Sitting of 6 July 1888

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES) (Special Report).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 5] reported.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Considered as amended—Third Reading—West Ham Corporation (Improvements), and passed.
Third Reading—Ulster Canal and Tyrone Navigation, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLs—Committee—Local Government (England and Wales) [182] [Thirteenth Night]—R. P.
Considered as amended—Bail (Scotland) [172–286], debate adjourned.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Report—Local Government (Ireland) (Ballymoney, &c.)* [302]; Elementary Education (Birmingham)* [304].
Third Reading—Local Government (No. 13)* [287], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  CUSTOMS—THE STATISTICAL DEPARTMENT.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is true that the vacancy in the Statistical Department of the Customs, caused by the recent death of a principal clerk, is not to be filled up, pending the re-organization of the Office; and, whether such re-organization is likely to be effected shortly, or is indefinitely postponed to be dealt with by the Royal Commission; and, if so whether promotions to Staff appointments, and to the Upper Division, is for the present entirely suspended throughout the Civil Service?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (a LORD of the TREASURY)(who replied) said, that the re-organization of the Customs cannot be said to be indefinitely postponed, but we wish to receive the Report of the Royal Commission before proceeding with it.

  ADMIRALTY—PAYMENT OF WAGES.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he can state in how many cases of ships paying down for the quarter ending March 31 last, the weekly payment of wages due to the men has been deferred for less than 14 days; what was the total number of ships that paid down at the end of that quarter; and, whether it is the fact that, in the case of several ships which paid down their men on Friday last, the paying department had intended to defer payment of such wages until Friday the 6th instant?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): In all ships the settlement of wages takes place quarterly; and under Article 1,512 of the Queen's Regulations the payment is to be made on the first day of the subsequent quarter, or as soon after as may be convenient. I have no reason to suppose that any infringement of the Regulations has taken place.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— SEIZURE OF STOCK IN CORK CO.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has seen the reports in the Cork papers of 2nd instant, to the effect that on Saturday, at 2 a.m., a number of armed policemen left Fermoy, in company with a bailiff named Devane and several under bailiffs, in order to seize upon cattle, horses, and other stock on foot of decrees granted for the county cess (including the Constable Leahy compensation tax); that at Macrona they were joined by more armed policeman from Kilworth, Diaglen, and Careysville Stations; that they effected seizures in the following cases, and for the following amounts—namely, John O'Brien, Kilmurray, amount due £1 11 s. 9d., a horse seized; Edward Flynn, Kilmurray, amount due 7s. 3½d., a mare seized; Edward O'Brien, Kilmurray, amount not stated, a mare

  559
  seized; whether he can state the approximate cost of this large police force engaged in this collection of a local rate; and, if the employment of the Constabularly at such hours in duties of this kind has received his sanction?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Inspector General of Constabularly reports that in the cases of John O'Brien and Edward Flynn the seizures, as also the amounts due, are as stated in the Question; but that no seizure was made from Edward O'Brien. There were nine policemen only engaged on the duty. The approximate cost is about £2. It was absolutely necessary for the bailiffs to arrive at the place by sunrise, otherwise the stock would have been driven off the land.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that, upon the occasion of the seizure by bailiffs and police of some horses and cattle last Saturday morning at Kilmurray, county Cork, on foot of decrees for county cess, as the seized animals were being driven to the Ballyhooly "Pound," the bailiffs and police used offensive language towards Mr. Thomas Barry, P.L.G., and other farmers who were going towards the "pound," and that, when Mr. Barry was subsequently going into the "pound," he was assaulted by Sergeant Johnston, of Kilworth, and another police sergeant; and, if the facts be as stated, will he cause directions to be given to the Constabulary defining their exact duties under circumstances of this kind?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Inspector General of Constabularly reports that Sergeant Johnston denies that he or any of the police used offensive language towards Mr. Barry or anyone else; but that Mr. Barry, who is now constantly following the collector of county cess through the neighbourhood, had some chaffing remarks made to him by the bailiff's assistants. The sergeant further denies that he in any way assaulted Barry, nor did any other policeman. But he states that when the seizures arrived at the pound the owners were about paying the amount of the decrees, when Barry stepped in, apparently with the object of stopping the settlement, whereupon he warned him to keep back,
  560
  and to allow the bailiff to transact his business.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) DUNGANNON PETTY SESSIONS—"THE QUEEN v. JAMES QUINN."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of "The Queen v. James Quinn," heard at the Dungannon Petty Sessions, and reported in The Tyrone Constitution of June 1, in which, after having decided that there was a primâ facie case against Quinn, the magistrates entered "No rule" as their finding; whether it is true that the Justices were equally divided, and if two of those who voted for the finding—namely, Messrs. M. and P. Shields, were acting outside their own Petty Sessions district; and, whether the decision of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in Mr. Byrne's case is applicable to the circumstances; and, if so, will he direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the action of the two Justice referred to?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): My attention has been called to this case by the Question of the hon. Member. It is the fact that at the hearing the magistrates were equally divided. Three of the magistrates being of opinion that there was no primâ facie case, and that the defendent should be sent for trial, and three of a contrary opinion, "No rule" was entered. I am informed that the Messrs. Shields have been in the habit of attending at the Dungannon Petty Sessions; and the circumstances of the case are, therefore, not similar to that of Mr. Byrne mentioned in the Question.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND—THE CHANCERY DIVISION.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN(for Mr. MAURICE HEALY) (Cork) asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the notices issued by both Judges of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, that actions set down for bearing later than July 14, and motions of which notice is served after July 19, will not be heard until the Michaelmas Sittings in November; what the meaning of such notice is,

  561
  having regard to the fact that the Trinity Sittings do not conclude until August 8, and that neither of the Judges in question has to go Circuit; whether he is aware that the arrangements in question is highly inconvenient to litigants, and is much complained of by solicitors; what ground there is for anticipating the Long Vacation by three weeks in the Chancery Division; whether it is in the power of individual Judges to modify the dates fixed by the Judicature Rules as the commencement of sittings and vacations; and, whether he will communicate with the Judges mentioned, with a view to abrogating a Rule so inconvenient to the Legal Profession and the public?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): The notices referred to are in the form adopted for many years past by the Vice Chancellor, the present Master of the Rolls, and by his predecessor, Sir Edward Sullivan. The notices expressly provided for the hearing of causes and motions after the days mentioned by leave of the Court; and permission is readily given, when a reasonable excuse is offered, for the lateness of the application. The effect of the notices is not to anticipate the Long Vacation, or to modify the dates fixed for the commencement of sittings and vacations as suggested by the Question. They are issued solely in the interests of suitors and for the despatch of business, in order to prevent an accumulation of causes and motions just before the commencement of the Long Vacation, with the inevitable consequence of the accumulation of arrears involving great inconvenience to litigants, and in this respect they have worked most satisfactorily. While stating, as the result of my inquiries, that the practice is not productive of the inconvenience and complaints suggested by the Question, I should add that the matter is not one in which the Government have any power to interfere.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—LOUGH NEAGH FISHERY.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware
  562
  that about six years ago the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries held meetings at Stewartstown, Toomebridge, and Crumlin, for the purpose of ascertaining, in the interests of the Lough Neagh Fishery, what restrictions should be made with regard to the taking of young fish, when it was decided that no trout or pollen of a less size than eight inches in length should be caught; whether the Board of Conservators of Coleraine afterwards sought to have the law amended to carry out the recommendations of the Inspectors; whether hundreds of boxes of young pollen under this size have been caught and sent to England every year since then, and after the payment of freight there only remains a profit of a few pence per box for the poor fishermen engaged there; and, whether, considering that if the young pollen were allowed to remain for a year or two in the lough it would bring an increased annual profit of thousands of pounds to the fishermen, he will take into consideration the desirability of amending the law so as to attain this object?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The attention of the Irish Government has been frequently called to the injury caused to the pollen fishing in Lough Neagh in consequence of the practice of taking the fish while too young. This Session the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) brought in a Bill which would have checked this injurious practice and others which are forbidden by the existing law, but which cannot be successfully prevented by reason of defects in the Statute. That Bill, however, has been dropped. I cannot promise to bring in a Bill forthwith upon the subject, as I have no ground for thinking that such a Bill would be unopposed.
  MR. M'CARTAN: If such a Bill were brought in by a private Member, would the right hon. Gentleman support it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If a Bill to carry out this object, and any other object to which there is no objection, were brought in by a private Member, I should be glad to support it, and to do all that I can to further its progress; but I cannot promise to bring in one myself.

  LAND COURT (IRELAND)—SALE OF A FARM, CORK CO.
  MR. HOOPERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the case at the County Court House in the City of Cork on Saturday, June 30, when the Sub-Sheriff put up for sale a farm held by Mr. John Hawkins, Barleyfield, at the suit of the landlord, Mr. Baldwin Sealy, Whether he is aware that the tenant held two acres of ground at annual rent of £30, and owed £44, and that he had served a claim in the Land Court to have a fair rent fixed; what was the Poor Law valuation of the farm; and, whether the tenant had entered the Land Court last September, and the sale was effected by the landlord to prevent the tenant taking the benefit he was entitled to under the Act?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): So far as can be ascertained the facts of the case are as follows:—The farm consists of 27 acres, not two acres, as alleged in the Question. The yearly rent was £30, and the Poor Law valuation £25. Hawkins owed one-and-a-half year's rent to January last, amounting to £45. He had applied to the Court in September last to have a fair rent fixed. The landlord offered to take a half-year's rent as it became due, and not to press for arrears. Hawkins refused to pay any at all, and told the landlord to do his best. It was for this reason that the sale of the farm was effected.

  THE TRUCK ACT—ILLEGAL DEDUCTIONS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether complaints have been investigated by the Inspector of Factories in the East London District of breaches of the Truck Act by illegal deductions for fines, and what has been the result of the investigation; whether he is aware that certain employés have been dismissed immediately after giving information of breaches of the law; and, if this be true, whether he will give directions to the Public Prosecutor to take proceedings in order to punish such an attempt to defeat the ends of justice by terrorising witnesses?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Chief Inspector of Factories reports to me that he has inquired into alleged violations of the Truck Act by a firm in the East End, and has examined about 30 of the hands. He found that fines for carelessness in work had been deducted from the wages; but not very recently. The allegation that girls had been dismissed for giving evidence was denied by the employers; but in consequence of this allegation being repeated, the Inspector again visited the firm, and he found the whole of the females on strike. The girls whom he had previously examined were, according to the wages book, at work up to the time of the strike. I am unable, therefore, to discover any reasons for giving any directions to the Public Prosecutor in the matter.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked, whether it was the fact, as stated in the evening papers, that that morning, during a meeting held by the white slaves of that special firm, a man whilst making a statement was contradicted by the manager of the works, and then incontinently carried off to the Police Court, charged with assaulting the police—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: And whether—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I called the hon. Gentleman to Order because he was asking an irregular Question.
  MR. CONYBEAREwished to know if these girls were not dismissed on the 27th of June for giving evidence, whereas the strike only occurred that morning?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he was not aware of the fact now mentioned. He had gained his information from the Inspector's Report. That official said that this morning he had visited the place, and found the females on strike. He had examined the books, and found that the wages of the girls alleged to have been dismissed had been paid up to the time of the strike.
  MR. BRADLAUGHinquired, if the strike took place in consequence of the dismissal of one of the girls who was asked to sign a contradiction of the statement given to the Inspector?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he could not at present give any more information on the matter; but he would cause inquiries to be made.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—STATISTICS OF BANKRUPTCIES, 1887–8.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been directed to the statistics of bankruptcies, recently published by Mr. Richard Seyd, whereby it appears that during the past six months there have been 4,628 business failures in the United Kingdom against 2,913 in the corresponding period of last year, or an increase of 228 failures in wholesale and manufacturing trades, and of 1,387 among farmers, builders, retail traders, &c.; and, if the information in the possession of the Board of Trade corroborates this statement of the condition of the home trade?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The statement of statistics referred to purports to include all the failures registered under the Bankruptcy Acts and Deeds of Arrangement Acts in the United Kingdom, while the Official Statistics of the Board of Trade relate only to failures coming under the Bankruptcy Act in England and Wales. Mr. Seyd's statement of failures for the first six months of the present year includes 1,606 deeds of arrangement, outside of the Bankruptcy Act, registered under the Deeds of Arrangement Act passed last Session; while his statistics for 1887 contain no information with regard to such deeds of arrangement, such information not being then obtainable. The actual number of failures in England and Wales under the Bankruptcy Act gazetted during the first half of the present year is 2,495, while the number for the corresponding period in 1887 was 2,411.

  WAR OFFICE—THE CURRAGH CAMP.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the proposed concentration of troops for summer drills at the Curragh has been abandoned owing to failure in the water supply; whether considerable expense has recently been incurred in making a reservoir for an adequate
  566
  supply of water; in what respect it has been found incapable; who were the contractors employed; and, whether extra precautions will be taken to prevent similar waste of public money in future?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Any large concentration of troops at the Curragh has had to be abandoned because of the scarcity of water. This, however, is not in consequence of any failure on the part of the new reservoir; but since last year's drought there has not been water enough in the well to allow of any being pumped into the reservoir, and the water stands at six inches where it should stand at 15 feet. Efforts are being made to increase the water supply. My hon. and gallant Friend will, therefore, see that there has been no waste of public money.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT— PLEURO-PNEUMONIA—TUBERCULOSIS—REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
  MR. HOZIERasked the Vice Chamberlain (as the Representative of the Agricultural Department), When the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Pleuro-pneumonia and Tuberculosis will be issued?
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAM: The Report is in print, and it is hoped that it will shortly be issued.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—LAGOS AND ABEOKUTA.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information relative to an Address presented in May by the merchants of Lagos to the Governor of that Colony calling his attention to the fact that a French Agent had concluded an agreement with the Chiefs of Abeokuta, by which they ceded their rights of government to France; and, as the trade of Abeokuta, which now passes through Lagos, will be diverted to a French port, and the trade and revenue of Lagos seriously injured thereby, what steps are being taken to protect the interests of Great Britain in this district, and to prevent their being controlled by a Foreign Power?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: The Address has been received; and Her Majesty's Government are taking steps to ascertain what foundation there may be for the rumours that a French Agent has concluded a Treaty with Abeokuta. They are in communication with the French Government on the subject.

  POLICE COURTS (METROPOLIS)—ENFORCEMENT OF COSTS.

    LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)— BOW STREET POLICE COURT— DENNIS WHITE.
    MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a case before Mr. Bridge, Metropolitan Police Magistrate at Bow Street, on December 17 last, when the magistrate refused an application for an adjournment of a summons on the instance of one John Coleman against the police for alleged assault; whether the said John Coleman was then in prison, and whether the magistrate was informed that an order of the Secretary of State had been obtained for his production in Court; whether the magistrate refused to wait for such production, and ordered John Coleman in his absence to pay £10 10 s. costs; whether John Coleman is still in prison; whether he is aware that John Coleman's wife resides in the Model Buildings, Katharine Buildings, Tower Hill, and occupies there one poorly furnished room; whether the Treasury, or the police on behalf of the Treasury, have this week notified to Mrs. Coleman the intention of the Government to seize her furniture for such £10 10 s. costs; and, whether he will consider whether it is possible to remit the claim for costs in this case? Also, Whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to a case before Mr. Bridge, a Metropolitan Police Magistrate at Bow Street, on December 17 last, when the magistrate refused to adjourn a charge of assault against the police made by one Dennis White, who applied for the adjournment on the ground that his solicitor was then engaged in another case at the Old Bailey; whether Mr. Bridge ordered Dennis White to pay
    568
    £10 10 s. costs to the Solicitor of the Treasury; whether he is aware that Dennis White is a dock labourer, without furniture, lodging with his aunt at 14, Raymond Street, St. George's-in-the-East; whether he is aware that on Wednesday a summons was served on Dennis White to show cause why he should not be committed to prison for non-payment of such £10 10 s.; and, whether he will consider whether it is possible to remit the claim for costs in this case?
    MR. JAMES STUARTasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that a similar summons had been served upon Feargus O'Connor, and that in that case the policeman in respect of whom the costs were given was No. 93 A, who was said at the time not to be in existence?
    THE SECRETARY or STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's Question without Notice. In answer to the Questions of the hon. Member for Northampton, I have to say that Coleman and White both obtained summonses against the police for alleged assault. The summonses were adjourned at their instance from the 10th to the 17th of December. On the 17th they were both properly represented by a professional adviser, a solicitor, who did not apply to the Court for an adjournment, but for leave to withdraw the summons. This was refused, and the summonses were dismissed with costs. Judgment summonses for payment of these costs had been obtained, and will be heard to-morrow. It will be open to Coleman and White to show cause to-morrow that they have not the means of satisfying the judgments; and I shall await the result of these judgment summonses before coming to any decision.
    MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether they could appear to-morrow to show cause?
    MR. MATTHEWS: There is not the slightest difficulty as to Coleman's appearance, and he could have appeared on the 17th December; but his professional adviser wanted an adjournment.
    MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether, as Coleman was at present in the custody of the Crown for an assault in Trafalgar Square, he could appear to-morrow and show cause why his furniture should not be seized?
    MR. MATTHEWS: Certainly.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, which I consider very unsatisfactory, it is my intention, after the Questions have been answered, to move the adjournment of the House, in order to discuss this, which I regard as a question of urgent public importance.

    SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE TRADE—THE "GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS."
    MR. A. E. PEASEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he will place upon the Table of the House, a copy of the "General Instructions for the Suppression of the Slave Trade," given to Officers in Her Majesty's Navy; whether it was owing to the "General Instructions," that Commander Burt states, in reference to a fugitive slave in Inclosure, in No. 40, page 42, of the Slave Trade Blue Book, lately presented to Parliament—
    "No claim was made for him; had there been any, I should have considered it my duty to have given the slave up at once;"
    whether it was also in accordance with the "General Instructions," that Commander Needham (in Inclosure 1, in No. 52, page 63) reports, with reference to some fugitive slaves—
    "I was of opinion that they were slaves kept in slavery contrary to Treaties with Great Britain, and had suffered illtreatment from their masters, and were, consequently, entitled to British protection;"
    and, whether the commanders of British vessels are precluded from giving protection to fugitive slaves unless there is evidence of illtreatment by their masters?
    THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The instructions are not confidential and can be purchased, being published by Her Majesty's printers. Lieutenant Burt, in the case mentioned, acted properly and in accordance with the general tenour of the Instructions contained in Articles 99 to 103. The action of Commander Needham was also in accordance with Article 103 of the Instructions. The answer to the fourth Question is in the negative.

    PRISON LABOUR—A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. CAUSTONasked the Secretary of State for the
    570
    Home Department, Whether he will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire generally into the question of Prison Labour?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am not aware that any question has arisen with regard to prison labour generally which demands investigation. I am not, therefore, disposed to consent to the appointment of a Select Committtee, especially at this period of the Session.

    CUSTOMS HOUSE—THE STATISTICAL AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS—PAY AND PROMOTION.
    MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the cause of the delay which is taking place in the conceding of a special rate of pay to the writers employed in the Statistical Department of the Custom House, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry, and at what date the Treasury sanction may be expected; when will the decision of the Treasury be made known with regard to the writers employed in the Education Office and Stationery Office, who were recommended for promotion to the Lower Division, and why it is that 18 months having elapsed since the issue of the Treasury Minute of December, 1886, no promotions in those offices have yet taken place; whether it is a fact that the "cases of appeal" are appeals against a condition as to limit of age, which condition does not appear in the Promotion Clause of the Treasury Minute, and what is the authority for such condition being imposed; and, whether, owing to the practical suspension of open competitive examinations for the Lower Division, it is possible to comply with such condition?
    THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The cases of copyists at the out-ports of the Customs have now been settled; and the Treasury is about to issue a Minute which will deal with all the outstanding cases of copyists at the Customs, including the special rates to the copyists in the Statistical Department. There has been some difficulty in making arrangements which would be satisfactory to the Treasury in respect to the copyists at the Edcation Offices and Stationery Offices; but we hope to be able to settle

    571
    them very shortly. The cases are not generally cases of appeal against a condition as to limit of age. We are prepared to give consideration to any case in which opportunity for competition cannot be afforded. In any case in which a copyist has been recommended for promotion, and whose case has not been considered on account of his being within the limit of age at which he can compete for examination, I should think it right to afford him facilities.

    PRISONS—CASE OF MICHAEL GOLDMAN—PORTSMOUTH PRISON.
    MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the case that Michael Goldman, who is undergoing a term of 10 years' imprisonment in Portsmouth Prison, and was pronounced a permanent invalid by the medical gentleman of Chatham Prison three years ago, and can do no work, is unable to obtain sufficient marks for the yearly reduction of three months; whether, under these circumstances, any mitigation of the term of sentence could be procured; whether it is the case that many Petitions have been sent by his relations to the present and preceding Home Secretaries, to which the reply has been that the Home Secretary was well aware of Michael Goldman's health and condition; and, if, considering the fact that the prisoner has become a burden on the rates, and that his friends are well-to-do people and can support him, he can see fit to order a remission of his sentence?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Goldman is suffering from chronic complaints; but his health has not been injuriously affected by his imprisoment. It is true that he is at present unable to do work, and is, therefore, unable to obtain the same marks as a prisoner who is at work. The Rule which allots to a prisoner in hospital fewer marks than to a prisoner at work is a very important and necessary Rule in prison discipline; and I cannot undertake to dispense with it altogether. The utmost I can do is to say, that when the minimum period of imprisonment due to Goldman's sentence has expired—which will be some six months hence—I will consider whether any relaxation of the Rule is possible in his case. The fact that his friends are
    572
    well-to-do people is not an element of importance in such a case.

    LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE NATIONAL GALLERY—PURCHASE OF THE BLENHEIM PICTURES.
    MR. BARTLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to a letter in The Times, signed "W.," in which it is stated, with reference to the intimation conveyed to the Trustees of the National Gallery, about the Blenheim Pictures, that—
    "That 'intimation' was no act of the Government at all … or of anybody except a Treasury official, who made it proprio motu, without instructions, and without authority,"
    and that—
    "Instead of severely rebuking the presumptuous official, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it necessary to support him;"
    and, whether these statements are true?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I am afraid that the assertion to which the hon. Member has called my attention is not more accurate than statements which profess to be disclosures of official confidence are apt to be. So far from the decision being that of a "presumptuous Treasury official acting proprio motu, without instructions, and without authority," it was distinctly the act of the Government of the day; and, this being the case, there was no presumption, and, consequently, no rebuke.

    LAND ACT, 1887—NON-PAYMENT OF INSTALMENTS.
    MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the glebe tenants who purchased their holdings, and who are anxious to take advantage of the Land Act of 1887, with the view of having their arrears capitalized, have been informed by the Land Commission that they will be deprived of the benefit of the Act in default of payment before the 1st instant of the half-year's instalment required to be paid; whether application has been made on behalf of a number of tenants in the County of Down requesting extension of time to raise the amount of this instalment by sale of their crops;

    573
    whether the Commissioners have refused to extend the time, and have intimated that, in the event of non-payment, proceedings will be taken for the recovery of all the arrears due; and, whether, considering the high prices paid by these tenants for their holdings, and their inability to meet the required instalment at present, he will advise the Land Commission to grant such an extension of time as will enable them to dispose of their crops for the purpose of paying this instalment?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that it is the case that, as regards the class of glebe tenants referred to, the Treasury, pursuant to Sub-section 5 of Section 25 of the Act of 1887, ordered that a certain portion of the arrears due on the 1st of January, 1888, should be paid on or before the 1st of June, 1888, with a discretionary power to the Land Commission to extend the time to the 1st of July. Full notice of this order was sent to all mortgagors concerned. In the County Down there are 11 cases in which the conditions were not complied with, though the required payment on account was comparatively small, ranging from £2 10 s. to £9, with the exception of one case of £25. The Commissioners state that legal proceedings have neither yet been taken nor threatened. They, however, point out that they have no power under the Statute to adopt the course suggested in the concluding portion of the Question.

    ADMINISTRATION OF THE SERVICES— COMPOSITION OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can state the names of the naval and military officers the Government propose to add to the Royal Commission to inquire into the system of administration of the Services?
    THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Government have very carefully considered the suggestion contained in the Question which my noble and gallant Friend addressed to me about a fortnight ago. After giving a full consideration to the matter we have come to the conclusion that it will not be expedient to add
    574
    another soldier and sailor to the Royal Commission now sitting.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: In consequence of the very unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. Gentleman I will, with the permission of the House, ask him this further Question—Whether he is aware that the disturbed state of the public mind, in consequence of recent disclosures, has only been somewhat allayed by the announcement that the Government meant to appoint Commissions to inquire into the system of administration of the Services, and also into the necessities for National defence, and therefore ask that the Government will re-consider their refusal to comply with the general wish of both Services, that the Commission presided over by the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) should be strengthened as suggested?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I may, perhaps, be allowed at once to reply to the Question of my noble and gallant Friend, and to say that the Government have given full consideration to all the questions to which he has referred. They are acting in a full and complete sense of their responsibility; and they believe that they have taken, and are taking, all the steps necessary under the circumstances.

    POLICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)— DEVON COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS—CASE OF SERGEANT ALLIN.
    MR. C. T. DYKE ACLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, having regard to the refusal of the Devon Court of Quarter Sessions to order an inquiry into the circumstances attending the death of Sergeant Allin and the conduct of the Chief Constable in connection with the case, the right hon. Gentleman will cause a full inquiry to be made in order that the public mind may be set at rest, or that any failure of justice in the case may be rectified; and if it is not in his power to order such an inquiry, whether there are any other steps which can be taken to secure this end?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Question of the hon. Member contains the first information I have received as to the refusal of the Court of Quarter

    575
    Sessions to order an inquiry into this matter. Until I have communicated with the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and am in possession of all the facts, I am unable to say whether any interference on my part would be proper or necessary.

