER(for Mr. R. POWER)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that the great Charter of the City of Waterford, granted by King Charles I., provides that the name of the Mayor shall always be included in the Assizes Commission of the City of Waterford; and, if so, can he explain why the name of the Mayor of Waterford was not included in the Commission for the present Spring Assizes, in accordance with the

  1709
  terms of the Charter, and with a custom which has existed for so many years?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The names of Mayors of municipal towns are not now included in Commissions of Assize. The custom of including Mayors in such Commissions had long since become practically unmeaning, and it has been accordingly abandoned. The question as to the legality of the course taken depends not upon the provision of the Charter of the City of Waterford, but on the enactments contained in the Irish Judicature Act passed in the year 1877.
  MR. P. J. POWER: What were the reasons which led to the change?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The reasons were set forth in my answer, and will also be found to exist in England.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—FREE STATE OF CONGO—CRUELTIES ON THE NATIVES.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a statement published in The Scotsman of 3rd April, to the effect that in the country between Matadi and Stanley Pool officers of the Free State of the Congo have burned the villages of the Natives, shot the men, and maltreated and massacred their wives and daughters, so that a strip of more than 200 miles by 90 is now destitute of inhabitants; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will make inquiry as to the truth of this statement?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Administration of the Congo Free State at Brussels has, in reply to inquiry made by Her Majesty's Minister, formally and indignantly denied the truth of the statement; asserting that in the few instances in which it has been found necessary to punish Natives at the instance of traders in the region referred to, for hostile acts to caravans or theft, the greatest moderation has been shown, and bloodshed has generally been avoided. It is said that the district is so far from being depopulated that there are at present between Matadi and Stanley Pool 15 markets, frequented on an average by between 400 and 500 traders.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS— REVENUES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is possible for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to complete and present such parts of the Return ordered on the 20th June, 1887 (of the property and revenues of the Church of England and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners), as relate to the Metropolitan area, separately and at an earlier date than the rest of the Return; and, if so, at what date such separate Return for the Metropolitan area will probably be completed and presented?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: I am informed that the separate presentation of that portion of the Return which relates to the Metropolitan area would tend to delay to a very considerable extent the completion of the Return as a whole. I have no reason to suppose that having ordered a Return as to the whole of England and Wales this House has any wish that that Return should be delayed for the purpose of expediting the publication of so much of it as will relate to the particular area in which the hon. Member is interested.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSasked, could the hon. Gentleman give any idea when the whole Return would be ready?
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: No, Sir; I am afraid not. The work is an extremely laborious and voluminous one, and great correspondence is involved in it.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— SPRING ASSIZES IN CAVAN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that at last Spring Assizes in Cavan nothing over three appeals were entered from decisions of the County Court Judge; and, whether in one of these cases the appeal was not defended; and, in the other two the former judgments were varied but not reversed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Ques-

  1711
  tion put by the hon. Member does not represent the real facts. The Clerk of the Crown and Peace reports that the number of such appeals listed was 33; and of these 20 were heard with the following results:—Reversed, 10; varied, 6; affirmed, 4.

  BURMAH—DISARMAMENT OF THE NATIVES—THE FOREST REVENUE.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether great difficulty has arisen in connection with carrying out the teak contracts in Burmah in consequence of the disarmament of the friendly Natives who are now unable to protect themselves against dacoits; whether the effect of this disarmament has been to already diminish the Forest Revenue of Burmah; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any Correspondence which has taken place on this subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): No such information has reached the Secretary of State as that upon which the first two Questions seemed to be founded. It follows that there is no Correspondence on the subject which could be laid upon the Table of the House.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—THE DISTURBANCES AT ENNIS—MR. SHANNON.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in a case tried at Ennis on the 13th April before Captain Keogh, R.M., and Mr. Irwin, R.M., arising out of the proceedings at Ennis on the 8th of April, Mr. Shannon, barrister-at-law, was instructing District Inspector Hill, who was conducting the prosecution for the Government; whether Mr. Shannon is the private secretary of Colonel Turner, who was in command of the police and military on the 8th of April; whether during the proceedings a largo body of soldiers was marched into Court with their rifles on shoulder, and placed in one of the galleries; and, what was the object of this military demonstration in a Court of Justice?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): District Inspector Shannon was not instructing
  1712
  District Inspector Hill, though he was undoubtedly giving him assistance. District Inspector Shannon is not Colonel Turner's private secretary. There was no military demonstration in Court; but some soldiers were placed in one of the galleries in order to prevent a repetition of such disgraceful scenes of disorder as had on previous occasions occurred in the courthouse.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: What is Mr. Shannon's exact position?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not be sure; but I believe his title is Special Crimes Officer.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Then he is under Colonel Turner?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Naturally.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—CLYDEBANK SCHOOL.
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that the estimated cost of Clydebank School, under Old Kilpatrick School Board, together with contingencies, amounted to £13,091; whether the Education Department was asked to pass the plans and estimates, and grant a loan of £13,000, which request was complied with; whether the expenditure on the school up to date now amounts to £20,000; and, whether he is prepared to introduce a Bill abolishing the cumulative vote at school board elections, and providing that a certain number of members retire annually, in order that ratepayers may be able to pronounce an opinion on any policy which a school board may be pursuing?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H.A. MACDONALD): The sanction to the original loan asked for the Clydebank School was given in the circumstances stated by the hon. Member. The School Board of Old Kilpatrick have now applied for a supplementary loan, which would raise the cost of the school to nearly £20,000. Their Lordships are now in communication with the Board on the subject of this expenditure, which ought not to have been incurred without previous sanction; and, pending the inquiry, sanction has not yet been given to the loan. The Government is not prepared to introduce a Bill of the character suggested by the hon. Member.

  INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX— ABOLITION OF POUNDAGE.
  MR. HULSEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can see his way clear to carry out the proposed reform during the coming year, by the abolition of the poundage paid as remuneration to the collectors of Income Tax, and the substitution of fixed salaries in lieu thereof?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, remember that I expressed my anxiety to deal with this question last Session if time permitted. I was prevented from doing so; but if time permits I hope to be able to make a proposal to the House on the subject during the present Session.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS— HORSEDEALER'S LICENCE—SHET LAND.
  MR. LYELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether farmers, fishermen, and others in Shetland, who, in addition to their ordinary occupations, traffic in ponies, will be liable to pay the Horsedealer's Licence of £15?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): No licence will be required for persons dealing solely in ponies under the height of 13 hands.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BALLINASLOE UNION—SURCHARGES.
  MR. HARRISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that the following Guardians of the Ballinasloe Union have been surcharged by the auditor, Colonel O'Hara, in the following sums—namely, James Kilmartin, £1 19 s. 6d.; J. Barrett, 10 s. 6d.; Laurence Conroy, 10 s. 6d.; Junius Horne, 9s.; E. W. Fowler, 4s. 6d.; R. O. Connor, 9s.; for sanctioning relief to a man suffering from diabetes, and two men whose united ages amounted to 164 years; has the auditor full discretionary powers in these matters; and, have the Law Courts power to remit these surcharges against the will of the auditor, even in cases where a doctor's certificate has been presented by the relieving officer?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): James Kilmartin was surcharged by the auditor. Colonel O'Hara, the sum of £1 9s., and the other Guardians the several sums set forth in the Question, on account of illegal outdoor relief afforded to two persons. One of these was stated to be suffering from diabetes. I am not aware of their ages. The auditor has full power to disallow and strike out illegal payments. The Law Courts have no power to remit these surcharges.
  MR. HARRIS: What is the legal amount of relief which Guardians are entitled to give; and are not the facts in this case as follows:—One man received 5s. per week for 10 weeks and 3s. per week for 16 weeks, and another man 1s. 6d. per week for 26 weeks? Does the right hon. Gentleman assert that those sums were over the amount which the law allows the Guardians to grant?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand the matter, the Guardians acted entirely illegally, and gave outdoor relief to two men who were not qualified to receive it. One of those men had 13 or 14 acres of land, and the other eight acres, and they were, therefore, disqualified.
  MR. P. J. POWER: Is it not a fact that in England, when surcharges are made by a Poor Law auditor, there is a right of appeal; whereas in Ireland there is no right of appeal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware.

  BURIALS ACT (SCOTLAND)—PRIVATE CEMETERIES COMPANIES.
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a Memorial from the Philosophical Society of Glasgow to amend the Burial Act, so as to place the private Cemeteries Companies of Scotland under the same Regulations as the burial grounds; whether Dr. Churton, the Medical Officer of Health for the Burgh of Hillhead, has reported the Dalbeth Cemetery, where the pit burial system is carried on, to be "a nuisance within the meaning of the Burial Grounds Act;" and, whether the Government intend to legislate on the matter?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): No, Sir; no Me-

  1715
  morial has been received or information sent to the Secretary for Scotland's Office on this subject.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)—SCIENTIFIC WORK—PROFESSOR COSSAR EWART.
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been called to the statements of Professor Cossar Ewart in The Scotsman of the 14th of April, regarding the scientific work of the Fishery Board for Scotland; whether the inquiries and investigations of the Board
  "Go to show that an enormous destruction of young and immature fish of all kinds takes place annually in the territorial waters, and that everything has been done to destroy some of the most productive mussel beds;"
  and, if this is the case, whether the Government are prepared to propose further legislation to prevent these evils?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): My attention has been called to Professor Ewart's words as quoted; and I find that the Professor adds that the inquiries into the matter must proceed much further before any lasting benefit can result from them. It would, therefore, be premature to propose legislation as to the result of an inquiry admittedly incomplete.

  INLAND REVENUE—LIVERPOOL STAMP OFFICE.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether arrangements have been made by which documents are now stamped at the Liverpool Stamp Office, with the exception of bills of lading, which have still to be forwarded to the Manchester Office to be stamped, causing much delay and inconvenience; and, whether, considering the large number of bills of lading used daily in Liverpool, arrangements can be made to have these documents stamped at the Liverpool Office?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): Yes, Sir; arrangements have been made for stamping documents at Liverpool, and it is fully expected that they will come into operation on the 1st day of May. The Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue proposes to take an early opportunity to visit
  1716
  Liverpool; and he will then go into the question of placing a recording press there for stamping bills of lading.

  THE MAGISTRACY (SCOTLAND)—THE SHERIFF PRINCIPAL OF LANARKSHIRE.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the increasing work, administrative and judicial, falling upon the Sheriff Principal of Lanarkshire, and the consequent accumulations of appeals to the Sheriff Principal in the Sheriff Court in that county, and the delay which occurs in disposing of them; and, whether Government will consider the propriety of seeking from Parliament powers, such as they possess in the case of the illness of Sheriffs Principal, to make extra temporary appointments to the office of Sheriff Principal when necessary to enable arrears of judicial work to be overtaken?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I have made inquiries, and find that had there been no arrears of work when the present Sheriff took office there would have been practically no arrears now. In consequence of the weak health of the late Mr. Clark, and the great and exceptional pressure resulting from two general and keenly-contested elections taking place within one year in a county returning 13 members, considerable arrears had accumulated when the present Sheriff took up the work. The Sheriff expresses his confident expectation that he will be able to work off these arrears, and I therefore do not think it advisable to make any proposal to disturb existing arrangements. I propose, however, to call for a Report from the Sheriff at the end of the present year, and will then consider the position of matters. I think I ought further to say that there seems strong reason to doubt whether the expedient recommended in the latter paragraph of the Question would be a wise one, as it might tend to the accumulation of arrears if Sheriffs understood that Deputy Sheriffs would be appointed at the public expense to aid in clearing them off.
  DR. CAMERON: Are there any other cases where these arrears exist?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: No.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES—ABROGATION OF THE ANGLO-FRENCH FISHERIES CONVENTION, 1839.
  MR. SINCLAIR (Falkirk, &c.) (for Mr. COGHILL)asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been directed to an article in Blackwood's Magazine for April on the Police of the North Sea; and, whether any steps are being taken to abrogate the Anglo-French Fisheries Convention, 1839, and the Regulations framed thereunder, and to extend the North Sea Convention to the seas between Great Britain and France, in substitution for the Anglo-French Fisheries Convention, 1867, as contemplated by section 24 of "The Sea Fisheries Act, 1883?"
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICIIALE HICKS-BEACH): I have seen the article referred to. Negotiations between this country and France have been for some time going on in the direction indicated in the hon. Member's Question.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BALTINGLASS UNION—MR. DOUGLAS.
  MR. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the allegation that a letter purporting to be signed by a Mr. Douglas, and inciting a rate collector of the Baltinglass Union to put a false date to a receipt for rates, was written but not delivered, because it was intercepted, and that the letter referred to is now in the hands of The Leinster Leader, who offers to have its genuineness tested at a public inquiry; and, whether, in consequence of this allegation, and in consideration of the serious charge it involves, he will order a sworn inquiry into all the facts of the case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have no knowledge with regard to the letter referred to beyond the fact that its existence was alleged in the hon. Member's previous Question, and therefore I cannot give an answer one way or the other. I would, however, suggest to the hon. Member that the best course to take would be to arrange that the letter should be sent to the Local Government Board, with full proofs of its authen-
  1718
  ticity, and the method of its interception.
  MR. CLANCY: Would the right hon. Gentleman grant a sworn inquiry if the letter were sent on?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can make no promise.
  MR. CLANCY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a letter from Mr. Dagg, clerk to the Baltinglass Union, to the Secretary of the Irish Local Government Board, stating that Mr. Driver, the rate collector, had the same request made to him by another person; and does the right hon. Gentleman consider it any part of his duty to inquire who it was?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not seen the letter.
  MR. CLANCY: It has been addressed to your Secretary in Dublin.

  PRESUMPTION OF LIFE LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1881.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Lord Advocate, When the Bill to amend "The Presumption of Life Limitation (Scotland) Act, 1881," which he promised on the 16th of March, will be introduced?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The words used on the 16th of March were that I hoped but was unable to give any definite undertaking. I still hope, and I am still unable to give any definite undertaking.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he referred to a previous promise, given on the 10th of August last year.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I do not hold myself bound by any previous promises. I only hold myself bound by my last answer.

  CHURCH AND DISSENT—THE WESLEYANS AT HAREWOOD.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in The Times, of the 16th of April, referring to a correspondence between Lord Harewood and the Wesleyan Body; whether it is a fact, as there stated, that Lord Harewood has abolished the restrictions by which he prevented the Wesleyans from holding Divine Service

  1719
  during Church hours, or from having a Sunday School, or from celebrating the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper in the village of Harewood; and, whether such restrictions of the freedom of public worship are legal; and, if so, whether the Government will take steps, by legislation, to render illegal all such limitations by an individual of the free exercise of the right of public worship by a religious community?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: I am informed by Lord Harewood that the facts stated in the newspaper paragraph referred to are correct. I have already stated that the restrictions mentioned in that paragraph were imposed under an agreement 70 years old, under which the Wesleyan Chapel was held, and I am unable to give an opinion as to the legal validity of such an agreement. The Government are not prepared to legislate on this subject, as they have no reason to suppose that there is any cause for the interference of Parliament.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—TAX ON MALE SERVANTS—EXEMPTION.
  MR. PICTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether men servants employed to look after racehorses are specially exempted from the tax on male servants; and, whether he will consider the desirability of discontinuing this exemption, and of applying whatever revenue might thus be obtained towards the relief of hardships caused by the proposed Cart and Wheel Tax?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The first Question which the hon. Member puts is one that answered in June last. I then said that grooms in racing stables are treated in exactly the same way as regards Licence Duty as grooms in any other stables. If the racing stables are public, the grooms are exempt from Licence Duty, as are all attendants in ordinary trade stables; if the stables are private a licence is required. Thus there is no exemption, and the second part of the hon. Member's Question consequently falls to the ground.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—TRANSFER OF EXISTING LICENCES.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will lay a Return upon the Table of the House showing the amounts paid for existing licences and taxation proposed to be transferred in each county; the Treasury grants now paid to each county; the proportion of the Probate Duty which it is estimated each county would receive on the basis of its indoor pauperism; the estimated amount of expenditure for main roads in each county; and the general county expenditure to which the whole county contributes?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I have more than once stated the difficulties connected with such a Return, which will prevent it being a reliable guide to what will be the financial results of our proposals, but I am very anxious to meet the evident wish of the House; and if it be understood that I cannot vouch for its absolute accuracy, I will endeavour to prepare an Estimate such as that suggested in the Question, and lay it en the Table of the House. With regard to the information asked for in the last sentence of the Question, I may say that the Annual Abstract of the County Treasurer's Accounts for the year ended Lady Day, 1887, has already been presented, and will very shortly be issued.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would give the same information with regard to Scotland?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir. The Local Government Board has no information with regard to Scotland.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked, whether any information on the subject could be had?
  MR. RITCHIEasked the hon. Member to address his Question to the Representative of the Scotch Office.
  MR. CHILDERS: The right hon. Gentleman answered very precisely with reference to existing taxes. Would he give us the same information as to future taxes?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; I am afraid that it is not possible for me to do so. I understand that there has been a general

  1721
  Estimate formed as to what the result would be; but no attempt has been made to allocate the amount for each county.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman lot us have the Estimate which has been made?
  MR. RITCHIE: It is not easy, and there is not any Estimate as to what will be the proceeds of the new taxes. It is not easy to attempt to say precisely, or to divide the product for each county. I understand there is no such information.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that when a fresh tax was being imposed it was usual to give every possible information, although some might be conjectural.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had sufficient experience to know the enormous difficulty in the way of estimating the amount to be derived in every county and in every locality from new taxes.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERinquired, from what sources the right hon. Gentleman derived the Estimate that Staffordshire would contribute £26,000 a-year; and why he could not supply the same information with regard to other counties?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he took the proportion, in the locality he was dealing with, of the new tax as was raised from the old; but this was by no means a reliable basis of calculation.

  COUNTY ELECTIONS—RETURNING OFFICERS FEES TO SHERIFFS AND UNDER SHERIFFS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the appointment of Returning Officer in any division of a county can be made contingent upon payment of a fee to the Sheriff or Under Sheriff; and, whether a Sheriff or Under Sheriff is entitled to demand a fee of two guineas in respect of the appointment either from an applicant for the post or from the person actually appointed?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: This is a question of law as to which it is not for me to give any opinion. The Secretary of State is advised,
  1722
  however, that under the Statute it lies within the discretion of the Sheriff to appoint a deputy or not, and that he is at liberty to demand from the Parliamentary candidates such payment as does not exceed that authorized for professional or other assistance by 38 & 39 Vict., c. 84. He does not seem to have any authority to demand payment from the applicant for the post or from the person actually appointed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, asked, what authority had control over matters of this kind, and to whom he should put the Question?
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, it was for the Law Courts to ascertain the rights and liabilities of public officers.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, this was a serious matter. Sheriffs and Under Sheriffs were levying blackmail on candidates for certain offices. He begged to ask the First Lord of the Treasury which Department had charge of this matter?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he was not in a position to give an answer then; but he would inquire.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether, in the event of his laying before the right hon. Gentleman the correspondence which had recently passed between a Sub-Sheriff and a candidate on this subject, he would be prepared to give an explicit answer?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he could not promise to give an explicit answer; but he would promise to give the best answer he could.

  EXCISE—DUTIES ON RETAIL HOUSES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, taking into consideration that in the Metropolitan area the houses of retailers of spirits are kept open until 12.30 a.m., he will agree to add 100 per cent instead of 20 per cent proposed in the Local Government Bill, and make a corresponding reduction to owners of houses who will close at an earlier time than 12.30 a.m.; for instance, if the value of the house is under £100, the duty is at present £25; will he consent to increase the duty to £50; but when the owner agrees by his licence to close at 12 o'clock, to reduce to £40; 11.30 p.m.,

  1723
  to £30; 11 p.m., to £25; 10.30 p.m., to £20?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): No, Sir; I am unable to agree to the proposal of the hon. Member that the Licensed Victuallers' Duty shall be paid in the proportion suggested in the Question of the hon. Member.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—EFFECT OF THE FINANCIAL PROPOSALS UPON THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, after the information he has given to the House as to the effect of his financial proposals upon the town of Wolverhampton, showing the possibility of forming a close estimate of such effect on a particular district, he will now lay upon the Table of the House a similar statement for the Metropolis?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCIIIE): It is proposed that the Return now under consideration should extend to the Metropolis.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— PUBLIC GALLERIES, MUSEUMS, &c. IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will procure Reports on the hours of opening, the organization of staff, and the conditions of admission to Public Galleries and Collections owned by the State or the Municipalities, on Sunday, in certain selected cities in Europe and the United States?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): We will endeavour to procure the Returns desired from Paris, Berlin, and Brussels.
  MR. LAWSON: And from New York and Philadelphia.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Very well.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—SENTENCES AT QUARTER SESSIONS.
  SIR RICHARD PAGETasked the Under Secretary of
  1724
  State for the Home Department, Whether, in supplying, in the form of a Return, the information asked for by the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Powell-Williams), with reference to sentences of six months' imprisonment passed at Quarter Sessions, he will be good enough to include information showing the number of cases in which such sentences were passed on persons who had pleaded guilty of having been previously convicted?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): The information sought by the hon. Baronet would be a very useful addition to the Return of the hon. Member for South Birmingham. The additional searches and references involved will, undoubtedly, delay the production of that Return; but I will endeavour to arrange that the whole of this information shall be presented to the House in such time as will enable the House to use it in exercising its judgment on some stage of the Local Government Bill.

  WAR OFFICE—COURT MARTIAL ON MAJOR TEMPLER.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Of what nature was the "open arrest" to which Major Templer was for several weeks subjected; to what portion of the manufacture in connection with balloons did the secrets which he was charged with revealing relate; what other moneys were paid to detectives, as pay for themselves or for the purpose of obtaining witnesses, in addition to those paid to the Aclands, either by the War Office or the Treasury; whether any apology has bean tendered to Major Templer by the War Office, or any reparation is to be made to him; when the inquiry now being held is expected to be concluded; and, whether the evidence and Report will be made public?
  COLONEL EYREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has yet been able to consider all the circumstances connected with the recent Court Martial on Major Templer; and, if so, what conclusion he has arrived at?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The open arrest to which Major Tem-

  1725
  pler was subjected was that laid down in the Queen's Regulations. The hon. Member is probably aware that arrest is of two kinds—"close" and "open." In answer to the second Question I cannot, in the interests of the Public Service, give the exact detail of the secret which he was charged with revealing; but it relates to certain processes connected with the skins of which the balloon is made. In answer to the third Question, I am informed from the Metropolitan Police Office that the only other moneys referred to will be the expenses of the one detective employed, who will receive his usual pay and allowances for the days he was engaged. In answering the remaining Questions, I may be allowed to answer also that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Gainsborough Division on the same subject. I was unwilling to make any general statement until I had had time to receive Reports on the proceedings, and to consider the whole of the circumstances connected with the Court Martial. The House is, perhaps, not aware that as soon as the War Office was advised that a primâ facie case existed the whole conduct of the proceedings was handed over to the Solicitor to the Treasury, whose Report I have received to-day. I have now considered the whole matter, with the assistance of my Military Advisers. There can be no doubt that, although the War Office was advised that a primâ facie case existed, the result of the Court Martial has absolutely cleared Major Templer from the slightest suspicion of any sort or kind. I have seen Major Templer, and expressed to him my satisfaction that he should have so completely vindicated his character; and I need scarcely add that, in common with everyone else, I regret the grave inconveniences and anxiety to which he has been subjected. He will resume his duties at Chatham with the full confidence of the Government, and will be re-imbursed any expenses which this inquiry may have entailed upon him. With respect to Major Elsdale, we are of opinion that, while there appears to be no ground for attributing to Major Elsdale any other motive than that of zeal for the Public Service, it is not desirable that he should be retained at Chatham, and he will accordingly be transferred to other duties.
  MR. HANBURY: May I asked who advised the War Office that a primâ facie case had been made out?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: We were so advised by the Judge Advocate General's Department, and the Report on the subject was signed by the Deputy Judge Advocate General.
  MR. HANBURY: Then I beg to give Notice that I shall move a reduction of the salary of the Judge Advocate General.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE CART TAX—EXEMPTION OF CONTRACTORS.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether in the case of the Wheel Tax he will make some saving in favour of cart owners who are under contracts with Corporations and others which have been entered into prior to the Budget Statement?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Without pledging myself in any way, I may say that the point is being considered.

  SCOTLAND—DISTURBANCES IN LEWIS —TRIAL OF THE PRISONERS—THE CROWN WITNESS, DONALD MACLEOD.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he has yet completed the inquiries promised by him on the 9th ultimo, into the circumstances attending the committal to an asylum as a lunatic of Donald Macleod, a Crown witness brought from Stornoway to Edinburgh to give evidence in the recent trial of the Barvas Crofters; if he would state how long Macleod was detained in the asylum, and at whose cost; and, whether there is reason to believe that Macleod's insanity was, as alleged, the result of his being plied with drink by those in charge of him while being brought to Edinburgh to give his evidence?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I have made an inquiry. Macleod was detained in the asylum from March 7 to April 3 at the cost of the City of Edinburgh, who have claimed the cost from his parish of domicile, and the claim has

  1727
  been admitted. At the request of Mr. Helm, Macleod's employer, the doctor under whose care he was allowed a relative to take him home to Lewis. There is no reason to believe that he had been plied with or had taken drink. The evidence shows that he drank no spirits, and that he stated he could not drink whisky. He appears to have had one glass of beer, of which he took only part. All the doctors who saw him say that the symptoms did not in any way suggest that his malady was caused by intoxicants.

  "MERCHANDIZE MARKS ACT" FOR INDIA.
  MR. SCHWANNasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can now give any information as to the probability of legislation in India on the lines of that inaugurated by the Merchandize Marks Act of last year in the United Kingdom, for the better protection of honest trading?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Secretary of State has every reason to believe that this subject continues to receive the careful attention of the Government of India. The Local Governments and Administrations have been consulted, which is the first step in Indian legislation; and the Secretary of State thinks it probable that legislation on the lines of the Merchandize Marks Act will take place.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—LOCAL TAXATION— THE PROBATE DUTY.
  MR. RANKINasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will grant a Return giving the amounts receivable in each county and in each city proposed by the Local Government Bill to be converted into a county, out of the Probate Duty set apart for relief of Local Taxation, both on the basis of a division according to indoor pauperism, and according to population?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I will see that this information is included in the Return I have undertaken to give in answer to the Question of the right
  1728
  hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler).

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE STAMP DUTIES.
  MR. ELTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to his announcement that a heavy fine was to be imposed, in addition to the original Stamp Duty, on all deeds which had not been stamped immediately on their execution, if ever such deeds were adduced in evidence in a Court of Law, Whether he will introduce some provision in favour of deeds executed long before his proposed change in the law was made known, inasmuch as it has been the general practice of solicitors, in the case of informal written undertakings and many instruments regulating family property, to advise that it was not necessary to have such documents stamped unless and until some disagreement arose, and it became necessary to produce them in a Court of Law?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The Question of the hon. Member seems to show the urgent necessity for the change I propose, and the loss to the Revenue from the absence of any certain penalty for failing to stamp instruments which the law expects to be stamped. But I can re-assure my hon. Friend as to the past. The 16th section of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, which deals with this question, applies only to instruments executed after the passing of the Act.

  CROWN RENTS AND ROYALTIES—PREROGATIVE RIGHTS TO PRECIOUS METALS.
  MR. KENYONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What are the rights of the Crown as to precious metals in England and Wales; whether there is any distinction as to gold and silver found on freehold ground between this country and the Colonies; if not, what reason exists for enforcing a Royalty upon these metals in the United Kingdom which is not enforced in the Colonies; whether, in the Colonies, all minerals found on freehold lands have been surrendered by the Crown to the

  1729
  free holders; and, whether he will consent to the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the whole question of Crown Rents and Royalties?
  MR. CONYBEAREasked, Whether, if the right hon. Gentleman consented to the appointment of a Commission, he would extend its scope to an inquiry into the title of private landowners?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The Crown has an ancient prerogative right to all mines containing the precious metals, and this right was judicially recognized in a famous case ("The Queen v. the Earl of Northumberland") which occurred in the reign of Elizabeth. The original right of the Crown to mines containing the precious metals in the Colonies was governed entirely by the law of England; but the Crown has in most cases transferred this prerogative right to the Colonial Governments, who have thus acquired the power of making Regulations in regard to the granting and working of these mines; but I do not know whether in any Colony the right to these mines has been surrendered to the freeholders. Without consultation with the Government generally, I could not undertake to grant the Royal Commission which the hon. Gentleman asks for.

  MERCHANDIZE MARKS ACT—THE BRITISH COLONIES.
  MR. SCHWANNasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can give the House any information as to the probability of legislation in the British Colonies on the lines of the Act passed last year in the United Kingdom, under the title of the Merchandize Marks Act, for the protection of honest trading?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Since the date of my last answer in the House on this subject, some further replies have been received from the Colonies. As the matter now stands, 16 Colonies have not yet replied; 14 have promised legislation; three others have introduced it; and in two others—namely, the Straits and St. Helena—Ordinances have been passed and are now in force,

  THE SEED ACT, 1880—MOHILL BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, the sum borrowed by the Mohill Board of Guardians under the Seed Act, 1880, was £8,803; whether out of this sum there is only at present in arrear £543, which the Guardians are unable to collect, consequent upon the great destitution prevailing amongst some of the recipients of this loan, and other casualties; whether the present Poor Rate and County Cess in the Union amount to 7s. 8d. in the £1 on the valuation; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Government will insist on the repayment of this sum, borrowed during a period of famine, when 94 per cent of the original debt has been repaid?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied): The facts are as stated in paragraphs one and two of the Question. As regards the third paragraph, I have not been able to ascertain whether the amount of Poor Rate and County Cess is accurately stated. The Commissioners of Public Works have been instructed to consult with the Local Government Board whenever circumstances appear to justify a postponement of the claim for repayment; but I am unable to advise the remission of outstanding balances of Seed Rate.

  ADMIRALTY (SHIPS, &c.)—H.M.S. "BUZZARD."
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, How long ago it is since Her Majesty's new sloop Buzzard first broke down; whether he can state the cause of the first and second breaks-down, and where the machinery was built; and, the cost and length of time occupied in repairing the damage, inclusive of the wages and provisions of the officers and crew of ship and engine room?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): On the 8th of November, 1887, the contractors' steam trial of the Buzzard was stopped in consequence of heating of piston rod and joint leaking; but there was no breakdown of machinery. The only breakdown of machinery which has

  1731
  occurred was on January 31, 1888, which was caused by a tool left in one of the cylinders by a workman employed by the contractors. The machinery was built by the Barrow Shipbuilding Company. The cost of making good the defects was borne by the contractors, and is not known by the Admiralty. The time occupied in replacing the broken rods was 10 days. The ship was not in commission; but was manned for the trial only by officers and men of the Steam Reserve, so that no additional cost for wages and provisions was involved.

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT, 1887— CLAUSE 48—CORONERS' INQUESTS.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOE(for Mr. LEAKE)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can give any indication of the character of the credentials which ought to be tendered to satisfy a Coroner holding an inquest on the body of a person whose death may have been caused by an explosion or accident in a mine, that the person tendering such credentials has, in accordance with Clause 48, Section 8, of "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887," been appointed by the order in writing of the majority of the workmen employed in the mine where the fatality occurred?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: If the order in writing appointing a representative to attend an inquest on the body of a person whose death may have been caused by an explosion or accident in a mine is signed by a majority of the workmen, that would, I apprehend, be a sufficient credential to satisfy the Coroner under Section 8 of Clause 48 of the Act of 1887; or the majority of the workmen may authorize any person to reduce to writing on their behalf the order of appointment in which they have concurred. This section will, I trust, be construed by Coroners liberally, and without unnecessary technicalities.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BIIL—CLAUSE 15—REPAIR OF MAIN ROADS.
  MR. LEAKEasked the President of the Local
  1732
  Government Board, Whether it is the fact, that under Clause 15, Section 2, of the Local Government Bill, a County District retaining under its own care the maintenance and repair of main roads within the district will only be entitled to receive from the County Council one-half the cost of such maintenance and repair under "The Highways and Locomotive Act, 1878," and will lose the present grant in aid from the Exchequer; and, whether, inasmuch as such an enactment will tend to throw the maintenance and repair of main roads entirely on County Councils, and discourage that local, and in great part voluntary, superintendence which is so essential to efficient work and economical expenditure, he will so amend Clause 15, that a County District wishing to retain the charge of its own main roads shall not be in a worse financial position than are the present Local Authorities in similar circumstances?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): As I stated on Tuesday last, in reply to a Question of the hon. Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire (Mr. Caleb Wright), the contribution of the County Council in the case referred to will be based not on one-half of the expenditure in respect of the maintenance of the roads prior to the passing of the Bill, but on the total expenditure on account of the maintenance of the roads. This contribution will be in lieu of any grant which may have previously been received.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)— CONTRACTS FOR SWORD BAYONETS.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, When the contract with Messrs. Wilkinson for the supply of 200,000 sword bayonets was made; what was the Committee which decided upon the shape and strength of those bayonets as contracted for, when did it sit, and when did it make its Report; what was the Committee which sat after the contract had been made, and for what reasons did it alter the decision as to strength and shape upon which the contract was made; whether the contract has been formally altered to meet the alteration in the weapons contracted for, whether the price is to

  1733
  be the same though the weapon is altered, and in what instalments, and at what periods, these 200,000 sword bayonets are now to be delivered; whether they are to be of Home manufacture; and, whether a contract has since been given for a large supply of other bayonets of a different pattern, to whom was it given, and when is it to be completed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): No contract with Messrs. Wilkinson for a supply of 200,000 sword bayonets has been made; but a contract for the supply of 150,000 was signed on May 27, 1887. The Committee which reported in favour of this sword bayonet was the Committee on Small Arms, under the Presidency of Major-General Philip Smith, C.B., now commanding the 2nd Brigade at Aldershot. The Committee which sat after the contract had been made was this same Committee. It altered its decision as to the strength and shape of the sword bayonet; as it found, on experiment, that the shape originally recommended was not suitable for the smallbore rifle adopted during 1887. The contract has not yet been formally altered to meet this change; but Messrs. Wilkinson have been fully informed of what has been going on, and the contract will be amended accordingly. Fifty thousand sword bayonets of the original pattern (subject to some very minor alterations) are being manufactured to meet current wants. The dates for delivery of the remaining 100,000 of the new pattern will be decided when the contract is remodelled. All these sword bayonets will be of Home manufacture. No contract has since been given for a large supply of other bayonets.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—TOWN COUNCILS OF BOROUGHS.
  MR. RATHBONEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Town Councils of Boroughs which are counties will be District Councils as well as County Councils; or, whether the effect of the Bill will be, that in those boroughs the provisions relating to District Councils will be inoperative?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): Clause
  1734
  50 of the Bill provides that the part of the Bill relating to District Councils shall not apply to boroughs which are counties in themselves. The clause, however, further provides that the powers of Justices out of Sessions, which in other cases would be transferred to the District Council, shall, where a borough is a county of itself, be transferred to the Town Council.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—EXPORTS OF FLANNELS.
  MR. HOWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade, If the item of 4,599,700 yards of flannel, shown in the Board of Trade Returns for March of this year, page 66, and exhibiting a very large increase in the export of that material over the corresponding quarter of last year, is limited to woollen flannels, or includes "flannelets" and other similar textiles made from cotton?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Customs Department have informed me that the item flannels in the Returns does not include flannelets or other similar textiles made from cotton. If flannelets, or other similar textiles, are so described on the export documents, they are registered as cottons. The cause of the increase in the item of flannels in the quarter ended 31st March, 1888, as compared with the corresponding quarter of last year, is that during the quarter ended 31st March last "woollen shirtings mixed" were exported very largely to Australasia and the United States, and that such goods are registered as "flannels."

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—THE ENNIS INQUIRY—DEPOSITION OF POLICECONSTABLE WATSON.
  MR. LALORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the Report in The Freeman's Journal of the 16th instant of the proceedings under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act before Captain Keogh, against Mr. Donleavy, editor of The Clare Independent, on the 14th instant, in the Courthouse at Ennis, from which it appears that the constable (Watson) was handed a deposition, dated 9th April, which he

  1735
  stated that he had signed, and owing to which three men were charged with stone throwing; and, whether he has noticed the following question and answer of the witness:—
  "Mr. Harrington: I have only one question to ask you. In the deposition did you say one word about stones being thrown from the buildings?—No, I did not;"
  and, whether he will inquire into the circumstances under which this deposition was signed? The hon. Gentleman said, the last paragraph of the Question appeared on the Paper in a different form to that in which he handed it in. The paragraph as he wrote it ran—
  "Whether it is usual for the police in Ireland to sign their depositions, prepared for them without even—"
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That part of the Question was struck out by myself, because it contravened the usual practice relating to Questions.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Question was only put down last night, and I have been, therefore, unable to receive a reply from Ireland to my communication; but I may say that the report in The Freeman's Journal, as to what has been passing in the Court House at Ennis, is in no way to be depended upon.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the deposition contained matter which was opposed to the evidence actually given by the constable?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman must give Notice of that Question.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: On what information does the right hon. Gentleman state to the House that the reports in The Freeman's Journal of matters that took place in a public Court are not to be depended upon; and is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make that statement outside the House, so as to afford the proprietors of The Freeman's Journal an opportunity of testing its accuracy?
  [No reply.]
  MR. CLANCY: Might I also ask whether the reports in other newspapers which reported these proceedings are not substantially identical with The Freeman's Journal?
  [No reply.]

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS—LEGISLATION.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Whether he is now able to state when the Government will introduce the promised Bill on Reformatory and Industrial Schools?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY),(who replied) said: I am afraid that I cannot yet fix a date when the Bills on reformatory and industrial schools will be introduced. My right hon. Friend will endeavour to bring them before the House as early as possible.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT—CORPORATIONS OF ENGLAND AND WALES —RETURN.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will give the House a Return showing the total number of Aldermen in the Corporations of England and Wales, and the number of Aldermen who have been selected to that office from outside the Corporations during the last six years?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The Local Government Board have no official information on these points; and the particulars required could only be obtained by applying to the several Town Councils for it.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE LICENSING CLAUSES.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, under the Licensing Clauses of the Local Government Bill, compensation will be granted in the case of non-renewal of off-licences; and, whether the renewal of such licences will be refused for any other reason than those for which they can now be refused by the present authorities?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The power to refuse renewal of a licence applies to all intoxicating liquor licences. Any person feeling aggrieved by the refusal to renew may make a claim for compensation.
  MR. CRAIG: Does that apply to off-licenses?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked, whether a certain class of beer dealers' licences dealt with by the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman himself some years ago were not subject to refusal by the licensing Magistrates in their districts, and without any compensation?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Bill expressly provides, in so many words, that where a claim for compensation is put in with reference to the licences referred to by my hon. Friend, the provisions of the Act to which he refers shall be fully considered.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—ELECTIVE COUNTY COUNCILLORS—THE COUNTY OF LONDON—ELECTORAL DIVISIONS.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can state (approximately) the number of Elective County Councillors which will be apportioned to the boroughs and the rest of the county respectively in some large county, and also in some small county, in accordance with section 2, sub-section (3) of the Local Government Bill? The hon. Gentleman also asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman can state (approximately) the number of Electoral Divisions into which the County of London will be divided in accordance with section 52, sub-section (6) of the Local Government Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The number of Elective County Councillors to be assigned to each county, and the number of Electoral Divisions into which the County of London is to be divided, are under my consideration; but I am not at present in a position to give the information desired by the hon. Member.
  In reply to Mr. JAMES STUART,
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, I intend to lay a statement dealing with all these questions upon the Table of the House before the House is called upon to consider them in Committee.

  PRISONS REGULATIONS (IRELAND)— TREATMENT OF A PRISONER IN GALWAY GAOL.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a statement of Mr. John Sweeney, lately an untried prisoner in Galway Gaol, in which he complains that, on his arrival in Galway Gaol, his religious emblems were taken from him by the warders, though afterwards restored at the Governor's orders; that his suspenders were taken away, and that he only retained possession of his frieze coat after a severe struggle with the warders; and that, to prevent his clothes being taken from him in the night, he was obliged to sleep without undressing; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the truth of these allegations? In putting this Question I desire to point out that the summary of the declaration of the prisoner, as given in the Question, is not mine, and that I gave the original statement—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There is a reason why it was summarised. It was that the Question of the hon. Member extended over two pages of foolscap, and it was almost impossible to put down a Question of that length; and as fair a summary as was thought possible was substituted.
  MR. CLANCY: I do not desire to dispute the statement, Sir, that it extended over two pages of foolscap; but it was very loosely written, and my impression is that it would not have occupied very much more space than the present summary on the paper.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It appears that the man in question was searched on entering the prison according to the invariable practice. His religious emblems were removed, but were soon afterwards restored by the Governor. There was no struggle with the warders, but Sweeney used very abusive language. There was not the slightest intention of removing his clothes during the night.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: With regard to this practice of depriving prisoners of their suspenders, ostensibly to prevent their

  1739
  hanging themselves, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that while suspenders are denied to prisoners, they are allowed handkerchiefs and neckties, with which they could perform the operation of strangulation as well?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid these are details of prison administration with which I am not familiar; but if the hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper about suspenders and handkerchiefs, I shall be very glad to answer him.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: If the right hon. Gentleman requires any special information I will provide it for him.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CLANCY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the acts which he admits were committed are not illegal acts as against an untried prisoner; and, if so, whether he will inquire into the matter, so as to prevent the recurrence of these illegalities in the future?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have inquired into the matter, and it is in consequence of my inquiry that I have given my answer to the hon. Gentleman. I suppose that if there have been illegalities it is in the power of the prisoner to have his remedy at law.
  MR. CLANCY: Then are we to understand that Governors of Irish Prisons may perpetrate illegalities at their pleasure?
  [No reply.]

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)— MUSSEL BEDS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government, in pursuance of their pledge given on the 12th of May, 1887, have asked the Scotch Fishery Board to advise them as to whether anything should be done in regard to mussel beds, and also what should be done; and, whether the Government will introduce a measure on the subject this Session?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Yes, Sir. The Secretary for Scotland has received a Report from the Fishery Board, and a Special Report is now being considered by them. I cannot answer the second
  1740
  Question until that Report has been received.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—SPREAD OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES—NOTICE OF CASES.
  MR. BRUNNERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of Dr. John Makinson Fox, Medical Officer of Health to the Northwich Rural Sanitary Authority, on Friday last, in which he recounts the difficulties he experiences in protecting the public from the spread of infectious disease, through the absence of a compulsory notification to Medical Officers of Health of the occurrence of cases of such disease, and declares that the law appears to care less for the health of human beings than for that of swine; and, whether he can hold out any hope that this defect in the law may be speedily remedied?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): My attention has been called to the Report referred to; and I may state that the Government hope to be able to introduce a Bill to deal with the compulsory notification of infectious disease.

  ARMY ESTIMATES—VOLUNTEER REGIMENTAL CAMPS.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked the Secretary of State for War, On what principle the reduction of 25 per cent in the Vote for Volunteer Regimental Camps has been made; whether the reduction is intended to be permanent; and, whether the Inspectors will be instructed to make allowance in their Reports for the diminished efficiency likely to result from the restriction?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The money taken for Volunteer camps has not been reduced; but a larger proportion has been allowed for encampment with the Regular Forces, which is considered to afford the better military instruction. The number of applicants for the grant has, however, increased so largely that only some 75 per cent can be permitted to have it. The limit of the grant has not yet been decided; but, having in view the increase in the cost of the Volunteers, amounting to over £65,000 in the Estimates of the current year, it will be necessary to restrict in

  1741
  some degree the numbers who can have the advantage of this special training. It is not proposed to issue any such instruction to Inspectors as that suggested. The several corps can encamp in their turn; but there are many corps which never express the desire to do so.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that there was a probability that all applicants would be allowed to take into camp the full number of men who wished to go?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; I did not say that. There must be a reduction; but the War Office have not fully considered what is to be the extent of the reduction.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked, whether it was not the opinion of the Military Authorities that the increased efficiency of the Volunteers gained by their going into camp did not more than compensate for the increased amount of the grant?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I attach enormous importance to the instruction of Volunteers in camp; but we think there is more advantage derived from instruction in camp if it takes place where Regular soldiers are being trained.

  LAND COURT (IRELAND)—RETURNS.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the number of landed estates now under the control or jurisdiction of the Land Court of Ireland, and the number of their agricultural tenants; and showing also in what number of cases during the last two years abatements of arrears of rent have been made by orders of the Judges, and in what number of cases applications for such abatements have been refused by the Judges?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am making inquiries of the officers of the Court to find out whether the Return asked for by the right hon. Gentleman is a practical Return or not.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—CLAUSE 34—CORONERS—TRANSFER OF POWERS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the President of
  1742
  the Local Government Board, Whether, under Clause 36 of the Local Government Bill, it is proposed to transfer the powers, duties, and liabilities of the Town Councils of Boroughs in respect to Coroners to the County Councils; whether, under the provisions of a Bill introduced in "another place" by a Member of the Government, it is proposed to transfer the same powers to the Lord Chancellor; and, whether he will state which of the two Bills will receive the largest measure of support from the Government?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I presume my hon. Friend refers to Clause 34 of the Local Government Bill. If so, I would point out that the clause only affects Quarter Sessions Boroughs with a population under 10,000. It is proposed that in these boroughs the power of appointing Coroners should cease; and the duties of these officers, so far as these boroughs are concerned, will be transferred to the County Coroners; but the Bill does not propose to make any alteration in the mode by which County Coroners are appointed. The words of the clause are, no doubt, liable to misconstruction; and I will take care that it is amended in Committee, so as to make the matter quite clear.

  IRISH PUBLIC WORKS—LEGISLATION.
  An hon. MEMBER (for Mr. W. A. MACDONALD)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, 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 already answered this Question, Sir.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—EDUCATION SCHEMES.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the fact that Scotch Educational Schemes are not laid before and considered by a duly constituted meeting of the Scotch Education Department, but are considered and adjudicated upon by the Secretary for Scotland, the Government are prepared to bring in a Bill to amend the Educational Endowments (Scotland)

  1743
  Act, by substituting the Secretary for Scotland for the Scotch Education Department; or, whether the Government will take steps that the practice in future shall be made conformable to the existing law?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): All orders, decisions, and other acts of the Scotch Education Department are done by the authority of the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council on Education in Scotland, as indicated in the manner provided by Section 65 of the Education Act of 1872. The Secretary for Scotland is Vice President of that Committee; and as such is responsible, along with the Lord President, for the administration of the Department. There has been no change in the practice with respect to that administration, which is entirely in conformity with the existing law.
  MR. CALDWELLasked, whether it was the fact that these schemes were considered only by the Vice President of the Council?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I can only tell the hon. Member what the facts of the case are—namely, that the schemes have been dealt with in the manner prescribed by law.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—THE CONSTITUTION.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government are prepared to alter the composition of the Scotch Education Department by substituting for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary two other Members of the Privy Council more intimately acquainted with Scotch affairs, and able to devote more time to the discharge of the important duties delegated to that Department by statute or otherwise?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Government are not prepared to substitute other Members of the Privy Council for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary upon the Scotch Education Committee. The presence of these Ministers on the Committee is essential, in view of the questions relating to finance, and to the administration of the Factory and similar Acts which come before the Committee.
  MR. CALDWELLasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could give a Return showing the attendance of these Ministers at the Committee?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No; I am afraid that I cannot give such a Return.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES CONVENTION, 1883—SEIZURE OF THE SMACK "LADY GODIVA."
  In reply to Mr. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby),
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): A despatch has been received from Her Majesty's Consul General at Hamburg to-day, enclosing a Report from the counsel employed by Her Majesty's Government to defend Funnell, in whose case my right hon. Friend has taken a great interest. The Judges decided against the application of the Public Prosecutor for the forfeiture of the nets and gear of the Lady Godiva; and unless the Crown should appeal against this judgment, application will be made for the release of the gear. The Judge declined to pronounce upon the question whether Funnell had been engaged in fishing within German territorial waters, and that of the right of British fishermen to sail within those limits did not arise.

  GERMANY—HEALTH OF HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY.
  MR. BRYCE: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is in a position to give the House any information that will tend to allay anxiety with regard to the condition of the German Emperor?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I regret to have to inform the House that the condition of His Imperial Majesty is a cause of grave anxiety, not only to the people of Germany, but to all those who are allies and friends of that country. The last telegram we received is one from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin, dated half-an-hour after noon, to the effect that—
  "The Emperor had better night, but fever still high and not diminishing. Doctors say His Majesty's general condition not worse."

NOTICE OF MOTION.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I wish to give Notice that I shall to-morrow move that the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill be taken before the other Orders of the Day, as I understand that it is the general wish of the House that the debate upon the second reading of the measure should be concluded in the course of the Afternoon or Evening Sitting.
  MR. S. SMITHsaid, that he had the first Notice upon the Paper to-morrow with reference to the Continuation Schools; and he wished to know whether the Government would undertake to give facilities for the discussion of that subject on a future occasion?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member is, I am sure, expressing the wish of several other hon. Members with regard to the subject to which he refers; but I am afraid that I cannot undertake to give him a day for its discussion. The hon. Member will, if on no other occasion, be able to raise a discussion with regard to the Continuance Schools on the Education Vote.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he could state what interval would elapse between the second reading of the Local Government Bill and its being taken in Committee?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was afraid that must depend on the time that would be taken by other measures. The Government proposed to take the Budget Bill on Monday, and the Employers' Liability Bill and the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill would also have to be read a second time before the House could go into Committee on the Local Government Bill.
  MR. HUNTER: Will the Employers' Liability Bill be taken before the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am net able to say at present.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 182.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Long.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 182.]