STATEMENTS.

  O'DONNELL v. WALTER.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, Mr. Speaker, I desire, with your permission and that of the House, to make a very brief statement of a personal character with regard to certain charges which have been made against me in the recent trial of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another," which charges I consider seriously affect my character as a Member of Parliament—charges which I consider I ought to lose no time in contradicting from my place in the House. They are contained in a series of letters, some alleged to have been written by other persons, some of them alleged to have been written by me; and I will say with regard to any charges which have been made against me in reference to the questions involved in that trial, and also in regard to any charges which might have been made against me, that I attended in Court during a portion of two days in the expectation that I would have been called as a witness in the case, and that I would have had an opportunity of answering on oath the charges which had been made or which were to be made. However, Sir, the unexpected turn which the case took deprived me of that opportunity; and therefore I now take this, the first opportunity of making a statement in reference to the matter to the House. I will first deal with the letters in the order in which they were given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), the counsel for the defendants in this case. The first of them was a letter purporting to have been written and signed by Mr. Patrick Egan, under date February 24, 1881. It is to the following effect:—
  "My dear Friend,—Write under cover to Madame Rouyer, 99, Avenue de Villiers. Mr. Parnell is here and will remain for about a week. I have spoken to him about a further advance for the "A" fund, he has no objection, and you may count upon it. All goes well. We have met Mr. O'L. and other friends who
  576
  are here, and all are agreed that prompt and decisive action is called for.
  Yours very faithfully P. EGAN."
  The hon. and learned Attorney General went on to state that Mr. O'Leary was a person who had been convicted of treason felony. Well, Sir, in regard to that letter, I have not seen it, but I am perfectly convinced that it is an undoubted forgery, and that if the case had gone on, and if that letter had been produced by the defendants in the case, it would have been easily proved to the satisfaction of the jury that that letter is a forgery. With regard to Mr. O'Leary, I wish to say that I know him personally, and from my long knowledge of him I am convinced—both from my knowledge of his public and private character—that he would never have countenanced or taken part in any scheme of assassination whatever. Further, although I have no knowledge of the line of defence that Mr. O'Donnell would have adopted, I believe that Mr. O'Leary, if he had been asked to do so —he is now living in Ireland, and has been for several years—would have come into the box and would have sworn that there was no foundation for the imputation against him contained in that letter. The next letter is one from myself. It bears no date except that of Tuesday, and it is a short letter in the following terms:—
  "Dear Sir,—Tell B. to write to me direct. Have not yet received the papers.
  Yours very truly,
  CHAS. S. PARNELL."
  I can only say, Sir, that I have not seen this letter. It may be genuine, but certainly I have no recollection of any business of that kind which could have called upon me to write such a letter. The letter, of course, is of an innocent character; all I have got to say about it is that it may have been written by me, but I am inclined to believe that it was not written by me. The next letter is one from Mr. Patrick Egan, or alleged to be from Mr. Patrick Egan, under date October 25th, 1881. It is as follows:—
  "Dear Sir,—I have by this post sent in £200; he will give you what you want. When will you undertake to get to work, and give us value for our money?
  I am, dear Sir, faithfully yours,
  PATRICK EGAN.
  James Carey, Esq."
  Now, Sir, this letter was alleged by the counsel for the defendants to have been found in James Carey's house in Dublin; but, at the same time, if it was found in James Carey's house in Dublin it was found by the police. The police thoroughly searched James Carey's house from top to bottom, and did find there some admittedly genuine letters of Mr. Egan which have not been produced in the case. But if this letter was found by the police the excuse, and this is the only controversial matter I will go into in reference to this case, because it concerns an absent man—namely, Mr. Egan, against whom no charge has ever been advanced in a Court of Justice in reference to this matter—the excuse that was given for not producing any documents and the persons from whom the defendants got any documents could not hold, for there could be no objection to produce the police to say they found the letter if it was found at all. Sir, Mr. Egan has cabled from America denying in the strongest terms that he ever wrote any such letter to Carey. The next letter is one alleged to be in the writing of Mr. Henry Campbell, who was my private secretary for some years, and to be signed by myself. It is dated as follows:—
  "9, 1, 1882. Dear E,—what are these fellows waiting for?"
  at that time I was in Kilmainham prison—
  "This inaction is inexcusable. Our best men are in prison, and nothing is being done. Let there be an end of this hesitancy. Prompt action is called for. You undertook to make it hot for old Forster and Co. Let us have some evidence of your power to do so. My health is good, thanks.
  Yours very truly,
  CHAS. S. PARNELL."
  Now, Sir, this letter I denounce as an absolute forgery. I never wrote it; I never signed it; I never directed it to be written; I never authorized it to be written, and I never saw it. As I have said, I have never seen this letter, and I am not able to say whether it is in Mr. Campbell's handwriting or not, but if the body of it is in the same handwriting as the alleged fac simile of another alleged letter of mine published by The Times last year, I most unhesitatingly say it is not in Mr. Campbell's handwriting. The next letter is one alleged to have
  578
  been signed by myself. It is under date May 15, 1882, and reads as follows:—
  "Dear Sir,—I am not surprised at your friend's anger, but he and you should know that to denounce the murderers was the only course open to us. To do that promptly was plainly our best policy. But you can tell him and all others concerned, that, though I regret the accident of Lord F. Cavendish's death, I cannot refuse to admit that Burke got no more than his deserts. You are at liberty to show him this, and others you can trust also, but let not my address be known. He can write to the House of Commons.
  Yours very truly,
  CHAS. S. PARNELL."
  This letter was published by The Times in fac simile a year ago. At the time I denied in the strongest terms that it was signed by me, or authorized by me, or that I knew anything whatever about it. I repeat that denial here to-day, and I say that the statement made in Court that the body of the letter was in Mr. Henry Campbell's handwriting was untrue. It has not the least resemblance to Mr. Henry Campbell's handwriting. With regard to this particular letter, I may mention the fact—I think I ought to mention the fact, which I have never mentioned before, because at the time I was dealing with this subject in the House formerly I was not aware of this fact, and it is that the signature which is attached to this letter is a copy of a signature of mine which I have not used since the end of 1879. The letter bearing date 15th May, 1882, has attached to it a copy of a signature of mine which I have not used since the end of 1879. At the time I was speaking on this subject in the House before, I had forgotten that I had ever used such a signature—indeed, the three years' interval between the years 1879 and 1882 had caused me to forget that I ever had used such a signature as that attached to this letter, and it was only upon looking over correspondence with my agent, consisting of about 100 letters which I had written during the last 10 years, that I found I had changed my signature at the end of 1879. Then I remembered definitely for the first time that I had so changed it. I changed it at the end of 1879 when I first went to America, and I have not been able to find a single letter written by me since then, or a single signature attached by me to any document public or private, which is the same as that I used up to

  579
  that date at the end of that year. This is a very remarkable fact, and the House will give it that significance to which it is entitled. That fact, I may say, does not apply to another of the letters, the one dated from Kilmainham. The letter dated from Kilmainham undoubtedly does boar an imitation, and a fairly good imitation, of the signature I was in the habit of using at that time. Then comes another letter, under date June 16, 1882—
  "Dear Sir,—I am sure you will feel that I could not appear in Parliament in the face of this thing unless I condemned it. Our position there is always difficult to maintain; it would be untenable, but for the course we took. That is the truth. I can say no more.
  Yours very truly,
  CHAS. S. PARNELL."
  I denounce that letter as an absolute forgery. I never wrote it; I never heard of it until the hon. and learned Attorney General read it out in his statement, and I certainly never signed it, or caused it to be written. The same thing applies to the letter of the same date subsequently read by the learned Attorney General—
  "June 16, 1882.
  Dear Sir,—I shall always be anxious to have the good-will of your friends, but why do they impugn my motives? I could not consent to the conditions they would impose, but I accept the responsibility for what we have done.
  Yours very truly,
  CHAS. S. PARNELL."
  Now, Sir, I come to the letter which is alleged to have been written by Mr. Frank Byrne under date February 8th, 1882, from Cannes, France, to the executive of the National League and the Land League of Great Britain. I have not seen this letter, and I have no means of saying whether it is genuine or not; but it appears to me, from its context and the nature of it, to be a genuine letter. I am not prepared to admit that it is genuine until I have seen it, and have some opportunity of testing its authenticity; but it appears to me, from the words and the context, to be a genuine letter. He says—
  "Mr. McSweeney will also have informed you that I received the promised cheque, £100, from Mr. Parnell on the day I left London."
  Now, I did not know Mr. Frank Byrne was going to leave London when he did. I certainly never gave Mr. Frank Byrne a cheque for £100, or any money what-
  580
  ever, during the whole course of my life, save once many years ago; it must be 10 or 12 years ago—at the time Mr. Isaac Butt was alive. A testimonial was got up for Mr. Frank Byrne, then an officer of the Home Rule Confederation of Great Britain, because he had fallen dangerously ill, and it was thought likely that he was going to lose the sight of his eyes. I subscribed some small sum on that occasion. That is the only sum I ever paid to Mr. Frank Byrne. My memory is perfectly clear and distinct on that, and as to this cheque for £100, I certainly never paid him that or any sum of money at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) will tell you that it was he who paid Mr. Frank Byrne the £100 cheque on the day he left, innocently, and in the ordinary course of his duty as president of the National League of Great Britain. I had very little to do with Mr. Frank Byrne at any time. I was not a member of the National League of Great Britain, of which Mr. Frank Byrne was the secretary. I saw Mr. Frank Byrne very seldom indeed, and I had no means of knowing his goings out or his comings in. But if I had been in a different position it would not necessarily have attached any suspicion whatever to me. I merely state the facts as they are. I think that that finishes all the references I have to make to these letters. The great majority of them are palpable forgeries—most undoubted forgeries; they bear the look of forgery on their very face. The context of most of these letters is perfectly absurd. In order to attach any credence to them you must suppose that I deliberately put myself in the power of a great number of people who were privy to the Phœnix Park murders, that I entered into correspondence with them, attaching my own signature to letters, that I put myself in the power of men who had halters round their necks, and were accessories, and that I put myself in the position of being accessory before or after the fact. The letter alleged to be written from Kilmainham prison is plainly an incitement by me to Mr. Egan to compass the assassination of Mr. Forster. The House must suppose that I, a prisoner in Kilmainham with a desire to assassinate Mr. Forster, was fool enough to communicate this

  581
  desire to Mr. Egan in writing, with all the risks and the absolute certainty that the Governor and the Government would become possessed of the letter long before it could reach Mr. Egan, who was hundreds of miles away. I do not wish to enlarge upon these matters; I could go over every one of these letters, and show the inherent absurdities and improbabilities connected with all of them. I do not wish to trespass on your kind indulgence, Sir, and that of the House, and I will only say that the absurdity of the whole series of letters, with one or two trifling exceptions which I have pointed out, must be palpable on the face of them to every fair-minded man.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I ask the leave of the House for a few moments in order that I may make a short and straightforward statement about this mysterious cheque for £100 given or sent to Mr. Frank Byrne on the day he left London and proceeded to Cannes, as I understood, to have a holiday on account of ill-health. I gave him the cheque, in a simple, business-like way, as I will explain to the House in a few words. Our association—of which my hon. Friend was not then, and never has been, a member—was supported by contributions from all parts of the country, by profits from lectures delivered here, there, and everywhere, by subscriptions through branches, and by the sale of cards of membership. Sums of money came to Mr. Byrne, as secretary of the confederation, in all sorts of forms, sometimes in large cheques, sometimes in small cheques, sometimes in postal orders in varying amounts going down as low as 1s. There was no banking account in connection with the association, and, therefore, to make matters easy, I received all the small amounts from Mr. Byrne at different times; we went over them, and I gave him a cheque on my own bankers. When he was leaving for Cannes he came to me where I was living, in one of the flats in Victoria Street, saying that he had to pay some bills, and that he had got some cheques and postal orders which he wanted me to change. I could not see him myself, but my son saw him, and brought to me the cheques and orders, with a note of the amount, and I gave him a cheque for £100 in my own name, and passed all these cheques and orders through my
  582
  own bankers. This is the simple business-like transaction out of which the whole of this story has grown up. I must say that I cannot even yet attach any blame to myself for having no suspicion of any sinister purpose on the part of Mr. Byrne. He had been an officer of the association for many years under Mr. Isaac Butt, Mr. Mitchell Henry, and Mr. Shaw, and he never in my presence—and I saw him constantly upon business—said one word which would make any one suppose for a moment that he was other than a practical, hard-headed and hard-working officer of the association, whose whole purpose and bent of mind was directed to the work of the association, to registration, and to fighting elections throughout the country. I do not think that out of this common business-like transaction any suspicion could arise, and I never heard any charge against Mr. Frank Byrne until after he went to Cannes. My impression of things now has nothing to do with the statement I make. I tell the House truly I have stated how this whole affair occurred. There was no reason for my not giving this cheque to Byrne under these conditions, and I leave this marvellous and portentous story, out of which so much has been made, to the judgment of the House and the country.

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

    POLICE COURTS (METROPOLIS)—ENFORCEMENT OF COSTS.
    MR. BRADLAUGH, Member for the Borough of Northampton, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—viz., the harsh enforcement by the Treasury of certain Orders made on the 17th of December last by Mr. Bridge, Metropolitan Police Magistrate.
    But the pleasure of the House not having been signified,
    MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen—
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he was sorry to intrude upon the time of the

    583
    House by moving a Motion for Adjournment, and he should not have done so on this occasion but for the extraordinary Answer which had been given by the Home Secretary to a question which he had put to the right hon. Gentleman early in the sitting. In the cases to which he desired to call attention, summonses had been issued which were returnable at Bow Street Police Court tomorrow. All of them cited an order made on the 17th December, 1887, for the payment of £10 10 s. costs, and they called upon the persons summoned to satisfy the Court that they had not had the means of paying that sum since the order was made, One of the summonses was against a man named John Coleman, who, at the time the order was made, and ever since, had been in prison. How, then, could it possibly be alleged that this man could have had the means of paying the 10 guineas ordered against him for costs? He could have had no prospect whatever of doing so until, at least, his term of imprisonment had expired, and it might have been expected that under such circumstances no proceedings would be taken against him. His wife was living in one room in a model lodging house. She had only a few trifling sticks, some bedding, and a few other articles of furniture. She had come to him in great distress, fearing that they would be seized. In another case, the defendant, Dennis White, when in full employment was what was called a casual porter at the London Docks. He possessed no furniture, but lived with an aunt, who was herself miserably poor. These were the people whom, after more than six months since the order was made, the Treasury were summoning to pay this, to them, enormous sum of 10 guineas for costs, or to show cause why they should not be committed to gaol. He would not refer to another case— that of a man named Feargus O'Connor— but would leave that to be dealt with by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart), knowing that the case would be in much better hands than his own. He might explain now bow these cases arose. Some charges were made of assault against the police—assaults committed by the police upon prisoners because the persons assaulted were in custody. Summonses were issued on sworn information. The Home Secretary, when these cases were raised in
    584
    debate, had accused him of having been misinstructed, and had blamed him for having sprung the matter upon him. But the right hon. Gentleman had since admitted that all the facts were in the possession of the Treasury for many weeks before they were stated in the House, and seven or eight questions had to be put before he could even get that admission. It was necessary that he should mention this fact, in order to show that this charge had been unfairly made against him. The summonses having been granted, what was the position of things? The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the defendants were represented in Court by a legal adviser. As a matter of fact, they were represented by a lad from a solicitor's office, who stated that his principal was engaged elsewhere, and who asked for an adjournment. He would not then attempt to justify, or, indeed, to deal with the Trafalgar Square matter, but there was one point which he must mention in answer to the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to Coleman, he was in custody at the time that the assault was alleged to have taken place, on another charge. The charge was one of assault, which was followed by a Petition to the Home Secretary, who, in consequence of the Memorial he received, granted an order requiring that Coleman's body should be produced at Bow Street on the hearing of the summons. Coleman's body, however, was not produced, and he was not present when the summons was called on. One ground for asking for an adjournment of the summons was that the Treasury who had Coleman in custody, did not produce him. The right hon. Gentleman did not concur in that statement, but he (Mr. Bradlaugh) restricted himself solely to facts which, after careful investigation, he had ascertained for himself. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the statements he had made on the previous occasion had been altogether contradicted subsequently by the sworn information which was in the hands of the Treasury. What did the magistrate, Mr. Bridge, do? According to the right hon. Gentleman's statement the summonses had already been adjourned once. That was quite true, but in the end Mr. Bridge dismissed the three summonses with 30 guineas costs, and he (Mr. Bradlaugh) took leave to say no such course had ever been heard of before in the whole history

    585
    of the police. The counsel was on behalf of the Treasury, the witnesses were police constables, and yet 30 guineas costs were ordered to be paid by persons in the position of dock labourers, one of whom lodged with an aunt, and another of whom was in a goal, and whose furniture was not valued at more than £2 or £3. He maintained that it was a monstrous proceeding on the part of the Treasury, and that the Government had acted in a manner that was calculated to provoke an angry feeling by the harsh treatment that they had meted out to these men. If they had desired to provoke resentment on the part of the public they could not have taken a course more calculated to do so. He had himself fought the Treasury for six months, and the taxed costs only amounted to £13, which he had had the pleasure of paying. On a subsequent occasion he fought the Treasury for a year and a-half, and in that case the taxed costs only came to £38. Yet in the case of these poor men they were ordered to pay 30 guineas costs, and the Home Secretary stood up in that House to defend it. Certainly, John Coleman had no opportunity of running away, for he was already in prison, and it was altogether impossible, in the circumstances in which he was placed, that he could have an opportunity of earning the 10 guineas he was called upon to pay to the Treasury as costs. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have wasted the time of the House by compelling him to bring this matter forward on a Motion of Adjournment. He did not know why the police, who had only a mechanical duty to perform, should have allowed six months to elapse before they preferred it. He should have expected from any just or generous Home Secretary, that knowing that these persons had been in prison, be would at once admit that 30 guineas costs were excessive, and that all proceedings should be stopped when they came out of gaol. No such costs were ever endeavoured to be extracted even by a pettifogging attorney. On these grounds he appealed to the House to stand between these unfortunate wretches and the Treasury.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he was anxious to state some facts in connection with this case, which had come to his own knowledge, and should do so without comment, simply confining himself to a statement of facts. Yesterday, when sitting in the House he received a card bearing the name "Feargus O'Connor" with an address. He went out into the Lobby to see the person who brought the card, and there he met a gentleman who showed him a summons similar in form to that which had been produced by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). It referred to a case in which Mr. O'Connor was plaintiff, and Constable 98 A was defendant. Mr. O'Connor told him that he had received the summons that morning to appear on Saturday to answer why he should not be committed to prison for the nonpayment of £10 10 s. or £10 12 s. On asking him what his objection was— what point he had to urge against the summons being served upon him, Mr. O'Connor told him that on Sunday, the 20th of November, he was in Northumberland Avenue, and was knocked down by a policeman while he was walking with two friends. He was rendered insensible, but his two friends took the number of the policeman and were prepared to swear that the number on his collar was 98 A. The result was that Mr. O'Connor served a summons at Scotland Yard upon Constable 98 A, and attended on a certain day to prosecute his case before Mr. Bridge. When Mr. O'Connor appeared at the Court, accompanied by his two friends, he was prepared to swear to the truth of his charges; but he was met by the statement, which be understood was made on oath, that there no such constable as No. 98 A—that was an importtant point in the history of the case—but that there was a Sergeant or Inspector of Police who had that number, but who was at the time engaged on duty in Geneva or some other foreign place. Under these circumstances, Mr. O'Connor, still believing in the truth of what his friends had told him—for having been insensible he knew nothing himself—asked for an adjournment of the case. That was an exceedingly natural thing to do under the circumstances, because Mr. O'Connor alleged that the Authorities in Scotland Yard refused to

    587
    give him the name of the Sergeant or Inspector who had the No. 98 A on his collar. They refused even to give the name of the constable who was alleged to be in Geneva. When Mr. O'Connor appeared before Mr. Bridge on the 17th of December, he again found that there was no defendant there. No police-constable 98A came forward, nor could he get from Scotland Yard any further assistance. The same statement was adhered to which was made in the first instance. In these circumstances, Mr. O'Connor proposed to withdraw the summons; but Mr. Bridge said he would not permit this to be done, but would decide the case against him with costs. He understood that, after that, Mr. O'Connor took the case to the Court of Queen's Bench where the decision was confirmed. Nothing further occurred at the time, and Mr. O'Connor received no notification of any kind from that day until yesterday, when he received a document similar to that which had been quoted by the hon. Member for Northampton. He would abstain from making any further comment on the case than to repeat the observation which he made to the gentleman himself, that, whatever might have been the object of that method of serving the summons, the effect of it seemed to be that the Police Authorities were determined to teach a very heavy lesson to any person who should have the effrontery to prosecute them. In conclusion, he believed that every hon. Member who had listened to the statements which had been made by his hon. Friend and himself would be convinced that the poor were not always fairly or rightly treated by the Authorities of Scotland Yard.
    MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMsaid, that, after the very able statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Northampton, he would not have taken part in the debate except for the purpose of making an appeal to the Home Secretary. Before the right hon. Gentleman entered into a defence of the conduct of the Treasury he asked whether he thought it would add to the already waning popularity of Her Majesty's Government by enforcing these costs against this poor devil of a labouring man? [Cries of "Order!"] He should be delighted to retract anything upon the authority of Mr. Speaker, but not
    588
    upon the irresponsible authority of hon. Members who chose to cry "Order!" He wished to know from the Home Secretary whether he thought the ends of justice were being served by piling up costs upon these two men? Personally, it gave him the greatest possible satisfaction that the case had come up, because it would tend to strengthen that ever-growing hatred between the rich and the poor, without which no true reform was possible. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen who laughed might, perhaps, see the truth of these words some day. He hoped that this case would serve to show the poor that our boasted British justice, like our Christianity and our morality, was a gigantic fraud when applied to them.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, he did not think the action taken by the hon. Member for Northampton was convenient. It was only that morning that the Question of the hon. Member, applying for the remission of certain costs in this case, had appeared on the Paper. He had not had time in the course of the day to inquire into the manner in which the costs were made up. But he agreed with the hon. Member that the sum seemed to be somewhat excessive for the costs incurred in a police case. He had had no possibility, however, of inquiring how these costs were made up. The second ground urged by the hon. Member for the remission of the costs, was the poverty of the defendents. He thought, however, that this point had been sufficiently met when he pointed out that the matter was still sub judice, and that the judgment summons would be heard to-morrow. It would then be a perfectly good statutory answer to say that the defendents had not the means of paying the costs. His own conduct in the matter had been nil. He was waiting for the decision of the magistrate on one point in the case before he acted in the matter, but, looking at the surroundings of the case, he should like to point out that these two men had brought charges of assault against the police at a time of great public excitement, the memory of which he did not wish to revive more than he could help. The House would recollect that a very angry feeling prevailed towards the end of last November. Coleman and White,