    SECOND READING.
    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [FIFTH NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. FIRTH: Mr. Speaker, I think, before the debate on this important measure closes, that it is desirable that a much more extended reference should be made to its bearings upon the interests of the inhabitants of the Capital than has yet been made. I hope the Members for London will express their opinion on a matter so very closely affecting their constituencies, for, important as are the provisions of this Bill as they respect country districts, I believe that they must be regarded as infinitely more important as they affect the inhabitants of London, because this proposal amounts to giving them the germ, at any rate, of direct control over their affairs.
    When the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) came to deal with the question of County Government, I apprehend that he found it inevitable, in dealing with London, to come to such a conclusion as is expressed in this Bill. The Metropolis is situated in the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent. He would find that either he must give to these counties administrative control over the Metropolis, analogous to that exercised over whole counties elsewhere—which is manifestly impossible—or that he must constitute London as a county by itself. He has taken the latter course; he has given to it more than the simple functions of administration, and he has done that because otherwise, I apprehend, the London County would have to receive the same amount of money as other counties receive, and that would

    1747
    have to be paid to the Metropolitan Board of Works—a condition of things which no one could contemplate with complacency. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has constituted London into a county of itself, and that was in accordance with the Report of the Metropolitan Local Government Committee of 1867, which said—
    "The first step towards improved and efficient local government is to constitute the Metropolis a county of itself according to the principles recognized in the government of this country from the earliest times."
    I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has found himself able to adopt that proposition. With regard to London, its condition as a county will be found, when this proposal is worked out, different from that of rural counties, inasmuch as it is exlusively urban, and demands special treatment.
    With regard to powers, the right hon. Gentleman, in respect to other counties, applies the Municipal Corporations Act. It was the opinion in 1835 that an Act analogous to that should be applied to the whole of the Metropolitan area, and it was stated by Lord John Russell, in the House of Commons, that it was his intention to introduce a Bill applicable to the area of London. The right hon. Gentleman has not given powers to the County of London to the complete extent to which that Act would have gone; but he has travelled a considerable distance in that direction. He has given to it the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which has been offered up on the altar of the necessities of the situation. The organ of that Board has described this as "a daring and extraordinary proposal;" but, as a matter of fact, the abolition of the Metropolitan Board of Works has been received with universal joy and satisfaction in the House and out of it; and I think I may here adapt the words of King Lear, and say—"Upon such sacrifices, my Cordelia, the gods themselves throw incense."
    The Bill that was introduced in 1884 proposed that there should be a Central Body with direct election to replace the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that there should be an enlargement of the City. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give to the County direct election, but it leaves the City alone. We want a subsidiary measure to give us control of the Local Autho-
    1748
    rities, but the Bill does not give that. The Metropolitan Board of Works and the City are dealt with more roughly in this Bill than they were by us, and if they were under the impression that we scourged them with whips, their opinion now must be that the right hon. Gentleman has scourged them with scorpions.
    We gave to the City a representation based upon population and rateable value, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has found himself able to do what we and Her Majesty's Government of the day had not the courage to do, being apprehensive, if he will, of the comments of the Opposition—that is to say, to give a representation based on population; and, however he may extend Section 52, he will not give to the City anything like the proportion of representation which we proposed to give. The general position is, that the Metropolitan Board of Works dies at once—like a man who is beheaded—but the City of London is only to die gradually. It is to be surrounded by a pure and free organization, and the life at its centre cannot be prolonged for any considerable time. The Chairman of the London Municipal Council, as it may be called, will look upon the operations of the citizens in the square mile embracing the City very much as Lemuel Gulliver looked upon the operations of the inhabitants of Mildendo, the capital of Lilliput, and before long the City will become part of a great municipal organization.
    In 1884 the right hon. Gentleman said a good deal with respect to our Bill. I am not going to resuscitate those opinions, or say more than that they were not much in accord with those he has found himself able to express now. He told us a good deal with respect to London opinion being against our Bill; but he will not find that that opinion, which he quoted against us, will very strongly support him. He will have the opportunity of finding that there is now a strong opinion in favour of what he proposes to give—namely, a strong directly elected Municipal Authority. I find that one hon. Gentleman representing a Metropolitan Division (Sir Roper Lethbridge), who expressed great satisfaction with this Bill, wished that the appointment of aldermen could be dropped. I remember contesting a

    1749
    London constituency with him some years ago, and I would on this point say nothing more than that our opinions did not in 1885 coincide so closely as they do now.
    This is a Bill embodying the principles which we have for so many years advocated, and I think it becomes us to consider carefully what is our duty with reference to it. The opinion that I have expressed here and elsewhere is that it is our business to support it. It is quite true that it is incomplete, and that it does not deal with the whole question of the Government of London. I am glad that it does not, because this would have imposed on the Bill a greater burden than it could bear, and because the right hon. Gentleman has not yet come to the conclusion at which he will probably arrive when he has fully considered the matter as to the true solution of the rest of the London question.
    We want consolidation of Central Authorities, and the control of Local Authorities; but I think the latter may for the present be postponed. With respect to the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has made as to introducing a Bill for the purpose of dealing hereafter with Local Authorities, may I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman? It is a very difficult and extremely complex question. The right hon. Gentleman has constituted a London Authority that will undoubtedly be composed of men not merely familiar with London life, but with all the varying phases of London government. There are men who have acquired a knowledge of the government of the Board of Works, and a few who have mastered the system of Vestries. You will have men with a knowledge of each; but it is a most difficult thing to get men with a knowledge of London government as a whole, and I suggest that you should leave to this Body power to bring in a scheme for the regulation of the whole system of London Government. Now, the right hon. Gentleman said with respect to the Bill, as a whole, that it "would enable those who desired yet larger reforms to give it their hearty support." We shall accept it in that spirit, and it must be understood that the criticisms that I am about to offer on the Bill are governed by that intention. We want one Municipal Authority,
    1750
    directly elected for the control of our affairs.
    The principle of direct election is to us a principle of very great importance, and if we had known that the Government were going to introduce a measure with respect to London, I am bound to say that we should have looked with the utmost anxiety to the manner in which they would deal with that matter. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has not entertained the proposal of the Metropolitan Local Government Committee of 1867, that there should be a representation first, of owners of property, secondly, Crown nominees, thirdly, delegates from local bodies, and, fourthly, ratepayers. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal will be a great improvement upon that.
    With regard to the Metropolitan Board of Works elections now, I moved for a Return in this House as to the number of people who voted for vestrymen in London, and I found that only one in 33 of the population took even that amount of interest in these bodies. When those interesting bodies are elected, it is in some cases their duty to elect members for District Boards, who retire after three years. The District Boards assist in the election of the members of the Metropolitan Board of Works, one-third of whom are elected over London every year. It has thus been wittily said that the Board is "a vestry vestrified to the nth power." This system of election gives it neither responsibility nor public confidence. Now, the present plan is infinitely better, and is the same that was proposed by the Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Taxation of 1861. I say it is better than ours was, although I trust I may not be regarded as reflecting on the Government Bill of 1884, which Bill considered rateable value as well as population.
    This Bill considers population only, as far as London is concerned. I am extremely glad to find that it is proposed that the elections shall be triennial, instead of being conducted on the system under the Municipal Corporations Act, which created confusion by annual elections of one-third. Lord John Russell, in 1835, said that—
    "Whether people elect for three years or for one year, they will generally elect the same persons."

    1751
    And he said his object was to secure two-thirds who had "some experience in the management of the affairs of the town." Now, experience has shown that this is unnecessary. In the case of the London School Board the present system has resulted in the return of a large proportion of members having experience in the management, and with regard to the House of Commons I think I am right in saying that in the Election of 1885 nearly half the Members were changed.
    Then, with respect to voters; I believe on this subject there is an observation which it is my duty to make in regard to London. We proposed in 1884 that there should be a citizen roll; and we had grounds for the expectation that this would be ultimately accepted as the roll for all purposes. This Bill proposes to have a list formed in accordance with the 9th section of the Municipal Corporations Act. I venture to suggest that, with regard to London for the purpose of these elections, this is unnecessary. Under the 17th section of the Metropolis Local Management Act of 1855 rated householders vote for the vestry, and the rate book is used as the roll. Now, between the rated householders and persons entitled to vote under Section 9 of the Municipal Act there is very little difference. It is possible for a minor to be a rated householder, but, of course, he could not vote under Section 9. But with respect to the City, of course, it is different. If you propose to make an entirely new roll there, that is a matter for consideration; but you at present have the Parliamentary franchise for electing the Common Council, and therefore it would be necessary to take off lodger and service voters and put on women voters.
    With respect to the City, I see there is a power in the Bill as of which I am bound to say the right hon. Gentleman did not in his speech give us the slightest indication. I do not complain of that; but there is power to the Local Government Board to allocate to the City more than its population share of representation. The effect of this will be to isolate it still more, and cause a considerable amount of friction; and it is, moreover, an indefensible course, because there is nothing to be said with respect to the shop-
    1752
    keepers on Ludgate Hill which cannot be said of the shopkeepers in Bond Street.
    There is one other point to which I propose to call attention. Under the Electors' Bill, Clause 3, Sub-section E, it is proposed for England and Wales that Section 21 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act of 1878 shall not apply, and that the lists and register of voters shall be made out alphabetically. I draw attention to the fact that this will not do for London at all, and that it is necessary to have it altered, as our Register is now made up in street lists, and this to the advantage and by the consent of all parties concerned.
    I understand that for areas for the first election the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take or utilize to a certain extent the vestry areas and the vestry wards. If that is the proposal, I think it is a very wise one, and I trust that the new London Authority will have power to frame a scheme, and consider whether administrative and electoral areas cannot in some way be made co-terminous.
    With regard to the constitution of the Central London Authority, it is provided in Section 2, Sub-section 4, first as to the Chairman that he must be a Justice of the Peace, and in Section 36, Sub-section 5, the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works are transferred to the London Council. This is a matter not of comment but of inquiry. The Bill is not clear on this point, and I ask if Section 36 over-rides Section 2? Amongst the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, under the Metropolis Local Management Act, is that of electing and paying a Chairman, and I wish to point out that, as regards London, it is necessary to have a Chairman and possibly a Deputy Chairman who ought to be paid. There have been paid Chairmen of the Metropolitan Board of Works, beginning with Mr. Thwaites and ending with Lord Magheramorne, and it is necessary that you should have one or two men who are prepared to give their whole time daily to the enormous amount of work which will fall to their share in these positions. There are 118 operative Acts of Parliament under which the Board now works, and I do not know where you will find your Justice of the Peace available for all

    1753
    that will be required of him. I venture to put this question, because it is one of several points in the Bill on which I find it rather difficult to arrive at any certain conclusion. The Bill has no Memorandum, and there are no side references; and if the right hon. Gentleman can, before the Bill goes into Committee, supply these, he will assist many of us in arriving at an exact conclusion as to what is meant.
    As an illustration of the difficulty—under Section 15 County Councils have authority to maintain main roads; but under Sub - section 2 the Urban Authority "may claim to retain their powers of maintaining main roads." Is it intended that the Vestries and District Boards shall claim power to maintain the main roads as Urban Authorities? That is a difficulty, and I confess I have no means of ascertaining with certainty the intention of the Bill in this respect. I will give another illustration—under Section 37 the City Common Council may claim to "retain" the powers and duties of maintaining and repairing any main road in the City. I point out with regard to that, that they have not this power now, and therefore, if they are to retain it, it must mean that they are to obtain it. The power is now in the hands of the Commissioners of Sewers, and the Common Council has no power in this matter, except in the appointment of the Commission once a-year. This, as well as the matters I have just mentioned, will show that there is absolute inconsistency with regard to certain points. Now I return to the constitution of the London Body.
    The selected councillors will be called aldermen, whether you like it or not. It is not probable that people will assume the longer title; they will be aldermen if they are anything, and the first point I wish to make is, that to give us aldermen by a system of triennial election in London is a retrogade policy. The aldermen we have are all of them subject to direct election. It is true that they are aldermen for life; they have been so elected for hundreds of years; but still they are directly elected. It is not long since one succeeded in an election with 121 votes and another with 163 votes; but still there is direct election. Besides, these aldermen at present have some connection with
    1754
    the wards; we make aldermen practically chairmen of our wards in the City; they represent some interests, but here you give aldermen the representation of nothing. They are like Bishops in partibus, without sees to visit, and we say that with regard to the London Council you should not take this retrograde step. I understand that the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) says that "These must be dropped in London." I am glad to be able to agree with him. Further, I do not think that we shall be able to persuade our best citizens to accept the title at all, and I therefore hope that we shall be relieved from them as far as London is concerned. There is, of course, the danger of some of the elections turning on political grounds. In Liverpool and Leeds they have, I believe, turned on those grounds, but I hope they will not in future do so here. The adoption of selected councillors might lead to a misrepresentation in the Council of the majority of the electors, and now that you are starting de novo this in itself is an objection to the proposal. We have the idea that whatever exists can be defended upon some original principle if we can only find it out. And so you have attached to the constitution of this body a number of aldermen.
    As a matter of fact, aldermen under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 have no foundation in principle at all. Lord John Russell, when he introduced the Bill on the 5th of June in that year, said—"We propose that there should be one body only, the Mayor and Common Council." When the Bill reached the House of Lords, Lord Lyndhurst moved an Amendment that one-fourth of the Council should be aldermen for life. Lord Brougham said he viewed such a proposal with "aversion and disgust," that it was inconsistent with the principles of the measure, and that the usefulness of the measure would be paralyzed by the "baneful self-elective provision." But it remained for Lord Wharncliffe to give the true reasons for the Amendment, when he said that a portion of the Council ought to be rendered "independent of the people;" that the—
    "Principle of aristocracy was at stake, for if it were determined that a body of aldermen were unnecessary to a Corporation, then here-

    1755
    ditary Members in the House of Lords would be deemed equally unnecessary."
    Lord Ellenborough supported it for the earlier operation of the measure in order "to counteract the turbulence inseparable from the novelty of the system." We know that then there was a conflict between the two Houses of Parliament, and that strong language was used, much stronger than now, with reference to the House of Lords, one Member of the lower House, Sir Samuel Whalley, suggesting that there should be written over the portals of the House of Lords—"Mangling done here." When the Lords' Amendments were considered in the Commons, Sir Robert Peel said he did not consider the introduction of aldermen as councillors an improvement to the Bill, that the selection of a certain number of aldermen as councillors "would imply distrust without carrying security," and that they would be forced in without the consent of the community. Lord John Russell said that it was quite incompatible with the Bill, and would only tend "to embarrass, disturb, and weaken the action of the Municipal Body." Eventually a compromise was arrived at of election for six years—one-half retiring every third year. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to omit this provision for selected members from the Bill.
    With respect to the Sheriffs, it is proposed to give the Queen the power to appoint a new Sheriff of London. I suggest that this power might very well be given to the Council of London. It is a power possessed by the Common Council of counties of cities, and I think we may very properly give it to the London Council. The present Sheriff of Middlesex is really two gentlemen rolled into one. The Liveries of the City Guilds elect once a-year two Sheriffs who become Sheriffs of London, and they together make the Sheriff of Middlesex. Therefore, this is a proposal to take away from the Companies of the City of London their right of electing a Sheriff of Middlesex—it is taking away a municipal right, and thus you may, so to speak, be beginning to let out water. Will the City rebel? They have already stated that the Sheriff-wick of Middlesex, paid for and enjoyed for 700 years, "will not be parted with tamely;" but I think that when the turtle is turned on its back it is not
    1756
    able to fight very hard. The Commissioners of 1854 suggested that the Sheriff should be appointed by the Common Council, and I think the Sheriff of London might be appointed by the County Council.
    With regard to the Recorder. Under the 38th section, Sub-section 12, the powers and duties of Recorder and Common Serjeant of London are unaltered, but Section 23 provides for the payment out of the county fund of part of the salaries of "officers" of the Central Criminal Court. Now is it intended to pay any part of the salary of the Recorder or Common Serjeant, because if so it amounts to a proposal to relieve a present charge on the City funds, which again is something in the nature of the letting out of water, because it involves certain important principles. If the City estate is to be relieved at our expense, we have some questions to ask as to that estate.
    With regard to the Court of Aldermen, I understand that certain administrative functions, not including licensing, are transferred to the Common Council of the City. I ask why should they not be extended to the London Council? But the magisterial functions of the City aldermen are left untouched. Why is that? The aldermen are a body of men exercising magisterial functions in the centre of the business of the world, without the slightest guarantee of legal knowledge or capacity for dealing with the questions which come before them. Two aldermen might, by the Central Criminal Court Act, try a man for murder, and one of them, in order to make a Court, always sits with the Judge; and when in 1854 it was proposed to abolish this right of the aldermen, they said it was a revolutionary proposal, and that they recognized the advantages they enjoyed in sitting with the Judges—as if the Court was a sort of university for the purpose of completing the education of City tradesmen.
    With regard to the question of audit. The County Councils' accounts are to be audited by auditors appointed by the Local Government Board. Will the effect of the Bill be to continue the Treasury audit for London, which now attaches to the Metropolitan Board of Works? Because if so, I simply say that we should prefer to have no connection with the

    1757
    Treasury and to be placed on a level with other counties.
    With respect to borrowing powers, other Councils may borrow with the consent of the Local Government Board. But this Bill seems to fix us with the borrowing powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works under the Act of 1869, which, as the House knows, makes it necessary for them to come every year to the House of Commons to make application for the money they want. I say this is an indignity. We want to have the County Council of London trusted to look after the funds of the inhabitants of London as is the case with County Councils in other parts of the country.
    I do not find any power to promote Bills in Parliament and to promote schemes. I think such power should be given. The Metropolitan Board of Works sometimes comes to this House to be relieved from the cost put upon it in opposing Bills in Parliament; it has also endeavoured to introduce Bills on several occasions, and I apprehend that the new authority may very well have power to do so. I think they should have power, if I may venture to suggest it, to introduce Bills, or at all events to prepare schemes on certain subjects, such as, for instance, lighting.
    I have looked into the Bill with the view of seeing whether, having regard to our extreme anxiety to pass it, other functions could not be given to the proposed new Authority without interfering with the scope of the Bill or needlessly adding to its extent. I have come to the conclusion that there are two or three functions which the right hon. Gentleman might very well give to the London Council without interfering with the scope or object of the Bill, and which, I believe, will pass without any opposition whatever.
    First, with regard to hackney carriages. These in London have been licensed since the reign of Charles II., when the tax was devoted to making roads, and afterwards in the time of William and Mary to paying off the French War Tax. This tax brings in £31,000 a-year, and is now paid into the police account. The regulations are under eight Acts of Parliament from 1831 to 1869, and of which it would not be untrue to say that a more arbitrary and unpractical body of laws are not to be found on our Statute Book. I say that the Council
    1758
    might very well have power to make regulations and have transferred to it this £31,000 a-year, while the police might well retain certain functions with regard to intoxication, furious driving, assaults, and matters of that kind.
    With regard to markets. In 1882 I carried a clause in the Metropolitan Board of Works Bill, giving to the Board power to deal with markets. That power, unfortunately, lasted for a year only, and the consequence was that the Metropolitan Board of Works, after its own special manner, set to work to consider it; it was found that every Member wanted to have a market in his own district, and nothing was done. I submit that this power should be given in the Bill. Of course we know that the City Corporation under a Statute as old as the time of Edward III. claims to prevent the establishment of any market "infra septem leucas in circuitu civitatis;" but markets are important things to provide for the people, and I suggest that this power should be given to the Council.
    My third point is the water supply. In 1880 there was a Select Committee, of which Lord Cross was a Member, and they said in their Report that "in the absence of any single Municipal Body in London" they would suggest the establishment of a Water Authority. Here we have the very Body which the Committee proposed to establish. The Metropolitan Board of Works introduced Bills in 1872 and 1878 with respect to purchase and new supply. The simple reason why the House of Commons did not give them the power to initiate a new supply of water was because they had no confidence in the Board; and by a Return which I moved for three years ago, to show the loss which had occurred since those Bills were introduced, it appears that the citizens of London have lost something like £10,000,000 in consequence of not having control over their water supply.
    The next suggestion of powers to be given to the London Council is with regard to the Metropolitan Asylums Board. The Metropolitan Asylums Board is a Poor Law authority in theory, but a Sanitary Board in reality.
    I suggest that the functions of this Board should be taken over by the London Council, together with other sanitary powers. Look at the absurdity of the present condition of things.

    1759
    There is to be power in the Central Authority under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts of 1878 and 1886 to prevent the spread of contagious diseases among animals, but it has no power to stamp out and prevent the spread of infection among the people. We have 40 independent sanitary authorities in London; we have no means of combining, and no unity of action, and this the Local Government Board have themselves found out. Some of these authorities have not put the 35th section of the Sanitary Act of 1866 in force, and the Local Government Board have issued rules to have it enforced; but they have no power to make the Vestries carry out the Act. I suggest then that the London Council should lay down principles and frame bye-laws in sanitary matters, and also in respect of mortuaries, baths, and washhouses. When our Bill of 1884 was before the House in July, 1884, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said "It was, in point of fact, impossible that they could treat London as a whole." That is, of course, altered, because he now tells us that it is possible. He then said—
    "The Government themselves acknowledge the difficulties in the case by not conferring on the Board many of the powers which it was hoped by those who were mainly instrumental in raising the question, would be vested in a new Municipality. …. It appeared to him that if this new Council were to be entrusted with anything at all, it might fairly be entrusted with the powers now possessed by the Metropolitan Asylums Board."—(3 Hansard, [289] 1951–2.)
    I think this meets the case of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and I think it is right to take over their powers, and ultimately for the London Council to take over the Poor Law control? I think that Poor Law control and the Guardians might very well be ultimately given to the Council, and the Lambeth Guardians are already anxious that this should be done. I have now referred to the four matters which can be transferred without friction, and practically without opposition, on which the judgment of the House has already been passed, and the transfer of which will be of great benefit to us, that is to say, markets, water supply, hackney carriages, and the Metropolitan Asylums Board.
    Now, with respect to the future, I confess I am satisfied with the Bill—the
    1760
    possibilities of the future are illimitable. The 8th section is beyond all doubt, in my judgment, the best in the Bill; I suppose it is the most decentralizing section ever framed in any Bill ever brought before this House. But I have just one suggestion to make upon it. It is stated that the Authorities there mentioned may, if they consent, have their functions transferred. I think there should be consent also on the part of the receiving Council.
    There is power given to Conservators to transfer their functions to the County Authority. Now we are anxious to have control over the Thames Conservancy; but I do not see, owing to the diverse elements of its constitution, how this is to be worked out. The Board consists of 23 members, the Lord Mayor, two aldermen, four common councilmen, the deputy master of the Trinity House, two members nominated by the Lord High Admiral, one by the Privy Council, one by the Trinity House, two by registered shipowners, two by owners of lighters and steam-tugs, one by steam-shipowners, one by dockowners and wharfingers, one by the Board of Trade, and four by riparian owners. Their control extends from Yantlet Creek, in Kent, to Cricklade, in Wiltshire. I do not see how we are to carry out this arrangement, and I throw the problem before the right hon. Gentleman for his consideration.
    There is one other point under Clause 8 to which I desire to call attention. I understand that the Home Office may give us the control of the Police; but under Section 91 the Police in London are for the present to remain as they are. No doubt Amendments will be moved on that point, because there are some matters in connection with the police which have been pressed upon the attention of the Government. At present the Police jurisdiction of the Metropolis extends, roughly, to 700 square miles. The Metropolis Local Government Committee of 1867 were in favour of relegating the control to the outside counties; why, then, should this not be done? In the counties outside London there are 580 square miles over which they have control, and I venture to say there is no reasonable ground on which that anomaly can be defended.
    What is the principle in this Home Office control? There is no principle to be found.

    1761
    If you go back to the introduction of the measure of 1829 you will find that Sir Robert Peel proposed, not with respect to the City, but with respect to the London parishes, that two or three should be joined together in order to secure joint action on the part of the police. In those days there were only six policemen in Kensington; if a man escaped over the border into the next parish, it was uncertain whether he could be captured, and it was, therefore, for unity that the control of the Home Office was given. But the first point I make is, that there is no ground for the continuance of the control of the Home Office over the police its the counties around London.
    Now we are to pay the whole cost, and taking the last Returns, which are for the year 1886, I find for the whole police area that £713,000 was paid in rates; the City police cost £110,000 in addition; the grant from the Government of 4d. per pound of rateable value of the whole area on £33,219,000, was £559,000. Taking the rateable value of London which was approximately £30,000,000, the amount of the grant to London proper amounts to £500,000.
    I wish to put, if I may, a very important question to the right hon. Gentleman affecting London. As I understand the proposal there will be allocated to the London County certain matters of income which may be taken to balance the £500,000 a-year which is the police subvention. Is the £500,000 which is to be given to the London County Council to be used by that Council for the benefit of the City of London as well as the Metropolis? Because if so it amounts to giving the City of London the very large sum of £40,000 or £50,000, inasmuch as the City of London does not now receive any of the £500,000. If the City is to receive any of the money given in exchange, we shall oppose it in Committee, or else raise some difficult question with respect to City property, which question I think might be very well kept out of the discussion on this Bill.
    The Bill still leaves two police forces. Attempts were made in 1839 and 1863 to amalgamate these forces, but the methods adopted by the City in order to prevent amalgamation were almost as bad as those which they adopted
    1762
    against our Bill in 1884. Those methods were wrong, but their proposition was right, which was to keep in the hands of the people the control of their police. Lord John Russell said, that the control of the police ought to be in the hands of those who are responsible for the peace of the town.
    We have in London 14,000 men who are absolutely out of our control; they are placed in the hands of a military commander who has not the advantage of knowing the London people. Colonel Henderson did know the London people, and he believed in them with a faith almost touching in its extent. The present Commissioner, Sir Charles Warren, does not understand them at all. He appears to be in a condition of nervous prostration, talks about 50,000 persons who are a danger to London and so forth. But what is more important to consider is the serious difficulty that the people themselves have not confidence in the police force. Supposing that the circumstances which occurred on the 20th November had occurred in any Provincial or Scotch town, what would have taken place? Beyond all doubt there would have been an inquiry. There were on that day many cases of men attacked by the police, but there was no inquiry. Things in this respect are getting worse, because we are now having—with regard to London—what has happened in Ireland—police versions of what takes place. I was in Cork, and a sad story was told me with regard to the want of control of the police in Ireland and its result. My hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner) and some friends were talking together in a corner of a room at our hotel; a gentleman spoke to me, and said—"If you want to see how the police system in Cork works go outside. There are men who have been listening for two hours to what Mr. Brunner and his friends have been saying." We went out, and saw three men of the Constabulary force with their heads close together listening at the window. If there had been control of the police force in Cork that could not have happened. We have had the police version of the affair at Mitchelstown, which is a perfect burlesquerie of what we found to be the case when we were there. We do not want that sort of thing in London. But the London police levy—as has been

    1763
    pointed out by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine)—blackmail on a most unfortunate class in London. The London police levy blackmail on the great distributors of goods in London—["No, no!"] An hon. Member says "No," but I inform him that one of the very largest distributors of goods in London told me last week that it was a question of the money being paid whether his firm was summoned or not.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): The hon. and learned Gentleman is making such a grave accusation against a body of men in London, that I think he ought to state the name of his informant.
    MR. FIRTH: My informant is one of half-a-dozen of the largest distributors of goods in London. I am not going to state the name in this House. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes for the name, I will give it in private.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. A most serious charge has been made against the London police. The matter is one which concerns the public, and it is in the public interest that we should have the name of the person who makes a charge of that kind.
    MR. FIRTH: The charge is not, of course, against the police as a body. I am not going to give the name in this House—[Cries of "Withdraw!" and "Name!"]—I shall not—I will give it to the right hon. Gentleman. He will recognize the name as one of the largest distributors of goods in London.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that I am not seeking the information for the sake of interrupting him, but simply in the discharge of what I consider to be a public duty. If the name is given, it must be under conditions which will enable me to test the accuracy of the statement.
    MR. FIRTH: That is so; but it must be understood that I am not charging the whole body of the London police. The London police contain as large a proportion of the very best men as are to be found in any force in the Kingdom. What I say is, that they are deteriorating, and I gave an illustration of their operations. The final question I have
    1764
    to ask is, why we should not in London have the same control over our police which other towns have? I think our London Council is a body to which that control may be fairly entrusted, and we must have the question argued out.
    I have no objection to make to the proposals of the Bill as to licensing, except so far as they affect the whole country; but I certainly was astonished at the view of the law which the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) put before the House the other night, and as he said that the Temperance Party, in a publication in which I have taken no part, had wrongly stated the decision of Mr. Justice Field, I will read it now. He said—
    "The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in the prior Act the Legislature had drawn a great distinction between new licences and licences by way of renewal. They have done so in one respect. The Legislature have said that when an applicant comes for a licence in respect of a house not previously licensed, his neighbours ought to know of it and have an opportunity of opposing his application, and, therefore, notices on the church doors, and notices of objection are prescribed to protect the justices in the exercise of their jurisdiction as to granting licences. But when a man has once gone through that ordeal and the justices have granted a certificate, he obtains another certificate by way of renewal as a man occupying those particular premises, and, subject to a careful provision, he need not attend in person unless required, and may assume that the certificate will be granted as before: 35 and 36 Vict., c. 94, s. 42; 37 and 38 Vict., c. 49, s. 26. As to the distinction between new licences and licences granted by way of renewal, every licence is a new licence, although granted to a man who has had one before, for it is only granted for one year. If the Legislature intended the enactment in question only to apply to a certificate by way of renewal, why did not they say 'any licence other than by way of renewal?' They have not done so. The generality of the language used points clearly to the conclusion that the Legislature meant to vest the absolute discretion in the justices."
    Mr. Justice Stephen said—
    "I am of the same opinion. It seems to me clear that this Act was intended to give to licensing justices an absolute power, and that they can either refuse or confirm these certificates on any ground they like, and whether the application is for a new certificate, or is made for the twentieth time, and whether the applicant is of unblemished character, as in the present case, or of bad character."
    If that is the law, why should we not leave the publicans to the law? If the law is that they are entitled to compensation, leave them to it; but if it happens not to be the law, then by this

    1765
    Bill you are endowing the publicans with millions upon millions sterling, and that, I say, is a proposal extremely dangerous and unjust. I venture to make a suggestion to Her Majesty's Government as to the way they may deal with this question and get out of the difficulty with regard to licensing. I have found, when difficult social and political problems have had to be solved, that it was wise to see what had been done in similar cases elsewhere.
    In the United States of America they have tried to deal with the Drink Question in every possible way. When a State legislated for the whole State the legislation has generally failed because particular localities were not in favour of State legislation; but when the question was left to be decided by each county it was found that the local system worked very well. Now, I have examined the reports from 12 States of the American Union as to how the system of leaving the decision to the counties has worked, and from the unanimous judgment of the Senators I must say that it has worked well.
    I think, then, that in the matter of licensing every county ought to have the right to deal with it as it thinks best. That principle you have accepted in respect of Sunday Closing; why, then, do you not go further and give to the counties this power also? In Omaha there is a population of 125,000: the amount of the Licence Tax under a system of high. licensing is $250,000, and this sum of about £50,000 sterling which is brought in goes in aid of education.
    Having now occupied the time of the House at sufficient length, I have only to repeat that we are extremely thankful for this Bill even as it has been introduced. As time goes on, I believe it will be shown that the County Council to be constituted for London will prove itself worthy of its position. I think that enlarged powers will be given to it. No Body ever started upon its municipal career with so extended a series of important functions as this Body will have to discharge. It will have a debt of £25,000,000, of which £17,000,000 will be its own liability. It will have the expenditure of an enormous income; it will have to control the whole main drainage system, and it will have an opportunity of solving the difficult problem of the disposal of sewage; it
    1766
    will have the control of parks and open spaces in London, of the Fire Brigade, and of the River Thames, and I think, as time goes on, the London Council will enlist the confidence of the inhabitants of London and of Parliament, and prove itself, by its character, a credit to the right hon. Gentleman who created it, and by its action an honour to the greatest City in the world.
    MR. ELTONsaid, he took it that, as regarded the general principle of the Bill, the country agreed that county districts should be municipalized according to the pattern of the Municipal Corporation Acts of 1834 and 1882, and that the blessings of municipal life should be extended to the whole country. Let them, then, not attempt, while carrying out that principle, to combine with it at the same time alterations and improvements in every little detail of the existing municipal pattern as they went along, otherwise they would get into trouble, drift into hopeless confusion, and perhaps never get to the end of their task. Let them not try to do at once two things that were incompatible, but stick to the municipal principle. He suggested that it might be better to make grants for poor relief on the basis of an average of the grants made by the Guardians during the past five years, and not, as proposed, according to the number of indoor paupers, as such a method might discourage outdoor relief, and compel people to go into the workhouse. He proceeded to give examples of the hardships which might ensue if the Government proposals were accepted, and advised their withdrawal. With regard to the police, the boroughs under the Bill would lose a certain amount of control over that force, and they would hardly stand having the control entirely taken away and given wholly to Quarter Sessions. There was another alternative in regard to the police—namely, vesting the control over it in the Executive Government. That might be a system suitable to the Metropolitan area, but the counties did not want to have their police managed and controlled by the Executive Government.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he desired to refer to a speech delivered from the Treasury Bench by the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke), and in which the legal

    1767
    right of the publicans to compensation was distinctly laid down. It was stated that they had at law a vested interest in their licences. Such a proposition had never been recognized in any Court of Law, and was not to be found in any Act of Parliament, and its consequences, if established, would be most far-reaching upon this system of county government and upon the temperance question as a whole. The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Caine) had calculated that the average value of a licence throughout England and Wales was £2,000. Taking the average value at half that sum—namely, £1,000—and the number of public-houses in the country at 180,000, the value of the licences would amount to the enormous sum of £180,000,000 Such was the value of the vested interest which it was proposed to create by this Bill, for it certainly did not exist at present. When the Bill was brought in to deal with the Irish land question, what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain)? Something very different to what he had said in regard to this proposal to give compensation to the publicans; and by comparing these two statements a fair estimate was obtained of the value of the right hon. Gentleman's opinion. The hon. and learned Solicitor General also referred to the moral right of the publicans to compensation. Into that he would not enter. It might be that the publicans had a moral claim to consideration; but that was very different to having a legal right to compensation. In the one case it might be deemed fair to make them some compensation or allowance; in the other, they would be entitled to the full value of their licences. Reference had been made to poor men being deprived of their property; but it ought to be borne in mind that the great bulk of the public-houses throughout the country did not belong to the publicans who occupied them; they belonged to the great capitalists, the brewers and distillers, and it was really, in the main, in their interest that this proposal for compensation was brought forward, and pressure had been brought to bear upon the Government to induce them to impose a legal right which did not exist and had never been recognized. There were three classes of licences. The first consisted of what were called on-licences,
    1768
    which were in existence before the Act of 1869—licences for selling beer alone, and which by virtue of that Act became entitled to renewal except upon four specific grounds. Then came certain off-licences, in respect of which there was a free and unfettered discretion; and although the Act of 1882, known as Ritchie's Act, declared them to be in the free and unqualified discretion of the Licensing Justices, it was proposed by this Bill to give compensation for the non-renewal of them. The great bulk of the licences that they had in view were the regular full public-house licences for the sale of beer and spirits; and the hon. and learned Solicitor General had endeavoured to show that there was a right of renewal except for personal misconduct. The law with reference to them began in 1828. By the Act of that year the Licensing Justices received absolutely free discretion to grant or refuse a licence, or the renewal of a licence; and that applied to spirits as well as beer. In 1830 the era of Free Trade in beer set in. From 1830 to 1869 persons obtained licences for selling beer as readily as gentlemen did for keeping horses. In 1869 a change came, and the discretion of the Justices granted in 1828 was restored, subject to the exceptions he had mentioned. It would not have been possible to maintain that there was a vested interest in the renewal of licences if it had not been for some things in the Acts of 1872 and 1874. It was enacted in 1828 that holders who wished for the renewal of their licences should attend the Sessions in person; they could not attend by attorney; and the Courts were, therefore, crowded, and other business was interfered with. To avoid this inconvenience it was enacted in 1872 that the Justices should not entertain objections to a renewal, or take evidence with respect to it, unless notice of opposition had been given, and that the holder need not attend unless he had received notice to do so, provided always that on an objection being made the Justices might adjourn the case and require the attendance of the holder. This was perfectly fair; otherwise an objection might have been heard in the absence of the publican. The sole object of the provisions was to dispense with the personal attendance of the publican unless objection were made to

    1769
    the renewal, but the Act went further and said that "subject as aforesaid"—that was, to the requisition to attend and to the notice of objection—
    "The licence shall be renewed and the powers and discretion of the Justices relating to such renewal shall be exercised as heretofore."
    To appeal to these words as recognizing a vested interest only showed the weakness of the claim. After 1872 it was found that Justices in some parts of the country issued circulars requiring attendance to facilitate the issuing of the licences and the payment of fees, and in some cases for giving a little salutary advice. But this was found to produce inconvenience, and in 1874 it was enacted that a request for attendance should not be made save for some special cause personal to the licence-holder. This meant that licence-holders were not to be summoned by general circular, and that they should be required to attend if there were objections which might lead to refusal. Of course a licence would be renewed if a man was not required to attend—that is, he must have an opportunity of being heard before the renewal was refused. But the hon. and learned Solicitor General argued something very different from that, for he said that because a man could not be required to attend save for some special cause personal to himself, the licence must be renewed except for some special cause. It was torturing the words to put upon them this interpretation. The Act of 1869 specified four conditions, the violation of which was to involve refusal of renewal; and if Parliament had intended to grant a vested interest except for personal misconduct, it would have had no difficulty in expressing its intentions. The issue had not been raised in the Courts except in the Over Darwen case; but there were some obiter dicta of Judges that were important. Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in a case which came before him in May, 1878, dealt at some length with this question, and came to the conclusion that the Justices had the same discretion to refuse a renewal as they had to refuse a new licence. In 1876, Mr. Justice Lush said that the Act only required the licencee to attend if something personal to himself was to be brought up. But that would not take away the discretion of the Justices to refuse to renew his licence
    1770
    on other grounds when he attended. The question was about to be solved by a case which was now before Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Wills in the Queen's Bench Division, in which the Justices of Westmoreland had refused renewal on the ground that there was no necessity for the house. He ventured to prophesy that the decision would be conclusive in abolishing the argument that there was a vested right for renewal of existing licences. The hon. and learned Solicitor General rested his case solely on these two Acts of Parliament; and even supposing he was right in his view of the law, why was it to be altered from the condition in which it now was? If the hon. and learned Solicitor General were right, and the County Councils refused to renew a licence, then they could be compelled to do so by a Court of Law. If the Government had this supreme faith in a vested interest, why did they think it necessary to protect it by a new clause? The very fact that the Government were endeavouring to protect this vested interest by a special clause was the best proof that they had no confidence in it. If they were going to transfer to the County Councils the power to deal with licences—and the lawyers in the House differed as to the extent of the publican's vested interest—why should the House decide between them? Of all Assemblages this was the least competent to deal with questions of law. Why should Parliament not leave the matter to the Courts of Law? Then when the time came, and the County Councils refused to renew licences, the holders could go to the Courts of Law for redress. He did not suggest that they should impair or diminish the rights of the publicans, whatever they might be; but he asked the House not to interfere with the rights of the public authority, whatever they might be, to deal with licences.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE)said, the hon. and learned Gentleman forgot that, so far as this matter was concerned, the magistrates and Quarter Sessions would cease to operate at all, and that the power created by this Bill was not a judicial tribunal, but a representative and executive body.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, his point was was that the Court of Quarter Sessions

    1771
    was a judicial tribunal; and the hon. and learned Solicitor General's argument, if it meant anything, was that it was an administrative tribunal and had no discretion.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, his contention was that the Justices could not refuse to renew a licence unless the man had been summoned to appear before them, and that they only bad power to require him to come before them on a cause personal to himself.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he was glad to find that they were all agreed on the subject. Under the stress of discussion, the hon. and learned Solicitor General did not rise and say they had a vested right to renewal unless the man has been required to attend, and that he could not be required to attend except for a cause personal to himself. That was very different from saying that they had no right to renew. But he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, or anyone for the Government, to answer this question. Suppose a man had been notified and attended, and, being there, the Court said to him—"Now, Sir, we have you here. We think there are too many licensed houses in your neighbourhood, and we shall not renew your licence." Would the hon. and learned Gentleman, if they did, say that any Court in the Kingdom would interfere?
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he thought they would.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, if that were so, surely the hon. and learned Gentleman was arguing in a circle; and what a splendid and ample protection these people had! If that were the case, there was a Court in the Kingdom that would compel the Sessions to renew the licence, and the same Court would have jurisdiction to compel the County Councils to do the same.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: No.
    MR. R. T. REIDasked, why not?
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that the Courts now interfered with the discretion of a judicial tribunal, but an executive tribunal was to be set up in its place with which the Courts would not interfere.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that if the High Court now compelled a judicial tribunal to renew licences, it would also compel an executive body. He did not think that this country, if once awakened to
    1772
    the fact that the magistrates were not compelled to renew licences, as the judgment of the Queen's Bench would shortly show, would tamely submit to have saddled upon it the compensation for vested interests which for 60 years had been successfully resisted in the House. Even if the question were doubtful as to the renewal, yet a body of opinion would grow up stronger and stronger every day in opposition to giving the publicans, brewers, and distillers anything more than in law they now had. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham had commented upon the fact that £300,000 a-year to be derived from the licences was to be handed over to the County Councils, and said that would be for the purpose of dealing with the licensed houses. That sum was perfectly inadequate for purposes of compensation, as to his knowledge it was not enough to buy 12 houses in London that he could point out. Then it was pretty certain that the County Councils would abolish Sunday trading, with the result that the value of the licences would be reduced by 14 per cent. But the County Councils would only be able to add 20 per cent. to the price of those licences, and as 14 per cent would be taken off in consequence of the abolition of Sunday trading only 6 per cent would really be added. Thus, instead of £300,000 a-year, the sum available for compensation would only be £80,000. He asked the House whether it was really prepared to pass these Licensing Clauses which would impose almost limitless liabilities on the future ratepayers of the country. By passing these provisions they would erect an insurmountable wall in the way of temperance reform, for there would be no diminution whatever in the present enormous number of public-houses. Whenever a County Council might desire to refuse the renewal of licences, preposterous claims for compensation would be put forward which would render refusal impossible. To agree to the plan of the Government would be to postpone indefinitely the success of the great efforts that were being made to check the drink evil in this country.
    MR. A. W. HALLsaid, he did not wish to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) through the

    1773
    thorny paths of the licensing question; but he would just remark with regard to the strong point which the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think he had made when he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) to declare why the existing state of things which compelled the Courts to grant licences should remain in the Bill, that the reason was that the Licence Clauses of the measure were going to alter the law, and that these Licence Clauses were really a concession to Local Option—a reasonable and fair concession to that principle of Local Option. The question he (Mr. A. W. Hall) should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman was this—did he really want to reduce the number of licences, or did he only want to harass the publicans, the brewers, and the distillers? If his object was to reduce the number of licences, he (Mr. A. W. Hall) ventured very respectfully to say to him that the shortest cut to that end was to grant publicans the reasonable and moderate amount of compensation which the Government proposed, because the County Councils would not consist exclusively of members of the Temperance Party. So far as the majority of the members of the Councils were concerned, they would be just and honest men, who would hesitate to confiscate the property of publicans, which was sometimes of enormous value—of such value that these extra licences would not suffice to pay for them, unless some arrangement for reasonable compensation were made. Now, he desired to turn to a very different subject indeed, and that was to a point in this Bill which he wanted to ask the Government to give candid attention to with a view to some alteration being made. He alluded to the grant in aid of indoor pauperism, which had already been alluded to, and to the representations in regard to which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) was prepared to give favourable consideration as far as making an alteration was concerned. The proposal in the Bill to which he referred was one to which he took the greatest possible exception, and for several reasons, principally because the Government had officially told them that it was impossible to include the Poor Law in this new Bill, and that if it was
    1774
    attempted to include it they would be unduly overweighting it and jeopardising its chance of passing into law. Well, he (Mr. A. W. Hall) regretted very much that this was so; but he did not question the wisdom of the decision of the Government not to overweight the Bill by including the question of the Poor Law, but he questioned the wisdom of the proposal which said, at one and the same time—"We will not include the Poor Law in the Bill, and yet we will include the most important part of the Poor Law—namely, the question of indoor relief." He was one of those who should like very much to see this question dealt with on a good broad basis, and he was sorry that an opportunity, which he could not help thinking was a golden opportunity, had not been taken advantage of for that purpose; for he thought it was only right that the people who take so deep an interest as the working people did in this question of indoor and outdoor relief should have something to say in the administration of the Poor Law by allowing them to have a direct voice in the matter through representatives elected directly by them. The hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney), whom he did not now see in his place, in the very able speech he delivered the other night, seemed to feel some apprehension in regard to the matter being left to the County Councils, although the hon. Gentleman seemed to recognize that sooner or later it would have to be left to the County Councils. But so far as he (Mr. A. W. Hall) gathered from the hon. Gentleman, he seemed to think that if the matter were left to them there would be very great danger of its being abused. Well, he confessed that he did not in any degree share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. He believed that the County Councils would have performed their duties in this respect thoroughly well and with thorough efficiency. But even if he had shared that anxiety, he would venture to say that it was too late for this theory. They had adopted the policy of trusting the people, and in all matters of Local Government they would have to hand over to the people, without any reservation whatever, the matters connected with Local Government vitally affecting their interests. No matter much more vitally affected the interests of the people

    1775
    than this matter of the administration of the Poor Law, and it would be quite impossible for them to continue to confine the administration of the Poor Law to the Boards at present elected or to the Local Government Board itself. It had been said, and truly said he thought, that there was no form of administration in the world more centralized than that of the English Poor Law. They had the principles to guide them laid down by Parliament in the several Acts, particularly in the Act of 1834; but the Local Government Board by their orders regulated every single act of the Guardians, and by their Inspectors and by their auditors, one might say, supervized every single act of the Guardians. Well, that might be all very right, but it was not true local government, such as they were trying to establish by this Bill; and therefore it was that he said he was so sorry that this opportunity should be lost, though probably it could not be avoided, of dealing with this matter, because they had no uniformity of procedure such as they might expect from the fresh and less centralized administration of the Poor Law. He held that there was constant pressure going on from the Central Department on Boards of Guardians to administer the Poor Law in a more and more doctrinaire spirit. Some Boards of Guardians yielded to that pressure, and some did not. Those who yielded to it did it by forcing the people into the workhouse at the expense of outdoor relief; but others did not do it, and went on granting their outdoor relief to the poor. It was a serious hardship, and he thought it ought not to continue to be the case, that two people might be living within a stone's throw of each other, though in different Unions, and yet might be subject to an entirely different system of Poor Law relief, instead of being subject, as they ought to be subject, to the same system of Poor Law relief. He believed if the administration of the Poor Law were in the hands of the County Councils there would be far more uniformity of administration than there was under the present centralized system. Then they got matters made worse, instead of better, by the action of the Government in the present Bill. The Government stepped in and proposed a capitation grant of 4d. for indoor paupers, thereby giving every
    1776
    Board of Guardians a distinct interest in making as many indoor paupers as they possibly could. Well, what would be the result of that? It would act as a stimulant; it would necessarily act as a stimulant to Guardians to increase the number of indoor poor at the expense of the outdoor poor. That was perfectly certain. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had said the other night, in answer to a similar objection, that he did not think Boards of Guardians would "scramble," as he said, for these fourpences, and he did not seem to think the suggestion reasonable, as he did not believe it very likely that Boards of Guardians would try to win this Government grant of 2s. 4d. when in order to do so they would have to incur an expense of 6s. 4d. or 6s. 8d. for indoor paupers. He thought that was not the way to put it. A destitute man came for relief to the Board of Guardians, and had to be relieved, either indoors or outdoors; which should it be? Under present circumstances there was a large doctrinaire minority on the Boards wishing to put every man into the workhouse; but the great body of the Guardians were apt to say, "It is more expensive to us to do that, and we should lose 2s. 6d. a-week per head, and we will therefore give him outdoor relief, seeing that he is not an able-bodied man, but an aged or sick person." Then comes in this terrible proposition of 2s. 4d., just putting the balance on the wrong side against the poor man. He (Mr. A. W. Hall), therefore, earnestly hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consider that question, and would not tell him—as he was afraid he would—that the Guardians were not really going to scramble for these fourpences. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that it was not merely a matter of opinion or hypotheses—it was a matter capable of proof. Under the Metropolitan Poor Act of 1870 something took place. The area of chargeability was made different for the first time in the history of English Poor Law for the indoor and outdoor poor. The difference was that the outdoor poor remained as a burden on the Union itself, while the burden of the indoor poor was made a charge over the whole Metropolitan area. What was the consequence of that? Why, that it became

    1777
    the direct interest of the Boards of Guardians to give as little outdoor relief as they possibly could, and put as many paupers as possible into the workhouse. Did they or did they not scramble for these fourpences? There was no doubt they did. He would give the House some figures that would prove they did. In 1872, before the Poor Act to which he was alluding came into full operation, the number of outdoor poor in the Metropolis in the first week of December, 1872, was 72,923, but in the corresponding week of last year that number had decreased to 43,460, or by 41 per cent, though the general population had increased 30 per cent. Did the indoor paupers increase in numbers or did they not? They did so largely, for whilst in the first week of December, 1872, the number of indoor paupers in the Metropolis was 35,383, in the corresponding week of 1887 these indoor paupers had increased to 59,099, or 69 per cent. The outdoor poor had decreased by 29,400, which at a cost of 3s. a-head, would be a saving to the rates of £4,000; but the indoor paupers had increased by 23,517, which at 6s. 8d. a-head, which he thought was the reckoning of the Local Government Board, would be £7,900 added to the rates. Therefore, by this scrambling for the fourpences, the Guardians had not gained as they expected, but had lost a considerable sum. Well, even if they had gained, which there could not be the slightest doubt they intended to do, and which this subvention on the part of the Government would make other Guardians in the country districts endeavour to do, such a thing ought not to have been allowed. Each case, he submitted, ought to be decided on its merits, and the Guardians ought not to have this largesse given to them in order to induce them to decide matters in any particular way. It was quite impossible that the great change in the administration of the Poor Law in the Metropolis to which he referred, could have taken place without very considerable hardship to the poor who were concerned. The House knew perfectly well that it was not everybody who went before the Poor Law Guardians and asked for relief, and was refused outdoor relief and was offered the workhouse, who would accept the workhouse. He could point to a good many people who would
    1778
    suffer almost any privation—cold and hunger, and almost starvation—rather than face the workhouse. One of the great reasons for this—and he should like to point it out clearly to the House—was that the classification of our country workhouses was not really of such a character as to render it possible for people who had any self-respect left to enter the workhouse. They were obliged to herd with people they had no sympathy with, and whose company they were not accustomed to, and the result was that they would submit to almost any privation rather than enter the workhouse. But even those who accepted the workhouse, what did they have to suffer? They had to suffer the loss of their homes, which, of course, were shattered and ruined and broken up, and in consequence of that they lost all opportunity which otherwise might be left to them of starting afresh when better times came, and when fortune became kinder. Some two months ago he was in communication with the secretary of one of the best of our London charities, one of those associated for some time with the name of Lord Shaftesbury, who had been president of it. He had taken the opportunity of asking this gentleman, who was in touch with the very poor of London, what he thought of the present, the modern and extremely severe system of Poor Law relief, and he said this—
    "I certainly think that it would be of great advantage to both the poor and the ratepayer if some relaxation of the rules of the Guardians were made in time of sickness and in the case of widows with children too young to work. I have seen many homes broken up when a little help would have tided them over."
    He (Mr. A. W. Hall) implored the Government not to be instrumental in bringing about in the country districts the evils which this gentleman whom he had quoted had ascertained to be taking place in the Metropolis. There were far too many of those evils already in country districts, and notably, perhaps, in the city which he had the honour to represent. He trusted the Government would not make them general throughout the country by means of this Bill. He would like to say to them this, that if they did not mean to deal really with the Poor Law on a good broad basis, as some Members of the House would like to see it dealt with,