    589
    it was said, were men of extreme poverty. But with these summonses before the magistrate at Bow Street they had professional advice, and were represented there by a solicitor upon both occasions— first, on the 10th of December, when an adjournment was applied for, and next, on the 17th of December, when the adjourned summons came on again before Mr. Bridge. The hon. Member for Northampton said, with great indignation, that Coleman's body was not produced on the 17th. No, it was not. And why was it not? The Home Office had granted an order, at the request of Coleman's solicitor, that he should be allowed out of prison on the 17th; but on the 16th the solicitor wrote to the Home Office asking that the order for Coleman's appearance should be suspended "until such day as may be appointed." On the 19th the solicitor wrote again saying that the summons had been dismissed. Therefore, Coleman's presence was not required. Consequently, the non-attendance of Coleman on the 17th was not due to his incarceration, or to any action on the part of the Authorities, but was due solely to the action of his own solicitor—not a little boy, as had been represented, but the solicitor himself, who sent the letter requesting that the order should be suspended. The solicitor applied to the Court that the summons might be withdrawn, he himself having contrived that Coleman should not appear—
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman made the matter worse, because the Treasury were trying to enforce costs to the amount of 10 guineas for the non-appearance of a defendant on a day when they knew he would not appear.
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that the costs were not for the non-appearance of this man, but, as he was pointing out, the solicitor himself applied that the summonses should be withdrawn, having himself contrived that Coleman should not appear. The Treasury were represented, and great expense had been incurred in getting up evidence in order to meet the charges brought against the police. All the witnesses were in attendance, and Mr. Poland, who represented the Treasury, stated, according to the newspaper reports, that the treat-
    590
    ment to which the police had been subjected was unfair. The charges had been trumpeted abroad through the Press and in other ways in order to prejudice the public mind against the police, and then the application was made not to adjourn the case, but to withdraw the charges altogether. Mr. Poland protested against the withdrawal of the charges, and asked that the cases should be dismissed. The magistrate took that view. It was not for him to say whether the magistrate acted rightly or wrongly. He presumed that the Judges of the land and the London Police Magistrates acted properly. In this case, Mr. Bridge thought it would not be fair to the police to withdraw the charges, and, therefore, he dismissed the summonses with costs. The solicitor himself said that there was no intention on the part of his client to appear on the 17th, and when an application was made for a further adjournment, it was refused, the summons being dismissed with costs. He had not looked into the bill of costs; he had had no time nor opportunity to do so. As he had already said, the Question only appeared on the Paper that morning. He did not complain of the course which had been taken by the hon. Member for Northampton; all he said was, that he had been unable to look into the merits of the case, and could not say whether the costs were unreasonable or not. The hon. Member said, and said with justice, that the Treasury were not usually exorbitant with regard to costs. For himself, he could not say whether the costs in this case were exorbitant or not. However that might be, no evil consequences could befall either Coleman or White if they were really unable to pay the costs. If they could show that they were penniless they would get off; and there was no ground for supposing that the costs which had been incurred by the Police Authorities in resisting the charges made against the police—charges which appeared to be altogether groundless—would be pressed against the defendants. The complainants' solicitor might have acted with perfect discretion in asking leave to withdraw charges in which he could not persevere, and in wishing to get out of the proceedings in the easiest way for his clients, so as to avoid costs. In the end the solicitor sought to abandon the charges altogether—
    MR. BRADLAUGH: No.
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that that was so, and the solicitor intimated that Coleman would not be brought up before the magistrate on December 17th, which was the day to which the case had been adjourned—
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that the application of the solicitor was that the summons should be suspended until another day to which the case might be adjourned. The application was for that adjournment, and not for the abandonment of the case.
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that that was not strictly accurate. The application was not to adjourn the case, but to withdraw the summons. He had no desire to prejudge the case, nor was he expressing any opinion about it. He was only stating the facts as they had been made known to him. In the first instance, the summons was adjourned because it was alleged that the presence of Coleman was indispensable. It was adjourned to a particular day, and the day before the case was to be heard Coleman's solicitor wrote to the Home Office, stating that the man was not wanted on that day, and he did not ask for a further adjournment, but for the withdrawal of the summons. It was not for him to state what defence the Treasury had. The Treasury said that these charges had been made a sort of public scandal against the police, and that if the prosecution were backing out by asking to withdraw the charges, it was only fair to the police that the summonses should be dismissed with the usual consequences. That was all he knew about what occurred before the magistrate. He was not yet aware why the demand for the payment of costs had been delayed so long. On that he was not in a position to make any statement to the House. He had not been able to communicate with the Treasury upon the subject. All he knew was that the summons was now sub judice, and that it would be heard to-morrow. It would be probably necessary that an inquiry should be made into the means of Coleman, and if the facts were as the hon. Member for Northampton had represented—namely, that the man was in such a state of poverty that he was unable to pay the costs, of course the magistrate would not make the order. The hon. Member had suggested that it would be impossible for Coleman
    592
    to appear to-morrow; but it would be perfectly possible, the invariable practice being to grant permission in such cases. The hon. Member had used somewhat warm language in reference to him; but he would submit that it was impossible for him, in his position as Home Secretary, to interfere in a matter of costs, and upon a Question put in that House suddenly without his having an opportunity of referring to the bill of costs, of seeing how it had arisen, and also of inquiring why the costs had not been paid. When the proper tribunal—namely, the magistrate—had ascertained whether the man was able to pay the costs or not, then would be the time to see whether there was anything improper in the claim for costs, or anything in the conduct of the Treasury that required explanation.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he wished to say a word by way of explanation. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the case of Coleman, in the first instance, had been sprung upon him. That was scarcely correct. The Treasury had all the depositions in their hands for weeks before he made his statement to the House, and the Home Office could have obtained all the information they desired from the Treasury.
    MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, he regretted that the Home Secretary had not entered into the spirit of the case adequately. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the case was mixed up with an important matter which occurred last winter. He had no desire to enter into that matter now, because he believed that the hon. Member for Northampton intended to raise it upon the Vote for the Police. He wished, however, to draw the attention of the House to one point upon which the right hon. Gentleman had not touched at all. His hon. Friend the Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart) had drawn attention to the case of Mr. O'Connor; but the Home Secretary had not dealt with that case at all. In the case of Mr. O'Connor, the summons was not withdrawn willingly, but Mr. O'Connor wished to test the question of the legality of the action of the police in a Court of Law. The Police Authorities, however, in this, as in some other cases, had no desire to test the case legally, but had done all in their power to prevent such an investigation, and had prevented

    593
    the person who complained from obtaining the necessary information. Now, what were the facts of Mr. O'Connor's case? Mr. O'Connor's friends thought they knew who the policeman was who had committed the assault. The police, however, declined to aid Mr. O'Connor when he desired to test the question whether he had been assaulted by the police or not. If there existed a feeling of want of confidence in the police among the people of London, it was due to the fact that those who asked for an opportunity of testing the question whether the police had gone beyond their duty or not were denied the proper facilities for that purpose. There was a growing feeling in London in regard to the conduct of the Home Office and those who controlled the police. He could, however, assure the Government that they had not yet heard the last of the matter even in the present Session of Parliament. He regretted that the Government should endeavour to exasperate the people. The conduct of the police had created a scandal in London which would yet have to be thrashed out on the floor of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman had the confidence he professed to have in the conduct of the police, he ought to have given the opportunity which had been asked for in this case. What was the plum of comfort the Home Secretary had for all these poor men who were to come up to-morrow? It would appear that if a defendant happened to be supplied with legal advice, whether he was either plaintiff or defendant, that fact alone was to be held sufficient to show that he was able to pay excessive costs. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that these men had legal advisers when they appeared in the Police Court, and he drew the conclusion that they therefore had money which would enable them to pay the costs of the Treasury. It did not follow, however, that if these men had a legal adviser that they had employed him themselves? It could not be for a moment supposed that ordinary dock labourers paid for legal advice. As a matter of fact, it was their friends who employed the legal adviser, in order to see that, if possible, justice should be done. He regretted that the Home Secretary had not attempted to alleviate the feeling growing up in London with regard to the Home Office and those who controlled the police; but
    594
    he hoped that some expression would yet come from the Treasury Bench to indicate that the policy of exasperation which had been carried on during the whole of the present year should be terminated. The men who had been in prison were not criminals in the ordinary sense, and the Treasury Bench might extend some ray of hope to them.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had excused himself by saying that this question had come up suddenly, and that these summonses would be adjourned, at all events, for a week; and he regretted still more not to hear a single word of comment from the right hon. Gentleman upon the shocking and scandalous injustice which had been perpetrated on Mr. Feargus O'Connor. The right hon. Gentleman was ready to allow the case to go by default.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I did not say a word on the matter because it was not relevant.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he rose to point out that the Notice of Motion for the adjournment referred to certain orders made on the 17th December 1887, by Mr. Bridge, Metropolitan Police Magistrate. Mr. Feargus O'Connor's case was involved in these orders, and he expressly said that he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had better hear the whole of the case before he made his reply.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, it was scarcely possible for the mind of man to imagine a more outrageous instance of injustice than the facts of that case, as raised by the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch, disclosed. There was no doubt that Mr. Feargus O'Connor was knocked down and brutally assaulted. That was beyond all dispute; he had two credible witnesses to prove it, and anyone who was present in Trafalgar Square on that day could have no hesitation in believing any credible witness with regard to the assaults. He himself had seen a considerable number of unprovoked and brutal assaults committed by policemen in Trafalgar Square on that day. Therefore, he was quite content to believe that Mr. Feargus O'Connor's friends were accurate when they said that a brutal assault had been committed upon that gentleman. The

    595
    two witnesses took down the number of a policeman, which was 98A. It was possible that they might have made a mistake in the number, and that it might have been 93 or 90; but whether these men had made a mistake, or whether the police had lied, was a matter on which he would express no opinion. The summons was issued against policeman 98 A, and the case for the police was that no 98 A existed—that there was no such person at all. Thus they had a summons against a non-existent person, and those who made the mistake had to pay 10 guineas costs. It appeared that some individual had gone before the magistrate, and taken upon himself the defence of this non-existent person to whom the magistrate ordered 10 guineas cost to be paid. He (Mr. Hunter) repeated that a more gross case of injustice it was impossible to bring before the House. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would not lay down the principle, that because there might have been an error in the number of the policeman such assaults should go unpunished, and that any person who desired to complain was to be fined in this preposterous manner.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he rose not to express an opinion upon cases of which he knew nothing, but with the view of bringing the discussion to a close and making a commencement with business. But he thought that the hon. Gentleman who had introduced this question had made a reasonable appeal—namely, that the costs should not be enforced until the right hon. Gentleman had time to look into the matter. There was no reason whatever that the right hon. Gentleman should not give an assurance that the execution of these costs should be delayed until he had time to investigate the circumstances. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, would be able to say that the execution should be delayed in this particular case. Having had experience of such matters, he should say that there was no greater injustice done in connection with legal proceedings than the manufacture of exorbitant costs. There were cases in which small fines were imposed, and where the costs were 10, 20 and 30 times the amount of the fines. He had struggled against that as much as he could, and he was sure that the right
    596
    hon. Gentleman would sympathize with his views in that respect. [Mr. MATTHEWS signified assent.] He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would say that before these costs were enforced he would, in the meantime, see that no injustice was done.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that the whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was, that the whole attitude of the solicitors of these unfortunate men was exceedingly unfair towards the police. Now, the police could take very good care of themselves, and, therefore, the appeal ad misericordiam was out of place on their behalf. The right hon. Gentleman's statement was, that in consequence of what he called the unfair treatment of the police these heavy costs had been laid down. Now, if a magistrate was to act on the principle that because the solicitors had taken up a particular attitude with regard to the police, these men ought to be fined in costs which were perfectly disgraceful, it appeared to him that there was a denial of justice to the poor which had never been heard of before the present Government came into Office. The only parallel was the exorbitant and heavy costs now enforced on poor people in Ireland who objected to pay the blood tax. These cases were to be heard next morning; the men were to be put in jeopardy of losing their liberty, and there was no reason for one moment to suppose that they could pay costs amounting to 10 guineas. It was not denied that the men could not pay, and to ask for delay to see whether they could pay or not was simply to waste the time of the House. The essential point was, it was a gross piece of tyranny and injustice to these men that, after the time which had elapsed, they should be called upon to pay these costs, and if the right hon. Gentleman had any regard for the popularity of the police in London, he would see that these cases of tyranny and wrong were not repeated; he would use his high Office to step in between the tyranny of the police and the poor people who came under it. It was monstrous that any attempt should be made on the part of the Treasury or the Police Authorities to crush down men who were simply asking for justice. He had said before, and he now repeated it, that there was, in consequence of these petty

    597
    actions of injustice, a terrible feeling of irritation growing up in the minds of the people against the police; and in the interests of law and order, which hon. Gentlemen opposite were so fond of talking about but never acted upon, he earnestly appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to hold out some hope that this injustice should not be proceeded with.
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he thought that he had already conveyed that he was waiting for the inquiry before the magistrate, in order to see whether the men were able to pay the costs or not. He certainly would cheerfully look both into the character of the bill of costs and into the ability or otherwise of the men to pay.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that having regard to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

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.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 3rd July.]
    [THIRTEENTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    PART I.

      COUNTY COUNCILS.
      Financial Relations between Exchequer and County, and Contributions by County for Indoor Paupers.
      Clause 21 (Grant to County Council of portion of Probate Duty).
      MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the discussion on Tuesday last was on the question of indoor pauperism, and whether it was expedient to pass a clause which, in the opinion of many Members of the House, would promote indoor pauperism at the expense of outdoor pauperism. On the Amendment, which he rose to move, he should confine his observations wholly to the
      598
      question of the financial result of the proposal of the Government, which he believed would be a very great and gross inequality, and which also, he believed, would be extended by the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for making the present distribution last for the next five years. Those inequalities appeared to him best realizable by a reference to the distribution of the fund in respect of the Metropolis. It would be observed that of the £1,800,000 which it was proposed to contribute to the Local Funds, no less than one-third would go to the Metropolis. But he need only remind the Committee that the rateable value of the Metropolis was only one-fifth, and the population one-seventh of the rest of the country, and if the money were to be divided in proportion to rateable value the Metropolis would get only £360,000, and if in proportion to population, £262,000. There was no doubt that the pauperism of the Metropolis was higher in proportion than that of the rest of the country; but even if they were to take the ratio of pauperism and divide it in proportion to the poor rate throughout the country, the Metropolis would then get £80,000 less than was proposed to be given to it by the Government under the clause. But in order to illustrate the effect of the clause and the distribution to the Metropolis and other parts of the country, it was necessary to consider one or two other circumstances. The Poor rates in some other parts of the country closely approached although they did not quite equal those of the Metropolis. Taking the case of the Principality of Wales, the poor rates there were very high—not so high as in London, but very much higher than in the rest of the country. He found that the Principality of Wales would take out of the fund £51,000; if the money was distributed according to rateable value, Wales would get £78,000, and, if according to population, £92,000; while if it received the same treatment as the Metropolis, it would get no less than £124,000. The five agricultural counties, Bedfordshire, Somersetshire, Dorsetshire, Devonshire, and Cornwall, in which pauperism was higher than in the rest of the country, would receive £95,000 out of the Probate Duty. If they were to receive a sum in proportion

      599
      to rateable value, they would get £23,000 more; if in proportion to population, an additional sum of £48,000; while if in proportion to pauperism, they would receive £11,000 more than was proposed to be given to them under the clause. He would then take five other counties, Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Rutlandshire, Nottinghamshire, and Derbyshire. In those counties the average of pauperism was about the same as in the rest of the country, but he found that they were about to receive under the Bill 56 per cent less than they would receive under the distribution founded on rateable value. They would receive £76,000 under the Government proposal; they would receive £42,000 more than if they had been paid on the rateable value, and on the basis of population they would receive about the same as upon that of rateable value. Northumberland, Durham, Westmoreland, and Cumberland would receive £72,000 under the clause, whereas according to rateable value they would receive £110,000. The pauperism in these counties was about the same as in the rest of the country. He would now call attention to the different treatment of two counties—namely, Lancashire and Yorkshire. In Lancashire pauperism was 28 per cent less than in any other part of the country; but notwithstanding that, it would receive a full share of the grant on the basis of population and rateable value—namely, £220,000. If the money were received in proportion to pauperism, it would get £65,000 less than was proposed; but it would receive, according to the Returns laid upon the Table of the House, £221,000, which was about the same as it would be entitled to on the basis either of rateable value or population. On the other hand, crossing the boundary into Yorkshire, he found that pauperism was somewhat higher there, and, therefore, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it ought to be somewhat better treated than Lancashire. He found that the West Riding would receive 50 per cent less than it would be entitled to on the basis of rateable value. It would receive £82,000 under the proposal of the Government; whereas, if its rateable value were taken, it would get £122,000; and if the money were distributed on the basis of population, it would receive £151,000, or nearly double of what the
      600
      Government proposed to give. These statistics appeared to him to afford a very good illustration of the inequitable result of the proposal now before the Committee. He could multiply illustrations of this fact if it were desirable to do so; but he would content himself with two other illustrations only—namely, the town of Bradford and Sheffield. He found that Bradford would receive £6,000 under the proposal of the Government; whereas, if the money were distributed according to rateable value, it would receive 12,000; and on the basis of population no less than £16,000. Again, in the case of Sheffield, the population was somewhat in excess of Bradford; and under the proposal of the Government it would receive £14,000; and upon the basis of rateable value or population it would get about £18,000 or £20,000. It appeared to him that these examples showed the great and gross inequality which would result from the method of distribution proposed by the Government, and which also appeared to him quite indefensible. In answer to a Question put to him yesterday, the President of the Local Government Board said, with reference to Wales, that the House ought to consider, in connection with this matter, not merely the inequality resulting from the proposed distribution, but also the existing inequality with reference to the grants made by Parliament up to the present time. He ventured to say that that was hardly the way in which this question should be looked at, nor was it the time for rectifying one inequality by setting up another. These inequalities would be extended and continued for no less than five years, and at the end of that time there was no security that they would be redressed; whether that would be so depended to a great extent upon the increase or decrease of pauperism which might take place in the meantime. It might be that the effect of the proposal would be to stimulate indoor pauperism, and that at the end of that time the inequality might be redressed; on the other hand, they had the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no administrative objects were aimed at by the Bill, and that the Government did not wish that there should be any stimulus given to indoor pauperism; that th

      601
      Government offered no bribe and intended no bribe, and that indoor pauperism would not increase in consequence of the Government proposal. Now, his opinion was that the effect of the Government proposal would be to stimulate indoor pauperism. They must recollect that the proposal of the Government was not only to give to the counties 4d. a day for each indoor pauper; but the counties would derive the benefit of the proportion of the £1,800,000 divided between them for the 175,000 indoor paupers; in other words, the counties would derive the benefit of £9 per annum per head for every indoor pauper, of which £6 would be paid over to the parish. He would suppose the case of a widow with four children coming before the parish officers, and the question arising whether they should have outdoor relief or go into the workhouse. If she went into the workhouse, that would result in a gain to the county of £45 a-year for the next five years; if she remained outside, the parish would receive £30 a-year for the next five years. [Mr. RITCHIE: How?] He had already stated that the amount to be divided was £1,800,000, which, divided according to the total number of indoor paupers—that was to say, 175,000, would be about £9 per head, and he was now saying that the county would receive at the end of the first five years £45, and that the parish would receive £30 a-year for the next five years. He had confined himself mainly to the financial proposal, and he thought he had shown that a very grave and gross inequality would result. He had accordingly proposed to amend the clause by adding the words "rateable value and population," the effect of which would be to compel the Local Government Board to take into account both the indoor pauperism and the rateable value of the district, and thus reduce, if not wholly remove, the inequality which he had shown to exist. In the case of the Metropolis, the effect would be to reduce the contribution by £150,000; on the other hand, it would add to the contribution of Wales £22,000; to the West Riding of Yorkshire £36,000; to the five western counties, £11,000; and in all other cases it would reduce inequalities. It was in that he ventured to propose his Amendment, being confident that the proposal of the
      602
      Government could not be defended, and that some change, whether in the direction of that indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton or by an Amendment which the Government themselves might bring in.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 16, line 28, after the words "indoor pauperism," to insert the words "their rateable value and their population by taking the arithmetical mean of the result arrived at on these three bases."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHE): I think the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford is not exactly a convenient one for the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has raised a discussion to-day which is practically the same as the discussion we had when the Committee last considered the Bill. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but I would remind him that he was only present during an extremely short period of the evening when the clause was last discussed. The right hon. Gentleman had maintained throughout his speech that distribution, according to indoor pauperism, was unfair. That was precisely what the Committee was discussing for several hours last week, and the deliberate decision at which they arrived was that the basis of indoor pauperism was the one which they approved. The right hon. Gentleman by means of his Amendment is raising precisely the same question. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: No.] Yes, he does. The question decided was whether or not the words "indoor pauperism" should stand part of the clause, and the Committee decided that they should. The whole discussion was as to the basis of indoor pauperism, and the question was decided by a vote for the retention of the words. The right hon. Gentleman very cunningly proposes an Amendment which says that although the basis of distribution decided upon by the Committee is indoor pauperism, that the basis should be something else. Under those circumstances, looking at the fact that the matter was very fully discussed, the right hon. Gentleman will probably

      603
      excuse me for not going over the arguments in favour of the basis of indoor pauperism again. I will, however, enter into one or two of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments in order to show that it would not be right to depart from the conclusion at which the Committee arrived. The right hon. Gentleman says there are many and great inequalities under the proposal in the Bill, and he has given statistics showing those inequalities. He was kind enough, however, to admit that, although he was able to produce instances of inequality in the proposal of the Government, even his proposal would also lead to a great many inequalities. Yes; and so they would; but I will tell the Committee the great difference between the inequalities which will result from our proposal, and those which exist in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and inequalities, if there are any, are brought about by the proverty of the district; the inequalities of the right hon. Gentleman would be the consequence of the wealth of the district. That is the real and essential difference between the proposal of the Government and that of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman confines himself exclusively to the amount to be paid to the localities out of the Probate Duty grant; he altogether ignores the position in which certain localities would be with regard to the Licence Duties. The right hon. Gentleman took the case of the Metropolis, and said that it would have an undue advantage, and he quoted to the Committee the amount which London would receive as compared with the other parts of the country; but he altogether failed to inform the Committee that, notwithstanding the fact that London would get a considerable amount of the grant for indoor pauperism, according to the number of poor to be maintained, it would lose very heavily as between the amount which it had received and the amount to be received in lieu of the existing grants. We have always contended that you must not look on the proposal of the Government simply in reference to the amount of Licence Duty or Probate Duty, but with reference to the amount which will be received for both. It is obvious that in the richer communities, as a rule, the less will be the amount of pauperism they will have to support, and vice versâ.
      604
      The Government have therefore arrived at the conclusion that the Licence Duties and the contributions in aid of paupers counterbalance each other. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Metropolis will gain considerably by our proposal, and I point out that it will lose largely on the licences. The net result of that to the Metropolis will be that while there is a gain to the whole country, including Wales, there is no reason to suppose that the percentage of gain with reference to it will be greater or materially different from the amount of the existing Licence Duty. We have not been able to estimate, or I should certainly have done it, the total amount which would be gained from all the Licence Duties, including the Horse and Wheel Tax; because we have found it impossible to allocate to the various districts any certain amount. Leaving out the Horse and Wheel Tax, the Metropolis gains 2½d. in the pound by the financial operation; whereas the rest of the country, including Wales, will gain 3½d. in the pound; so that it will be seen that the Metropolis, although it gets a large amount on account of the indoor poor, yet, on the whole, it will be a loser to the extent of 1d. in the pound as compared with the rest of the country; whereas, if the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman were accepted the gain to the country districts would be increased from 3½d. to 4d. in the pound; whilst the gain to the Metropolis would fall from 2½d. to 2d. in the pound. Therefore I say that the inequalities would be enormously increased by the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. I entirely demur to what the right hon. Gentleman has said with regard to London receiving a larger amount than the existing grants. Those grants are paid for specific purposes—that is to say, they are proportionate to the amount of expenditure incurred under certain heads in the localities. We have never pretended that this is a perfect system. It was always held that it would be wise to place local finance upon its own bottom, so we say that these grants are to cease, and we must allow the localities to depend on what they can collect. But I altogether deny that these grants ought not to be considered in connection with the proposal in the Bill. The right hon. gentleman went on to prove, by a most extraordinary calculation, that the

      605
      parishes and counties were to be very large gainers in consequence of our proposal; he said that in the case of a widow with four children, there would be a gain of £35. When I ventured to challenge the accuracy of that statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had altogether forgotten the cost of the maintenance of the widow and children. The right hon. Gentleman said,
      "It is quite true that I have overlooked that matter, but then there is, on the other hand, the cost of outdoor relief, and if they were in the house instead of being relieved outside, the county and parish would largely gain."
      It is almost impossible to avoid arguing in connection with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman questions which have been raised over and over again; but I think that the Committee will not consider it unimportant that I should give some statistics in relation to this subject. The cost of maintenance, which I have calculated for England and Wales, excluding the Metropolis, is as follows—Cost of maintenance, 5s. 7d.; workhouse and other loans, 1s. 3d.; two-thirds of salaries (indoors), 2s. 9d.; other expenses, 1s. 2d.; in all, 11 s. 2d. for England and Wales, excluding the Metropolis. Now, in the Metropolis, the amount instead of being 11 s. 2d. is 16 s. 3d. Well; but the right hon. Gentleman would no doubt say that many of these charges would be the same however large the number of indoor poor may be. I am perfectly prepared to admit that that is so; but it is quite apparent that you cannot largely increase the number of indoor poor without some increase in the working expenses. Let the Committee remember that the cost of the maintenance is 5s. 7d. I contend that if you are to take even an extremely small percentage for other charges, the cost will certainly be more than 6s. It was stated the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) that the estimated cost of outdoor relief was something like 1s. 6d. a-week, or about 2½d. a-day. Looking at the fact that the cost of the indoor poor, even maintenance alone, is about 9d., and the amount to be received by the Guardians, if our proposals are accepted, is 4d., it is clear that instead of the Guardians gaining, they would be losers, without taking into account the other expenses of which I have spoken.
      606
      Of course, if it were necessary to increase the size of the workhouse buildings, the amount would be very large; but if there were room for all the indoor paupers, it would not pay the Guardians to take a man into the house as against relieving him outside. When we come to discuss the question whether 4d. per head should be paid by the County Councils to the Guardians, if the House should think the amount is too large I should be glad to consider whether it should not be-reduced. But that is, of course, a separate question. I think I have disposed of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, first, as to the inequality both of the amount received from the Probate Duty and also as to the grant to be discontinued. I have endeavoured to show that our proposal, if there is any inequality at all, is in favour of the poorer localities which have to support a larger number of paupers; and if there is an argument in favour of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman it would be that an inequality would be created in favour of the richer localities as against those that are poorer.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he had been present during the whole of the last debate on this question, and although he was very anxious to take part in it, he had unfortunately been prevented. He ventured to say to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) that this was a Bill which could not be forced through the House. It was one which involved grave and difficult questions; they were endeavouring to make a great and permanent change in the Constitution, and it was most desirable that the question should be considered fully, and that all hon. Members should have an opportunity of stating their views upon it. He wished to approach the question from an entirely economic point of view, and without any antagonism to the opinions of the hon. Gentleman opposite, merely because they supported the proposal of the Government. It was the desire of the Committee to settle the question fairly, and unless that was done the settlement arrived at could not be permanent. The right hon. Gentleman frankly admitted that there were great inequalities in the Government proposal; but that unless the great inequality with regard to London were maintained justice would

      607
      not be done; and he said—"We are creating inequalities in favour of the poor localities, and not of the rich. "Now, he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) asked the Metropolitan Members to consider this matter fairly. The population of London with relation to the rest of the country was one-fourth, and the rateable value as one-fifth. But its proportion of the Poor Law Grant was to be something like one-third. No doubt the pauperism of London was larger than that of the rest of the country; there was a great influx of the labourer into London, besides the cheap foreign labour, which tended to the increase of pauperism. But if London attracted a great deal of the pauperism, it also attracted a great deal of the wealth of the country; and he had shown over and over again, that it was nothing like so heavily taxed as other large cities in the country. That was a matter of statistics, and was proved by the evidence given before a Committee which sat last year. For the five years—1882–6—the average taxation of London, including the School Board rate, Lighting and Sewers, and all other rates, was 5s. 2½d. in the pound. He would now take such towns as Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, and Liverpool, and ask the Committee whether London was not, in the matter of local taxation favourably situated, and whether any case had been made out for its receiving exceptional treatment on the ground of the heavy burdens which it had to bear; and whether, in the case of the Metropolis, the Government were not treating it on the principle of—"To him that hath shall be given." The rates in the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square, were 3s. 10 d. in the pound.
      MR. RITCHIE: The East End.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Of course, they were high at the East End; but they were now dealing with the general taxation of London, and the right hon. Gentleman, as he understood him, said that London had a special claim, which ought to be met by an unequal distribution of the Probate Duty grant.
      MR. RITCHIE: I deny that it is unequal.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: His point was—that those who were familiar with local taxation in the country could not be expected to look with very great
      608
      favour upon a special claim on behalf of London, founded on the necessity of relieving it of its heavy burden of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman said that London was being deprived of a considerable amount of money received in grants; but what were the existing grants for? There was a large grant to London in respect of police. But some hon. Members on those Benches, who had had something to do with the administration of the police, contended, and believed that if the financial administration of the police were placed in the hands of an elected Body there would be much less cost. The right hon. Gentleman had forgotten the sums devoted to the various institutions of London out of the Consolidated Fund; he had forgotten how London had been nursed at the public expense. The other great cities and towns provided their own Police Courts and the salaries of their magistrates, but in London these were paid for out of the Consolidated Fund. He wished to ask the special attention of hon. Members representing agricultural districts to the working out of the distribution of the Probate grant, and, amongst others, he invited the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) to consider how his own county would be affected. He had taken two counties of similar populations, in order to show how unfairly the distribution, on the Government basis, would work out, and the Committee would then be able to judge of the necessity of something being done in the direction of the Amendment of his right hon. Friend. Devonshire had a population of 608,000, and a rateable value of £3,010,000; Essex, with a population of 633,000, had a rateable value of £3,029,000; but in the case of Devonshire the grant would be only £31,000, and in that of Essex it would be £41,000.
      MR. RITCHIE: Is that the excess over existing grants?
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, it was not. He was showing the manner in which the £1,800,000 arising out of the Probate Duties was to be distributed, and how unfairly it would work in the counties and boroughs as compared with London. He would give another case in which the population and rateable value were pretty nearly the same. Lincolnshire had a population

      609
      of 463,000, and Sussex of 544,000. The rateable value of Lincolnshire was £3,158,000, and that of Sussex, £3,230,000; but the grant which they would receive was £21,000 for Lincolnshire, and £36,043 for Sussex. Oxfordshire and Dorsetshire were another example. The population of Oxfordshire was 181,000, and that of Dorsetshire 185,000. The rateable value was about the same, yet Oxford would get 111,861, and Dorsetshire only £9,944. Another remarkable case was that of Lancashire and the Metropolis, each of which had a population of 4,000,000. But the wealth was in London, which had £30,000,000 of rateable value, while Lancashire, with all its prosperity, had only a rate able value of £18,250,000. It was impossible to give figures showing more clearly the enormous wealth of the Metropolis; yet it was to receive £536,000 of the grant, and Lancashire £221,000. Thus, London had more than double what Lancashire received, although the populations were the same. He fully admitted that it was very difficult to regulate this grant, and that it was almost impossible to avoid some inequality; but the plan proposed by the Government would produce exceptional inequality, which would be largely increased in the case of the Metropolis if any tax were imposed on vehicular locomotion. For these reasons, he supported the Amendment of his right hon. Friend.
      MR. LAWSONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had not pointed out that the average of the rates paid in London were brought down by the lower rates levied in the richer districts of the West End. It had been proved in evidence before a Select Committee that in four parishes in Whitechapel the rates were over 6s. in the pound. In St. George's, Hanover Square, they were shamefully under-taxed; and that was an injustice which should be dwelt upon, because if the statement of the right hon. Gentleman were taken without qualification, it would give a false notion of the real state of the case.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he had distinctly stated that these inequalities existed.
      MR. LAWSONsaid, he only wished to point out the misleading effect of giving the average rate of the whole
      610
      Metropolis. As the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly aware, the great public buildings of London did not contribute their fair share to the local rates; and if the ratepayers gained from London being the seat of the Government, they lost more from the same cause. When the position of London and its local burdens were spoken of, it ought to be borne in mind how much the London ratepayers suffered from the imported pauperism of the Home Counties and of foreign immigration. The right hon. Gentleman must show, if he wished to make out that the London ratepayers were going to pay less in respect of the burden of pauperism in future, that some legislation was contemplated by which immigrants were to be excluded. The pauperism of the Metropolis was increasing every day; and the Committee ought also to consider that the average rental was far higher than in the large cities of other parts of England. It had been shown that more than 88 per cent of the working classes of London paid a quarter of their weekly earnings by way of rent. It seemed only fair that the Metropolitan Members should rise on behalf of those they represented, especially in the poorer districts, and show that they were not living in quite such a Utopia as the right hon. Gentleman would have the Committee believe.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) had expressed regret that this discussion should be brought up again; but he (Sir William Harcourt) thought it ought to be borne in mind that this was one of the most important parts of the Bill. There could be no doubt that, however much they might hurry the Bill through the House, they would not prevent discussion arising in different districts of the country as to whether or not particular districts would have a fair share of this grant; and, therefore, it was of the most vital consequence that the question should be considered whether the distribution of the grant was founded upon sound principles. He was a little disappointed—he was afraid that he was open to the charge of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, of not being able to attend the discussion the other night—that the Government had not made a more distinct departure from their original proposal. The Chancellor

      611
      of the Exchequer, on the second reading of the Bill, said that he had been so much impressed with the disadvantages of this particular provision in reference to the indoor poor, that the Government would seek some other principle; and, therefore, he felt very much disappointed that some more equitable form of distribution had not been put forward. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dissented.] He (Sir William Harcourt) was sorry to have misquoted the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hall) would agree that that was the impression which he conveyed. However, it was a very great misfortune, because the figures which had been quoted incontrovertibly proved that there would be a very serious pecuniary advantage in forcing the people who were out of the workhouse into the workhouse. The figures given by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill proved that conclusively—he had shown that the Guardians would receive £9 a-head, that the cost of maintenance and other matters was about £4, and that the profit would be £5 for each person they put into the house. Therefore, to that degree, there was a premium upon putting people into the house as against keeping them out. As for the proposal, he warned the Government that it would make the Bill exceedingly unpopular in the rural districts, especially those with which he was well acquainted. The working of the measure there, he was convinced, would be very much resented. It was said that the Committee had decided the question the other night. It might be so, and, if so, he was very sorry to hear it. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford, however, did not deny the decision altogether. It sought to modify it by introducing other elements which would mitigate the evils, and remove many of the inequalities, which would otherwise result from the Government scheme. That was the character of the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, and it was not open to the reproach of raising an old question. His hon. Friend who preceded him in the debate (Mr. Lawson) very properly stood up for the interests of the Metropolis, and it was natural that the Metropolitan Members should agree with the proposals of the
      612
      Government, because, unquestionably, they were very favourable to the Metropolis. ["No, no!"] A right hon. Gentleman opposite said "No;" but he would allow him (Sir William Harcourt) to observe that the three potential Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench were Metropolitan Members—the First Lord of the Treasury (Strand, Westminster), the Chancellor of the Exchequer (St. George's, Hanover Square), and the President of the Local Government Board (Tower Hamlets, St. George's). By those unconscious influences which sometimes governed the minds of men they had come to the conclusion—he was sure a perfectly impartial conclusion—that an arrangement which was greatly to the benefit of the Metropolis was the wisest and best that could be made. He did not complain of it. No doubt, if he had to make an arrangement on behalf of his constituents, he should follow their example completely. He did not pretend to be more virtuous than they were; but those right hon. Gentlemen must allow non-Metropolitan Members to look upon the matter from a different point of view. Did the Government dispute the figures of his right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), and the extraordinary comparison brought out as between Lancashire, and the Metropolis? Did they believe, if the right hon. Gentleman's figures were correct, that the people of Lancashire would not regard this matter with a jealous eye, and ask upon what principle they had proceeded? The right hon. Gentleman said—"You must not look at the Probate Duty Grant alone; you must look at the Licence Duties as well," and that a particular town would get a much higher amount for indoor paupers because it was poor, and that a town would get a less amount of Licence Duty because it was rich. As he understood, the right hon. Gentleman said—"Yes; you look at a poor place, and you find it gets a large amount out of this fund in consequence of its poverty; but it would get less under the Licence Duty because of its poverty." Hon. Gentlemen near him had pointed out that that was an entire delusion. Take Sheffield as compared with Leeds. The population of Sheffield was 285,000, and that of Leeds was

      613
      340,000. Sheffield, with a less population than Leeds, would get under the Probate Duty £17,555, and Leeds, with the larger population, would get £13,900. Then came in the right hon. Gentleman's argument—"Yes; but Sheffield is a poorer town, and it gets more under the Probate Duty, but it will get less under the Licence Duty." Was it so? Why, Sheffield, with a smaller population, got £29,000 under the Licence Duty, while Leeds, with a larger population, only got £24,000. Those figures showed the argument of the right hon. Gentleman to be absolutely fallacious.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was referring to counties more especially when he used that argument.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman's argument failed with regard to the larger boroughs, as the extraordinary inequalities showed. He did not want to delay the Committee; but he asked whether, considering the inequalities, which were of the most startling character, the Government would consider whether the shutting out of a man like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) by the Closure was a wise use of the Closure? He did not wish to raise any Party asperity upon the subject; but, really, he wanted to show that this was a matter which must be thoroughly thrashed out if any satisfaction was to be given in the country. There were difficulties in the matter which even the Government had not fathomed. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to the Committee always extremely fairly, and under the pressure of the figures of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) admitted that the question of the 4d. grant deserved to be reconsidered. That being so, the Government would do well to reconsider it from the point of view of the present Amendment. The introduction of the three elements of rateable value and population, as well as indoor pauperism, was a suggestion of great value; because, as in astronomical observations they compensated one error by another, so it might be found that by the introduction of these three elements they would get a fairer and a juster average than they would obtain from one of them alone. That was the proposal
      614
      of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), and he thought it was a proposal which was worthy of the consideration of the Government.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, the right hon. Gentleman stated that surely the Government would not wish to closure a Gentleman like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). He did not think the right hon. Gentleman rose once during the course of Tuesday evening. Certainly, there was no desire to exclude him from the debate. The discussion had continued for four hours and a-half, and the Government thought that the matter, looking to the character of the debate, had been sufficiently discussed. He assured right hon. Gentlemen there was no desire to exclude any right hon. Gentleman whose opinions were of vital importance on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) said that in astronomical calculations errors compensated each other. Inequalities compensated each other, and that was precisely one of the arguments they urged in opposition to the speeches which had been made against them. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there were three Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench, all Metropolitan Members, who had taken considerable interest in this subject. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that those Members had been influenced in the arrangement of this Bill by some favour to the Metropolis. But the right hon. Gentleman had failed to point out, or had failed to remember when he made that suggestion, or he thought that he would not have made it, that the total result of the relief which was given to the Metropolis and the country generally had been that, while the rest of the country benefited to the extent of 3½d. in the pound, London only benefited to the extent of ½d. in the pound. That was to say, taking the whole of the calculations together, London, after the local taxation had been adjusted, would gain infinitely less than the remainder of the country. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He did not understand whether that was doubted. It was certainly a point he should like to enforce, if necessary; he

      615
      believed the figures were accepted, and had not been challenged. Looking to the matter as a whole—and that was how the Government had looked at it; looking to the withdrawal of the grants, looking, on the other hand, to the licences and the distribution of the Probate Grant, the rest of the country gained more, and London gained less.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: How does the right hon. Gentleman make out the 3½d.?
      MR. GOSCHENsaid, the 3½d. was arrived at by this calculation. They withdrew the grants, and they then saw how much they would receive on the indoor pauperism test, and they saw how much they would gain by the licences. Adding together the two gains and withdrawing the losses, a certain sum remained over, and that sum represented 2½d. in the case of London and 3½d. in the case of the rest of the country
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: What is it fixed upon?
      MR. GOSCHEN: Upon the rateable value of the Metropolis on the one hand, and the rateable value of the rest of the country on the other. He was anxious that that should be thoroughly understood; that was how they had arrived at the calculation. On the one hand, they said the localities would gain so much by the distribution of the Probate Duty; they would gain so much by the Licence Duty, and then they would lose so much by the withdrawal of the grants; and the reason why London came out worse than the country was that the withdrawal of the grants was a much more serious matter to the Metropolis than it was to the rest of the country. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct in saying that that was, in the main, due to the police. The Imperial Exchequer at present paid to the Metropolis £575,000 in respect to the police. The Exchequer would be relieved to that amount, and London would lose that amount; and therefore, so far as the taxation of the country generally was concerned, the various other parts of the country would cease to make that large contribution to the Imperial grant for the Metropolitan Police to which they were now subject. The considerations involved were extremely grave, but he thought that they had really arrived at
      616
      a point where they could easily see the issue raised by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Right hon. Gentlemen wished to treat this one item of the Probate Duty by itself, and so regarding it they contended that London gained more than the rest of the country. The Government looked at the scheme as a whole, and if they looked at it as a whole, London lost more or gained less than the other parts of the country. In order to see whether their distribution was fair, surely it was much more just to look at the three factors in the case as a whole than to pick out one of them for separate treatment. At all events, he had established this—that there would be no favour shown to the Metropolis. It was surely not perfectly fair or equitable to point to one of the three factors in the problem and say, "See how London is treated preferentially in this case," unless, at the same time, they showed how London lost by the withdrawal of the grants. It was a perfectly fair argument for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) or for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) to say that at present London as compared with the rest of the country was in an entirely preferential position. It was perfectly open for them to say that the present contribution unduly favoured London, and that matters should have been put right in this distribution. The Government had so far put matters right that London was actually less favourably treated on the whole by their arrangements than the rest of the country. Though they were charged with being Metropolitan Members, they thought that, on the whole, it was fair, and that, looking to the position of London, London could not complain if she did not gain as much by the general re-arrangement of local taxation as the rest of the country. Having placed their whole scheme before Parliament, and having in that scheme put London at a disadvantage of 1d. in the pound as compared with the rest of the country, they did not think it fair to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) by which the unfairness would be almost doubled, the result being, as a right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, that the gain to London would be 2d. in the pound and the gain to the rest of

      617
      the country generally 4d. in the pound. They did not think that that would be an equitable conclusion; and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) appealed to the Members for the Metropolis to judge impartially in the matter, so he (Mr. Goschen) ventured himself to appeal to all Members of the House, whether representing London or the country, to consider what was really the equity of the case, and not to be guided simply by the position of their own constituencies. The Government recognized the position taken up by right hon. Gentlemen opposite to this extent. They said that the effect of their proposal would be to take away—they frankly admitted it—upwards of £100,000 from London, and to disperse it throughout the rest of the country. If the House of Commons were to decide to do that, they would then be placing London at a greater disadvantage as compared with the country than it was already according to the proposals of the Government. He trusted right hon. Gentlemen opposite would, at all events, admit that in these observations he had fairly stated the issue between them. He gladly followed the example of hon. Members opposite in not treating this question in any heated manner. He had endeavoured to put forward the justice and equity of the case, denying most strongly that in their proposals, as a whole, they had any desire to, or, as a matter of fact, did, favour the Metropolis.
      SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, he wished to make one or two observations, as he had not had an opportunity of doing so the other night. He quite agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) had said in respect to this matter, that it was an extremely difficult and complex question to say on what principle this money should be allocated. He and his hon. Friends admitted that with perfect frankness; but, at the same time, they did feel that the principle upon which the right hon. Gentleman allocated the money, the indoor relief principle, was one of the worst he could have chosen. He (Sir Walter Foster) supported the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), because it lessened the amount of evil which would be inflicted, and would modify
      618
      the principle upon which the grant was to be allocated. He did not think they could argue this question as one simply of figures. They were obliged to look at the proposal of the Government from the point of view of the effect it would have, not only upon the poorer population of the rural districts, but also upon the efficiency and ability of Poor Law Guardians to discharge their work. It ought not to be lost sight of that in this Bill they had made no effort to reform the Poor Law Guardians. Therefore, they would increase, by the adoption of this principle, the chances of unpopularity for the Poor Law Guardians in every rural disstrict in the country. In reference to the question of the effect of the grant, he believed it would greatly increase the amount of indoor relief, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Ritchie's) figures were not absolutely satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the average of outdoor relief was 2½d. per head per day, making an average of about 1s. 6d. per week. But in many of the rural districts the amount of relief given to old people was 2s. 6d. per week. Assuming that 2s. 6d. was paid, in many places there would be, by this proposal of the Government, a distinct gain on the part of the Guardians by diminishing outdoor relief and forcing old people into the workhouse. That would be the most deplorable result they could obtain under this Bill, for the reason that these people, whom they ought to have the tenderest regard for, belonged to a class of society who had practically no means whatever of putting by at any time for their old age savings, like artizans in towns. These people at best only earned a bare living, and in the end they had no refuge to look forward to except the refuge of parish relief. That parish relief coming to them in the beneficent form of outdoor relief was the sweetest and sole solace of their old age. But, if the authorities forced them into the workhouse, they would take away the beneficence and kindliness of the Poor Law system. It was because he believed the proposal of the Government would encourage the indoor system that be felt bound, as representing to a certain extent an agricultural district, to speak in the strongest way against it. In our large towns a similar effect would be produced. He knew that some people spoke of outdoor relief as undesirable,

      619
      but there were many cases in which the home of the artizan might be absolutely saved by timely outdoor relief. When an artizan, after probably six or seven weeks' illness, found all his savings gone, and he had nothing between him and starvation except parish relief—when he applied to the Poor Law Guardians he would be met by the workhouse test. He was met with it now—he would be met with it still more frequently under this proposal. What was the result? That artizan, who had been a respectable working man all his life, refused the offer of the workhouse, and first a table and then a chair, and after a while every bit of furniture the man had, went either to the broker or the pawnbroker, in order to enable him to get food for himself and his starving family. Then, in the end, when his whole home was stripped, and then only, did he seek the refuge of the workhouse. In this country, during the last few years, there had been some 200 deaths a-year from starvation and exposure. That, in a great measure, showed the horror people had of the workhouse test. The House did not want to increase the number of those terrible deaths from starvation. Timely relief would save the home of many a working man; if it was not saved by some such means, once gone, it was gone for ever. When once a man was obliged to accept indoor relief, when once he was obliged to take his family to the manufactory which made paupers, it was seldom that he and his family recovered their position among their follows. It was because he had seen many cases of that kind that he was anxious that greater tenderness and kindness should be meted out to the poor people both in town and country. It was because he believed the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) would tend rather to increase the harshness than to increase the humanity of the system that he was obliged to vote for the Amendment of of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). That Amendment would lessen the evil; it would lessen the encouragement to grant indoor relief as opposed to outdoor relief; and, at all events, it would do this—it would not place before the country the bare principle that it was upon indoor relief only that this money was to be granted. He had spoken in the
      620
      North, South, East, and West of England on this question, and he assured hon. Gentlemen that there was no question in which the poor agricultural labourers and the poor people of our towns were more keenly interested; and he said to the right hon. Gentleman that if he passed this proposal in its present form, he would bring about himself a storm of unpopularity which it would be very difficult for him to withstand.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could quite understand the feelings expressed by hon. Gentlemen, not on one side alone, but on both sides of the House—feelings of repugnance to assenting to anything which they thought would have the effect of causing the Guardians to drive old people into the workhouse who might otherwise be maintained outside. He was sure hon. Gentlemen would believe the Government also would regret, as much as themselves, if any effect of that kind were to arise from anything they proposed. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) had already said that, in proposing what they had proposed in this Bill in reference to this particular point, they had not been actuated by any desire to improve the administrative machinery. That had not been their guiding motive in what they had proposed. Their sole desire was that a contribution should be made towards the rates of the localities, and they believed that that could be best done by giving that contribution upon the basis of indoor pauperism. With the view of removing, if they could, from the minds of hon. Gentlemen any suspicion, and to remove the possibility of anything they proposed acting in the way feared, he desired to make a suggestion to the Committee. As the Committee was aware, the Government had, by an Amendment they had placed on the Paper, proposed that for the first quinquennial period the basis of the indoor pauperism of last year should be taken. They also proposed that, unless Parliament were otherwise to direct, the amount of the grant at the end of the quinquennial period should be based upon the average indoor pauperism during the five years. Many hon. Gentlemen felt that, although undoubtedly the objections had been greatly lessened by that proposal, yet they had not been altogether removed, and that there

      621
      would be still a desire on the part of the Guardians, even although five years would elapse before they would receive any benefit, to obtain that benefit by forcing people into the workhouse who might not otherwise be forced there. Now, if the Committee thought it was desirable to remove the smallest inducement to such a course, the Government would be prepared to assent to their Amendment being amended, so that the indoor pauperism of last year should be taken without any express directions as to any quinquennial revision, leaving simply the provision that the basis, being last year's pauperism, should be maintained for the distribution of the grant until Parliament otherwise directed. It was perfectly clear that then there would be no inducement to act in the way which some hon. Members feared the Guardians would act if there was to be a quinquennial revision; and he hoped that, after that expression on the part of the Government of their willingness to amend their Amendment so as to meet the express difficulty raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Committee would be prepared to accept the basis which the Government, on the whole, thought was the best basis for this distribution. By his present proposal the inducement to Guardians to force people into the workhouse would be altogether removed. Just one word as to one or two of the statistics which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) quoted in his most interesting speech. The right hon. Gentleman drew a contrast between the position of Essex and Sussex under the Bill, [Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER: Sussex and Lincoln.] He thought the comparison was made between Essex and Sussex, and in regard to those counties he had the figures at hand. The gain to Essex under the proposal of the Government would be £38,000; whereas under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) it would be £36,000; the gain to Sussex under the proposal of the Government would be £48,000, and under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman £51,000. He trusted that the concession of the Government would remove all objections, and that under such circumstances the Committee would agree to the proposal they had made.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he quite admitted the concession the right hon. Gentleman had just announced would do something towards mitigating the danger which was apprehended; still it remained that the proposal of the Government was based, not as the right hon. Gentleman said, upon poverty, but upon the severe application of the indoor test in the past. He desired to say a few words in respect to the experience of Scotland. He knew that in England, in consequence of abuses which prevailed before the existing Poor Law, and on account of the doctrines put forward by certain Gentlemen, it had become a sort of article of faith that outdoor relief should be discouraged as far as possible. In Scotland they had a large experience, but they were entirely free from that belief; in Scotland there was no belief whatever that outdoor relief was bad and that indoor relief was good. Their belief was that by outdoor relief they were able to administer relief to the indigent in a much less expensive and in a much more kindly way, and in a way which was much more popular and more pleasing to the country. It would be a great misfortune, in his opinion, if there should be forced on them in Scotland anything like the English system; and therefore he regretted the Government had, in the main and substantially, adhered to the proposal to make indoor relief the test upon which the Probate Duty grant was to be distributed. He did not believe that the Government would succeed in forcing this upon the country. They might succeed in getting small majorities in the House, but he did not believe that they would succeed in the end in forcing it upon the country. He believed it was a most unpopular proposal, and that it was a most suicidal policy on the part of the Government to persevere with it. They would be much better advised if they yielded not only partially, but wholly in regard to this matter.
      MR. A. W. HALLdesired, in a very few sentences, to thank the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) very heartily for having gone so far as he had in meeting the wishes which had been expressed on all sides of the House. They felt now that, although any test connected with the indoor poor was not what they desired, because it would, to some ex-