    1779
    why, he would ask, should they touch it at all? Why should they not let it alone? Why should they make this Bill or themselves unpopular, or why should they make those who supported the Bill unpopular with the agricultural labourer and with the town labourer by giving this bribe—and he did not use the word offensively—to the Guardians to induce them to put every pauper into the workhouse. He did not think this was a fair way of treating the country districts. He did not think that either the town labourers or the agricultural labourers would go in for indiscriminate outdoor relief. The law was very strict on the point, and declared that except in cases of emergency no relief should be given out-of-doors to able-bodied men, and he did not think that the labourers of the country would desire any alteration of that law; but what they did think was that when a man had brought up his family respectably and well and had subscribed to his club—which, however, only gave him assistance for a limited period—and when it had been impossible for him to make anything like a big enough purse to keep him when he arrived at old age, he ought not to be thrust into the workhouse to herd with those who had not lived respectable lives. He thought that was a feeling they ought to encourage, and a feeling of which they ought to be proud. It was a good old English feeling, and they ought to avoid anything which had a tendency to destroy it and discourage it, as some Boards of Guardians, particularly in London, did, to their disgrace be it said. He was told that they ought to compel thrift by a harsh administration of the Poor Law. But he had never been able to see it in that light, and he did not believe they could compel thrift by anything of the kind. He thought that as facts stood with the present congested state of the labour market it was impossible for the agricultural or urban labourer earning 10 s., or 12 s., or 14 s. a week, in the first place, to render himself secure of constant employment; and, in the second place, even if he were sure of constant employment, to make a big enough purse to keep him when he became old. He himself knew a case of a hard-working, sober, steady, industrious, honest man, who had brought up a family decently and well. That man
    1780
    had been out of work the greater part of the winter, and at this moment he was unable to meet the calls upon him of his village club, though he had been for the past 32 years a subscribing member of it. At the present moment he did not know where to put his hand upon a sovereign which he owed to his club. He (Mr. A. W. Hall) would ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board how he supposed that a man such as this was able to make a purse sufficient to keep him when he became sick or arrived at old age? The thing could not be done, and it was distressing to think that the Government should have gone out of their way, as he thought they had gone out of their way, to say to this man—"We will do something to induce the Boards of Guardians, when you become old and infirm, to offer you the workhouse, instead of that outdoor relief to which you have a reasonable claim." If outdoor relief was to be abolished, let it be done openly and above board, and let them have a debate about that in the House, and consult their constituents about it. He had not the slightest fear what the result would be. He did not believe that outdoor relief would ever be abolished. But do not let them by a back stair approach the matter in this insidious way by bribing the Guardians to give indoor relief whenever they could, instead of outdoor relief. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had told them the other night that there would be a great difficulty in appropriating this 40 per cent. Probate Duty in any other way. He said he did not see any fair proposition by which he could divide it between the different Unions. Well, he (Mr. A. W. Hall) must say that when a Minister had shown such capacity as had been exhibited by the right hon. Gentleman for dealing with all the details of such a difficult, complex, and voluminous Bill, and told the House of Commons that he could hit on no other plan than that of inducing the Guardians by means of a largesse to put everybody applying to them into the workhouse, he must say it became very difficult indeed to believe him. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman in this matter did himself too little credit. It would be perfectly easy for the right hon. Gentleman to find out, not one, but

    1781
    half-a-dozen ways by which this money could be distributed amongst the ratepayers. The county ratepayers would have no difficulty in accepting as much as the right hon. Gentleman would choose to give, but they had a difficulty in accepting it on the condition that they should give some sort of return for it other than they would give by deciding each case upon its merits. They desired to treat each case upon its merits, and not upon some fancy scheme of the Local Government Board, which the Board were going to bribe them to adopt. He (Mr. A. W. Hall) only wanted to add one or two words as to the other proposition of the Bill. He should like to say as to the Municipal Corporations part of it that he had listened with great attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board the other night, and he was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had devoted so few of his remarks to the feeling of the Municipal Corporations with regard to the Bill. He (Mr. A. W. Hall) had attended a large meeting of the Municipal Corporations at the Westminster Palace Hotel, and was surprised to notice the great feeling of suspicion which was there exhibited as to what were considered the losses of the Municipal Corporations under this Bill. He had thought that they had counted their losses much more readily than they had counted their gains, and if he had spoken at the meeting, which he did not, he should have pointed out that the Bill was not a Bill for the government of villages, but a Bill for the government of England and Wales, and that to eliminate from it boroughs of a smaller population than 30,000 or 40,000 would be destructive of the County Councils, because it was essential that the experience which had been derived in the cases of such boroughs should be at the service of the County Councils to help them in organization and in other ways; but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman might adopt a lower limit than 100,000. It would be well, perhaps, to accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) and put the limit at 40,000. This would be satisfactory to the borough he represented, and to many other similar boroughs. And he thought, furthermore, that the
    1782
    Local Council, when established, should have the duty of licensing public-houses conferred upon them. He could not agree with the proposed system of dual control. He could not help thinking that it was something like a lack of generosity on the part of the House of Commons to insist upon this dual control. Why should half be given to the County Councils and half to the Justices? He could not see the reason. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they were extending the Municipal Acts in this matter, but he also told them that the analogy was by no means perfect, because if it were acted upon they would have the unity of the district boroughs with the County Councils established. The county Justices had done their work with great efficiency and economy, and, therefore, it seemed to him that it would be a graceful act on the part of the House of Commons to acknowledge the good work which had been done by the Justices; and inasmuch as the whole judicial power was in their hands they should also be entrusted with the care of the police. He hoped the Government would accept the protest which he had ventured to make with regard to the matter of the indoor poor. He was confident that in this respect there was a very great blot on the Bill—a blot which would tend almost entirely to destroy the popularity of the measure when it was understood by the constituents of hon. Members.
    MR. FULLERsaid, he did not intend to travel over the very large number of important questions they had had before them in this discussion, but it seemed to him that there had been some particular portions of the Bill which had not been dealt with in a way altogether deserving of their importance. Speaking as a County Magistrate, he must say that in his opinion the measure did not appear to contain the means of in any way deposing the magistrates from their present position. In his opinion the Bill appeared rather to raise their status than to make any other change in their position. Hitherto the position the County Magistrates had held had been one with responsibility far and away from the touch of the people. In his mind, the duties and functions which had hitherto rested on the County Magistrates had been more delusive than anything else, and, therefore, he thanked the Govern-

    1783
    ment for having come to the conclusion that the time had now arrived for putting magistrates in the position they ought to occupy as Justices of the Peace. He considered the Bill very useful and very far reaching. He could not agree with that authority that had declared to the country that in his opinion the powers which were to be given to the County Council were of an infinitesimal character. He believed that the powers given by this Bill to the County Council were very extensive. They were powers which required very delicate handling, and they were, of course, of a very responsible nature, and every Member of the House who had carefully considered the 8th clause of the Bill, coupled as it was to something like five and a-half pages in the Schedule, conferring extraordinary powers upon the Council, must come to the conclusion that these powers were very valuable and of a very important nature. Now, there was one matter in particular upon which he wished to draw the attention of the House, and that was a point which had been frequently spoken of, but which had not been considered exactly in the way in which he would venture to make some remarks upon it. He referred to the dual control of the police. Now, so far as he understood the Bill, its whole object was to alter the functions of the magistracy and the administrative powers dealing with public money. In future there were to be two separate Bodies, one consisting of the magistrates, who were to discharge the judicial functions which the magistrates at present carried out, and another Body, in the shape of County Councils, to discharge the duty of administrating public moneys. The main object of the Bill was that representation and taxation should follow one another, but if they brought about this system of dual control by Joint Committees of the Magistrates and of the County Councils, they would destroy that first principle. It had been discussed in the House more as a matter of expediency whether the magistrates should have any control over the police or whether the police should be in the hands of the Joint Committee or in the hands of the County Council, but he thought that beyond that question of expediency there was another view to be taken of the matter. It was said that, according to one of their most
    1784
    sacred Constitutional rules, the Body of the State that administered judicial functions should be entirely distinct and separate from that Body of the State that carried out its executive functions; and, therefore, he thought it very necessary as a Constitutional rule that the executive portion of the functions of the magistracy should be entirely separate from their judicial functions. He thought that this matter required to be considered almost in an historical light, because if they looked back at the time when first the Justices of the Peace were formed in this country as a body, and at the time when parish constables were initiated, they would find curiously enough that both these bodies were instituted at the same period, and that yet at that time the Crown nominated, as it did now, the "Conservators of the Peace," or, as they were now called, Justices of the Peace, but that the parish constable was elected and chosen by the people. That condition of things lasted for something like 200 years, and then they came to the period when it was found necessary for the Justices of the Peace to interfere. And why was it that they were allowed to interfere? It was not because the duties of the constables were not carried out as they ought to be, but because those duties were found to be too extensive in those parishes where the number of inhabitants was very large. The consequence was that the Legislature, not knowing where to put its hands on people to force the parishes to appoint a sufficient number of constables, imposed that duty upon the magistrates. This went on for 200 or 300 years longer, until the period when the model upon which the present Bill was founded was passed as an Act of Parliament, which brought them to the year 1835. Well, if that principle, which was established so many hundreds of years ago, of the Crown nominating the magistrates on the one hand, and the people nominating the constables on the other, lasted up to the year 1834, when the Municipal Corporations Act was passed, if it was necessary to change the system at all it would have been changed then; but, as a matter of fact, it was not changed. They would not find in any portion of the Municipal Corporations Act any vestige of those provisions tending towards the introduction of a power to the

    1785
    magistrates to take the control of the constabulary or watchmen as they were called at that time. Therefore, he contended that the Bill, by introducing as the 7th clause—an effective means of putting the whole control of the police in the hands of the Justices—the Government was acting directly in contradiction of the model they proposed to follow, and not only that, but they had had it stated in the House over and over again that there was no evidence that the Municipal Corporations had in any way failed in constituting proper and efficient constabulary forces throughout the various municipal areas of the country. That had been urged so often that he would not detain the House on the matter. He would like to ask the Government this question—namely, whether it was not the fact that in India some years ago the magistrates had full control of the constabulary as we had in England at this moment; and was it not the fact that it was found necessary in that country where we exercised very despotic powers to entirely alter that system, and put the management of the constabulary in the hands of a Body distinct from the magistrates. He said, therefore, if that was the case in India, surely it was an example to follow at the present time. Well, he should like, also, to impress upon the House that there was a very strong desire on the part of the people, particularly the middle class of the people, that they should have control over the police. A very curious instance had come within his own knowledge. A Board of Guardians upon which he himself had acted as an ex officio Member wanted to use the police for a particular purpose as regarded the treatment of vagrants. Some Guardians suggested that it would be desirable to use the superintendent of police and the constables rather as a means of checking the vagrancy; and as a result it was suggested that a small stipend should be given to the superintendent of police as an assistant relieving officer. That was suggested to the Board of Guardians, but those who supported the scheme found it most vigorously opposed by the farmers and the Guardians generally. They also found the reason for the opposition. It was opposed, not on account of the power it was proposed to put in the hands of the police, but because it was considered
    1786
    that the police were the servants of the magistrates and not of the people. The result was that although the Guardians did not disapprove of the scheme itself, yet because they disliked the condition of giving money to the police as servants of the magistrates they threw out the proposal. Finding that that was the state of the case, he (Mr. Fuller) took it upon himself to attempt to bring about the result he desired by stratagem. He went to the superintendent of the police and said to him, "If you want to have this office, the best way for you to secure it is this. Whenever you see a farmer give to him that ordinary salute which you give to a Justice of the Peace, and not only you yourself, but let every one of your men in the district show in like manner respect for the farmers and intimate that they wished to be their servants." Well, the effect of these tactics was magical. Within a very few months, instead of the Guardians opposing the object he had in view, that object was carried out, and the plan so established was continued for many years, though it did not exist at the present moment. The superintendent of police held the office to which he referred for many years. That showed that there was a strong public feeling, not so much amongst the democracy as amongst the middle class themselves, that the police were really the servants of the magistrates and not the servants of the people. He put that forward as one of the reasons why the County Councils should have sole control of the police. There was another reason. If he read this Bill rightly—and he had read it very carefully—it appeared to him that its whole object was to secure on the County Council as many magistrates as possible. If that was the case, he thought the House might assume that in future they would have a large number of magistrates on the County Council. If they had a very large number, who would these magistrates be? They would generally be the very best and most useful magistrates, and as a result they would have to go to the remaining magistrates in order to select from them the Committee to act with the Committee of the County Council, and they would be thus taking an inferior section of the magistracy and making them superior to their colleagues on the County Council. They would be,

    1787
    in this way, dividing the House against itself, and for this reason he maintained that they were not taking the best means they could adopt for their object, or to make the County Councils thoroughly efficient bodies. Then they had in the Bill a clause which gave them every possible power to see that the standard of efficiency would be in accordance with the wishes of the Home Secretary and the Government. In the 24th clause there was every power for keeping up that efficiency. They had a power of mandamus, which was the strongest power they could give for the purpose of controlling this matter. These were arguments which, so far as he was aware, had not been used before, and he thought that they were worthy of the consideration of the Government. So far as he had watched the debate, there seemed to him at the present moment to be a considerable consensus of opinion that the County Council ought to be invested with this important power, not only on grounds of expediency, but also on Constitutional grounds which he would impress upon the House. With regard to the Constitutional question, he wished to press this consideration. They know that when a magistrate was appointed he began to make himself acquainted with the laws of his country. He began to study Constitutional law, and he had no doubt that the library of almost every Justice in the country would be found to contain a copy of Blackstone's Commentaries. In that work would be found this passage:—
    "There could be no doubt that in the distinct and separate existences of the judicial functions of a peculiar body of men, nominated, indeed, but not removable, by the pleasure of the Crown, consisted one of the main preservatives of popular liberty, which liberty could not exist long in any State unless the administration of common justice were in some degree separated from the Executive power."
    He did not wish to make any distinction between the two sides of the House on this matter, as he did not desire to see it considered as a Party question, but he appealed to the Government side of the House, because, at all events, they assumed to themselves to be a Constitutional Party, and he would urge upon the Constitutional Party that they should not appear to be in any way undermining those old and sacred liberties which had been contended for
    1788
    in the country for so many generations. He would now pass on from the question of the police, and, if he might be allowed, he should like to make a few remarks respecting the financial question. He felt extremely thankful to the Government that they had at all events grappled with the question of making personal property contribute to a certain extent towards the rates of this country. It was a matter which had been talked of for a long time, and he was very thankful to the Government that they had, at length, seen their way to making an attempt to put the matter in something like a definite shape. But he would point out to the House that it seemed to him that the particular taxes which were fixed upon for assisting the rates upon property at present by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been rather unfortunately chosen. According to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which had been circulated, and which was in the hands of all hon. Members, something like £3,000,000 was to come from certain licences. This sum was to come partly from licences which were directly transferred to the County Councils, and some which were called local taxation licences which were not directly transferred, but which would by an Order in Council possibly be eventually transferred for levying purposes to the County Council. But he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been very wise and very discreet in putting on these taxes for the purpose of relieving the rates, and why so? Because everyone of these taxes were of the most odious and vexatious character, and he could not help thinking that as soon as the taxpayers recognized the fact that every tax they paid was a tax towards reducing the rates of the country, they would make it their business, either themselves or through associations, to so harass the County Councils in regard to these taxes that the County Councils would hardly know how to conduct their business. When they looked through this list of taxes, they found that there were no less than 20 different licences affected, some of very small amounts; and not only this, but they affected trades to a very great extent. A great many trades were inconvenienced and harassed very largely by these taxes, and

    1789
    it seemed to him that it was most important for the Government to consider whether it would not be far better if they wanted money to tax those particular items for the use of the Government generally and not to put the onus of such taxation on the County Councils. That onus would be more than the County Councils could stand. His own opinion was this, if he might be allowed to suggest it to the Government. It was, perhaps, rather presumptuous on his part. He would say that instead of having these £3,000,000 given by these taxes—and they knew what opinion was abroad with regard to some of them, particularly the Wheel Tax, as to which there would no doubt be a great discussion in this House, which would be continued in the country year after year and forced upon the attention of the County Councils periodically—he would suggest that instead of having this £5,500,000 given by these numerous licences, and the four-fifths of one-half of the Probate Duty, it would be much better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt the more direct system of a charge upon personal property. He could give over the whole of the £4,000,000 of the Probate Duty, which was a direct tax on personal property, and give to the County Councils, if he could spare it, the penny of the Income Tax, which was another direct tax upon personal property. By this means the right hon. Gentleman would get rid of the difficulties which he (Mr. Fuller) had pointed out, and he was sure this proposal was worthy of consideration. By these means the great difficulty which would constantly arise on the meetings of the County Councils would be got rid of. In all probability the argument against not giving these licences to the County Councils was that, if they gave anything else than that which was proposed by the Government, they would not be acting upon the theory that representation and taxation should go together. His answer, however, was that if that was the principle they wished to carry through, they were not carrying it through at all, because this £5,500,000 was not made up on that principle—far from it. There was one other point to which he felt bound to pay a little attention—namely, the way in which the distribution of these grants was to be carried out. It was proposed that
    1790
    £1,200,000 should be given towards the relief of the poor on the basis of 4d. being paid for each indoor pauper. He thought that was wrong on two grounds. First of all, it was wrong on the principle of the administration of the Poor Law, a point which had been dealt with so thoroughly by his hon. Friend. Secondly, he did not think that real property, as rated at the present time, had any claim to relief on account of the poor rate. It appeared to him they were instituting a State policy, as regarded the administration of the Poor Law, of thrusting poor people into the workhouse, because Guardians might find it very much cheaper in future to send people into the workhouse than to give them outdoor relief. Let them take ordinary cases; he did not want to take any particular case, because hundreds and thousands might be found. Cases of this sort came up constantly. An old man or an old woman could scarcely make ends meet, but if they could only get 1s. and a loaf or two—the whole relief would not amount to more than 1s. 6d. a-week—it perhaps would enable them to tide over the difficulty they could not otherwise get over. At present the Guardians, seeing such a case, would naturally give the ls. or 1s. 6d. a-week relief; but in the future, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) adopted indoor pauperism as the basis for the distribution of grants, the Guardians would feel themselves forced to drive such people as he had described into the workhouse. It was true he had not long been a Member of Parliament, but he had been long enough a Member to learn that the working classes of the country had set their faces against the workhouse. If there was one thing the working people wished to see destroyed and levelled to the ground it was the workhouse. The feeling might be wrong, but still it existed. Now, if Parliament, by a State policy, forced upon the democracy of this country a principle that would irritate that feeling, the feeling might amount to a danger. But what he particularly wished to impress upon the House was that, in his opinion, real property, as it was now rated, had no just claim to be relieved in any way. Statistics had been produced which showed that the history of the poor rate was that, decade by decade during the last century, the rate had

    1791
    decreased, and that it had now arrived at a lower figure than it had ever been. Therefore, he could not see, although a landowner himself, that any landowner had a just claim to that relief which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) seemed so anxious to obtain. The maintenance of the poor had been a direct charge upon land and houses, and that charge had not been increasing, but gradually decreasing. On that ground, therefore, he maintained that the principle of giving £1,200,000 as a grant in aid was wrong. The next suggestion which he thought wanted consideration was that which had been thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman had offered to the House a suggestion, other than that he had adopted, as to how to distribute these grants in aid. He had said they might distribute the money according to the population, or according to the rateable value, or according to indoor pauperism, and he had chosen the latter method. The object the right hon. Gentleman had in view was to arrive at what were the poorest areas, the areas which required assistance from the grants in aid from personal property. There must be hundreds of ways of arriving at such a conclusion; but he (Mr. Fuller) ventured to suggest one way of testing the poverty or wealth of an area—namely, through the House Duty. He considered there could be no better test of the wealth of a population than the character of the houses in which they lived. The House Tax was levied upon houses of £20 annual value and upwards; and taking up the Inland Revenue Report for 1886, he had compared this basis of finding out the poverty or wealth of an area as compared with the indoor pauper basis which the right hon. Gentleman had adopted in the Bill. He had only, however, been able to make a comparison between London and the rest of England and Wales. He found that the annual value of dwelling houses in London paying House Duty in 1886 amounted, in round figures, to £22,000,000, and that the annual value of the dwelling houses in the rest of England and Wales paying House Duty was £33,000,000. Therefore, taking the two amounts as the
    1792
    basis, of every £10,000 received as grant in aid for personal property London would receive £4,000, and the rest of England and Wales £6,000. Now, they found that the indoor paupers in London in 1886 numbered 55,000, and that those of all England and Wales numbered 188,000. Therefore, taking indoor pauperism as the basis of distribution, London would receive, assuming that £10,000 was the grant received from personal property, London would get rather more than £3,000, and that the rest of England and Wales would get rather more than £6,000. There was a very small difference as regarded the distribution in each case, and, therefore, he suggested that the House Duty was a good means of arriving at an idea of the wealth or poverty of an area. The House Duty was certainly a safer and a better test the House, because it would be a fatal policy to drive the poor people into the workhouse. He had said he did not approve of £1,200,000 being given as assistance to the rates on real property. Then the question arose, what rates would they relieve? There were different classifications of rates; there were rates which were necessary only for metropolitan and urban districts, there were rates which were necessary for the maintenance of the poor, and there were rates which were necessary and levied both in urban and rural districts. He considered that the metropolitan and urban rates did not require any subvention or assistance from grants-in-aid from personalty. They were special rates necessary, perhaps, for very large urban districts such as the Metropolis and other large towns, but if anyone went into the question he would find that such rates were not generally requisite. Harbours and docks and wash-houses and public libraries, and things of that kind, were luxuries which might be demanded by urban authorities, but which ought to be provided out of special rates. Again, he had said that the maintenance of the poor had no claim to this subvention. Then, they they came to that other class of rates which he believed did require assistance, and they were the rates that had been introduced within their memories, the rates that had been collected with the

    1793
    poor rates and that had, within the last 30 or 40 years, been increased to a very great extent. They were the rates necessary for sanitation and education, for the enforcement of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, for weights and measures, police stations, lunatic asylums, lighting, paving, registration, vaccination, and things of that sort. His opinion was that the relief they were to receive from personal property ought to go towards those particular rates, and not towards the rates for the maintenance of the poor or for simply urban matters. The whole grant-in-aid, according to the statement of the President of the Local Government Board, was £5,500,000. By Clause 23 of the Bill, the County Councils were ordered to pay over to the various districts £2,300,000. There was no objection to that, because provisions for the police and for the assistance of pauper lunatics was included in the sum. But by Clause 15 of the Bill, upwards of £1,000,000 was to go towards the highways. He was very glad to find that there was power given to the County Councils to assist certain districts where the highway rates were extremely high. The great object in a national question like this should be to equalize the burden in all localities so far as possible under the circumstances. They knew that, as a matter of fact, highway rates were very much higher in some places than in others from no mismanagement, but from natural causes. In some places there were no materials, and consequently the cost of maintaining the roads was extremely heavy. Therefore, he was glad power was given to the County Councils to distribute a certain amount of money, so as to equalize the highway rates in the various parts of the county. He saw no objection to the grant of £2,300,000 under Clause 23, or to the £1,000,000 for the highways; and the suggestion he had to make was that the balance between those two items and the £5,500,000 should be appropriated to the relief of those rates which had become onerous and burdensome during recent years. He thanked the House for the patience with which they had listened to him upon this subject. Of course, there were many subjects he should like to have dealt with, but he had already trespassed too long upon the attention of the House. He would
    1794
    only say he was extremely glad to be able to feel that, at all events, they were now progressing, and that there was every probability of them accomplishing, in the near future, a popular, useful, and permanent measure of reform.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he did not wish to detain he House for more than a few moments; but there were one or two points to which he desired to refer. The hon. Member for the Westbury Division of Wiltshire (Mr. Fuller) had dealt with various points of the Bill, and had objected to the way in which the Bill proposed to charge the amount that was to be contributed to the maintenance of the poor upon personal as well as other property. His (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson's) recollections might be imperfect, but, as far as they went, the words of the old Act of Elizabeth were, that the rates should be chargeable upon the "ability" of persons rather than upon their rateable property. That, as far as it went, was an answer to the position the hon. Gentleman had taken up. Upon the whole question of the contribution in aid of the poor there was much to be said; it was undoubtedly a question of great difficulty. They all knew the tendency there must be in the minds of those who administered a grant of this sort to carry out, perhaps, further than it ought to go the separation between indoor and outdoor poor. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who deprecated the entire abolition of outdoor relief. But the House must remember that the whole tendency of our Poor Law system of late years had been, while preserving some outdoor relief in cases of real necessity, to do so in a way which would prevent able-bodied people throwing themselves as a charge upon the parish. He did not think they need dread even this new precaution as an incentive to indoor relief, remembering that those who administered it would be supervised and influenced by the feelings of the locality in regard to their conduct. Now, what led him, perhaps, most of all to speak upon this Bill was that he had for a long time taken a totally different view to the hon. Member for the Westbury Division of Wiltshire (Mr. Fuller) in regard to the management of the police force of the country. He had had experience in dealing with the police force in the past,

    1795
    and he asserted that there would be great danger in the transfer of the police of this country to the control of an elected body, such as our County Councils were to be. He confessed he did not like the proposal of the Government for a Joint Committee for dealing with this force. He did not like it, because he believed it would load to an amount of friction in the future which he did not wish to see imported into the matter. He considered that, inasmuch as the magistrates were to be left with judicial functions and with the administration of the law, the police, the engines which carried out that administration, ought to be under the control of the magistrates rather than under the control of a popular body. At all events, until they saw far better than they could at present what the working of the Councils of the future would be, the police force, upon which law and order and the whole administration of justice rested, should be left in the hands of those who had managed that force in the past. He could not help looking with alarm on the possibility of a local agitation arising on a particular subject that might divide very strongly the inhabitants of some particular part of the country; he could not help looking with alarm at the way in which a conflict might arise as to the carrying out of law and order. It was not very long ago that there was a necessity of enforcing the law in a particular part of this country by the interference of the police, and to enforce it, as they all know, against the opinion of a very large body of the people of that part of the country. He referred to the Tithe War in Wales. Would anyone tell him that if the police force had been put under the control of a Local Council in that country the magistrates of the country would have had any power whatever of enforcing the law? If such a sharp division of public opinion were to occur in any part of this country also, he believed that there would be considerable danger of the law not being enforced under the proposed circumstances. He knew that with regard to this question it was said that they could not separate the control of a particular force from the people who would have to raise the money for the support of that force. But surely that might be guarded against by providing that the precept issued by the magistrates for
    1796
    the amount required for the police force should be subject to the supervision of tile Central Authority—namely, the Home Office, and that the amount asked for should only be an amount absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the police force of the county in a proper state of efficiency. He hoped the Government would look carefully again into this question, because he know that the opinion which he hold was shared by a large number of his brother magistrates, who had had sometimes to conduct the affairs in their particular counties. Certainly, the matter ought to be most carefully considered before the idea of handing over the police, either to a Joint Committee or to the future Councils, was entertained at all. One other point had been specially referred to that night by previous speakers, and if the House would allow him he should like to say a few words upon it, and that was the question of licensing. He had had in past years something to do with the Bills that were passed, and that had been mentioned that night. The Bill of 1869 was his own, and in the Bills of 1872 and 1874 he had to take a considerable part. Although he might seem to differ on some points from those in authority on that side of the House, and although, not being a lawyer, perhaps he had no right to interfere in the legal argument, he could only say that at the time those Bills were passed, and when he was in constant communication with all parties on the subject, the question of the absolute legal right of suspending or taking away a licence was never disputed; but although that right was never disputed, and as a dry legal position he believed it could not be disputed, still it was then said, as he said now, that a moral right had supervened, and that the custom which had gone on for years of renewing licences as a matter of course, except in the case of bad conduct, had practically established a right which the law did not give. It was that moral right which he believed was possessed now without a shadow of legal right, and for that moral right he believed the holders of licences were entitled to some compensation, if not the compensation provided by the Bill. He knew it had been said, and said by a great authority, that that had been altered by the introduction of the amendments of the law that were made in the years 1872 and 1874. He could not help

    1797
    thinking, from what he remembered of the past, that the account the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) gave of the reasons for the alterations of the law which were then made were the right reasons. He believed that they were made from a feeling that the custom had given such a right to a renewal, unless there were offences which were proved against the holders of the licences. There was one other point in regard to the licensing part of the Bill which he desired to mention. He confessed he should have preferred himself to have seen the Licensing Clauses of the Bill relegated to a future action of the House, for he looked with some alarm to the first election of the County Councils throughout the country, lest those Councils should be elected on the lines simply of temperance or the brewers' interest, and that the general interests of the counties should not be considered. He was much afraid that they might see the election take such sharp divisions, and that they might not got an authority as satisfactory as if it were elected without such considerations being imported into the matter. Therefore it was that he should have liked to have seen the Licensing Clauses postponed until the Councils were fairly established in the country, and dealt with in a separate Bill on a future occasion. He believed that under such circumstances they would have got greater efficiency in the body to which he looked forward as a sound body in the future for carrying out the business of counties; because he could hardly hope that if the elections were fought on the sharp lines he had referred to, they would get as satisfactory a body as they otherwise would get. With these two or three minor objections, he hailed with pleasure the introduction of what he believed was new vitality into county life, and he was not one of those who were afraid that those who had administered the business of the counties in the past would not have their full share in the administrotion of them in the future.
    MR. A. J. WILLIAMSsaid, that on Monday night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) suggested that long debate on the second reading of the Bill was not needed. Before that suggestion was made, there
    1798
    had been considerable discussion upon this great and complicated measure, and since then its various propositions had been subjected to searching criticism. The right hon. Gentleman taunted the Party to which he once belonged with not knowing what they wanted, and with not being able to rest until they got it. As a matter of fact, he (Mr. Williams) scarcely remembered a debate in which such important results had been arrived at as the present. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), himself the author of a great scheme of Local Government, occupied the attention of the House by a series of criticisms which were of great value. Then, again, the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) was enabled, by a masterly treatment of the financial aspect of the case, to bring before the country, which understood so little about it, all the thorny and serious questions which were involved in that side of the Bill. So, again, the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was able to expose the great principle underlying the Licensing Clauses, and the hon. Baronet was followed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke), and by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) who, by his reply, had aroused the attention of the Kingdom. Subsequently to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, they had the privilege of listening to one of the most striking speeches ever delivered—the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bodmin Division of Cornwall (Mr. Courtney). The eloquence, power, and dignity of that speech lifted the hon. Gentleman into a position even beyond that which he had justly occupied in the House. Though, in theory, he (Mr. Williams) had long adhered to the views which the hon. Gentleman put forward in his speech, he had not been able to follow the hon. Gentleman into its development. Furthermore, they had had the advantage of listening to another remarkable speech, that of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long). By its ability, its readiness, and its adroitness, that speech lifted the hon. Gentleman at once into the front rank of

    1799
    debaters in the House. Towards the end of his speech the hon. Member said that the Bill was not drawn in the interest of the squire, or of the upper classes, but in that of the democracy; and so adroit and ingenious was the way in which he put the point that he (Mr. Williams) began to fancy he must be right. But, on consideration; he did not think the hon. Gentleman had repaired the tactical blunder which Lord Salisbury made when he blurted out at Carnarvon that this was not a democratic or Radical Bill, but a Conservative Bill. Why, a democratic Local Government Bill would give, once for all, to every class and section of the people not only full power, but full scope to deal freely and fairly with all that locally affected their daily life and well-being. Proper local self -government, like charity, would begin at home, and that was why he held the opinion that a great mistake had been made in not beginning with the immemorial home of local self-government in the country—namely, the parish. The Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) took the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) to task for venturing to submit that they might have done well to make the parish the unit. The hon. Gentleman said there were 15,000 parishes in England and Wales, and that 6,398 of these had not more than 300 inhabitants. In his (Mr. Williams') constituency, in the Vale of Glamorgan, there were 86 parishes, and in 26 of these the population did not exceed 200; in 12 of them the population was under 100, and in one parish there were only 31 inhabitants. When Sir Charles Dilke referred to parishes, in that remarkable speech which he delivered in 1885, he, of course, did not mean the parishes as they now existed. They who advocated the creation of the parish as the unit did not say they should build up the local government of the counties out of such parishes, as they found, for instance, in the Vale of Glamorgan. No; they said that the parishes should be the parishes as they ought to be. At present the inhabitants of a parish had, practically, no organization or power at all. They were merged, for all practical purposes of administration, in the Poor Law Union, and that, of course, must, to a great extent, continue. What would the
    1800
    parishes have to do, it might be asked? In the parish in which he had spent his life there were 1,365 inhabitants. It had 7,000 acres of land, which were owned by less than 30 persons—chiefly by one or two persons. The land was tilled and occupied by 58 tenants. The other householders, chiefly labourers, were 65. There were several local charities in the hands of the rector and churchwardens. The parishioners had no power. The Vestry had absolutely nothing to do. Could anyone wonder that, under such circumstances, the farmers and labourers took no interest in parochial affairs? There were no parochial affairs to take an interest in as parishes now existed. The only interest the 58 tenant farmers of his parish, in which he was a landowner to a small extent, had in the parish was to scrape as much as they could out of the farms they occupied, and put as little as they could into them, because they knew that at any moment they might be turned out of their holdings. And what interest could labourers have in their parishes, except in getting their 15 s. or 16 s. a-week? They saw large tracts of uninclosed common land, but they knew that they could not put a foot upon it, or that if they ventured to build a cottage upon it the lord of the manor or his agent would come down and prevent them. They had seen for generations thousands upon thousands of acres of land, which, he maintained, belonged to themselves, inclosed and appropriated by landlords. They knew that the landlords would take the remainder if they had the opportunity. They would not take what was left of the common land in his parish, because he (Mr. Williams) happened to be a landlord; they never would do it there. Now, a farmer, if he had power given him to interfere in parochial affairs, would not care to do so as long as he was liable to be turned out of his farm at any moment. It was the constant fear that at any moment their tenancies might be terminated which made his tenants, just as well as those of other landlords, afraid to tell their minds to their landlords. What was the change which the Democratic Party would before long make in reference to the parishes? Suppose they could make the farmer independent of his landlord, and suppose they could make the labourer independent of the

    1801
    farmer. [Laughter.] He observed that hon. Gentlemen opposite smiled at that; but it was upon such principles that the greatness and liberty and independence of the United States had been built up. De Tocqueville had described the independence and the democratic constitution of the townships of the United States, and those townships were the exact counterpart of the English parish. In the townships of America the citizens assembled once a-year and elected their committee, who ordered the execution of public works and raised money. That was exactly what he and his hon. Friends said should have been provided for here. The Government ought to have begun by giving the labourers and tenant farmers of each parish an independent position and large control over parochial affairs. That was the true democratic way in which a great system of local self-government could be built up. The President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) said, the other night, that the parish might very well have its powers extended and enlarged. Let them take his (Mr. Williams') parish, with its 1,400 inhabitants, its 58 tenants, and its 65 labourers, and apply the New England system to it. He would have the old parish vestry turned into a corporation, and the parochial property and charities put into the hands of the people. Annually, the inhabitants would meet and elect a committee—a simple committee. They might combine, with other parishes, in engaging a clerk to conduct their affairs. The committee would find that the 60 labourers were anxious to have allotments. Instead of having recourse to the Bill of last year, of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) was so proud, but which had been a complete failure, because the compulsory powers were too complicated to be of any use whatever, some simple method, such as an application to the County Court Judge, would be devised for securing allotments to labourers. A great mistake had been made in not making the parish the unit. He was very much afraid that if they had County Councils to which the shopkeeper, the artizan, and the labourer never could go, but which must, of necessity, be composed of men of leisure and means, the result would not be satisfactory. The way
    1802
    proposed in the Bill was not the way in which great democratic institutions were built up, and he maintained that he and his hon. Friends were justified in pointing out to the country the fatal defect in the Bill, that the Government had begun at the wrong end of reform.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he would promise the House that he would not detain them for more than a few minutes, because he was very conscious the opinions he held in regard to this measure were not in accord with those which were held by the vast majority of Members on either side of the House. He was afraid that the expression of what he had been used to think Tory opinions were now very much out of place in the House of Commons—he was afraid nowhere more, say, than upon the Benches from which he spoke, because he could not help feeling that if they on that side of the House supported the Bill they must do so as Ministerialists and not as Conservatives. He maintained, in spite of the recent declaration of the Prime Minister, that the Bill, were it bad or good, were it wise or unwise, were it just or unjust, were it necessary or unnecessary, was neither more nor less than the uprooting, the upheaval, the disturbance of that system of domestic government which had prevailed in this country for generations. To show what that system was, perhaps the House would allow him to read an extract from an article which appeared in The Times on the 30th of March. In the article, which was exceedingly laudatory of the measure, it was said—
    "Nobody whose opinion is worth anything denies that county business has been administered by the magistrates sitting at Quarter Sessions with absolute purity, with strict regard for economy, and, in general, with an efficiency which the new representative bodies may well take as a model."
    And that was the system which it was now proposed to destroy, and in the place of which they proposed to try something, they knew not what. The object in which they were anxious to try an experiment was the Constitution of their country. It seemed to him that in both financial and domestic matters they had taken leave of their senses. Financially, they were now pursuing a system which was ridiculed and repudiated by every civilized nation in the

    1803
    world except this, and in their domestic matters they were now about to abandon an institution which, on every hand, was pronounced to be most exemplary. He protested against the doctrine announced on that side of the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), when he said that Conservatives ought to support a measure of the sort because of the pledges they had constantly given that they would deal with the question of Local Government. It was perfectly true they had constantly promised to deal with Local Government, but they never pledged themselves to this particular Bill. A good illustration of his argument was afforded by something which occurred the other night. The hon. Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) said that the House had pronounced strongly in favour of Local Option. Undoubtedly they had, but the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) made a very good answer to the hon. Baronet; he said it was true the House had pledged themselves to deal with the question, but when they came to the particular course the hon. Baronet proposed they were all at sixes and sevens. And so they, the Conservatives, had undoubtedly pledged themselves to deal with the question of Local Government; but that did not in the least prevent them expressing an opinion as to the shape the reform should take. Personally, he was utterly astounded that anyone calling himself Conservative could possibly support this measure, unless he were constrained to do so by political exigencies. The Bill might be approved by men who called themselves Tory Democrats. He did not understand what a Tory Democrat was, unless he was a man who might be described as a wolf in sheep's clothing, and whose clothing was of the very scantiest description. It appeared to him that Gentlemen calling themselves Tory Democrats began by announcing themselves as Members of the Tory Party, and then proceeded to preach the most revolutionary and violent doctrines. He, certainly, had no sympathy with them. It might be asked why, holding the opinions he did, he did not put down a Notice of practical opposition to the measure? He had two very good reasons
    1804
    for not doing so. First of all, bad as he believed the measure to be, he confessed it was inevitable on account of pledges, somewhat recklessly given, and on account of the abandonment by the Leaders of the Party of the principles which had always actuated Conservatives. That being so, if he had any common sense he must accept the inevitable; and, under the circumstances, he believed he should be discharging his duty as a private Member of Parliament if, in conjunction with those hon. Members around him who retained some Conservative principles, he objected to some of the most objectionable clauses of the Bill, and if, in Committee, he endeavoured to amend certain proposals of the Bill, especially those concerning the police. He was decidedly opposed to the suggestion to hand over the control of the police to a hybrid committee on the ground of the confusion which would be created in police management. The second reason which induced him to forego any active opposition to the Bill was that he believed the measure to be intimately connected with the Budget, and the Budget he regarded as one of the best which had been introduced for years. But there was one other reason which he was sure would commend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was this—that bad as he believed the Bill to be, he would accept it, or 10 others worse, rather than give a vote which might by any possibility lead to that which he believed would be the greatest calamity which could befall the country, and that was the accession to power of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone).
    MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid, the hon. Member for the Faversham Division of Kent (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) who had just sat down appeared to be a few weeks behind the age, and to be ignorant of the state of feeling and altered circumstances amid which the Conservative Party now found itself. When the hon. Member spoke of Tory Democrats as being wolves in sheep's clothing, he appeared to have forgotten that the Leader of the Party at the present time was no longer the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), but two such sober-minded Conservatives of the old school as Lord Salisbury and Lord Cross. Speaking in Wales a short

    1805
    time ago, at Carnarvon, Lord Salisbury pointed out that this measure was not a Radical Bill at all; and Lord Cross, in addressing Tories of the old school at Wisbech, said there was no necessity for them to be afraid of any portion of the Bill. He (Mr. Stevenson) intended to utilize his Amendment on that occasion as a text upon which to found his speech. His Amendment, which was as follows:—
    "To move to leave out all the words after 'That,' in order to add 'no measure for the reform of Local Government will be satisfactory to this House which fails to deal with the administration of the parish, and which retains the Boards of Guardians, with their existing constitution, qualification, and mode of election'"—
    pointed to the fact that, in regard to the interests of the agricultural labourers, the village artizans, and working classes generally in the counties, the present measure was dumb, or, so far as it touched them at all, it did not deal with them in the most satisfactory way. He thought his Amendment had been a fortunate one in other respects—first, because it had struck the key-note of much of the criticism passed on the provisions of the Bill; and, secondly, because it had not been ruled out of Order. But there was a certain technical difficulty in the way of proceeding with it. If it were formally moved, it would be impossible to deal with the measure as a whole, for the debate must be confined to the subject-matter, and the Government would be prevented from giving various explanations on certain points which had been asked for in different quarters of the House. He thought, therefore, it would be for the convenience of the House, and in the interest of the debate, if, instead of formally moving the Amendment, he took it as his text on this occasion. The Amendment dealt with two distinct questions—first, the subject of the government of the parish by the parish; and, secondly, the omission of the administration of the Poor Law from the scope of the Bill. As to the first question, he thought a signal change had come over the spirit of the Tory Party. At first they thought a revolutionary change had been proposed, and it was only after Lord Salisbury's speech that they were re-assured. The more they looked into the measure, the more it was obvious that differences of opinion might arise with respect to
    1806
    it. It was a maxim of the late Mr. Fawcett that it was a most unfortunate thing to praise a Bill on its introduction. If ever there was a Bill of which that might be said, surely this was the measure. The more the Bill had been looked into by every section of the House, the more it appeared to be obvious that it was, after all, to use a metaphor of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), a wolf in sheep's clothing, and that it hid provisions which not only were the reverse of harmless, but which might be positively pernicious and harmful. As to the County Council, it seemed to him (Mr. Stevenson) that there would be a difficulty in having the feelings and wishes of the village artizan and the agricultural labourer expressed in it. They were told that the voters in counties would obtain a direct management in their own affairs by reason of being represented in the County and District Councils. But it had to be borne in mind that for a considerable time the sittings would be in county towns, and that those towns, as far as the agricultural labourers and the village artizans were concerned, might just as well be in Timbuctoo. A certain principle had been accepted—namely, the extension of the suffrage to the counties, and the fact that there should be a County Council created. That extension of the suffrage for local purposes was, after all, the irreducible minimum, the inevitable and necessary part of County Government, which could be introduced in 1888. What they had to do, therefore, was to carry out a measure by which the municipal life and the local energy might be fostered in the particular localities in which the bulk of the population were principally interested. But that would not be done by the County or the District Council, because the areas were too wide for ordinary purposes. In many parts of the country it was very rarely the case that neighbouring parishes had many interests in common, as witness the way in which some Boards of Guardians had dealt with the Allotments Act. What they wanted was a system which enabled the inhabitants of a parish to have a direct voice in the management of their own local affairs, without outside interference. Such questions as the management of the parochial schoolroom for public meetings, allotments,

    1807
    water supply, and the management of parochial charities might be referred to them. At present, Vestry meetings were a mere farce. They usually met at an hour when the bulk of the parishioners could not attend, and beyond that there was a system of plural voting in Vestry polls which was a serious impediment to the expression of the wishes and the wants of the inhabitants of the parish. The proper way of dealing with the reform of parish government was by developing the system of Vestry government, so as to enable the inhabitants of the parish to meet together to exercise their rights, not by delegating those rights to others, but by exercising them in their own corporate person. He would call the attention of hon. Members to extracts of the debate in 1871, which showed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) recognized the need for parish government when he introduced the Rating and Local Government Bill, and that even so late as 1885 the right hon. Gentleman had not changed his opinions. Again, in 1885, speaking in Edinburgh, the Chancellor of the Exchequer adverted to the necessity of giving the parishes some local life, and spoke of these three gradations—first the parish, then an aggregation of parishes; and, next, over these a County Authority was to be established. Although the right hon. Gentleman's scheme of 1871 was now thought to be impracticable, yet what he then said showed that the right hon. Gentleman realized the importance of dealing with the parish; and the wonder was that he had not succeeded in impressing those views on his present Colleagues. He (Mr. Stevenson) must suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had changed his mind on that matter, as he had done on the allotment scheme and on various other questions. No man talked more loudly of political conscience than the right hon. Gentleman; and, whereas other men were their hearts on their sleeve, the right hon. Gentleman were his conscience on his, and it was to be feared that his conscience in that case had rather suffered from the exposure. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) appeared to be under the delusion that the scheme they now advocated was one for establishing
    1808
    Parochial Councils; but what they were really advocating was the extension and development of the principle of open Vestries. Speaking in 1885 on the subject of Local Government, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham himself put the parish first and foremost, and said that then Local Authorities should be constituted for the district and the county; and he could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman did not lay the same stress on that point now as he did in 1885. In referring to his (Mr. Stevenson's) Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman described it as an attempt on the part of the tail to wag the dog. Now, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was one who ought to speak with great caution about the relations which subsisted between a dog and its tail; because at one time he might have been described as a tail without a dog, whereas now he was very much in the position of a dog without a tail. He (Mr. Stevenson) now came to the second blot in the Bill as affecting the agricultural districts—namely, the omission of the Poor Law administration from the scope of the measure. Why should the Board of Guardians be retained side by side with the District Councils; and as the Government proposed to deal with the boundaries of Rural Sanitary Authorities, what difficulty was there that might not be overcome in dealing with the boundaries of Unions on a similar principle? The present cost of the administration of the Poor Law was greatly out of proportion to the relief received; and under different arrangements—as, for instance, by transferring the care of the indoor poor to the County Council and that of the outdoor poor to the District Council and by the grouping of districts together—the Poor Law would be better and more economically carried out. The necessity for such a huge staff and such heavy establishment expenses as existed under the present system might be obviated. The Bill of the Government provided for a complication of areas and of authorities; whereas what they desired was simplicity of areas and of authorities, which had been provided in England ages ago. Again, the Bill proposed that the portion of the Probate Duty to be handed over to Local Authorities should be given in proportion to the number of indoor paupers. That

    1809
    provision would put a premium upon indoor pauperism and would operate unfairly, and it would be very unwise to insert it in the Bill unaccompanied by provisions placing Poor Law administration under popular control. The Bill would not give to those who were most interested in the proper administration of the Poor Law a direct influence in its management. The retention of the present system of Boards of Guardians side by side with the District Councils to be created by that measure was one of the greatest anomalies that could be devised. The Poor Law had exercised a pernicious influence upon English life; but that would not be remedied by the penal harshness which the Bill promoted. The feeling entertained on both sides of the House was that the question of the Poor Law ought not to be shelved, but should be dealt with speedily, and in accordance with the just claims of the English people. The question should be dealt with now in the Bill before them. It had been stated that to do this would be to overweight the ship. But there was a very obvious remedy in their hands. It was not impossible to devise a process by which the Licensing Clauses could be dropped out, and clauses dealing with the Poor Law substituted for them. On that side of the House they protested against the sins of omission and commission which characterized the Bill; and although he had refrained, with a view to the convenience of the House, from moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) that he and those who acted with him reserved for themselves complete liberty at any future stage to move to include in the Bill, which in its present form would be actually harmful and pernicious in many parts of the country, clauses dealing with Poor Law administration and the government of parishes.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk (Mr. F. S. Stevenson) that the Government were very grateful to him for his consideration. The hon. Member told the House that he did not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, because he
    1810
    desired to consult the convenience of the House and the Government, who would not at once be able to meet the points which he put before them. The hon. Member might disabuse his mind of any such idea. He had no occasion whatever to consult the convenience of the Government. Their convenience would have been consulted best if the Amendment had been moved. The Government were quite prepared to meet it, whether the hon. Member moved it on the second reading or on any other stage of the Bill. The hon. Member had stated that the Bill was one which did not deserve the confidence of the country. He had made a speech in support of his Amendment, and yet he was not prepared to submit that Amendment to a vote. In the course of the debate it had been a somewhat convenient practice on the part of hon. Members not to endeavour to go over the whole ground covered by this great Bill, but to deal with certain portions of it, and it was his intention to approach the Bill from the point of view of one who knew the rural districts, and who thoroughly shared, and to a large extent sympathized with, the feelings expressed by his hon. Friends on that side of the House, and by some hon. Members on the other side, with regard to the way in which the Bill would be regarded by county magistrates. At the present time he filled the office of Vice Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and when he saw these great changes impending he was very much inclined to approach their consideration from the same point of view as many of his hon. Friends. He did not think that any one of them who was specially connected with Quarter Sessions could have failed to be extremely pleased with the manner in which testimony had been borne from all quarters of the House, no less emphatic than unanimous, to the efficiency and economy with which Justices had managed county affairs. He had every hope that those same powers which the county gentlemen of England had exercised in times past would be employed by them in the future, if they were elected, in discharging the more extended duties which the present Bill proposed to give. He said—if elected. He had no doubt whatever that the county gentlemen of England would in very large numbers be elected to the new Councils. They