      623
      tent, act as a reward to those who had in the past adopted a very harsh policy, still, inasmuch as the temptation would now be entirely removed from them to continue that severe policy in the future, they might accept, and accept with very much gratitude, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie).
      MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he also thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having met their wishes as far as he had. He wished, however, the right hon. Gentleman would go a step further, and say that the past year's expenditure on pauperism in a district, adding the indoor and the outdoor relief together, should be the test. The administration of Boards of Guardians, even in the same county, varied very much. One Board of Guardians thought it right to rigidly enforce the workhouse test and to grant little outdoor relief; while a neighbouring Board of Guardians, adopting, as he thought, a more sympathetic system, kept old people in their homes by granting them outdoor relief. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not meet the feeling expressed very strongly on both sides of the House by making the distribution of the Probate Grant dependent upon the expenditure in poor relief of both kinds? That would give Guardians no inducement whatever to alter the system which they found suited best their own localities.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped the Government would stand to the proposal they had now made. He had intended, a short time ago, to have got up and expressed his dissent from the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), because he could not see that they would be doing anything advantageous to themselves or to those who sent them there if they accepted that proposal. There was no one, not even the right hon. Gentleman himself, certainly none of the right hon. Gentlemen sitting upon the Front Bench opposite, who could tell them now what the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be—how it would affect the towns situated in thinly-populated counties. Let him take the case of a town in his own county, the town of Brighton, which was to be made a county in itself for the purposes of the Bill. How would the
      624
      poor and sparse population situated outside that town fare as compared with the town of Brighton? How were large towns to fare who had an enormous number of poor persons, but whose rateable value was nothing like that of other towns, and yet were to be put in the same category? There would be three classes of districts, the rich towns with a high-class population; the poorer towns with an enormous number of poor people, but a low rateable value; and the poor and sparsely-populated rural districts. They did not know what amount of money these localities would receive; it would be most unwise to jump at a conclusion hastily; therefore, he hoped that whatever hon. Members on that side of the House might think about the proposal that had been made they would vote in support of the Government, who had gone as far as they could be reasonably expected to go. In conclusion, he had only to say that he had had as much to do with the relief of poor persons as most Members in the House, and he denied emphatically that the wish of the Guardians would be to send poor old people that had done their work and brought up a family well, and who had been receiving outdoor relief, into the workhouse, as he believed such a system would be as abhorrent to those who administered the relief as to those who received it.
      MR. BARTLEYsaid, he thought the course that the debate had taken showed what a great mistake it was to wind up the discussion the other night. They were now really debating, in a somewhat informal manner, the very result and question they had before them and were supposed to have settled on Tuesday evening. By the alterations the Government had made they had really departed from the position they took up three nights ago. He had studied this subject for many years, and he really thought that the clauses relating to the administration of relief were of such importance that they might almost form a Bill in themselves; it was certainly a mistaken notion to hurry them through Committee. He candidly admitted that he was not at all pleased with the alteration the Government had made. He thought the principle as originally given in the Bill on which the money was going to be allocated was a sound and wise one; and if

      625
      it might put pressure at all it would put put pressure in the right direction, pressure not so much in the interests of the ratepayers, as really and truly in the interest and the well-being of the great mass of the poor. The Rules of the House would prevent him from going into the various questions connected with Poor Law relief, and from considering the way in which outdoor relief had been worked in many districts. The debate had turned, to a great extent, upon London, and reference had been made to the immigration of paupers into London. The immigration from abroad had been very much exaggerated; it was altogether a mistake to say that this immigration was very large. It was large in certain districts of London; but, taking London and England as a whole, it was not large. What was large was the immigration into London from the country, and this was an element to be considered in the allocation of this money. There was another question to be considered, and that was that the rating of London was extremely high. There was no doubt whatever that the rating of a house of the same value and same quality was higher in London than it was in many Provincial towns. In comparing the amount in the£ for local rates in the case of London and the rest of the country they must take this into consideration. Also in many Provincial towns the water and gas rating and the repayment of loans on these undertakings to a certain extent was included in the rate, and that complicated the problem, which otherwise was not easy to solve with complete accuracy. He protested against the idea that Metropolitan Members were advocating this measure with a view to favour London; all they wanted was strict equity and fairness in this matter. They wanted to have this fund distributed on a basis which would have a tendency to improve the administration of the Poor Law, render it more easy, and give greater facilities for men to raise themselves by thrift and energy.
      MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, so far as he understood the concession of the right hon. Gentleman, it amounted to this—that it made the basis of the outdoor pauperism of last year perpetual, and did not make it dependent upon any quinquennial change; but he presumed it only made it per-
      626
      petual as between the Exchequer and the various counties. What he (Mr. Ellis) desired to ask the President of the Local Government Board was, were the counties, in allocating it to the different Unions, to allocate it on the basis of last year's indoor pauperism, or to vary it from year to year?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that, of course, whatever rule was adopted in one case would be adopted in the other.
      MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he was glad that concession had been made. The only other question he wanted to put to the right hon. Gentleman was, whether he would not reconsider the question from the point of view which had first been put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for the Cirencester Division of Gloucestershire (Mr. Winterbotham)? It had been repeatedly pointed out how great was the poverty of London, and how people rushed from various parts of the Continent and of the country to London, and much had been made of the stress and the strain upon the resources of London. In looking over the Reports of the Poor Law relief, it was interesting to find that, although in London there was one poor man to every 53 of the population, in the country generally there was one poor man to every 43 of the population. In the South-Eastern District of England, in Cornwall and in Devon, there was one poor man to every 27 of the population; and the same was the case in Wales. In the Eastern District there was one poor man to 30 people, so that the stress and poverty in London was below the average of poverty in other parts of the country, and certainly it was much below that in the South-West of England and Wales. In view of that, he maintained that the allocation was doubly and trebly unfair, because of the way in which it was made. The objection was still greater if the allocation was to be perpetual. It amounted to this—that London got very nearly one-third of the whole Probate Duty grant on the basis of indoor pauperism; while its population was only one-fifth of the whole country. If they compared the case of London with that of Wales, they found that, while London had a population two and a half times that of Wales, its grant from Probate Duty would be ten times as much as the Welsh grant, so that the inequality which the right hon.

      627
      Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) pointed out between the various counties and London was doubly aggravated in the case of Wales. The only other remark he desired to make was that the hon. Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) admitted, fairly and candidly, that there was a gross inequality, because of the Poor Law taxation in various parts of London, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton admitted that the cost of the police in London was greater than it ought to be and than it would be were the police managed by a representative authority. What it came to, therefore, was simply this—that the poor peasants of Dorsetshire and of Wales were to be driven into the workhouse, or were to have very little of the grant, in order that the hon. Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be, in their own words, shamefully undertaxed. That, he thought, was reducing the proposal of the Government to such an absurdity that he hoped they would even now reconsider it, and make something like a fair adjustment between London and the various parts of the country, and not press the grant to London, first upon the inequality of the rich and the poor districts, and, secondly, upon the great extravagance of the Metropolitan Police.
      MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, he had one or two very strong objections to the Government proposal. The first was that he feared it would give permanency to pauperism. His belief was that outdoor relief was of a more temporary character than indoor relief. He thought the House was hardly aware of the way in which a man's intense desire to live outside the workhouse operated on the poor. Anything that broke down that feeling would work evil for this country. and it was because he believed that the proposal of the Government would work in that way that he asked them to reconsider their position. He had always found in the working of the Poor Law system that the people spent their own money much more economically than they spent money which they got from the State, and he believed that proposal would lead to extravagance of that kind, and therefore he opposed it most strongly. There was another evil
      628
      he felt very much—that it would lessen the tendency to thrift. If they broke up poor people's homes they destroyed the great motive they had for keeping themselves off the rates. So long as a man had a home, no matter how small or humble it might be, he desired to keep out of the workhouse. Deprive him of that feeling and they took away his object for keeping out of the workhouse. If they broke up this man's home they broke down the strongest barrier to a man's pauperism. He therefore desired the Government to amend their proposal, with the view of hindering so many persons coming on the rates.
      MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, that, as he had got an Amendment on the Paper for the rejection of the clause, he wished to say that, after what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) had just said, his objections to the clause were entirely removed. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the changes he had made in the clause, and he thought that the hon. Gentleman who preceded him (Mr. Handel Cossham) had rather darkened counsel in the matter. He thought his hon. Friend had really missed the point. He took it that this clause had really now nothing whatever to do with indoor relief; it merely took indoor relief as it existed now as a basis for allocating to each county its share of the Probate Duty grant. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) might now translate the clause into a Schedule, giving a certain definite proportion of the proposed grant to each county without so much as mentioning the Poor Law at all. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had made the change. Now, what he wanted to point out was this—that he regretted the Government introduced the clause in the present form, and that they had spent a whole day, or nearly a whole day, in discussing the propriety of making the grant dependent in its variations upon the variation of indoor relief, a point which he understood they had now entirely abandoned. It had been said that the proposal of the Government was advantageous to London. He was not prepared to accept the advantageous arrangements for London, if it were in pursuance of a principle which he believed to be bad, and which would pro-

      629
      bably have an injurious effect upon the country at large. As a London Member, he wholly dissented from the statement which had been made as to the extremely advantageous character of this Bill for London. He agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) had said—namely, that it was not fair to take alone the question of this particular arrangement. They must look at the Bill as a whole, and at its financial effect upon London. He ventured to say that the Bill, as a whole, was not particularly advantageous to London; but he thought that, on the whole, it dealt fairly between the Metropolis and the country in this matter. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment for the rejection of the clause, and to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the change he had promised to make.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, he wished to point out that, unless there was some modification of Clause 59, the inducement to Guardians would still be in existence when the grant came to be distributed through the County Council to the Unions.
      MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was prepared to admit that the concession of the right hon. Gentleman was a very important one, and entirely removed the objection to the clause from the point of view that it would give an inducement to the Guardians to drive poor people into the workhouse. But the financial inequalities remained as before. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the proposal of the hon. Member for the Cirencester Division of Gloucestershire, and include outdoor as well as indoor pauperism, there would be a probability of coming to a conclusion at once; but he understood he was not prepared to do that, and, that being so, the inequalities he had referred to would be made worse. He could not agree to the principle laid down for the division of the money, and as the Government were not disposed to make any other proposal he must take a Division on his Amendment.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, they ought to have the proposal of the Government stated in black and white. As he understood it, he ventured to say that it was not one which the House ought to accept, and, moreover, it did not in any way touch the Amendment
      630
      of his right hon. Friend on which they were about to divide. If the Committee decided that pauperism alone should be the basis, then the question of the principle of his hon. Friend the Member for the Cirencester Division of Gloucestershire would come in—namely, that the distribution should be on the basis of both indoor and outdoor pauperism. He still insisted that an enormous injustice would be done to Wales. The Principality spent £58,000 on indoor maintenance and £280,000 on outdoor maintenance, and the former amount would be all that it would receive on the Government lines. He thought they were not then in a position to come to a conclusion on the question, and that further time should be given.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 260: Majority 77.—(Div. List, No. 197.)
      Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Ritchie,) put, and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  BAIL (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 286.]
  (The lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr.
  Solicitor General for Scotland.)

  BAIL (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 286.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, there were no Amendments, and he would put down the third reading for Monday.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, he desired to move in Clause 2 that the words "except murder and treason" be omitted. He regretted that the Bill had been sent to a Grand Committee on which there were few or no Scotsmen, and that a Bill dealing exclusively with the Law of Scotland should be handed over to the tender mercy, and not less cruel ignorance, of English lawyers. That, he thought, made it incumbent upon them to discuss the Bill thoroughly on the Report stage. By the clause, as it now stood, bail was permissible generally, except in the case of murder and treason. He objected altogether to treason being put on a level with murder. There was no kind of analogy between

    631
    them. Treason was a feudal offence, which had long ceased to have any practical meaning.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the words "except murder and treason."—(Mr. Hunter.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'except murder and treason' stand part of the Bill."
    It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES) (SPECIAL REPORT).
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection have leave to make a Special Report.
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, viz. Mr. Timothy Harrington; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Murphy.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

  PAYMENT OF MEMBERS.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. FENWICK MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck), in rising to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it well deserves the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, whether, and under what conditions, it would be expedient to revert to the ancient custom of paying Members for their services in Parliament,"
    632
    said: I would have been glad to see this Resolution in the hands of some person more able and competent than I am to do it that full measure of justice which its importance requires, and where it would be less likely to suffer through misconception of the real motive for bringing it forward. I can assure the House, however, that I have been guided in the course which I am now taking by other and higher than merely personal considerations, which, however important to me personally, would certainly not be sufficient to justify me in taking up the time of the House. I have been guided in this matter by a sense of the importance, the reasonableness, and the equity of the case, and, as I at least understand it, by consideration for the public good. I have to ask the House to consider the expediency of reverting to an old Constitutional practice, now obsolete or inoperative in this country, but observed in every other country except Italy, and in many of our Colonies. Even in Italy it would not be correct to say that Representatives receive no indemnity, for they are allowed to travel free by rail or steamer to all parts of the Kingdom. It may, perhaps, be as well for me to state here what the precise practice of some of the Foreign and Colonial Legislatures is on this point. In some countries remuneration is by fixed salary, in others a per annum allowance is given with or without travelling expenses. For example, in the United States the salary of a Senator, Representative, or Delegate in Congress is 5,000 dollars—or, say, £1,000 per annum, with travelling expenses. The Members of the Canadian House of Commons receive an allowance of 10 dollars per diem to the end of 30 days, and for a Session lasting longer than that period a sum of 1,000 dollars, with, in every case, 10 cents per mile for travelling expenses. In France, Deputies receive 9,000 francs, or a sum of £360, and Senators 15,000 francs, or a sum of £600. The Members of the Second Prussian Chamber are paid £1 per day, and travelling expenses. Refusal of this payment is not permitted. In the Argentine Republic, both the Members of the Senate and the House of Deputies are paid £1,000 per annum; and in Brazil Senators receive £900 and Deputies £600 per Session respectively. As I have shown, the principle

    633
    for which I am contending is sanctioned by the universal practice of Foreign and Colonial Legislatures; but I would also remind the House that it is one which, in the estimation of our Predecessors, was so obviously just and equitable that it required no positive law to insure its observance. Dr. Henry, in his History of Great Britain, tells us that this custom—
    "Commenced with the commencement of representation, from a principle of common equity without any positive law."
    The same authority tells us that—
    "No man in those times imagined that this custom ever could or would be changed, as it seemed so reasonable, and was productive of good effects."
    Well, it may here be asked—Why was a practice so reasonable, so apparently fair, and so productive of good effects, permitted to lapse? I will submit two reasons to the House as an answer to the question, which, to my mind, are quite sufficient to account for the change. In the first place, there was no uniformity in the payment. A County Member was allowed twice the amount given to a City or Borough Representative, and that difference set up an invidious distinction, which in time became intolerable, and to some extent was responsible for the breakdown of the custom. In the second place, the payment itself was levied directly upon the constituencies. Those people were compelled to pay who were not allowed to vote; and hence the dissatisfaction of the non-electors on the one hand, and the invidious distinction of the Members upon the other, led ultimately to the abandonment of the custom. From what I have been able to find out, it is, roughly, about 200 years since this practice ceased, though there have been several attempts during the interval to restore it, to two only of which I will briefly refer. The first occasion to which I refer was in 1830, when the Marquess of Blandford, a distinguished relative of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), brought in a Reform Bill, which was supported by nearly all the leading Liberals of that time—Lords Althorp, Ebrington, Russell, and Howick, and Messrs. Whitebread (father and son), Hobhouse, and Joseph Hume were amongst those who voted for the second
    634
    reading of that Bill, one of the provisions of which was—
    "To restore the principle and practice of paying Members the wages of attendance according to the value of money at the present time."
    The great objection, however, to the Marquess of Blandford's proposal was that it attempted to set up again the mischievous principle of class distinction. He proposed to give County Members £4 per diem, and City or Borough Representatives £2—an invidious distinction which was severely commented upon. However, as I have said, the principle of that proposal was the restoration of the practice, and it was supported by all the leading Liberals of that time. Now, Sir, the next occasion to which I will refer when this principle was raised was in 1870, when Mr. P. A. Taylor, then Member for Leicester, asked leave to bring in a Bill—
    "To restore the ancient Constitutional custom of payment of Members of this House."
    The result of Mr. Taylor's efforts, I am bound to confess, was certainly not calculated to inspire the advocates of the principle with hope for its speedy adoption, though I am also bound to say that, reading the debate on that occasion, his arguments were, in my opinion, unanswered and unanswerable. But I have not referred to Mr. Taylor's effort for the purpose of reproducing his arguments in this debate, but for the purpose of saying that many changes have taken place since 1870. Since then more than 2,000,000 have been added to the electorate of the country. Those electors are drawn chiefly from one section of the community—namely, the industrial class; and as to whom, if the vote you gave in 1884 is to have a real and not merely a nominal value, it is absolutely essential, in my opinion, that you should revert to the custom for which I am now contending. Another fact to which I desire to call attention—and one which, I think, will not be disputed by any Gentleman in this House—is that the tendency in constituencies is more and more to select their Representatives with a view to real and actual service. Any candidate at the time of an Election who is not prepared to give the most explicit pledges that he will devote the best of his time to the service and the interest of his constituents is

    635
    likely to receive very little support. Even the Government have recognized that tendency, and have, in my opinion, wisely altered their Rules of Procedure and instituted a system of Grand Committees, the object of which is to secure a greater despatch of Public Business. But I would point out to the House that the effect of that alteration is to increase the labours of Members, and to compel those who, say, like myself, are serving on two Committees, to be in attendance at the House on four days of the week from 12 to 13 hours per day; and in my judgment it is unreasonable and unjust to request Members to withdraw so much of their time from the pursuit of their ordinary calling in the interest of the public good without any indemnity or compensation. But it is said—Why should you pay private Members, when you can secure any number of Gentlemen both willing and ready to accept the duties solely for the sake of the honour? My objection to that argument is this—that it mistakes the true nature of Parliamentary representation, and assumes it to be a privilege which is enjoyed by the individual, rather than a duty which is undertaken on behalf of the community. And here I shall ask the permission of the House to read a short extract from a speech made in 1868 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "It was time Parliament expressed an opinion, especially with a widely-extended constituency, as to the true nature of Parliamentary duties, and decided whether sitting and voting in the House was a privilege to be enjoyed by the individual, or a duty to be performed towards the community. In his judgment it was a duty performed towards the community,"
    If I may be permitted to say so, I entirely concur in that judgment, and that is why I ask this House to consider the expediency of providing an indemnity for those who are engaged in the discharge of a public duty. But I should like to follow that argument a little further, and see to where it would lead. If I understand it correctly, it means that you cannot get Ministers to undertake the duties of Office gratuitously, or simply for the sake of the honour, and, therefore, you are bound to pay them. Is that the position which any Gentleman will get up and defend in this de-
    636
    bate? Will any hon. Member, for example, suggest that the First Lord of the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not as willingly and as devotedly discharge the duties of their respective Offices as they do at the present time if there were no considerations of pay attached? The suggestion, in my opinion, is too mean to be entertained for a moment. Then, if I may not suggest that Ministers hold their Office simply for the sake of the pay, why do you continue this distinction between official and non-official Members? Clearly not because you cannot get Gentlemen who for the sake of the honour would be willing to undertake the duties of the Office. To do otherwise you would restrict and limit your choice of eligible men, and prevent the nation from utilizing the combined experience and wisdom of those who are capable of governing a nation, but whose only misfortune is to be poor. That is the point of my argument in favour of extending the principle to private as well as official Members. My contention is that our present system restricts and limits the choice of the constituencies, and practically sets up a property qualification. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in 1868 said—
    "It was ridiculous to admit all classes to the franchise, and yet continue in existence those arrangements which practically limited the choice of candidates. It was a pernicious doctrine to prevent poor men from coming into the House. The entrance of such men would be beneficial to all classes, and would strengthen the confidence of the people in the Legislature."
    This quotation strengthens my position in saying that the continuance of the present system practically is a bar to working men coming into this House. But there is one striking anomaly in our present system on which I should like to say a word or two, and that is the principle on which an ex-Minister of a certain class is entitled to remuneration for public services even when out of Office. This, in my opinion, is an indefensible principle. He is elected to Parliament in precisely the same way as other Members are. If he is fortunate enough to obtain Office, he receives the salary attached, and when in Opposition he is as much a private Member as any other Member of this House. Why the law should permit any departure in such cases has always been to me

    637
    a puzzle. There is one other objection to the change I am seeking to which I will briefly refer. It is said if you change your present system you will degrade the Office. What I have to ask is, do the present Ministerial Members of this House who are in receipt of pay consider themselves in any manner or form degraded by receiving pay for their services? Is there a lawyer, a railway director, or a chairman of any Company who is prepared to admit that he is degraded by the receipt of the salary which he obtains for the discharge of his public duties? Not one, I venture to say, would consider himself so degraded. Then why should it be held that the payment of Members will lead to the degradation of the Office of a Member of Parliament? I have endeavoured to state my case to the House without passion, without any unnecessary references to political Parties. I have endeavoured to show that my case is not only in accordance with the practice of other countries, but that it is one so obviously just and desirable in the interests of a large section of the community that I have no hesitation in asking the House to revert to this old Constitutional custom, and I therefore beg to move the Resolution that stands in my name.
    MR. HALDANEsaid, in rising to second the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Fenwick), he thought there was one point, at all events, on which all sections of the House would agree with him. He did not apprehend that the force of the argument to which the House had just listened was in any degree weakened by the temperate nature both of the arguments and the language with which the Motion had been moved by his hon. Friend the Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland (Mr. Fenwick). He (Mr. Haldane), in supporting the Motion, wished to put before the House briefly, and in as few words as possible, the considerations which had led him to the same conclusion as his hon. Friend. He was aware that this was a question upon which there might well be a difference of opinion. It was one of those matters upon which it was only possible to arrive at a decision after balancing the considerations on both sides; but it seemed to him, for reasons which he would shortly state to the House, that the
    638
    balance of the considerations clearly and distinctly lay upon one side, and that side the side of the Motion. Now, there was one argument which he had no doubt had been present to the minds of many Members of the House, and which had probably been largely present, and which was probably now present to the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite—he meant this, that if they introduced a system of payment of Members they would put a premium on the spouter, the demagogue, and the most vicious class of professional partizan politicians. That was an argument which had been supported not only by hon. Gentlemen holding these opinions now, but by eminent Radicals in times gone by. If his memory did not deceive him, it was the opinion held by no less an authority than the late John Stuart Mill. But a good deal had happened since John Stuart Mill wrote. The franchise had been extended, and they were now speaking under no vague terror as to that of which they had no experience when they spoke of the tendencies of the mute electorate. He did not think that those people to whom the franchise was extended in 1885 had proved themselves to be dangerous and of a nature calculated to bring ruin on the House by the rashness and intemperance of the votes they gave. Let him remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that that very body of new electors had placed the Tory Party in the year 1886 in a majority in the House of Commons; and he was sure he was appealing to something which hon. Gentlemen opposite would sympathize with when he referred to the moderation and hesitation with which the new electors, many of them, received the propositions that were brought forward for the extension of a system of Home Rule to Ireland—the way in which they hung back from supporting a Party to which they were deeply attached. It was possible, perhaps, that hon. Gentlemen who were inclined to nod assent to that proposition would also be inclined to nod assent to the fact that these same electors, after a lapse of two years, and after having carefully and fully considered the question, were now giving their votes, as recent elections proved, in the most free and unstinted way to the Party from which they had been temporarily estranged. At least one thing was clear; the new elector was

    639
    very like the old elector. The line of distinction between the Liberal and Tory had obtained among these classes as it obtained amongst the more fortunate classes. The new elector was not by nature a demagogue; he was not a revolutionary; he was prone to choose, and to choose well, and to be in no hurry about his choice. He (Mr. Haldane) did not think that the history of the last General Election showed that those candidates obtained the largest majority of votes who made the most specious promises and addressed the electors in the most intemperate language. If that was so—and he imagined that it was proved not by mere abstract reasoning, but by experience which they all had access to—it followed that the new electors might be trusted in the same way that the old electors had been trusted. If the new elector were given the selection of his candidate they might depend upon it that he would have shrewdness enough and sense enough to see that that candidate was not one who was simply following his own interests, and who was seeking his own aggrandizement at the expense of his constituents. He believed that there was nothing which the electors of this country, and particularly the new electors, had a higher sense of than the characters of their candidates. They were sensitive, and very sensitive, to anything like self-seeking on the part of those who sought their suffrages; and by an instinct which it was impossible to reproduce or to analyse, they found out the truth about the men who were seeking to represent them. Now, if that were so, it seemed to him that all force was taken away from the argument of those who said that the payment of Members of Parliament was putting a premium upon a class of candidates who would come forward in large numbers, and who, to the ruin of this country, would woo the constituencies with an amount of success to which they were not entitled. They on the Opposition side of the House maintained that the result of paying Members would be simply this—that the new system would develop and stimulate to an enormous degree the electoral machinery, and would thus enable the electors to make a proper choice amongst an increased number of candidates who would come before them as to who would be
    640
    the best to represent them in reality and truth as well as in mere profession. Then there was another argument brought forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was said that the House of Commons in this country was better and nobler and higher in its character, on the whole, than any other Representative Body in the world where the system of payment of Members obtained. He did not wish to make any reference which would seem in the slightest degree unfriendly to any other country; but he knew it was an opinion currently entertained that the House of Commons had always been higher in its morality and status than the Lower House of the Congresss of the United States, or the Assembly of France. He believed that was an opinion which was a favourite one with a large number of persons in this country, and the fact of the payment of Members was one of the reasons pointed to as accounting for that state of things. But in considering those reasons regard must be had to the fact that, in the countries to which he referred, public opinion did not lay such great store by representative institutions as was laid by them in this country. It was further to be observed that in America, at all events, there was a separation between executive and legislative machinery which had no parallel in this country, and which was not without some unfortunate consequences. If it were said that they imported considerations of self-seeking into the motives of the candidates by holding out to them the possibility of obtaining emolument, he would ask whether that state of things was altogether absent in the present system and from our present House of Commons. Why, the House of Commons, in the opinion of most people, was an institution, access to which greatly facilitated the growth of prosperity in the concerns of those who belonged to it. They all knew that in the City of London, at all events, a short time ago, the letters "M.P." used to have a distinct commercial value. Some of them knew that those letters had a commercial value to this hour; and, if that were so, he maintained that it was desirable that the electors and the constituencies should have a wider choice than was now presented to them in the selection of their Representatives, and that it would be better that Parliament should give them