    1811
    were the natural leaders in the rural districts; they had, time after time, been the protectors of the weak; and he could not but think that even in these distressful times which had fallen upon agriculture, when the failure of rent had made a large number of them more inclined to stay upon their own farms and devote themselves more particularly to their own immediate localities, they would come, if elected, to the new Councils with a fuller knowledge even than they had before of the wants of the inhabitants. If he bad any doubt of that he should have greater fear than he had on the score of what appeared to him to be the greatest difficulty they had to contend with. It was not the want of interest on the part of the labourers. He did not believe it was necessary to establish parish Councils or to revive the parish Vestry in order to awaken the interest of the labourer. If parish life were to be reconstituted, someone would have to give a much more accurate description than had yet been given of the powers that were to be entrusted to the parish. As to control over public allotments, there were already provisions by which such control could be vested in a committee in every parish. The supply of water formed part of the great sanitary powers to be conferred upon District Councils; and it was surely not imagined that you could invest the parish with a power which could be exercised only for a much wider area? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) was taunted with having changed his opinions since 1871, when he strongly advocated the revival of parish life; but it must be remembered that since then a great change had been made in rural life by the formation of sanitary areas throughout the country. But the greatest difficulty now to be contended with was the getting of the members of the County Council to any place that might be selected for its meeting. The area of many counties was enormous, and the members of the County Councils had other important work to do; and the greatest danger was lest, through the non-attendance of members who would have a distance to travel, the business should fall into the hands of a narrow clique living in the town of meeting. The difficulty and the danger would be the greater if an enormous
    1812
    mass of duties was heaped upon the County Council. Many of those elected would have important affairs of their own to attend to, and if public duties called them to neglect their own business too much there would be danger that county business would fall into the hands of those who would not attend to it properly. Therefore he totally disagreed with the opinion that they should not deal with county administration without making a complete job of it. If all the duties that had been suggested were to be laid upon County Councils at once good men would be deterred from serving upon them. We ought not to reckon upon all county gentlemen being willing to stand as candidates; but everything ought to be done to facilitate their becoming candidates. The hon. Member (Mr. F. S. Stevenson) had urged that Poor Law duties should be handed over to the new County Concils, and had based some of his reasons upon the history of our Poor Law. It was a remarkably grotesque view of the history of the country to suggest that the gradual taking away of land from the people necessitated the passing of the Poor Law of Elizabeth, for the inclosure of commons occurred chiefly in the 18th century, and any such reconstruction of our Poor Law system as had just been recommended, with the expenditure it would involve, it would have been madness to couple with a measure for the creation of County Councils. His right hon. Friend the Member for the Epping Division of Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had protested against including any licensing proposals in the present Bill. Well, could he deny that if the Government had declined to deal with the Licensing Question, it would have been said that their Bill was hopelessly incomplete. As to the powers that were to be transferred from the Home Office, the Local Government Board, and the Board of Trade, many of them were of so thoroughly simple and local a character that it was obvious they could be better exercised on the spot by those who had local knowledge than by Departments in London. An hon. Member on the Ministerial side was very anxious that certain powers with regard to Private Bill legislation should be transferred to the new County Authorities; but although he believed that some steps could and ought to be taken by

    1813
    means of which the House would divest itself of powers which at the present time it could not adequately discharge, he did not believe it was possible to do it by transferring them to the County Councils. In various quarters, again, fears had been expressed that the urban element in many counties would altogether swamp the rural element. He fully admitted that if such were the case it would be a danger which it would be the duty of the Government to endeavour to meet; but he would like his hon. Friends to look for a moment at what was the nature of the urban sanitary districts. Many of them were exceedingly small, and if anybody looked into the history of the matter, he would find that in many cases they were so formed not merely because they wanted to exercise urban powers, or because they partook of an urban character, but simply in order to escape the rate which would be imposed on them by Highway Boards. He found that in 1881 there were no less than 22 urban districts with a population of less than 1,000, and four and five times that number with a population of less than 2,000. He would venture to say that others of these Rural Sanitary Boards, even containing a much larger population, were really and entirely rural in the it interests. If he were to take instances of counties in connection with which the difficulty in question had been especially urged, he should take the counties of Devonshire and Kent, where there were a large number of urban sanitary authorities. But what was the nature of those urban sanitary districts? As was well known, they had simply been developed on the seaboard, consisting of watering places more or less large all along the coast; but would anybody be prepared to say that the character of their population was so distinctly urban as to have interests diametrically opposed to the interests of the rural population immediately adjoining. Or would one not rather say that they might safely trust their representatives on the County Councils to take, at least, as large and fair a view of their duties as any representatives would take in any other county? He was quite sure that when the question was examined in detail his hon. Friends would be satisfied that the alarm which they had felt did not rest upon substantial foundations. The best
    1814
    earnest of the desire of the Government not to endanger the old county policy was to be found in the plan by which they had dealt with proposals altering the boundaries of counties, and they hoped and believed that those boundaries would be dealt with in accordance with the general feeling of the whole inhabitants of the county. There had been a good deal of alarm, too, with regard to the borrowing powers contained in the Bill. He was one of those who looked with very great suspicion upon the borrowing powers as exercised in several cases by the boroughs, and he should so far agree with his hon. Friends that they ought to take warning by the lessons to be learnt from the boroughs. In this connection, however, there was one provision in the Bill which he believed would be of great value, and that was the provision enabling County Councils to borrow money for the purpose of lending it to Local Authorities within their own borders. If the restrictions provided by the Bill upon the borrowing powers of the County Authorities were not deemed sufficient to prevent those powers from being abused, he was sure that his right hon. Friend would be perfectly ready to consider any reasonable proposal for making those restrictions strong enough when the Bill reached the Committee stage. Another part of the measure that had given rise to some discussion was that which dealt with the control of the police. In referring to that matter he did not desire to touch the question of the control of the police in London—they were pretty well all agreed upon that. He was not afraid of touching that question, however, because the Government would have the strongest objection to hand over the control of the police of London to any Municipal Government of the Metropolis which might be established. But as regards the counties generally the question was a difficult one, and the Government were placed between two fires with regard to it. He could not disguise that the Government proposal was a compromise, and, like most other compromises, it did not appear to have succeeded in pleasing many hon. Members in that House, although that was no proof that the proposal was not the wisest solution of the question. The proposal of the Government, he believed, would meet reasonable objections on

    1815
    both sides, and they intended to earnestly press upon hon. Members in Committee the desirability of abiding by the compromise which had been arrived at after the most careful consideration. He desired to offer a few observations with regard to the very able speech which was delivered the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair), in which he dealt with the subject of public health. The right hon. Gentleman was, perhaps, the greatest authority in that House upon such a question as that, and it was with much diffidence that he ventured to criticize some of his observations. By the 45th section of the Bill the powers of existing Sanitary Authorities were transferred to the District Councils, while certain powers of the Local Government Board were transferred to the County Councils. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Local Government Board would still retain the power of prescribing the duties of the medical officers of health, although the County Councils would have the power to make regulations with regard to their appointments and with regard to certain of their functions. The object of certain powers over the medical officers of health being retained by the Local Government Board was to insure uniformity of action throughout the country by means of general orders and instructions which could not be secured if the whole control were handed over to the different County Councils. The right hon. Gentleman had also complained that the medical officers of health were to make their Reports to the Local Government Board instead of to the County Councils; but there was no reason why copies of those Reports relating to their districts should not be furnished to the County Councils. If the Bill required amending upon this point, no objection would be raised on the part of the Government when the measure reached the Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman had proposed a scheme dealing with large sanitary areas under which the number of officers of health would be reduced from 1,200 to 180, each of whom would receive £600 a-year. This, however, would leave 1,000 existing medical officers unprovided for; and he was afraid that the result would be to start the County Councils with an enormous
    1816
    expenditure, while many medical officers who had learnt their duties and had discharged them with great efficiency and industry would be deprived of their posts. He believed that a medical officer appointed by a Board would have, in many cases, more influence with them than any person imposed upon them from headquarters. He thought there were no other points of detail which it was necessary for him to dwell upon. It was, he thought, a very remarkable fact that now, on the fifth night of the debate, they had learnt for the first time that there was no intention on the part of any responsible portion of the House to challenge the second reading of the Bill. Its main principle had not been attacked. Its main principle was that of handing over certain large duties of county government to Bodies mainly based upon popular election. The Government were well aware that in endeavouring to apply that principle to any practical scheme of government for counties they were running the risk of offending many interests and of treading on the toes of almost everybody who was at the present time connected with local government, and of exciting the prejudices of large and important Bodies throughout the country. The Government were, however, much more than content with the reception which their proposals had met with; and the more those proposals were discussed the more satisfied the Government were that they would appear to be reasonable and judicious, and that between extreme partizans on one side or the other they had endeavoured to the utmost of their power to keep a fair and even balance.
    MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDsaid, he thought it would be advantageous if, consistently with the main principle of the Bill, they could develop the public life of our country villages. Nothing was more important than to prevent villagers from crowding into our towns, and therefore it was desirable to make country people take more interest than they did at present in their village life. He did not wish to make the parish what was called a unit; but, while accepting the district as the unit, he thought there were purposes for which the parish organization was desirable, and, indeed, practically essential. He also thought that the existing Vestry was the obvious

    1817
    organization which could by simple and easy means be reformed. We could not avoid having some kind of parish organization, even according to the present Bill. At the present time, the initiative for bringing into operation the Free Libraries Act, the Lighting Act, and certain other Acts of Parliament was given to the Vestry. Why should the initiative power now existing be taken away from the Vestry and transferred to the District Council? Besides these permissive Acts, there were certain other matters which parishes and Vestries must become more connected with. For example, the Allotments Act had been referred to. The allotment managers were to be chosen by the parish in such manner as the Local Government Board should decide. What more obvious way was there than to elect them by the parish in Vestry assembled? A representative element was required in the administration of charitable trusts, and the Charity Commissioners were at present, he believed, formulating some plan which would introduce in certain cases representatives of parish Vestries. But what was greatly wanted was Vestry reform. What would be the objection to interesting parishioners, in certain matters affecting their own parish, by giving them a certain amount of control over such matters? In towns the Mayor often called together a town's meeting; but villages under the present system were much more stagnant, and would remain so until some reform was effected. The desired reform of the parish Vestry would not be so very difficult a matter. What was wanted was to enable a certain number of the ratepayers to summon a meeting; that such meeting should appoint its own chairman; that the principle of one vote and the ballot should be adopted, and some arrangement made for meeting in the village schoolroom, which was supported by public money. The Local Councils for parishes were to be composed of members of the District Council, and "certain others" not chosen by the parish but by the whole District Council. Why should not these others be chosen by the parish, and not by the District Council, which might have very little in common with the parish? The Vestries ought to be given some administrative power and some limited executive power, as in
    1818
    respect of allotments and charity matters, and also a fairly full power of deliberative action in relation to matters which specially concerned the parish. Many of the Government's own supporters in the rural districts were feeling strongly that something of this sort ought to be done. It would have very beneficial effects of a social and educational character if the different classes—the landlords, tenants, and labourers—were brought together to discuss matters in which they were all jointly interested.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he thought there must be general agreement with the hon. Member in his desire that there should be a re-invigoration of village life; and if that was all the formidable looking Amendment of the hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk (Mr. F. S. Stevenson) meant, it was a pity that the House was not informed of it several days before. There was a portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) which met the arguments, so far as they had been displayed, by the hon. Member for the Rotherham Division of York (Mr. Acland). In a sentence of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman it would be found that he said that as soon as the boundaries and other matters were settled for the County Councils, then it was the wish of the Government that there should be a reform of Vestry Councils. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) could not help thinking that the conclusion of the hon. Member for Eye was a lame one with regard to his Amendment, which threatened the life of the Bill, which was intended to kill the Bill—[Cries of "No, no!"] No; then was the Amendment a joke? He thought the hon. Member would have to explain himself in many places. His Amendment against the Bill on its second reading, if it were carried, would certainly have killed the Bill, and that was why so much importance was attached to it, else it should not be moved at all.
    An hon. MEMBER: It has not been moved.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: No; but the House was led to believe it would be moved, and after five nights' debate the lame and impotent conclusion was arrived at that the Amendment meant

    1819
    no more than a slight alteration in parish Vestries. That, it appeared, was all it meant! He was inclined to think his right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was mistaken—that the tail had not wagged the dog, but after sundry contortions the dog, with a great effort, had succeeded in moving the tail. That, he thought, was the explanation of why the Amendment was thrown up at a late hour. But the reason given was that it was for the convenience of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) stated, however, that the Government did not want any such consideration as was offered them; that it was no convenience to them; and, that being so, perhaps the hon. Member, or some of those who acted with him, would still move the Amendment, seeing that its object had not been secured, and the consideration shown bad secured no acknowledgment from an ungrateful Government. But the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Eye Division meant something more than the reform of Vestries, else why all that was said about "wolves in sheep's clothing" and that labourers could not go to a distance to attend District Councils "any more than they could go to Timbuctoo?" The reform of Vestries would not cure the matter. He was surprised to hear the argument that labourers would be unable to avail themselves of the advantages conveyed in the Bill, because they could not go to the county town or the place where the District Council assembled to discuss matters in which their localicy was interested. It might be said, if that made the Bill worthless, that when the Imperial franchise was conferred on labourers it was still more worthless, for if a labourer was unable to go a few miles to attend the meetings of the elected body he certainly could not travel to Westminster. The whole argument was of an extraordinary character, and struck at the value of all representative arrangements. The references of the hon. Member for Eye were unfortunate. He mentioned the subject of water supply, and said no object more fitting for parish management could be singled out than the water supply.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I said especially in clay districts.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: But if the Bill were to deal with such distinctions as between clay and other districts, a Minister of Geology, or something of that kind, would be required. Another extraordinary statement was that the advances as payment for indoor pauperism were calculated to promote pauperism. This was an argument that might at once be disposed of. The average cost of the food of a pauper was from 2s. 1d. to 2s. 4d. per week; but that did not include all the expenses connected with paupers, which, he thought, would be nearer 8d. or 10 d. than 4d. per day. The argument hon. Members were asked to support was that Boards of Guardians composed of men not more than ordinarily insane would, for the sake of getting a lot of fourpences, spend a lot of eightpences or tenpences. The argument was was not worth consideration. It was absurd to suppose that any representative Body would do anything of the kind. There was one remark of the hon. Member for the Faversham Division of Kent (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) that it was worth while to digest. He said that the Government, though pledged to a County Government scheme, were not pledged to a scheme such as they had placed before the House and the country. That was quite true, and so much the more credit to the Government in that they had not brought in a Bill just redeeming their pledge and no more; but they had sought to meet the exigencies of the case, and had prepared a Bill that all people who know anything about Local Government in counties would admit accomplished its object well. The importance of the reform he estimated as equal, if not superior, to the reform in the Imperial franchise; it was of as much importance that the labourer in the rural population should have a vote for the control and management of his own local affairs as that he should have a vote for Imperial affairs, because it touched his domestic life, and had relation to affairs with which he was locally acquainted. It was impossible to give effect to any Act that might be passed for the benefit of rural districts, to re-invigorate local opinion and restore that life and interest so desirable, until a reform in the administration of County Government, in the direction of the Bill under discus-

    1821
    sion, was secured. The legislation of past years had been of the most haphazard and piecemeal character from the want of a good system of administration. No doubt, Quarter Sessions had done their work well; but they had not had much work to do. They were a non-elective Body; they had but little power of rating the county, and without more money they could not do more work. The consequence was that in any now legislation, no matter how good, new authorities and new areas were created, or the work was shunted on to the Sanitary Authority to carry out, with the result, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) said, of a chaos of rates, and a chaos, worse than all, in areas. This accounted for much of the backwardness and lethargy in the rural districts, and made this the most pressing question of the day. He congratulated the Government on the manner in which they had grappled with a question so full of peculiar difficulties. Traditions had to be upset—a difficult thing to do—strong sentimental opinions had to be overcome, and many time-honoured institutions had to be modified or overturned. All this was a work of especial difficulty to the present Government. He supposed he must not say a Tory Government—there was no Tory Party now—nor was there a Liberal Party either. He preferred, therefore, to let the credit of the case lie with the Unionist Government and its Liberal Unionist supporters, including his humble self, as against the ex-Liberal Party represented by those to whom he was opposed at the present time. The Government were to be congratulated, and were entitled to the gratitude of all who valued the welfare of the rural districts. The Government had dealt with the subject in a manner very few expected they would. He attended a meeting at which the hon. Member for the Eye Division and many of his friends were present, and he was ridiculed for giving expression to the bare possibility that the Government might bring in a decent County Government Bill. It was held to be certain that by means of ex officio members, or other methods—[An hon. MEMBER: Selected members.]—he would come to that presently—by some method the representative principle would be so leavened that what
    1822
    was given with one hand would be taken away with the other. By this means it was thought the Government would lose Liberal Unionist support, defeat would follow, a Gladstonian Government come in, and then the Universe would be set right. That expectation, he believed, was at the bottom of a good deal of the action in regard to the Bill. But all those fears, expectations, or hopes had been falsified. A sound, honest, decentralizing measure had been brought in, far-reaching, and even revolutionary, in its changes, yet on strictly Constitutional lines. There were not found in the Bill any ex officio Members, any plural votes or voting papers, no nominated members, and an end was put to the wasteful system of subventions—the whole management of affairs was in the hands of electors, women included. He was, therefore, not surprised at the chorus of approval with which the Bill had been received at first. He valued first expressions. Ejaculations, it was said, ascended straight away to Heaven, or where they were addressed. He was inclined to think that the first expressions from the Front Opposition Bench were the best thoughts before they were modified by other considerations. His right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) was justified in calling the measure large, comprehensive, and complete, and that was strong evidence to get over, and many arguments would be needed to explain them away and make the country believe that this large and comprehensive measure was a wolf in sheep's clothing. What was the principle of the Bill? It was the principle of establishing popular representative government in the counties, and that was to be carried out by an extension to the counties of the Municipal Corporations Act. Both principle and method were plain, and could be understood by everybody. It had been found impossible to attack the Bill on principle, and even the attack on details had had to be abandoned. The hon. Member for Nottingham said it was a Bill with a very fine superstructure, but a bad foundation; but the contrary was the fact, and whatever defects there might be in the superstructure, the foundation was absolutely good and could not be improved upon. Therefore, he found that, although the Bill could not be attacked for anything it

    1823
    professed to do, resort had to be had for what the Bill did not profess to do. But much manifestly would come later, and the passing of the Bill would make subsequent reforms much more easy. He accepted the Government's promise in reference to assessment and Poor Law reform, and there was plenty of time before 1893 to complete the measure and satisfy hon. Members on all points.
    It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 207.]
  (Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Lea, Mr. Sinclair.)
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 207.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLin moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was a short measure, the object of which was to remedy a defect that had arisen in the working of the 1st clause of the Act passed last Session. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had expressed his willingness to accept the measure, and as, he believed, it was agreed to by all sections of the Irish Members, he hoped the House would consent to read the Bill a second time. He would briefly explain its provisions. There were a great number of Ulster leases which contained covenants against assignment; but, notwithstanding these covenants, the leases had been assigned, and the landlords had accepted the tenants, taken rent from them, and had their names entered for the rent on the estate books. Now, however, when these tenants sought to go into Court as leaseholders, the law was enforced against them, and they were not allowed to rank as leaseholders under the Act. The Bill was intended to remove that defect in the law, and to allow them to go into Court as leaseholders.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)said, the Government did not consider that this was a Bill which was intended to re-open any question
    1824
    settled by the legislation of last year. It merely provided for a certain number of cases in which there was what he might call a technical flaw in the tenant's title, when an assignment had been substantially acted upon, and accepted by the landlord. The Government saw no reason to oppose a Bill which simply removed a defect of that kind; and they, therefore, raised no objection to the second reading.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

  FISHERY ACTS AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 32.]
  (Colonel Nolan, Mr. E. Harrington, Mr. P. M'Donald, Mr. Foley.)
  FISHERY ACTS AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 32.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    COLONEL NOLANin moving that the House should go into Committee on the Bill, said, that the measure was agreed to by the Government, and he intended to report Progress after an Amendment had been accepted.
    Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"—(Colonel Nolan,)—put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Petition for prohibition of trawling, and proceedings thereon).
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out lines 15 and 16.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, to leave out lines 15 and 16.—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—( Colonel Nolan,)—put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) BILL.— [BILL 61.]
  (Mr. Mundella, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Mr. Richard, Sir Hussey Vivian, Mr. Rathbone, Mr. Stuart Rendel, Mr. William Abraham.)
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) BILL.— [BILL 61.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he must appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) on behalf of the Intermediate Education (Wales) Bill, and another measure which was standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Exeter (Sir Stafford Northcote). The question of intermediate education in Wales had stood over since 1882. A Departmental Committee was appointed in 1883, and they arrived unanimously at a conclusion on the subject. There was not a Welsh Member, in whatever part of the House he might sit, who would not agree that these two Bills should be sent to a Select Committee, in the hope that some conclusion might be arrived at. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had said, the other day, that the Government hoped they would find time to bring in a Bill on the subject. He (Mr. Mundella) was afraid that, in the present state of Business in the House, there was very little chance of their being able to do so this year. He thought that a Select Committee would be able to come to some agreement. There was a disposition on the Opposition side of the House to do so. Whatever differences of opinion there might be with reference to intermediate education among the Welsh Members, they were quite prepared to thresh them out, and to come to some compromise, so as to get the question settled. That being so, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would allow the Bill to be read a second time, in order that it might be referred to a Committee Upstairs.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, it was because he fully appreciated the great importance of the subject that he could not consent to the second reading of the Bill after 12 o'clock at night without any discussion. He fully admitted the value of discussion by Select Committees, and a
    1826
    threshing out of details, such as the right hon. Gentleman opposite suggested, would be very useful.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman objects to the further passage of the Bill, that disposes of it for this evening.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid, Sir, I must do so; and I hope that, under the circumstances, the House will realize that I do not take this course merely from a spirit of opposition.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

MOTIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (NEW CODE, 1888).

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    DR. CAMERONin moving that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on this subject, said, that his object in bringing forward the Resolution was to obtain the verdict of the House of Commons against changes in the Scotch Code, which militated against the success of two important branches of education, and placed the taxpayers of Scotland in an unjust and inequitable position in comparison with those of England. He would very briefly explain the effect of the changes to which he alluded. A grant of 4s. was made under the Code both in England and Scotland in respect of instruction in cookery. It was now proposed that in Scotland the number of pupils in a cookery class should not exceed 12, instead of 24, the former number allowed, and that if it did exceed 12 the grant could not be earned. The result of the change would be that in a number of schools in Scotland the teaching of cookery would be discontinued. There had been no demand for the change on the part of the school boards. He believed that two or three ladies who were members of Scotch school boards had come to London, and had an interview with the Scotch Department on the subject; but the lady member of the Glasgow School Board who spoke on that occasion did so as an individual, as the Glasgow School Board had never come to a resolution authorizing the alteration in the Code. He was informed that the alteration would

    1827
    not be in the interest of cookery. He held in his hand a letter from one of the most successful, if not the most successful, teacher of cookery in Scotland, Mrs. Black, and he would read an extract from it. Mrs. Black wrote—
    "The number of 12 is too small a class for any qualified teacher to superintend. It is waste of time. Masters cannot afford the room for so small a number, except where there is one expressly built, and in few country schools is that the case."
    Mrs. Black went on to say that many country school boards took up the teaching of cookery, on account of the encouragement held out to them to do so by the old system, and that in the now condition of things they would have to give up the teaching of cookery altogether. That was his case in regard to cookery—namely, that the change in the Code would choke off the teaching of cookery as a subject in a number of Scotch rural schools, whilst in the larger towns it would simply increase the cost of the teaching, and would put the schools to more expense in earning the grant than schools were put to in England. The result would be to discourage the teaching of cookery in Scotland, so that whilst Scotland would be obliged to pay its full contribution towards the cost of such instruction, it would not receive the same benefit from it as England did. The point respecting the drawing grant lay, like the other, in a nutshell. In England, at the present moment, school managers were allowed to earn 17 s. 6d. per scholar on average attendance. The grants paid for drawing were not included in that 17 s. 6d., but were paid by the Science and Art Department. In Scotland, up to the present time, the same system had been pursued. It was now proposed to alter the system so as to include the grant for drawing in the 17 s. 6d. The obvious effect of that change upon every school board earning the maximum grant must be to do away with all incentive to teaching drawing, and, therefore, to discourage the teaching of drawing. If the alteration were adhered to, the Scotch people would be taxed for providing grants for drawing in English schools, without receiving any reciprocal advantage themselves. Drawing lay at the very foundation of mechanical education, and, therefore,
    1828
    the change in the Code, by discouraging drawing in schools, would strike a heavy blow at technical education.
    MR. SPEAKER: It may be for the convenience of the House that the hon. Gentleman's two propositions should be put together, but if any hon. Gentleman objects to their being taken together, they will be put separately.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to withhold Her assent from so much of the Code (1888) of the Scotch Education Department as imposes on the earning of grants for cookery a new restriction not imposed in the English Code:
    "And further praying Her Majesty to withhold Her assent from so much of the said Code, as contrary to the usage in England, includes grants for drawing in reckoning the total of 17 s. 6d. per scholar in average attendance, to which the amount which may be earned by school managers is limited."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, he did not complain for a moment of the hon. Member bringing these two subjects before the House, as they were both matters which were interesting to Scotland. He thought it would be more convenient that, if the hon. Member went to a Division, the two propositions should be taken separately, as some hon. Members who might favour one might be opposed to the other. The hon. Member stated that the new arrangements of which he complained would militate against the advantages of education in Scotland. He (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) was sure, however, the hon. Gentleman would agree with him that that was not the intention of the Department in making them. It was entirely a question of judgment on the part of the Department as to which was the better course to pursue. No doubt a number of people might be found who thought that the Department had exercised a wrong discretion in making the changes; but he was not afraid of referring the matter to the common sense of the House. It was pretty clear that a class of 24 young women, each of whom had to cook with her own hands, could not be conducted by a single teacher. The hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had brought forward the opinion of a lady who, no doubt, had had much experience in the

    1829
    matter, but the change with regard to cookery classes had been made on the representations of a deputation which represented the chief schools of cookery in Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Edinburgh School Board, and the Northern Union of England. The whole object of the deputation which waited upon Lord Lothian was to obtain the best results from the instruction given, by providing that the classes should consist of a suitable number, so that proper supervision should be given. The Code, as altered, provided that while the full grant of 4s. was to be given for a class taught for 40 hours, during 20 of which the student cooked with her own hand, the grant of 2s. was to be given for a course of a limited number of hours, in which the student cooked with her own hands. He thought that was the best arrangement that could be made, and that it should not be upset. He did not himself think that it would really reduce the amount of the grants, but, whether it did or not, the first thing to be considered was the efficiency of the work done, and if, as was the case, a large number of experienced people, who had no interest in the matter except that of seeing that the teaching was given in the best and most practical way, supported the alteration in the Code, it could hardly be contended that the Secretary for Scotland was wrong in making it. It would be a strong thing for the House to upset a decision of the kind, which had been come to solely in the interest of the teaching arrangements of the schools. As to the hon. Member's second proposition, it was not so easy a matter to deal with as the hon. Gentleman supposed, because the 17 s. 6d. limit was laid down by law. It was a matter of law and not of Code, and could only be dealt with by the Treasury. He would, however, consider whether a communication should not be made to the Treasury on the subject, with the view of ascertaining if they could meet the hon. Member's views.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid, he had taken considerable trouble to get information on the subject of cookery instruction from those who were capable of giving it; and, as a result of his inquiries, he had come to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for
    1830
    the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron)—namely, that it was perfectly possible to give good and efficient instruction in practical cookery in classes containing as many as 24 students. In England, classes of 24 were allowed. Since his hon. Friend's Notice of Motion was placed on the Paper, he (Mr. Sinclair) had received a telegram from the Secretary of the Govan School Board, which was probably the largest in Scotland with the exception of that of Glasgow, informing him that the Board had posted a letter to the Department, asking that the article respecting cookery should be restored to the terms of that in last year's Code. The telegram also stated that it was understood that the Glasgow School Board was taking a similar course. He thought that the change had been made a little prematurely. There was no question that classes of 12 might be more effective than classes of 24, but that was not the only point that had to be considered. The change in the Code would prevent the spread of instruction in cookery in places where it was now given, and would prevent the establishment of cookery classes in places where they did not at present exist. He trusted, therefore, that the Lord Advocate would consent to the passing of the first part of the Resolution; but he thought his hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) might be content with the promise which the Lord Advocate had given on the subject of drawing instruction.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had no doubt that if the cookery classes were reduced to 12 students, the work would be better done than if the students numbered as many as 24. He wished, however, to know whether it was a fact that the new restriction did not apply to the English Code. If so, why should Scotland be placed at a disadvantage on this point as compared with England?
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: It is a fact that the change is not made in the English Code.
    MR. MUNDELLA: What is the number allowed in England?
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD saidit was 24. It must be remembered, however, that the change was really a reform.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he was very glad to hear of a reform in education in

    1831
    Scotland. Scotland was always in advance of England in matters of education, and always obtained larger grants than England. He wished that England could be brought to the same position as Scotland in regard both to education and to grants. He doubted, however, whether it would be wise to introduce this change into Scotland before adopting it in England. As to the second part of the Resolution, when the Lord Advocate said it was a question of law and not of Code, all he (Mr. Mundella) could say was that, when he entered the Education Department in 1880, it was not then regarded as a matter of law. The grant had been paid since 1876, and it was continued to be paid until the time he left the Department.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): It is paid outside the 17 s. 6d. limit.
    MR. MUNDELLA: Well, it was always paid within the 17 s. 6d. limit.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: Till last year.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he doubted whether there was a single Member on the other side of the House who did not feel that the change which was now being made would inflict hardship upon the Scotch schools, as it would compel many of them to abandon the teaching of drawing. Drawing lay at the root of all technical education, and he sincerely trusted that the Government would see their way to withdraw the proposed change. It was said to be a matter of law; but, if that were so, it would not be necessary to apply to the Treasury, and he thought that, after all, it was a mere matter of the Treasury rather than of the law.
    MR. HOZIERsaid, that in his opinion the restrictions proposed in the new Code would be very injurious to country districts. With regard to the question of the size of classes, he had heard only that evening that the classes in experimental chemistry in Edinburgh University were as a rule composed of from 30 to 40 persons.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid, he thought that, as the proposed change was at variance with the English Code, the House should be very careful in sanctioning it. No doubt small classes might be of advantage in
    1832
    large cities, but he know that in the country districts of Scotland the practice was to obtain teachers from Glasgow, and if the number of students in each class was restricted to 12 the result would be that in such districts it would be impossible to teach cookery at all. The Scotch Education Department had acted solely upon the information of parties representative of two cities, but who were not representative of the school boards of either Glasgow or Edinburgh, and it was now stated that the school boards of Glasgow and Govan were against the change. That being so, it would surely be unfair to press the alteration this year. Inasmuch as the proposal had not been considered by the people of Scotland, and had not been properly considered by the Government, he thought it would be a gracious act on the part of the Lord Advocate to postpone the application of the change until next year.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he might prevent the necessity of further debate by saying that the Government had no objection to reconsider the proposal in the Code and postpone any alteration for another year. The Code might be amended by the issue of a new Minute laid on the Table. The course taken had been adopted under the impression that it was desired by those most interested, but it appeared, from what had been said by Scotch Representatives, that that was not the case, and therefore the Government would reconsider the question.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, after this satisfactory statement, he would not press his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Broadford, Clevedon, Cromer, Curran, Hopeman, Millpoint, Saint Ives, and Southbourne, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Mr. Jackson.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 221.]

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That, in addition to the Duties of Customs payable on Wine before the 27th day of March, 1888, there shall, where the Wine is imported in bottles, be levied and charged the Duties following (that is to say):—
    Upon every dozen bottles of Wine—

    If in imperial half-pint bottles or bottles of less capacity

    £

    s.

    d.

    0

    1

    3

    If in bottles of capacity exceeding imperial half-pint bottles and not exceeding imperial pint bottles

    0

    2

    6

    1834

    If in bottles of capacity exceeding imperial pint bottles and not exceeding imperial quart bottles

    0

    5

    0

    If in bottles of capacity exceeding imperial quart bottles and not exceeding two imperial quarts

    0

    10

    0

    If in bottles of capacity exceeding two imperial quarts

    1

    0

    0

    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Select Committee—Liability of Trustees (24), nominated.
Third Reading—Army (Annual) * (55); East India (Purchase and Construction of Rail ways) * (56), and passed.

LIABILITY OF TRUSTEES BILL.

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  LORD HERSCHELL, in moving to name the Peers as the Select Committee on the Bill, said, that he had received a large number of communications containing suggestions for alterations and amendments in the Bill proposed. The communications had been so numerous that he had found it quite impossible to acknowledge them individually, and he wished to take that opportunity of thanking those who had made suggestions to him, and to assure them that they should receive full attention and consideration.
  Moved, "That the Lords following be named of the Select Committee:"—

  E. Cowper.

  L. Wigan, (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  E. Milltown.

  E. Northbrook.

  L. Thurlow.

  L. Fermanagh, (E. Erne.)

  L. Brodrick, (V. Midleton.)

  L. Hobhouse.

  L. Herschell.

  Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire into and report upon the question whether a revision of the Standing Orders in the House of Lords, or other changes with regard to it, might be so framed as to add to its efficiency,"
  said: My Lords, although the Motion stood upon the Paper on the 19th of March, it was not possible to bring forward the Notice in the form of an

  1677
  Amendment. It came behind another, and, according to the usages of Parliament, two Amendments cannot both lead to a Division. Indeed, by one, the House will recollect, some hesitation and confusion was occasioned. In answer to a challenge from the noble Earl who moved for a Select Committee, I said that I should bring it forward as a separate proposal; and have, therefore, sought an early opportunity to do so. My Lords, it cannot be held that the subject is abandoned, because on the 19th of March, after an eloquent debate, the Motion was defeated. The language of the Press, which if it ought not to have too great a sway, can never be entirely disregarded, urges us to follow up the question. There is a Bill before us to reconstitute the Chamber. Let me add it was presented since I gave my Notice for this evening. If that Bill had any chance of being adopted as it stands, the present Motion might have been unnecessary. As it has not the least, the Motion is most apposite. That Bill requires a Commission to amend, and even a Commision to interpret it. I am not on that account opposing it, or wishing to disparage it. I do full justice to its author, who has laboured on the subject. But it requires, like other schemes, a drastic and effective agency to decompose and to appraise it. A few weeks ago, the noble Earl from whom it comes, declared himself in favour of inquiry. To-night it is hardly necessary to enter into general considerations when your Lordships have lately had so great a dose of erudition and of oratory that its effect may still continue. Whether Mr. Pitt, or the noble Marquess the First Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury), has been most fertile of new Peerages, is a very interesting question, but does not really bear upon the changes to be thought of. We may see, from the memoirs of Lady Esther Stanhope, that Mr. Pitt avowed to his gifted niece, who was the mistress of his household, that he had gone much too far in that direction. We do not know that the noble Marquess has yet been hurried into any similar confession. I only mention that in passing. The essential point is to show that, in rejecting a Select Committee, the House has in no way declared itself against a Motion like the present one. A Select Committee would not have been a proper agency from several
  1678
  considerations. On a subject of such magnitude, so interesting to all the House, and where so many would have urged a proper claim to sit upon it, it must have been composed of a number about or over 20. A Body of that kind cannot be consultative. It is made up on principle of adverse elements, which look on one another with reciprocal distrust, and cannot well be drawn to harmony and confidence. I do not speak from theory, but saw it upon two occasions—a Committee of Lord Grey upon the Franchise; a Committee under the late Lord Clanricade, a few years after, upon Irish Land Tenure. In all probability the Committee would have been under the direction of the noble Earl who moved for it. But he is more conspicuously than anyone identified with a Leader much distrusted by the greater part of this Assembly. Moreover, in his long and able speech, the noble Earl foreshadowed rather violent proposals, of which the aim would seem to be to transfer the majority from one side to the other. But there is something else more fatal to the project. The Select Committee could only work during the Session, and the remainder of the Session would not suffice for such a task as it would have to grapple with. It might be re-appointed. Its toil would even thus be intermittent. Evidence would grow and no conclusion be arrived at. Beyond that, although he spoke almost two hours, the noble Earl never once attempted to point out that a Select Committee would be a safe or an effective agency to bring about his object. His silence upon that point has condemned it. In advocating a Commission, it may be first desirable to guard it against one or two misapprehensions. It has been said that the House of Lords would lose control over the problem. The control would be quite as great by one method as by the other. A Peer might preside over the Commission, and there is no doubt that, under the direction of the Government, he would do so. A majority of Peers might also sit upon it. Again, Parliament would not be bound by its Report more than by that of a Select Committee. No Government, no Parliament, is forced to act on the recommendation of one body or the other. Like pioneers, they are subordinate to those who have instructed them. They form a path; they do not

  1679
  order a direction. Now for the advantage of the process. It would, in the first place, be far more limited in number. Half-a-dozen might complete it. Secondly, it need not be made up of persons usually at variance. Thirdly, it admits of talent beyond the circle of the House or of the Legislature. Lastly, it would not be subject to the Prorogation, but might go on continuously working until its labour was completed. As to the modus operandi, many who sit here might be available as Chairmen. It would be in communication with the Government. There would be leisure to gain Reports from all the Upper Chambers either of America or of the Continent. There would be leisure to canvass all the schemes which politicians have arrived at. There would be leisure to hear the evidence which Members of the House, who know it well, might be inclined to offer. A conclusion would be formed which must enrich, although it cannot force or compromise, the Ministry who gather it. Nine months, as they would not be broken by a Prorogation, might be sufficient for the purpose. If the Commission sat in May, by February of next year the result would be in our possession. My Lords, there is a great deal of experience to which I may appeal during the last 50 years, or since the period when legislation gained an impulse not as yet exhausted. Even before 1830 the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel appointed a Commission—famous in its time—to inquire into the Law of Real Property, from which a series of improvements has originated. The New Poor Law, in 1834, perhaps the most successful measure of our age, if you consider the abuses it corrected, the principles it recognized, the clamour it survived, the influence it exercises by Boards of Guardians and by workhouses, was nothing but an offspring of that agency. A year later, municipal reform was similarly organized and similarly carried. A Select Committee has not, as far as I know, been the basis of any celebrated measure. But there is a converse. It is worth while to glance at legislation which no inquiry has preceded. Has it entirely succeeded? If a Commission had preceded the Reform Act of 1832, it might have lasted longer. If a Commission had preceded the re-
  1680
  presentative arrangements we live under, they might not have earned the title of Niagara which Mr. Carlyle gave them. If a Commission had preceded the Act on the Irish Church in 1869, we might not have seen as its upshot Protestants and Catholics dissatisfied, a fund sufficient to have tranquillized the country miserably squandered, religion unendowed, and anarchy incorporated. Experience, both positive and negative, may lead us to conclude that Commissions are the best source from which measures can proceed, unless they are the work of a Department, which is the case with many Bills your Lordships have considered. But no Department is available for organizing changes the House of Lords may be in need of. It is not a matter to refer to the Board of Works, the Treasury, or even the Home Office. The reference which I propose is based on much consideration. There is no desire to gloss it over; but, on the contrary, to bring it under the scrutinizing eyes of those who are requested to adopt it. The Commission would, at first, inquire whether revision of the Standing Orders would meet the wants of the Assembly. It is not desirable to rush into an Act of Parliament until you know it to be necessary. It is not desirable to bring one House before censorious discussion of another if you can avoid it. It is opposed to all the principles of statesmanship to seek, by hazardous exertion and precarious adventure, what you may bring about by safe, by self-depending, and internal re-arrangement. If the noble Earl who moved on the 19th of March has not arrived at that conclusion or derides it, he has not meditated long enough, and he has taken Nimis eloquentiæa, sapientiæ parum, for his motto. One change alone—beyond those which I lately urged upon the House, and wholly independent of them—might have considerable influence. It is the enlargement of the quorum. If a quorum of 40 or 50 was required, the daily aspect of the Upper Chamber might be seriously altered. I do not recommend the alteration, as certain hazards would belong to it, but only mention it to show that by working through the Standing Orders we might powerfully act upon attendance, the leading object to be compassed. We have lately seen in "another place" a transformation brought about by

  1681
  nothing but an altered system of Procedure. Blind, indeed, must be the politician who, wishing to improve the House of Lords, is unadmonished by that circumstance. But after the Commission has explored the possibility residing in the Standing Orders, they enter on the whole domain of legislative effort. The words "or other changes" take away all limit. It is not very likely that they will follow the noble Mover on the 19th of March, and recommend a Congress of both Houses—such as we may sometimes watch at Versailles, in which your Lordships would be unavoidably outnumbered—to settle controverted questions. But they would be quite at liberty to do so, if they could reason that the efficiency of this House would be promoted by the measure. In pointing to the grounds of a Commission, I am not under the necessity of indicating any scheme to which I may be favourable. It would be imprudent upon this account. The most cautious and elaborated set of changes must lead to difference of opinion. Those who do not acquiesce at first in any feature of a plan suggested would be inclined to vote against the course which I now advocate, although without a strictly logical connection, as the Commission might be wholly adverse to the feature so objected to. But I will go so far, with the permission of the House, as to refer to a most interesting paper which has come before the world since our late discussion, and alludes to it. It is a contribution to The National Review of April, by the Hon. George Curzon, who sits for a part of Lancashire, with the concurrence of the Hon. William Brodrick, who sits for a part of Surrey. There is scarcely any proposition in it I should not be inclined to accede to, or any train of reasoning which has not frequently occurred to me. The appearance of this paper, which is not the first from the same quarter, leads to several reflections. It shows that among elder sons, whom time may bring into this House, there is a movement to reform it. It shows that among rising politicians, there is a great maturity of observation and suggestion on the topic. It shows that a former Private Secretary of the noble Marquess opposite—for such was Mr. Curzon—impregnated with his opinions, versed in his ideas by means of that relation, is disposed to lead
  1682
  opinion on the subject. The Government would be deluded if they thought that an attitude of mere resistance or evasion would suffice for them. Not, however, that the slightest censure ought yet to fall upon them. On the 19th of March, they were well entitled to resist the Motion. They would be ill-advised if they determined to extemporize a measure. Should a Commission be appointed, I hope to bring before it, in a more guarded form, a scheme which coincides with that of Mr. Curzon and Mr. Brodrick in most of its particulars, and all of its foundations. It remains to touch, although but superficially and briefly, on the grounds which make some course of action indispensable. As neither Mr. Curzon nor Mr. Brodrick have sat in this Assembly, they cannot reason from experience of what demands consideration in it. The grand evil, I submit to your Lordships, and that without which no proceeding would be necessary, is the degree of non-attendance. Out of about 500, we may count on about 50. But that might be endured, although it leads to hostile criticism, and has many inconveniencies. It is only at the end of the Session it becomes enhanced into a political calamity. During the months of August and September, as I have seen for the last two years, myself remaining, the Government are wholly uncontrolled and sit with empty Benches opposite them. In the meanwhile, at the same period, and, therefore, under equal disadvantages, in "another place," you see about 300. Of course, the explanation is an obvious one. According to the hidden laws by which the world is governed, good motives are not strong enough unless necessity corroborates them. Necessity arises from electors, while men who sit for life are thrown too much upon their virtue. There is another rather grave consideration which has not been adverted to so far as I remember. In "another place" 162 Members have arrayed themselves against the hereditary principle. That circumstance alone would not, indeed, have much importance, unless it was regarded in connection with another. It ought not to be forgotten that the officers of this House are paid by an annual Vote, which may be, and is, usually debated. The same 162, enlarging gradually, may end in power to reject it. It has been said that fees would act

  1683
  as an equivalent. But fees depend on Private Bills and litigation, which must always be precarious. The action of this House might thus be seriously compromised by those whom, in its present form, it has to look to as opponents. It cannot be said that this House is in itself disposed to overcome the disadvantages under which it labours. A Committee on Acoustics sat some years ago. Not one of its conclusions has been acted on. It is true that they were insufficient for their purpose. But on other points—as I have lately proved—there is a similar reluctance to do anything. There is nothing violent or startling, as has often been assumed, in the principle of change applied to Upper Chambers. Some of the most distinguished have been corrected with advantage. The Roman Senate, if I am not deceived, on several occasions had new elements adjoined to it. It lasted far enough into the Empire to debate whether Christianity or Paganism should be the national religion. Since 1830, the French Senate has been often reconstructed. It is still flourishing, and musters day by day, as I know, about 100 Members. Withing the last few years, as we were told on the 19th of March, the Upper House of Hungary has been a good deal modified, with no bad effect so far as present information reaches us, under the direction of a statesman so remarkable for prudence that he is styled at Buda-Post the Sir Robert Walpole of his country. The policy of change, however, reposes on a deeper ground, and one too difficult to bring before the House, except in passing for a moment. When 20 years ago, no doubt under imperious necessity, the Reform Act of 1832 was superseded, and the power of the middle-classes was subverted, it became more essential, on the widest grounds, that the virtually disfranchised Orders should find in this House the refuge which they wanted. It became more important that a House of Commons, based on the supremacy of numbers, should not be wholly uncorrected and unbalanced. But it may be doubted whether, in its present shape, this House can ever be the necessary equipoise. That equipoise is better drawn from Senates than from Armies. But, if Senates refuse to give, they furnish Armies with a reason for supplying it.
  1684
  Before sitting down, I wish to make a serious appeal to the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, that he may not suddenly impede the only course by which improvement in the House can be apparently effected. The alternatives are all of them exhausted. A Select Committee has been negatived. The Government have not the slightest disposition to introduce a legislative measure. The Bill which has been read a first time might be read a second time, on the condition of being subjected to an organized tribunal, but is not likely to proceed on any other footing. The noble Marquess can appreciate the caution by which the Commissioners are invited to probe the Standing Orders, before embarking on the open sea of legislative project. According to the terms proposed on the part of your Lordships, there will be no avowal of deficiency. You will not plead guilty to inadequate attendance, or any other error. The proudest, the most irreproachable Assembly might still desire to ascertain whether its efficiency by any change might possibly be heightened. The noble Marquess cannot overlook the special difficulty of passing any measure on this subject through the two Houses of Parliament. In one, you have Conservative reluctance, in the other, Radical antagonism, to perplex you. In one, men look with pardonable jealousy on change; in the other, they are opposed to anything which takes away the blemishes, enhances the authority, and thus prolongs the action of the Upper Chamber. It is only by the aid of a well-organized Commission, the authority it gives, the currents of opinion it diffuses, that you can hope to steer through obstacles so diverse. But let me not be thought to mean that on a subject of this kind the noble Marquess can be permitted to assume the part of a Dictator. Before Easter your Lordships gave a lesson to the Government which cannot be forgotten. If something must be done, if every scheme is immature, if no preparatory course, except that which I suggest, is either feasible or adequate, it becomes this House to lead the Government into the true path, and not by them to be irrationally turned from it. With different ranks, with varying traditions, with Parties violently hostile—at least on this side of the House—your Lordships are condensed under one

  1685
  principle, "Nobility obliges." To resist place and power, when they go astray, or even when their policy is hesitating and their counsels are ambiguous, is not among the least imperative of many duties it suggests to us. I trust on this occasion that it may not be required, and that the Government may see the course which I submit to be the course which prudence sanctions and necessity imposes. I therefore move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire and report upon the question whether a revision of the Standing Orders in the House of Lords, or other changes with regard to it, might be so framed as to add to its efficiency."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, he lead listened very attentively to the earnest speech of the noble Lord in explanation of the Motion which he had brought before their Lordships. His Motion was—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire into and report upon the question whether a revision of the Standing Orders in the House of Lords, or other changes with regard to it, might be so framed as to add to its efficiency."
  These revisions were not uncommon. They had been adopted from time to time, and it would be for their Lordships, when they saw a definite need of revision, to inquire into any matter which required to be set right. The noble Lord had observed that Select Committees on these matters had been condemned; but that view was hardly accurate. What was objected to in the Motion of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery), some little time ago, was rather the indefiniteness of the Reference to the Select Committee, and not the use of a Select Committee as a means of inquiry into a definite matter which required inquiry. He did not think the Motion of the noble Lord would be exempt from the same criticism; but, even if it were otherwise, it would be perfectly impossible to agree with the Motion. He never heard of a Royal Commission upon the Standing Orders. It was contrary to the constitution of the House, and it was very
  1686
  fortunate that the noble Lord lived in peaceful times, as two centuries ago he would inevitably have been sent to the Tower for such a proposal. There was no instance, he ventured to say, of one of the Estates of the Realm initiating an inquiry into the constitution of another. If there was anything in the Standing Orders which the noble Lord, or any other noble Lord, could show required inquiry, the Government would not be averse to inquiry; but, of course, it must be by the ordinary Constitutional course of a Select Committee. But he feared it would be raising a grave Constitutional question to ask the Crown to undertake an examination of the Standing Orders, and he could not advise their Lordships to assent to the Motion.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I am not sure whether I fully understand the objection of the noble Marquess. If this House addresses the Crown to pursue inquiry by which changes may be recommended, what is there to prevent the Crown from undertaking it? It can be no encroachment on our Body. But this is nothing but a technicality, as the Commission, like all Commissions, would be nominated by the Government. Beyond that, the Reference to the Standing Orders, although it seems to me a good precaution for the reasons I have stated, is in no way indispensable. It may be omitted altogether, and the Commission would only have a general Instruction to report on changes which appear to be desirable. If, however, Her Majesty's Government feel themselves unable or unwilling to organize a Commission of the kind, I cannot press the Motion.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have directed the Select Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House to examine into the present system of Private Bill Legislation to meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in Room No. 1, Upper Corridor, To-morrow at half-past Three of the clock:
  Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Committee appointed by the Commons in Room No. 1, Upper Corridor, To-morrow at half-past Three of the clock.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter
  past Ten o'clock.