    641
    an opportunity of obtaining men who, if they were poor, at all events, were strictly honest, and if they were not the most proper persons in other respects, were, at any rate, sincere in their political professions and desirous of devoting their best energies and abilities to the service of the country; and that brought him to his second point. It appeared to him that the extension of the franchise had, to a large degree, increased the necessity of extending the class from which they were to draw their candidates. As things at present stood, it was extremely difficult for a man of moderate means to stand in a Party election. He had to incur not only large expense in the course of his election, but he must maintain himself in London; he had to make very considerable outlay, and it was impossible for him, unless by the greatest efforts, if he were not a man of a considerable fortune or of high personal position, to maintain himself in his position in that House. Now, upon the working classes, who formed by far the largest portion of the constituencies, this pressed very hardly. It was not fair that they should be precluded from sending to Parliament men of their own class, with an intimate knowledge of their desires and necessities, to represent them. Experience of the working class Members had shown, and it would be generally admitted, that in those cases where the labouring classes had succeeded in returning men from their own ranks to represent them, that they had made a wise choice in the men they had so selected. The labouring classes had made the wisest and most sensible selection, and he was certain—even hon. Members opposite would, in the main, agree with him—that it was not only desirable, but their bounden duty in this House, having extended the franchise, to have the courage of their opinions, and to enable those to whom they had given the vote to choose the kind of candidates who would best look after their interests in the Imperial Parliament. Looking upon what had been pointed out already, that the increase of Business they had seen coming upon the House, and the multitude of duties that were crowding upon them, the ever-increasing amount of special knowledge which was essential for the discharge of those duties, it was more and more necessary that they should have not
    642
    only men who were able to give the fag end of their time to their Parliamentary work and who devoted the best part of their time to the earning of a living from day to day, but that they should have men who were content to live modestly and quietly, like the class from which they came, and to devote the whole of their time and attention to their Parliamentary labours. This was the position in which they stood; and they might depend upon it that if the principle of this Motion were carried into law they would see a great improvement in the electoral machinery of the country. It might also be necessary for them to have a second ballot, which would help them in getting rid of the difficulty which would arise from the multiplicity of candidates. An argument which had been brought forward by his hon. Friend in support of this proposition was that it was nothing new. Well, he (Mr. Haldane) did not attach any great importance to considerations of antiquity. Times had changed, and because Members of Parliament were paid a good many hundreds of years ago, it did not necessarily follow that they should pay them to-day. This point, however, deserved consideration from those who thought that this was a proposition which the Radical Party on that side of the House had taken up in a hurry, and were trying to carry through without mature consideration in the course of their downward path. It was a circumstance which deserved consideration at the hands of hon. Members opposite that this proposal, embodied not in any abstract Motion but in a Bill, was, as his hon. Friend had reminded the House, supported by such men as Lord Althorp, Lord John Russell, and members of the Whitbread family. It seemed to him that this Motion was one to which all sections of the House might, in view of the principle involved in the extension of the franchise, give their assent; and before he sat down he should like to draw attention to the question upon which they were going to vote. What was asked for was an inquiry, but he admitted that the desirability of making an inquiry could not be assented to without, at the same time, assenting to a principle involved. But what was that principle? It seemed to him that it was thus: that they should no longer

    643
    confine the franchise and confine the benefits of the franchise and the privilege of being elected to Parliament to rich men—to men of independent fortune, but that they should at once frankly recognize, in the presence of a new order of things, and face to fact with new demands on the constituencies that it was desirable that they should no longer make representation in this House the monopoly of a single class If it were true that the principle of this Motion were not one which was attended with danger, if it were true that they could trust the constituence to return Members to sit in the House, surely they were entitled to say that the choice of constituencies should no longer be restricted as it had been in the past If that were the principle—and it seemed to him to be the only principle involved in this Motion—then, in seconding it, he must say that he hoped many Members, without regard to the quarter of the House in which they sat, would give a hearty assent to the Motion.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it well deserves the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, whether, and under what conditions, it would be expedient to revert to the ancient custom of paying Members for their services in Parliament," instead thereof.—(Mr. Fenwick.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. JENNINGSsaid, there was one serious objection to the Motion before the House which, strangely enough, the hon. Gentleman who had addressed the House paid no attention to, and that was, that if carried out this plan would involve a serious addition to the expenditure of the country. He had noticed that the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Resolution with great moderation was very careful to keep clear of any statement as to the amount which he proposed that Members should be paid, if paid at all; but that seemed to him (Mr. Jennings) to be a practical part of the question which, if this Motion was to be adopted, could not be overlooked but for a very short period. He assumed that, if it were decided to pay Members of Parliament a salary at all, they would not treat themselves less liberally than Members of Congress
    644
    were treated in the United States. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion quoted, without any expressions of disapproval, the rate of pay now adopted in both branches of the United State Congress. Every Congressman got £1,000 a-year and a very considerable mileage fee. The hon. Member did not describe this amount as being too large; and, consequently, it might be assumed that that would be about the sum that he would be willing to pay to Members of Parliament. ["No, no!"] Well, it was very important that the hon. Member should say what sum he would pay Members of Parliament. He (Mr. Jennings) desired to call the attention of the House to the fact that last year the Congress of the United States cost the people of that country 2,210,000 dollars, or about £440,000. The salaries and mileage fees amounted to that enormous sum, and he (Mr. Jennings) could assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they supposed for a moment that the people of the United States paid this large amount willingly or gladly they were very much mistaken. Now, supposing that the House took it that this rate of pay was required for the services of Members of Parliament, it was quite obvious that the amount would be largely in excess of that sum, as there were many more Members of Parliament than there were Members of Congress in the United States. This House consisted of 670 Members, and if the rate of the remuneration was £1,000 a-year, that would make a total of £670,000 a-year. Even if the hon. Member were to reduce the sum by one-half—and what was the good of voting themselves anything at all if they did not vote as much as that?—the total would be £335,000 a-year; and then the hon. Member had not said what he proposed to do with the House of Lords.
    An hon. MEMBER: Abolish it.
    MR. JENNINGSsaid, he observed in the Resolution that the hon. Member spoke of "Members of Parliament," and he presumed that that phrase still included Members of the House of Lords as well as Members of the House of Commons. It had occurred to him (Mr. Jennings) that possibly, by way of reparation for the hard things which were sometimes said of the House of Lords, the hon. Member proposed to make an

    645
    addition of, say £1,000 a-year each to their incomes. But supposing the hon. Member confined his Motion to Members of that House—which certainly his Resolution would not do—and supposing that Members were only paid one-half of the amount received by Congressmen in the United States, the total, as he had said, would still amount to nearly £350,000 a-year. Now, he appealed to the House whether they had any right to add so large a sum as that to the National expenditure. On every side there were grievous complaints, and just complaints, of the amount of taxation imposed upon the people of this country. On every side there were complaints that the Army and Navy were in a state of inefficiency, and that the Public Services were not as they would like to see them, and the desire of everyone in the House, he believed, without respect to Party, was to bring about a retrenchment of public expenditure rather than to increase it. But they could not bring about a retrenchment of public expenditure and at the same time vote large salaries for their own services. He asked the House to consider the position in which they would be placed if, at the end of the Session, they had to go before their constituents and say they had not been able to do much towards the retrenchment of the national expenditure, but that what they had been able to do was to vote themselves £500 a-year, or £1,000 a-year each, out of their pockets. He did not know what kind of reception hon. Gentlemen opposite would get from their constituents, but he, for one, would rather not face his constituents at all than go to them with such a story. Now, the other very serious objection to this proposal to which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Seconder of the Resolution (Mr. Haldane) had briefly adverted, was a very real one, and not an imaginary one, as the hon. and learned Member seemed to suppose—that was to say, that if the proposal were adopted, it would lead to the inevitable degradation of Parliament. There would, he believed, forthwith spring up a class of men whose aim would be to get into this House for the sake of emolument. The professional politician, who was the bane and curse of every country where he existed, would overrun the land. It had been said, and said that night, that though this
    646
    had happened elsewhere it would not happen here. Well, for his own part, he did not know what magic there was to transform an evil system into a good one just because it happened to be resorted to in England. It had been found elsewhere that the payment of Members was one of the causes which led to the deterioration of legislative institutions. Now, the opinion of an English Member of Parliament with reference to the condition of things in the American Congress was not of any importance, and, perhaps, it would not be worth while to give it, but they might very fairly consider what were the opinions of Americans of the best class and the most intelligent class concerning the working of this system of Government in their own land. He would merely call the attention of the House to one or two opinions which were very well worth considering, and which came from men occupying eminently representative positions. A few years ago one of these gentlemen, the President of the Union League Club—a representative club, which, during the American war, was the means of doing great service to the people of the country—in a speech he (Mr. Jennings) had heard him deliver in New York had said—
    "Our most promising young men have long ago ceased to look upon politics as a desirable career. A seat in the Legislature, which is thought in England by a gentleman who leaves his University as the highest point of his ambition, is regarded here with aversion and contempt, and most of our most eminent citizens have as little to do with the shaping or checking of public affairs as if they lived in Austria or Russia."
    Now, if that statement had been made by an Englishman it would be looked upon as a piece of impertinence; but there was no denying the authority from whom it emanated, and he thought it would be almost impossible to find any eminent man in America whose opinion was worthy of respect who did not agree with that statement. Again, the editor of Scribner's Magazine, published in November, 1886, a statement that Congress was no longer a Legislative Body, and that it consisted of a plutocracy at one end and of a mobocracy at the other. Well, now they were told to look at the Congress of the United States as an example to encourage them in the path along which hon. Gentlemen opposite would lead them, and he would ask the

    647
    House to consider the statements of the authorities whom he had given, and whose opinions were entitled to respect. He did not assert that the degradation of the American Assemblies was owing solely to the payment of Members, but still that was one of the causes to which the degradation was ascribed. The other, and the more potent, cause was the practice which, he regretted to say, was coming into vogue in this House of relegating all the real Business of the country to Committees. In the course of time, the attention of the country would become concentrated on the proceedings of those Committees, and the proceedings of the main branch of the Legislature would sink into insignificance. In no part of these considerations could be found much encouragement to them to adopt the proposal put before the House; but he placed special stress on the first points which he had mentioned, and trusted that some hon. Member who advocated the Resolution on the other side of the House would tell them precisely what they would be prepared to pay to M.P.'s, supposing they were paid, and how much they would allow them as mileage fees? A man could not expect to be an M.P. without being prepared to pay something for it, and the fact of his having to pay something for it was, and ought to be, a part of the honour and glory of the position, and the payment of railway expenses was the least part of that necessary cost. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland (Mr. Fenwick) said they set up in England a qualification of property and of wealth for Members of Parliament, but that he (Mr. Jennings) denied. If such a qualification as that existed, he, for one, would not be able to be in the House of Commons at that moment. Then the hon. Member said that poor men were unable to get into the House under the existing system, but that also he (Mr. Jennings) denied. Poor men had succeeded not only in obtaining positions in that House, but in doing their work in the House, and in earning their living at the same time by the exercise of their Professions. He had a right as a Member, sitting on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, to deny entirely the statement that a qualification of wealth or property attached to a seat in the House.
    648
    In conclusion, he trusted the House would reject the proposal, which would be fatal to everything of which they had reason to be proud in connection with their National Legislature.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) had appealed to the House on the score of economy, but he (Sir George Trevelyan) hoped to be able to give the House some reasons further on to show why the very last person who should oppose the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Fenwick) should be an economist. They would want a more tangible reason than the fact that in America £1,000 a-year was paid to Members of the Senate and of the Lower House, and that we, therefore, in our turn would be pledged to pay £1,000, or at least £500 a-year, to every Member of the House of Commons if they were to reject the Resolution of his hon. Friend. That Resolution was brought forward in an eminently practical spirit, and in an eminently practical spirit he (Sir George Trevelyan) intended to state the arguments with which it was supported. It was not arguing in a practical spirit to tell them that if they passed it they were bound to pay £1,000 or £500 a-year to Lord Derby, the Duke of Westminster, the Duke of Bedford, and Lord Ardilaun. That was a preposterous argument to bring forward against such arguments as were adduced by his hon. Friend. Then the hon. Member for Stockport—to whom he had listened with much satisfaction some time ago when he had spoken on other subjects, and could have listened if he had spoken at much greater length than that night—told them that he would be ashamed to go down to his constituents and say that he had voted himself a salary. For his own part, he (Sir George Trevelyan) would be much more ashamed to go down to his constituents and to say that he grudged to men as good as he, but not so privileged by fortune, the possibility of going to Parliament and of serving their country, and that he grudged his country the advantage of being served by them. The hon. Member had talked of the decline of the American Legislature and of American politics. He had heard a great deal about that decline ever since he was a very young politician, and, in

    649
    his opinion—and it was the result of a tolerably close obervations—these complaints of the decline of American politics were the complaints of those whom they had in America, as well as in this country, fastidious dilettanti. Americans there were who were willing to talk against their country, and say that it was going down in the world, just as there were men in England who said the same of their country; but they could not say that their country was growing poorer, that the population was becoming less numerous, or that the prosperity and education of the people were going backwards, and so the one thing that remained for them to say was that politics were becoming vulgar. Now, no one could have watched American public life during the last 30 years without seeing that it was becoming purer, more public spirited, and more in accord with the highest intellect of the country; and to say that the corrupting influence in America was the payment of the Legislature, was to say something which could not be borne out by facts. The corrupting influence in America had always been their system of patronage of placing men in Office because they belonged to a special political Party, and removing them from Office when the other Party came into power. What, in two sentences, was our history on this point? We were as bad as the Americans not long ago, but we had cured ourselves as we became more popular and more democratic, because it was then that Members of Parliament had surrendered the privilege of appointing their constituents, their nominees, or their relations and friends to offices which then became open to every citizen who qualified himself by passing a public examination. So it was in America; as America proceeded she had begun to go in the same direction, and patronage was being extinquished in that country, and yet all the while Members of the Legislature were being paid. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wansbeck Division had brought forward an argument which possibly weighed very much with him, but which, for his own part, he (Sir George Trevelyan) owned weighed very little with him. The hon. Member had said that the custom of paying Members of Parliament was an ancient custom in this country. But not only was it an ancient
    650
    custom, but it was also a modern one, and in full swing at the present moment. At the present time the principle of Members of Parliament being paid as Members was in full operation, as he would undertake to show, but, instead of those being paid whose circumstances required it most, it was a favoured few—and not so very few either. He would take a Return laid before the House in 1872, as it would be less invidious to refer to than to take any personal observations which one might have made of one's Colleagues in the present Parliament. That Return was a very interesting one, of Members of Parliament who received salaries while they were in Parliament. He had picked out a few of the most important, and as they were only a few, perhaps the House would allow him to read them. He found that a lieutenant-colonel of the Army received £ 173 a-year; a major of Artillery £237; a captain of Royal Engineers £301; a colonel £1,000; a lieutenant-general on unattached pay £456; a major-general on unattached pay £456; a colonel of Artillery on half-pay £365; a lieutenant-colonel on half-pay £200; a colonel of foot £1,000; a captain and colonel of the Guards £1,000, £505; and another £495; an admiral on half-pay £850; a rear-admiral £625; a captain and naval aide-de-camp £487. Now, here they had 14 officers getting £7,700 amongst them, or an average of £550. Of these—and he considered this argument unanswerable; he defied any hon. Member to answer it—some were on pension and of them he would say nothing, but others were on full or half-pay, and they had not to perform their duties during the Session of Parliament. That was an old privilege of the Army. Now, why were these men paid? They were paid because they were Members of Parliament [Cries of "No, no!"] Would such an economist as the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury admit the principle that men in the Government Service were paid for doing nothing?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): They are paid for their military and naval duties.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, they did not do those duties. They were nominally paid because they were doing military or naval duties, but they

    651
    were excused their own duties in order that they might attend the House, which he must say, in some respects, was a privilege of very dubious propriety. They were excused one public duty in order that they might perform another, and, therefore, he maintained that they were paid for the public duty which they did, and not for that which they did not perform. Well, he did not grudge their being paid as Members of Parliament, but he thought that the pay was too much and that it was given in a very irregular and, so far as the state was concerned, in a covert, indirect, and not very reputable manner, and he hoped that when the inquiry asked for by his hon. Friend the Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland (Mr. Fenwick) took place, it would put these military and naval officers and all other Members of Parliament on a proper footing.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: Exclude the Navy.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, he had been resting his case principally on the military. Now, here was another case. In the Return of 1872 there were three Members of Parliament who were officers—or were in 1872—of the Royal Household. One of them got £924 a-year, another got £904, and another £336, or, in all, £2,164. Here were Gentlemen who were not technically paid as Members of Parliament—["Hear, hear!"]—yes; but they were really paid as Members of Parliament. They had no other serious duties except attendance in that House. But that was not all. They had obtained these posts because they were Members of Parliament; that, as a matter of fact, they would not have obtained them unless they had been Members of Parliament; and, therefore, he maintained that they were paid £900 a-year for being Members of Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) wished to know whether he thought that too much or too little, he would tell him quite plainly that he thought it just three times too much, and that he, for his own part, would never vote for the payment of a larger salary than £300 a-year to a Member of Parliament. But there was a very much stronger case indeed, and a case exactly on all-fours with the payment of Members of Parliament, and that was the case of political
    652
    pensions. That the nation which kept up political pensions should refuse to pay Members of Parliament under the same circumstances as the recipients of these political pensions, was the ne plus ultra of anomaly. They took not the men who had gained least from public life, but the men who had gained most; they took people not like—well, he would not name anyone—not the most hard worked veterans in the House, with possibly precarious incomes during many years, but hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had obtained many thousands of public money. They invited them to make a declaration that they could not support themselves—he was not sure of the exact words of the declaration, but it was something like that—in a manner befitting and becoming public men and Members of Parliament—because between two Governments they were nothing more nor less than plain Members of Parliament just like the rest—and then Parliament gave them £2,000 or £1,200 a-year—a pension which was often very much more than the bare compensation which a man ought to receive, and which, he was bound to say, was the most a good man would ask, for the means of making money which he had foregone when he entered Parliament, and the expenses which awaited him there. Now, as to the principle on which these pensions were granted he wished to say a single word. He did not object to the nature of the declaration that was made; in fact, he was rather in favour of it. That was exactly one of the points he should like to refer to those who conducted the Inquiry his hon. Friend called for. He should like to have the question referred to them whether it would not be best to make these pensions optional, and whether the declaration which was practically exacted now from the holders of political pensions should be exacted from the receivers of Parliamentary salaries. But that the present system was right and just, that they should give a man who had drawn large official salaries a very large pension when he was nothing more than a Member of Parliament, and refuse anything to his brother Members who were doing exactly the same services as himself, was what he (Sir George Trevelyan) would never admit. There were one or two practical questions which he thought

    653
    ought to be answered in that debate before many of them on the Opposition side of the House were convinced they would be wrong in voting with his hon. Friend. In the first place, were they to have working men in the House or not? It was most important, in his opinion that they should have working men in the House, and it was most important that they should not in any way be in an exceptional position as compared with other Members of the House. But some of them were in an exceptional position as compared with other Members of the House, and a position which was highly honourable to all parties concerned, both to their constituents and themselves, but which was not in the long run to the advantage of the State or to the advantage of the individual. Working men could not sit in the House, Parliament after Parliament, unless their brother workmen and their constituents contributed to their support; and that could not often be done in a regular manner, unless it was done through some recognized organization and machinery. He wanted to have working men in the House. He would like to have a good many more, just as he liked to have plenty of country gentlemen, plenty of Members representing the fishing interest, plenty of commercial men, and he was sure they were all of them glad to have a sprinkling of the liquor interest. But they wanted to have representatives of these interests who belonged to these interests, and who understood their views and sympathized with them, but who were in no sense dependent upon these interests for being able to sit in Parliament. They wanted to have people who agreed with the opinions they represented, but who were in no sense dependent for their pecuniary position upon that agreement. From time to time, at rather long intervals, since he had been a Member of the House, one threatened interest or another had by popular rumour been supposed to have had Gentlemen in the House who were in some sense dependent upon them, and those Gentlemen—he was not speaking of any Member of the present House—had not been conspicuous as good Members for general purposes. Now, the working men who were amongst them, even those who were most closely attached to the Trades Unions, were good Members for
    654
    general purposes. He did not think it was right or kind to put upon them, or upon perhaps their more numerous successors, a strain which could not always properly be borne. If they were to receive a salary for their public duties, that salary ought to come out of the Exchequer, and that consideration alone, as relating to the working man, would induce him to vote for the Inquiry proposed by his hon. Friend. But there was another consideration which it was impossible to blink, and which seemed to him to be of overwhelming importance. Hon. Members opposite were one and all determined to keep their Irish Colleagues in this House. He thought that hon. Members upon the Opposition side of the House were quite as strong in wishing to keep many of their Irish Colleagues in the House; certainly he himself was. But it was simply impossible they could expect, generation after generation, 103 Irish Members to come over to Westminster, unless the State were to follow the example of every other civilized nation that had a Parliament, with the single exception, and that only a partial exception, of Italy. They were told that they would lower the dignity of Parliament if they paid its Members. Why, if there was an august Body in the world it was the American Senate; and the American Senate did not require any of its Members to cross even the river which divided their State at Washington at his own expense. Still less would they think of bringing such a distance as that from Ireland to London and across the Channel, for six or seven months of the year, a whole body of Members as large as those who were sent here from Ireland, at their own expense. It might be said—and he had no doubt it would be said by the hon. and learned Member who followed him, for he trusted this subject would be discussed in a serious tone and in a practical way, and a real answer given—it might be said it was the fault of the Irish people; they ought to elect men who would gladly come over here and leave their business behind them. It might be said that Ireland used to elect such men. That was true enough. They used to elect such men whose business was of a nature which could be left behind, men on whom the name of absentee landlord was largely conferred. But that

    655
    was not the case now. A great number of men were now sent over who followed commercial and professional and literary pursuits, which, to be followed successfully, required their constant attendance in different parts of Ireland, and it was no use telling the Irish people that they ought to elect another order and body of men. They could not dictate to people who they ought to elect, and, in his opinion, they would find that before a very long time went by that the Irish Members, as well as a great number of English and Scotch Members, would be a very potent and governing reason for acceding to the proposal of his hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) had said it would involve the country in very great expense. He (Sir George Trevelyan) was bound to say he considered the economical argument on this subject an exceedingly weak one, if not an almost ridiculous one, when they considered what the country was paying at that moment in other directions. When they considered that at that moment they were paying large salaries to twice as many Generals as they employed; when they considered what a superfluous number of Irish Judges there was, and how exceedingly disproportionate the incomes of Irish Judges were to the incomes that were drawn by members of the Irish Bar, it was too much to tell them that economy was to step in for the first time when it was a question of a hard worked public man drawing the small sum which he could draw with a perfectly clear conscience from the Exchequer. But that was not the sense in which he considered this an important economical proposal. Jobs and abuses such as existed in every quarter of our National Expenditure, in every corner of the Estimates, and in every corner of the Finance Accounts, existed because there were not enough courageous and independent Members of Parliament to go at them and do away with them, and they would exist until they could get all the best men in the country ready to present themselves, and they would not be able to get those men simply because they could not afford to come into Parliament unless they were paid. Now, it was not much that they asked; only a very small sum of money indeed. The supporters of the Motion felt equally with every class in the country, equally with those young men who
    656
    came from the Universities—and he had known young men who had taken the highest honours in the Universities to whose friends it would be a great addition to their happiness and comfort if they could see them in receipt of a small and hardly-earned salary from the State—they felt as much as anyone else what an honour it was to have a seat in Parliament, they felt that that repaid them for almost anything; that it repaid them for the sacrifice of that which they might have gained by following an open commercial or professional career outside Parliament. But there was one thing, and one only, for which it did not repay them, and that was for the loss of the peace of mind and the self-respect which came to a man who could not, even by pinching and living close, follow the career in which he was engaged; and it was because they wished to relieve such men from that—because they thought that the services of these men were as important to the country as those of men who were more fortunate and whose fortune had been derived, perhaps, not by their own ability, but by inheritance from others—because they could not afford to lose any good men from the central body of workers in England, that he should most certainly vote for the Resolution of his hon. Friend.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, he had the advantage of listening to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) at the Union of Edinburgh, and he was convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman had made a speech similar to that they had just listened to, the younger members of that Body would have said that he had evaded the point. It was scarcely germane to the question which had been raised by the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland (Mr. Fenwick) to talk to them at any considerable length upon American Institutions. What the right hon. Baronet told them was extremely interesting. He had no doubt that the American Senate and the American Congress were very excellent Bodies, but he preferred the English House of Commons. But, after all, the strongest argument the right hon. Baronet addressed to them was that certain officers of the Army, when they were Members of that House, received pay for doing nothing. The

    657
    right hon. Baronet dwelt also at some length upon the fact that certain Members of Parliament who had been in Office received considerable emoluments when they were out of Office, and front that fact, and from the existence of this system which he would not defend for one single moment if the question was put before him, he argued that the House ought to support the proposition of the hon. Member for Wansbeck. Because they spent money in a way which the right hon. Baronet would be the first to admit was wholly indefensible, according to the speech of the right hon. Baronet they were to support this proposition. Now, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane), who preceded the right hon. Baronet, spoke of the desirability of the House of Commons not consisting of one class only. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman did not consider how the House was composed now. Could they complain that the working men of this country were not fitly represented in the present Parliament, when they could present their case to the House in such an admirable manner as it was presented to them by one of their own Body that night? Could they say that the working men were unable to support their Representatives in the House when they had sent to it for many years Members of their own class and had supported them in comfort he supposed, if not in affluence, during the time they had belonged to the House of Commons? Now, they could not altogether dissociate the speech in which, in so admirable and moderate a manner, the hon. Member for Wansbeck had introduced this question, from the speech in which the hon. Gentleman proposed a germane Amendment to the Local Government Bill some few nights ago. That Amendment related to the payment of the expenses of members of the proposed County Councils. The question was thoroughly debated in the House. The hon. Member, in proposing his Amendment on that occasion, did not limit the payment to those who required the money for their support, but told the House that he expressly desired that all Members—even those as rich as the Duke of Westminster—should receive pay. The hon. Member desired to amend the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Rotherham Division of
    658
    York (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland) by making it imperative that all members of County Councils who expended certain sums should receive those sums whether they needed them or not. What was the ground on which he made the proposition? It was not that those members required the money, but that the few who did require the money would have their feelings injured if the others who did not require it did not receive it at the same time as themselves. The hon. Member actually wished the House to support the proposition to pay men as rich as the Duke of Westminster their expenses because men not as rich as the Duke of Westminster wanted the money, and to-day, although he did not say so in as many words, he did, by reminding them of a fact which they all knew—namely, that the Members of the Prussian Legislature were compelled to receive pay for their services whether they wanted it or not, lead them to the conclusion that, in his opinion, and in the opinion of the working classes to whom he belonged, hon. Members of the House of Commons should be paid whether they required the money or not the reason being that there would be an invidious distinction made if some Members of the House were not paid. To salve the feelings of a few he would put the community at large to the very great expense of paying salaries to the many who did not require them. He (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke) opposed this proposition on what he ventured to term the ground of principle. [Laughter.] He was aware of the way in which the word "principle" was abused. It was said to be a Constitutional principle to pay Members. There was no principle whatever in it. It was a practice which ceased to be observed when the Representatives themselves did not like to bear the expense. It was common knowledge that many boroughs in this country—he happened to live in a county within five miles of one—which returned two Members to the House, petitioned Parliament that they might be disfranchised, because they did not care about the expense of paying their Members. He did not know whether the feelings of the democracy in those days were different from the feelings of the democracy of the present day; but, so far as one's general political experience went, it was within one's appreciation that a constituency did

    659
    like a rich man rather than a poor man. But that was not the point to which he wished to come. The point to which he wished to come was, that the payment of Members of Parliament was not like the payment a private person received for the work he did for his own benefit. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) said, in the discussion upon the Amendment to the Local Government Bill to which he (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke) had already referred—the hon. Member for Northampton, speaking in his usual ex cathedra style, said that a man who worked ought to be paid for his work. If he had appreciated the authority in which that opinion was founded, he would more properly have said that a labourer was worthy of his hire. Although everyone assented to the principle that every private person who supported himself by his own work, who added to the wealth of the community by his own work, who prevented himself from being a burden upon the community by his own work, ought to be paid, it did not necessarily follow that he ought to be paid when he gave certain services to the community at large, of which he was an individual member himself. In his (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke's) humble judgment the principle which had hitherto underlaid the whole of our political and public and local life was that in return for the advantages a private citizen derived from being a member of a social community, he was bound to make some personal sacrifices in order to aid in the continuance of that civilized community. It was upon that principle that he based his opposition to the proposition now before the House. The only cases which occurred to him at the present moment were those of Overseers and High Sheriffs, who, as hon. Members opposite were well aware, were compelled to give their services to the State gratuitously, unless they could show some reasonable excuse, and the point the House ought to decide now was whether services which private citizens were quite competent and quite willing to give to the State gratuitously should henceforth be paid for by the State. It was said that working men could not represent their fellows in Parliament if this principle be carried out. He quite understood that poor men had not the same advantages as rich men. Men who had no such means as others must always lie under disadvantages,
    660
    public as well as private; but although individuals themselves could not make the sacrifices which the State called for, and sometimes exacted, from private citizens, they could do so vicariously. If a great body of labourers said to themselves—"We desire to be represented by one of our own class, one of the working classes, one who knows our wants and requirements, but who is not able to bear the expense of entering and maintaining himself in Parliament," they could make for him a sacrifice which, if he were better off, he would make himself. By some small individual sacrifices vicariously made they would do for the man that which in other circumstances he would do for himself. He (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke) did not see what disadvantage would accrue to Members or to the State if the process which had sent such hon. Members to the House as the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick) were extended. It had been suggested that possibly hon. Members whose expenses were paid in this way by their constituencies would not feel themselves such free agents as they otherwise would. But surely it would be casting a great slur upon the constituents of such hon. Members to say to them —"You pay your money to your Representatives, not because you want a person in Parliament who will represent your views, not because you want to send a person to Parliament whom you consider to be able, competent, and meritorious, but because you want a servant who will be at your beck and call to do exactly as you please." Would any hon. Member representing the working classes in the House at the present moment stand up and say he was the delegate of his constituency because he received assistance from them; would he stand up and say he dared not give a vote according to his own judgment because his constituents assisted him to support himself in London while he was doing his duty in Parliament? Not one of them would say anything of the kind. Such hon. Members were no more dependent upon their constituents because their constituents vicariously made some sacrifice to the State for them than other hon. Members were dependent upon their constituents who could turn them out of their seats at the

    661
    next General Election if they chose to do so. [Ironical cheers.] He would not dwell any further upon the subject. He had endeavoured to treat it, not in the light spirit in which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed disposed to treat it. He had endeavoured to confine himself to one chief point, and that was that the State demanded some sacrifice from the individual for the benefit the individual derived from the State; and while the State could get a sufficient number of able and competent men to make the sacrifice it ought not to depart from that principle.
    MR. COBBsaid, he considered this a most important question, because he firmly believed they would never get a genuine representation of the people in the House of Commons until they passed some such proposition as that proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick). The hon. and learned Member for West Newington (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke) had referred to a debate which took place some few weeks ago upon an Amendment to the Local Government Bill. He observed that upon that Amendment, which was simply a proposition that Members of County Councils should be paid their travelling expenses, hon. Members got up and welcomed very warmly the presence in the House of hon. Members like the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick) and other hon. Gentlemen who acted with them. But he thought that those welcomes were given in a somewhat patronising manner. He wondered why it was those Members had been so warmly welcomed, and he came to the conclusion that it was because there were so few of them in the House. He wondered whether those welcomes would have been so warmly given if, instead of some six or seven working men in the House, there had been 100, 150, or 200. He wondered, also, whether the hon. Members opposite who spoke then, and he wondered whether those who had spoken that night had considered what was the leading principle of representation. What was that leading principle? Surely, it was that every constituency had a right to elect what Member they liked. Was that possible under the present system? He had had some opportunity of gaining
    662
    experience in this matter. He knew what the expenses of elections were—he knew it to his cost. He was one of those hon. Members whom the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) alluded to just now. He was a poor man, and when he stood for the constituency he had the honour to represent he tried as hard as possible to contract the expenses within the lowest possible limits. But with all his efforts, and he was a good man of business, and did not waste money—with all his efforts the two Elections he had contested cost him £1,000 each. But when men were elected to that House they had not done with the expense. How was it possible for men to come up from the country, live in London, and attend the House of Commons, not only without losing the income which they might be earning from their avocations in the country, but also without considerable expense in London? What had been the result of this system? They all knew what had been the result of it, although he knew there were some who would not admit it. They all knew that this was a class House. They all knew that, with the exception of six or seven Members of the House, there was no one who could come into the House who had not a certain income, and who could not afford to spend at least a considerable sum upon Elections, and upon living in London after he had got into the House. In speaking of classes, he would ask, what was the largest class in this country? Why, the largest class—he believed he was well within the mark in saying that they formed two-thirds of the community—was what was called the working class, and he asserted deliberately that they, with one or two exceptions, had no direct representation whatever in the House of Commons. He professed, but he had some doubt as to whether he was right in professing, that, to the best of his ability, he represented the labourers and artizans of the constituency for which he had been returned. But he frankly owned he very often had misgivings as to whether he represented them properly. [Laughter.] Well, at all events, he owned it, and he looked forward to the day when someone in that constituency belonging to the class he professed to represent would represent it better than he did himself.

    663
    Now, the main argument against this proposition was that the payment of the Members of the House of Commons would lead to the introduction of a class of professional politicians. Were there no professional politicians in the House now? He had the misfortune to be a lawyer, and therefore he knew that there was one class in which there was a large number of professional politicians. It was notorious that part of the career of members of, at all events, one branch of the Legal Profession was to be in the House of Commons. Just as a boy in a good position went to a public school and then to a University, a barrister who, having had a good practice at the Junior Bar, was made a Queen's Counsel, naturally expected to come to the House of Commons as part of his professional career. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) that the payment of Members would not lead to an increase in the House of what were called professional politicians. He knew perfectly well what was meant by professional politicians. What was meant was men who came to the House merely for the small amount they would get for sitting here. He had confidence in the electors of the country. He believed they were not such fools as hon. Members opposite took them for. He believed they knew the best men when they saw them. Although there might be, he knew there would be, and must always be, exceptions to the rule, he believed that the constituencies of the country, and especially the most democratic of them, would not return professional politicians, but would choose the best men, and very likely the best men would be men of their own class. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) referred to the question of expenditure. He could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman's argument was of a most degrading and, at the same time, of a very extravagant character. The hon. Gentleman talked about paying Members of the House £1,000 a-year each. He (Mr. Cobb) had thought a good deal on this subject, but he had never thought of anything like £1,000 a-year. He had no such extravagant notions as the hon. Member for Stockport. He had often thought that £250 or £300 a-year would be quite sufficient to pay each Member, and, according to that estimate, the whole
    664
    amount which would have to be paid— and some hon. Members seemed to think that the payment would have to be made out of the rates, but he had always understood that it would come out of the Consolidated Fund—the whole amount which would have to be paid would be only £140,000 or £150,000 a-year. He knew that was a very considerable sum. He had always been accustomed to vote for any reduction in the Estimates. [Laughter.] Yes, and let him tell hon. Members that if they had Members paid, if they had men in the House who would have an interest in reducing the Estimates, they would soon save more than the £140,000 or £150,000 which would be required to carry out the proposal of the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division. He (Mr. Cobb) had observed, since he had been a Member of the House, that upon a great number of questions there were only a very few Members who had been able, upon some subjects, to give the House any information of practical importance. He had been ashamed of his ignorance upon many subjects. He had looked for information upon those subjects, but he had looked in vain, because there were not sufficient Members of the House belonging to the working classes who could give him the information he required. He believed, but he had no doubt he was singular in the belief, that the time would come, and it might not be many years hence, when they would see in the House 250 or 300 men who, in their daily life, were accustomed to wear corduroys. He hoped very sincerely that when that day did come, he would be sitting in the Strangers' Gallery looking down upon an hon. Member sitting where he now sat, who would represent the constituency which he had tried to represent in a far more able manner than he could possibly do.
    ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, that he would not have ventured to address the House but for the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), which he regarded as a challenge calling upon him to justify his own existence in that House. It was always a pleasure to him to listen to that right hon. Gentleman, although he might not be able to agree with his opinions; but on that occasion he was sorry to find that the right hon.

    665
    Gentleman was so hard up for argument as to be obliged to drag in the case of the few naval and military men who were in that House. He must remind the right hon. Gentleman that no naval officer on full pay could sit in the House except the Lords of the Admiralty, who were officials. He (Admiral Field) knew that, because some years ago, when in command, he was asked to stand for a constituency, and he inquired if he would be allowed to keep his ship. He was told "No;" he would have to go on half-pay. He therefore stuck to his ship in preference to a seat in that House. He need not dwell upon that any longer, but if at any time the right hon. Gentleman wished to use a naval illustration he would advise him to apply to him for information. The right hon. Gentleman wished the House to believe that every portion of the civilized world enjoyed the privilege of paying its Members of Parliament. Did he include our Colonies in the civilized world? If so, he could tell him that he was wrong again. He had made it his business to go to the Colonies—and he could tell the right hon. Gentleman that it was a wonderful eye-opener—and made inquiries into questions connected with representation and other matters. He found a growing feeling in the Colonies against the payment of Members. [Cries of "No!"] Yes; he was told by a very able man in Victoria that any number of men could be bribed in the House of Assembly there. [Cries of "No!"] He did not say it, but the man who told him said it. His informant was a man of great wealth. [Cries of "Name?"] It was no good asking him for his name, for he was not going to be guilty of a breach of honour by giving it. In New South Wales they did not pay their Members, but preferred to follow the example of the old country. In New Zealand, where Members were paid, there were strong arguments for doing so. It was a country which had not existed long enough for a leisurely class of men to grow up who could afford to be idle and devote themselves to public duties. [Laughter.] He did not see that there was anything to laugh at; he thought a country should be proud of having men of means and leisure willing to devote their services to their country. In New Zealand it was at first a matter of necessity to pay
    666
    men to go to Auckland to discharge public duties. Struggling men could not be expected to leave their own business interests and go to the capital with out payment. To make it easier for them to attend, the capital was moved from Auckland to Wellington. He found that the feeling was growing among leading men in New Zealand in favour of discontinuing payment to Members. They hoped that the time would soon come when they would have a leisurely class who would be independent and could spare time to devote to the service of their country without payment. He fully agreed with the observations of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings), who had gone into this question among the Americans. In the United States much dissatisfaction existed at the state of things which prevailed. It was notorious that bribery and "log rolling" existed there to an enormous extent among professional politicians, which the system of payment fostered. There was a lot of cant and humbug on this question among many hon. Members. There was an assumption on the part of some hon. Members who supported this proposition that working men were Heaven born legislators, and that no one else but a working man had any right to come there to make laws. He had had as much experience of working men as most hon. Members, having served with them afloat and ashore, and he had as much respect for working men as any hon. Member, but he refused to subscribe to the idea that a working man, because he was a working man and uneducated, was a better man to make laws than an educated man who was able to devote his whole time to the service of his country. It might have been that in earlier times, to which reference had been made, it was necessary to pay Members; but as the country advanced it was no longer necessary because men were found to serve the country for the honour of doing so. He had yet to learn that while men of leisure were found to serve the country without payment, it was necessary to put an extra charge on the country or the community for the purpose of paying Members. If they paid Members of Parliament they would have to pay everyone who discharged duties to the State. They would have to pay their magistrates. [Opposition cheers.] He

    667
    knew hon. Members opposite wanted magistrates to be paid, and perhaps some of them would like to be appointed to the office. He had had considerable experience of magistrates, and he believed that they discharged their duties ably and with great advantage to the State, and he hoped it would be long before the Radicals would be able to force paid magistrates upon the country. If Members of that House were to be paid, County Councillors would have to be paid—for they were poorer men—and so would Town Councillors and Mayors. [Mr. CONYBEARE: So they are.] Only a few of the Mayors of boroughs were paid, and if the hon. Member thought that the Mayor of every Corporation was paid he would invite him to study that among other questions. Hon. Members did not agree about the salary they would wish paid to Members of Parliament. Some put it at £250 a-year; but if Members of the House were paid so low a salary as that it would lead to a very inferior class of men coming into it. If there were working men fit to come into the House there were many gentlemen in England who would enable them to do so. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members opposite cried "No!" because they did not understand the feelings which animated high-minded English gentlemen. He and his hon. Friends would be the first to subscribe. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) when he said he was not in favour of working men sending working men to represent them, because every educated. Englishman who came into the House was as fit a Representative of the working man as any other man could be. To make useful laws we should have the cleverest men in the country, but they would not be found among the working classes, because among working men you would find uneducated but not educated talent. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Rugby Division (Mr. Cobb) that lawyers were professional politicians, and that there were always too many of them in the House, while there were too few sailors. He hoped the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridgeton Division would not allow the House to suppose that he grudged the presence of the few naval officers who were there. There were now only six in the House,
    668
    but there were two or three of them in disguise. They were only six simple-minded men who came there for the good of their country. In the last Parliament there were only four naval officers. Because he and a few more were willing to sacrifice themselves for the public good, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not grudge the first line of defence to have six Representatives in that House. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not exaggerate the amount of the pensions they received. He did not receive £450, but only £365—and that was part of the pay from the first moment he entered the Service—and the pensions of naval men were not like those of politicians—they were part of their pay. Through the parsimony of that House, which starved the Naval Service, they did not spend half their time at sea; they were obliged to be on half-pay wasting their time, because the country would have a peace Navy, with Reserves of officers, in order to be in a state of preparation for war. He was utterly opposed to the payment of Members. He did not yield to any man in his admiration for the working man, but he did not believe that he was any more the saviour of his country than men of any other class.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY of STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)said, that as they would soon give a vote on the question, he invited the House to consider it in a practical spirit. In the first place, this Motion was not what the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division (Sir George Trevelyan) represented it to be. It was not a Motion for an Inquiry; it was a Motion which pronounced as positively as the Rules of the House would allow in favour of a deliberate attack upon the Consolidated Fund. It was quite true that it did not in form attack the Consolidated Fund, because it suggested this as a matter for consideration by Her Majesty's Government. That phrase was used because it was necessary, according to the Rules of the House. Therefore, those who voted for this Amendment must be prepared, not to enter into an inquiry, but to pronounce a positive opinion in favour of the payment of Members out of the Consolidated Fund. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution laid a trap for an old Tory like himself when

    669
    he proposed reversion to an ancient custom. When he saw that, he was disposed to receive the hon. Member's remarks with great favour; but when the hon. Member illustrated the Motion by his speech, then it appeared that there was not to be a reversion to an ancient custom, because the ancient custom was not payment of Members out of the Consolidated Fund, but payment by the constituencies which sent them to Parliament. If the hon. Member desired a reversion to an ancient custom he should persuade the President of the Local Government Board to introduce into his Bill some provision enabling the County Councils and the Councils of boroughs which were to be counties to lay a rate on the inhabitants for the payment of Members of Parliament. He did not wonder that the hon. Member shrank from that proposal, not merely because it might impede the progress of the Local Government Bill, but also because the ancient custom never appeared to have been a very popular custom. The payment which was made to Members in olden times was not so high as the hon. Member proposed. Borough Members were paid only 2s. a day and County Members 4s. He thought that if they were to pay Members at all now the Member for a County was still entitled to a higher stipend, on the ground that in present circumstances the labour of a County Member was so much greater than that of a Borough Member. But, so far from the constituencies being desirous of paying their Members, it was recorded that many made no returns to the Writ at all; many actually paid sums of money to the King to buy exemption from the burden of sending Members to Parliament. He found that out of 165 boroughs to whom Writs were issued in the Reign of Edward I. one-third took no notice whatever of the Writs, and also that in the times of Edward III. and Henry VI. the Sheriff of Lancashire returned that there were no boroughs in the whole of his county that were rich enough to afford to send Members to Parliament. It was therefore quite clear that none of those who were in favour of this method of paying Members for their services in Parliament were willing to submit this matter to Local Option. If the people of this country really desired to pay for their Mem-
    670
    bers to serve in Parliament, it was quite clear that it was out of their own funds and rates they ought primâ facie to meet the claim, and not by a demand on the Consolidated Fund. He did not agree with the hon. Member that it was want of unanimity between Borough and County Members that led to the practice being stopped, because it was always easier for the large and rich county to pay its Member in former days than for the then comparatively poor borough; and the hon. Member had entirely mistaken ancient history when he gave as his second reason that the elections were not popular. The old elections were popular. The restricted franchise was not the ancient custom of this country, but the comparatively modern innovation, and at the time of which he was speaking the franchise in most boroughs was far more popular than it was in those later days when the practice of paying Members was discontinued. He was not sure that the day might not come when it might become expedient to pay Members of Parliament; but no one really believed that the time had yet come when they could attempt practically to place upon the Estimates a large sum of money for the purpose of giving a stipend to Members. As a strong argument for saying that the Motion was premature, he might point out that Parliament had not yet removed obstacles to the entrance of poor men within its portals. A great deal was, he admitted, done in this direction by the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) in the last Parliament; but had the reduction in the cost of elections been yet carried to the point to which it ought to be carried? He should advise those who wished to smooth the way for poor men to enter Parliament to turn their attention to that subject rather than to the one before the House. Proposals had been made from time to time to throw the cost of elections upon the rates, which was a much more reasonable proposal to carry through in the first instance than to ask Parliament to support Members after they were returned. The only argument which had any force with him was that to pay Members would enlarge the choice of the constituencies. At first sight that was a specious argument; but in the present state of society, he did not think the choice would be much

    671
    extended, because the number of persons who could afford to sit in the House was comparatively limited. A payment of £300 a-year, which the right hon. Gentleman put as the maximum, and he supposed also the minimum, payment, was not sufficient to induce a man to give up his profession or business and come to that House. Every man who sat in the House had to make some pecuniary sacrifice. Rich men did so, and sat in no better company than was enjoyed by their poorer fellow Members. The hon. and gallant Member for Sussex (Admiral Field), with that dislike of lawyers which was always found to exist among sailors, pointed to them as the only class which profited by seats in Parliament. But there was not a lawyer in the House who would not be richer if he were out of the House, though there might be one here or there who contrived to retain a large practice while sitting in the House. It was one of the circumstances which induced the people of this country to place such confidence in the House that, with the exception of an adventurer here and there, the Members of the House made some personal sacrifices to represent them in Parliament. Then as to the representation of working men. Nothing was more valuable or desirable than that the wishes and feelings of the working classes should find adequate representation. But while we had a Parliament which sat seven or eight months in the year it was absolutely impossible that an actual working man should sit in the House. It might be possible to get men who had recently been working men, but it was out of the question that in this country we should have a state of things such as existed in Melbourne, where he had seen a man with his hod of bricks upon his shoulders lay them down and take his place in the Legislative Assembly. But in Melbourne the Assembly did not sit till midnight. He had the greatest honour and respect for those direct Representatives of the working classes who were supported in the House by the direct contributions of their fellows. But it was a noteworthy fact that those who contributed were beginning to get tired of the burden which they had imposed upon themselves. He did not, therefore, think that this was a strong argument in favour of the Motion. He
    672
    was glad to find that the hon. Member repudiated the suggestion that Members might make a declaration of poverty and accept payment, while others refused it. The optional receipt of remuneration would certainly not satisfy those who had brought forward this Motion. The Government had been pressed with the argument derived from political pensions. But that stood upon a totally different basis, and had nothing to do with the proposal before the House. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not assent to a proposition which had certainly not yet become a question of practical politics. He trusted that the House, instead of adopting the proposal embodied in this Motion, would rather seek to remove the disabilities that were imposed upon poor men who sought to represent constituencies by diminishing the cost of election.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, that he had been much impressed by the closing observations of the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down, in which he said that the House should apply itself in the first instance to removing the disabilities which at present impeded the access of the labour Members to that House in the shape of election costs. But was the hon. and learned Member ready to promise on the part of himself and of his Government that, if any measure was introduced into that House having for its object the reduction of the costs of elections, he and those who sat behind him would support it? Again and again efforts had been made by the Liberal Party, almost absolutely in a body, to transfer the burden of the payment of the cost of elections from the individual to the rates, and again and again that proposal had been resisted by hon. Members opposite. The hon. and learned Gentleman probably held out this flattering invitation with the reservation in his own mind based upon his perfect knowledge that if, in compliance with his invitation, a measure embodying such a proposal were to be brought in next week it would be opposed by the Government with their whole force. The consideration of the question, therefore, had better be postponed until the Liberal Party next made an effort in this direction, when the hon. and learned Gentleman would have an opportunity of testifying his sincerity, and of bringing

    673
    along with him a respectable tail of Members from that side of the House. The hon. and learned Member in commencing his speech had told the House that the question had been mis-stated, and he proposed to rectify it, but his own statement required ratification. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the questions upon which they were about to vote were—first, whether the Members of the House were to be paid; and, secondly, whether they were to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Those, however, were not the questions which the House was asked to determine. The Motion upon which they were called upon to vote did not bind hon. Members to the universal payment of Members. What the Motion did was to invite the Government to consider whether, and under what conditions, it would be expedient to pay Members. That would, of course, permit the Government to consider what limitations ought to be imposed upon the principle. The hon. and learned Member had asked, in a very bold and challenging tone, whether any single Member of that House deliberately proposed that there should be a general payment of Members; but unless he himself was very much mistaken there was a very large number of Members who were in favour of such a payment. This was, he admitted, a very large and important question, which was beset by difficulties. Undoubtedly there was a great deal of authority upon the subject to be drawn from the practice of other nations, as far as it could be considered to have a bearing upon our own practice. The fact that Members had in former times been paid had also its own weight. Doubtless there were a great many persons who were prepared to grapple with the question; but the Motion before the House did not bind anyone to anything beyond the declaration that there was ground for the Government to consider whether there ought not to be some change in our practice in this respect. Those who opposed the Motion must be taken to be of opinion that the present practice was faultless, and that in no case ought the slightest change to be made in it. He would point out what loudly called for alteration in the present system. The hon. Member for West Newington (Mr. R. Cooke) had laid down the very broad proposition
    674
    that it was the duty of hon. Members to make personal sacrifices if they sought to be elected to seats in that House. The gallant Admiral opposite spoke of cant and humbug; he should be sorry indeed to speak in such plain language as that. The hon. and learned Member opposite spoke in animated and touching terms of the sacrifices they all made for their country. He would not describe that language as humbug; but he would say that it was exaggerated and highly coloured, and to a great extent unreal. Gentlemen came to that House with mixed motives; but, undoubtedly, they did not come in the spirit of martyrdom. The hon. and learned Member adopted a very high tone, like a great preacher disposed to elevate their conceptions to the highest point human nature was susceptible of, in tracing the mental process through which Members passed before accepting a seat. He did not understand that to be the case at all. Gentlemen were there under a great variety of circumstances and motives. Some were attracted by official salaries, some consoled, though not attracted, by unofficial salaries, some by the early prospect of professional advancement, and some by the social distinction which a seat in the House conferred. Consequently, they must not pitch too high as to the motives under which Members sought a seat in Parliament. The hon. Member for West Newington said that sacrifices, if they could be made, ought to be well apportioned among the members of the community benefited. There could be no more sound principle; and he rejoiced that this principle was more widely acted upon in this country than in any other; but did we apply the principle in the case of the arduous and burdensome services required to be rendered by Members of Parliament. Reference had been made to the Members from Ireland, and also to those who were called labour Members, who were listened to with so much deference, both on account of their position and also on account of their personal qualities. Could anyone say that the sacrifices they were called upon to make, or those of their constituents, were proportioned to the sacrifices by other Members of the House? The hon. and learned Member applied his principle with the grossest inequality. He did not propose to apply it to the

    675
    constituencies generally; the constituencies generally do not make any sacrifices whatever. The hon. and learned Member said that every member of the constituencies which returned a labour Member ought to be ready to bear his share of the expense; but why should these particular Members for these particular constituencies be subjected to that charge when other Members and other constituencies were placed under no such necessity and bore no such charge? If these Gentlemen sat in the House of Commons with any narrow object, if they sat there for the representation of purposes which were in the main class purposes, he should feel a diminished anxiety upon this subject. But he ventured to say that they were less than any one the mere representatives of class; and more than any one they were connected with the broadest interests of the country. The House could not afford to dispense with them. However separated they might be from them they ought to feel that to have them in the House of Commons was a matter of vital interest, or, to put it a little lower, if some hon. Members did not agree with him there, it was a matter of the highest Imperial advantage. Why should they have a state of things in which certain constituencies were subjected to a pecuniary burden because they returned a certain class of Members, who were admitted to be of the utmost value not only to those constituencies, but also to the country at large? It was in point of fact imposing a deferential duty upon the presence of labour Members. If there were to be these sacrifices they ought to be imposed according to reason in fair and just proportion. If they said that such representation was to be desired why should they impose burdens in these particular cases upon constituencies which were not to be imposed in the case of any other class of Members in that House. The hon. Gentleman stated that the labour Representatives had been labourers, but were not labourers now; they had been labourers; they might be again. They had the habits and instincts of their class. From the nature of their occupation they were compelled to suspend the duties of their position more than any other class of Members of that House; but, substantially, the hon. Member knew that there was no
    676
    class of the community more faithfully and exactly represented in the House of Commons than were the vast body of labouring men by the labour Representatives. Was it to be desired that under these circumstances, in a country where the public was certainly, in his opinion, the most liberal of all paymasters, that these particular burdens should be imposed upon a certain portion of the constituencies only? If they were to escape the burden it must be done by ceasing to return Representatives of labour. The gallant Admiral opposite had stated that certain high-minded English gentlemen were anxious to put their hands into their pockets in order that these Members might be sent to Parliament. It was unfortunate, under the circumstances of the case, that such an instance had never yet occurred. With regard to political pensions, it might be doubtful whether they ought or ought not to be subjected to reconsideration. But, at any rate, this was shown—that in a period of reform and of the increasing admission of the nation to the power and privilege of the franchise, now extending to 50 years, there was, on the part of Parliament, and of a long series of Parliaments, a disposition to meet every case, perhaps to be too free and liberal in meeting cases, such as that of political pensions—but to meet every case where a fair ground could be urged for making a charge through the Consolidated Fund or through the taxes laid upon local communities. The case now before the House was an infinitely stronger and more necessitous case than any which had been made for political pensions. He would not enter upon the question whether invidious distinctions would have to be drawn. That would be travelling too far. He had endeavoured to consider the subject, and he believed it might be dealt with without introducing anything in the nature of invidious distinctions. If he took political pensions or the payments received by naval and military gentlemen in the House—they were received specially, yet he did not think it could be said that in practice they had been found to involve invidious distinctions. But the mode of applying the principle was not the question before the House, nor was the question of going to the Consolidated Fund, nor the question of the general payment of Members; with regard to

    677
    which he fully admitted that such a payment, he thought, would not be introduced either now or hereafter without much doubt, much difficulty and much discussion. It was simply the question whether they stood now upon a ground that might be maintained, and which could be defended against all invasion, as being unattended with any serious practical objection; or whether, on the other hand, if they really meant that the constituencies should have the choice of returning whom they pleased, they were to maintain a system which went far towards rendering that choice unreal, and which, undoubtedly fettered, and fettered very heavily, the exercise of that choice in a particular case, where they were most of all anxious that it should be perfectly free—namely, the case where the labouring portion of the community determined to exercise its franchise in a few instances—he heartily wished they were more, he was quite convinced they never would be too many —by subjecting them to heavy pecuniary burdens, and declining to entertain even in the most limited and moderate form, a proposition to examine whether a remedy could be applied to such an evil.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, that, according to the right hon. Gentleman, this Resolution bound nobody either on the question of the general payment of Members or on the other vital and burning question as to the fund out of which payment was to be made. It was thought that this Resoltiuon carried some expression of opinion on that subject. "Oh, no," said the right hon. Gentleman, "nobody is bound to express an opinion as to whether the rates or the Consolidated Fund are to bear the burden." Thus the House had been spending some hours discussing a Resolution which bound nobody to anything, and whether hon. Members voted for or against it they expressed no view on either of the subjects to which he had referred. The right hon. Gentleman declared that the Resolution asserted that there were some grounds in our present political state for considering whether some change or other was desirable in this respect. If that was the only thing asserted, this Motion would be a hypocritical Motion, unworthy of the hon. Gentleman who brought it for-
    678
    ward. If he did not intend to bind the House to a principle, it was most certainly a delusion and a snare. The hon. Gentleman, he was sure, intended to pledge the House one way or the other, and, what was more, he recommended the fund out of which the payment was to be made. He hardly thought the hon. Gentleman would thank the right hon. Gentleman for the interpretation he had put upon his Resolution, nor for his speech, which, interesting and eloquent as it undoubtedly was, had not conveyed to the House the slightest hint as to the views the right hon. Gentleman himself held upon either of the vital parts of the question—namely, were Members to be paid, and who was to pay them? The right hon. Gentleman argued that a fine and penalty ought not to be imposed on the choice of constituencies which were pleased to elect a working man; but the alternative was that all the constituencies should be fined in order to pay for the choice of a few. The right hon. Gentleman, on the contrary, had delivered himself of a speech colourless and meaningless. There was, perhaps, abundant amusement in it, but no instruction whatever. What did he propose? Did he propose that a Member should come to the Table and declare, as in the case of political pensions, that his means were not sufficient to support his position?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: He does not propose that.
    MR. MATTHEWS: And that, therefore, he demanded this stipend? Was that what he recommended to the working men whom he hoped to see in the House of Commons? He (Mr. Matthews) did not think the right hon. Gentleman committed himself to that. He did not think that would be popular with working men Members or their constituents. Then what was the alternative? That every Member, whether he desired this stipend or not, should be compelled to accept it in order that no invidious distinctions might exist. If the right hon. Gentleman could not advance something stronger than political pensions, then the case was hopeless indeed. It seemed to him if they turned to history they would find that it was emphatically against the Mover of this proposition. The hon. Gentleman said that this system did exist at

    679
    one time in our history; but as had been shown, it was resisted by the constituencies themselves, and so universal was the feeling and so strong the opposition throughout the country, that the system vanished without any obligation of law, and it dropped entirely into desuetude. They were now compelling the constituencies which voluntarily gave up this system, which they repudiated and abandoned, to resort to it again. They were reversing history. After all, the real vital question was would they improve their Parliament—would they serve the interests of the country? From this point of view they were not without guidance and experience. Let them take America. He was not going into the question why political life had been abandoned in America, and abandoned by all honourable men. He would not go into the question of what had led to that. Let him turn to a country nearer home—to France, where, when Louis Napoleon was sending off the Members of the Legislative Assembly in prison vans to Cayenne, they were jeered at with the cry, "See the men of the 25 francs." The effect on the French people of the payment of their Members certainly was to make them regard their representatives not with greater but with less consideration. In Italy this question had led to very acrimonious discussions and to charges that the Members of the Legislative Assembly were scamping their work in order to earn their salaries the more easily. The payment of Members, if adopted, would inevitably have the effect of changing the career of politics from being a public trust into being a mere paid profession. It was impossible to avoid that result. Whether or not the work continued to be as well done it would cease to be regarded in the same light as now when it would be gratuitous. The work would be degraded by being regarded as paid work. It could not be said that the present system caused this House to be without working men Representatives, for it now contained several whose services were on that side of the House recognized to be of the greatest advantage. If this proposal were accepted and Members were to be paid, a very serious charge would be incurred—a charge which would either fall upon the Consolidated Fund or upon local resources. If it was to
    680
    be thrown upon local resources, there was no necessity for any change in the present system, for it was now quite competent for any constituency to provide its Member with such income as might be deemed requisite to enable him adequately to discharge his Parliamentary duties. If, on the other hand, the burden was to be thrown on the Consolidated Fund, then it would be most unfair; since localities that did not require paid Members would be paying for others localities that did. This was a change which was not called for and which would, he thought, have very unfortunate results, and Her Majesty's Government could be no party to supporting it.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 192: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 198.)
    Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    SUPPLY—Committee upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [5th July] reported.
  Resolutions read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the First Resolution."
  DR. TANNERsaid, when this Vote was before the Committee last night, he was about to ask a question in reference to one of the items, when the impatience of an hon. Member opposite cut him short with the Closure Motion. A little more patience would have enabled him to finish his remarks, would have saved the time taken in a Division then, and in repeating his question now. He merely wanted to know how it was there were no separate items given in regard to the amount for the "General Register of Shipping for Seamen," £11,864. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade would give some explanation now?
  DR. CLARKsaid, he should like to hear some reason why the Board of Trade were always opposing the action of the Indian Government in trying to prevent unfortunate seamen being paid in rupees at the value of two shillings a rupee when paid off in India,

  681
  the rupee being, in actual worth, only 1s. 4¾d. Great complaints had been made of the practice in Bombay and Calcutta, and two Viceroys had endeavoured to check it, but still the Board of Trade would take no action. Why was this?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, the matter to which the hon. Member referred was a matter of private arrangement between employers and seamen, and depended on the terms of the contract between them. As to the question of the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), the Office to which he alluded was now in process of re-organization, and when the re-organization was complete, a large saving in expenditure would be effected. The Estimates did not show the normal strength of the Office; but it would be observed there was a saving of £8,000 out of £18,000.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give a little more specific information. Last year the Vote was for £16,000, and all the details were given with every particular; but in this Estimate there was simply a lump sum, without any explanation of the £11,000, which was a reduction not of £8,000 but of £5,000 on last year's Vote. But it was impossible to understand what was likely to be the character or result of the charges about to be made. He would ask whether in the re-organization there were among the men displaced from the Establishment of the General Register for Seamen, several who were fit for employment in other departments of the Board of Trade or other branches of the Civil Service? It was very well known that in the Registry Office for Seamen there were scandalous abuses. One man was paid £400 for making seven or eight entries a day in a book, which book was never seen by anybody but himself. That was the kind of Office it was; and although in previous years the subject had been matter of considerable animadversion, the Office was always defended by the Minister of the day as beyond control or improvement. But now the cat was out of the bag, the abuses had been officially recognized, and there was to be re-organization and considerable alterations. But the men removed from their nominal work in the Office might be
  682
  placed on the Pension List while yet young, or they might be employed in other work. To put them on the Pension List meant unnecessary expenditure on that account, while every year new men entering the Civil Service did work upon which the pensioned men might very well be employed, and, in their turn, helped to swell the Pension List, and the nominal saving disappeared altogether. Did the right hon. Gentleman contemplate employing the men removed from the staff of the Registry Office in other branches of the Board of Trade; or, if not, would the Civil Service Commissioners allow their services to be availed of elsewhere? If some such course were not adopted, it would be a serious blot on the Civil Service administration.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he might be allowed to speak again to assure the hon. Member that this point had been carefully reviewed. Only the other day, he gave directions that six clerks from the 13 who were available for re-employment should be transferred to another Office. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: What Office?] He had forgotten the Department at the moment, but they had been retained in the Public Service, and there would therefore be no increase on the pension charges on their account. The Board of Trade were taking every possible care to carry out the wish expressed by the House, and, as far as possible, any increase in pensions by the alteration would be avoided.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he must press the point in reference to the payment of seamen in rupees. The subject had been brought to the attention of the Government from the other side only a few weeks ago, though only incidentally, by the hon. Member for Hull. Seamen were practically defrauded of a great proportion of their earnings, because in many cases men, when paid off in India or perhaps left behind through sickness, were paid in rupees at the rate of 2s., while the actual value of a rupee was about 1s. 4½d. The men did not thoroughly understand the position until they found themselves paid, instead of the £3 a-month for which they agreed, only two-thirds that amount. He did not quite know what amount of control the Board of Trade could exercise in ship-

  683
  ping matters; but it appeared to him— and it was a suggestion that came from the other side of the House—that it was only right some method should be adopted, by advertisement or otherwise, to press upon seamen—
  It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Elections (Intervention of Peers and Prelates in Parliamentary Elections) [No. 204].
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Archdeaconry of Cornwall* (202); Exeter and Truro Chapter Funds Apportionment* (203); Foreign Meat* (206).
Committee—Land Charges Registration and Searches (185), discharged.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Committee—Report—Local Government (No. 6)* (181); Local Government (No. 9)* (182); Local Government (No. 12)* (183); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries (West Loch Tarbert)* (145).
Report—Local Government (No. 7)* (150).

AFRICA (EAST CENTRAL).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY, in rising to call attention to the dangers which

  537
  threaten British commerce and British missionary enterprize in East Central Africa in connection with recent events at Zanzibar and on the Zambesi and with the alleged spread of the Slave Trade; and to inquire, What steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to protect the great interests involved; also to ask whether a map can be presented to Parliament showing the exact boundaries of the various territories on the East Coast of Africa which have been recently assigned by international agreement to the influence of Great Britain and certain other European Powers? said, that in consequence of the events now in progress in that part of the world our efforts for civilizing and Christianizing the Native Tribes were in great peril, while our commercial enterprize, which it was so important to encourage in all parts of the globe, and our great Imperial interests were also seriously threatened. Events were hastening on rapidly, and it was necessary that the people of this country should be aware of what was going on, and should strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government to deal with the most difficult problem which had presented itself for a long period of years. Having described the geographical features of the vast region, he said that Zanzibar, the seat of a Mahometan Power, represented the only civilization known to the millions inhabiting that region. England had been on terms of the most cordial friendship with the Sultan of Zanzibar. She had had her Slave Squadron there, and had been able to exercise a most healthy influence over vast districts, an influence all the more important because it came through the hands of a Mahometan Sovereign. Up to 1884 our exertions in stopping the Slave Trade had been very successful, as was shown by the testimony of Sir John Kirk. How was it that so deep an interest was excited in England about this question of Central Africa? The first cause was that remarkable book of Livingstone's, with the description of all his wanderings from 1840 to 1856. The effect was so great that the English Government of that day actually sent Livingstone out again, with Consular authority, in this comparatively unknown region. They sent him out to the Zambesi with an Expedition which cost £30,000, and which lasted from
  538
  1858 to 1864, an Expedition which settled the position of England for a long time in those parts, and brought English power home to the mind, to the eyes, and to the feelings of the wild tribes. Livingstone described the instructions given to the Expedition in these words—
  "The main object of the Zambesi Expedition, as our instructions from Her Majesty's Government explicitly stated, was to extend the knowledge already attained of the geography and mineral and agricultural resources of Eastern and Central Africa, to improve our acquaintance with the inhabitants, and to endeavour to engage them to apply themselves to industrial pursuits and to the cultivation of their lands, with a view to the production of raw material to be exported to England in return for British manufactures, and it was hoped that, by encouraging the Natives to occupy themselves in the development of the resources of the country, a considerable advance might be made towards the extinction of the Slave Trade, as they would not be long in discovering that the former would eventually be a more certain source of profit than the latter. The Expedition was sent in accordance with the settled policy of the English Government; and the Earl of Clarendon, being then at the head of the Foreign Office, the Mission was organized under his immediate care. When a change of Government ensued we experienced the same generous countenance and sympathy from the Earl of Malmesbury as we had previously received from Lord Clarendon; and, on the accession of Earl Russell to the high Office he has so long filled, we were always favoured with equally ready attention and the same prompt assistance. Thus the conviction was produced that our work embodied the principles not of any one Party, but of the hearts of the statesmen and people of England generally. Though collections were made, it was always distinctly understood that, however desirable these and other explorations might be, 'Her Majesty's Government attached more importance to the moral influence that might be exerted on the minds of the Natives by a well-regulated and orderly household of Europeans setting an example of consistent moral conduct to all who might witness it, treating the people with kindness, and relieving their wants, teaching them to make experiments in agriculture, explaining to them the more simple arts, imparting to them religious instruction as far as they are capable of receiving it, and inculcating peace and goodwill to each other.'"
  The Expedition spent six years in the country, and met with a cordial reception from many Native Chiefs. When Livingstone's second book was published a great enthusiasm sprang up in this country. Many leading men at the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge took part in the movement, with the result that the Universities' Mission was founded, which had spent some

  539
  £46,000 in the district, having established schools and centres of work in the Island of Zanzibar. In 1875 the Church of Scotland came forward and established a mission on the highlands between the Zambesi and Lake Nyassa, where a large number of European agents were engaged. The cost to the Church of Scotland was already some £35,000, £4,000 a-year being regularly subscribed. They had a most important boarding school, with 75 scholars, among them being 25 sons of the principal Chiefs in the neighbourhood; besides a day school and a medical mission. The Free Church of Scotland equally came forward and had founded five mission stations on Lake Nyassa, with 25 agents, and a very good mission school. They had also spent £75,000 on the work. The importance of the district commercially had been early recognized, and the African Lakes Company, which was largely supported by Glasgow capital, had established 12 stations in the district, and had now 25 European agents and four steamers plying on the river and lake. They educated the Natives, and paid regularly for their labour, and the Natives eagerly responded. Beyond that, individual enterprize had already touched the country. Traders were settling there, and Natives were willingly coming forward to work for wages. He thought that was a picture of which all British subjects might well be proud. Since the opening of the Suez Canal, Europeans had been scrambling for territory in East Africa. The Berlin Conference in 1885 set up the curious modern Congo Free State. That Conference did not actually touch the East Coast; but it expressed the wish of all the Powers that the Zambesi should be brought into the scheme—that was to say, that it should be open to all nations, that slavery should be abolished on its banks, and freedom of religion secured. Another diplomatic act took place later; Lord Iddesleigh, in October, 1886, signed a diplomatic instrument with Germany with regard to 1,200 miles of coast, when it was settled that certain portions of that district should be marked out as coming within the sphere of certain European countries. Under that instrument Germany secured a territory with a coast line of some 500 miles, which was likely to amount to about the size of the whole German Empire in
  540
  Europe. It was, however, only fair to say that country in Africa could not be valued by miles. It was possible that 100 miles of good territory might be more valuable than 300 miles of inferior territory. England had hitherto never thought of acquiring any territory in this neighbourhood, and there had been no question of territorial acquisition; but he could not but think that many of our difficulties might be traced to the Natives and Arabs having taken alarm at the idea of territorial annexation. There had also been another recent change. Formerly Germany only stipulated with regard to a north and south limit of its sphere of influence; but in a recent despatch representations had been made as to a western boundary, and Germany might now be considered as in contact with the Congo district. Other Treaties had also been made, and by one of these Portugal was assured by France that she was quite free to take a country of about 200 miles, the effect of which would be to extend the territory of Portugal from the Indian to the Atlantic Ocean. Germany had also assented to this, politely adding, however, "provided that no one else objected." But Portugal had no title whatever to this country. Hitherto she merely possessed the territory along the coast, which was utilized as a convict settlement to the great detriment of the Natives. The Portuguese convicts had generally developed into slave dealers, and had been a great source of suffering to the Natives. He could not find that Portugal had the shadow of a title to this territory, which it now claimed from Mozambique to the Zambesi. As a general rule original discovery gave a title, but this country was discovered by the heroic Livingstone; it was then occupied by English and Scotch settlers, and it had been hallowed by the graves of Englishmen of all sorts and conditions. The title to this territory belonged, therefore, if to anyone, to us. Nor had Portugal the least claim on moral grounds, for such power as it had had in this region it had used, not to civilize, but to lower the state of the Natives. In September, 1884, Sir John Kirk sent home a despatch reporting the existence of a large Slave Trade from the Portuguese Possessions to the French Colonies in Madagascar and the Comoro Islands. The hands of Portugal were by no means clean in this matter. Did their

  541
  Lordships fully realize what the Slave Trade in Central Africa really meant? He had recently seen a Slave Trade map, showing the districts in which it prevailed, and showing the parts of that Continent which had been entirely depopulated by that iniquitous traffic. Districts of 200 and 300 square miles, which at one time contained numbers of populous villages, had been completely depopulated and left in ruins by the Slave Traders. A traveller in the last few years, passing by the southern end of Lake Tanganyika, near Lake Nyassa, found the district studded with large and prosperous villages. Returning a year later he found only the ruins of burnt houses and human bones. Similarly he found villages to the north of Lake Nyassa, which had been peopled by a prosperous community, with flocks and herds swept away. The Slave Trade of Central Africa was one of the most cruel in the world. Livingstone, who was very careful as to all his statements, stated that only one out of every ten Natives captured was brought alive to the coast; nine out of every ten succumbed to the sufferings of the journey and to their ill-treatment. The Arabs took up their abode in some peaceful village, and being supplied with firearms they some night set the village on fire, shot down those of the inhabitants they did not want, and carried off the remainder to the coast, making them bear the ivory that they had accumulated. It was impossible to speak too strongly of the horrors of this Slave Trade carried on by these Arabs employed by the Portuguese outcasts on the coast. Up to 1884 the trade seemed to be dying out, but lately it had shown increased vitality. Possibly this was due to certain events that had lately happened and which had not been without their effect upon the minds of the Natives, inducing them to think that England had ceased to be the Power that it was. Last year the town of Minengani, inhabited by British subjects, was bombarded by the Portuguese without any declaration of war. The bombardment was insulting to the English Government, and the Portuguese still remained in occupation of that portion of the coast, and as far as he knew Portugal had not yet paid any compensation for this high-handed act. Then, according to the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, the Portuguese had raised their tariff on the Zambesi,
  542
  thereby shutting out our trade and impeding our communication with the great lakes, and had even threatened to close the Zambesi to steamers not owned and manned by Portuguese subjects. The Portuguese Parliament, after a five days' debate, had claimed to hold the whole of the Zambesi for themselves. On the north of Lake Nyassa there was an important British Settlement, which had been besieged by the Arabs for several days, at the end of which the place was relieved by an Englishman and 5,000 Natives who came willingly to the help of the English against the Arabs. Within the last few months our Acting Consul, that remarkable man Mr. Buchanan, and a clergyman who was with him, had been stripped of their clothing and publicly insulted in the grossest manner by an Arab Chief dwelling near Lake Nyassa, who had up till then always treated Englishmen with respect and consideration. Mr. Buchanan, he should add, was only released after the Chief had received as ransom 200 bales of calico. From the University Mission established on the coast above Zanzibar the information had come that the country was very unsettled, that the acquisition of territory by Germany was exciting the Native mind, and that there was much talk about sweeping away all Europeans. Archdeacon Farler, in a letter dated May 27, 1888, said—
  "I find much bitterness among the Natives about the new German spoliation. Arabs are suggesting that all the Native tribes should join and make a grand smash of all Europeans in East Africa. I fear troubled times are before us."
  When all these circumstances were considered, how England had apparently been insulted by the Portuguese, how the way to her Settlements on the lakes had been barred to Englishmen, and how Germany was advancing, it could not excite wonder that England was looked upon in that country as a retreating Power. That was a fact well worthy of serious consideration. All foreign political interests seemed to be against our maintaining our position in Eastern Central Africa. France did not wish to have us close to Madagascar; Germany was clearly desirous of having as much of Africa to herself as possible; and Portugal was most anxious to oust us from Central Africa. On looking at the latest maps, it seemed as if there were a paper blockade against England.

  543
  But not only were all political interests against us, but powerful commercial interests also. Enormous plantations were being reared by the Portuguese and the Arabs along the coast, and the owners of almost all these plantations depended for their success upon slave labour. They naturally, therefore, looked with no favouring eye upon the enemies of the Slave Trade. Then the interest of the traders in drink was involved. England had hitherto done her best to shut out from Eastern Africa spirits and firearms and powder; but the German territory, unfortunately, was already being flooded with vile spirits. Political interests and commercial interests were thus united in the desire to expel the English from this part of the great Continent; and if they had their way what was to become of England's missions of civilization and Christianity? He felt sure that matters would not be allowed to drift by the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, who had always shown extreme regard for the honour and welfare of his country. If matters were allowed to drift, there could be only one termination, and that was that those grand Englishmen and Scotchmen who had laboured so hard amongst the Natives would be swept away by force. He could not think that the conscience of the country would sanction England's withdrawal from Central Africa, for it would be a withdrawal from that part of the country which was the nest and home of the Slave Trade, which would flourish luxuriantly if we were to abandon the Natives. Better never to have explored that country, never to have made friends with the Native Chiefs, if we were now to abandon them to their greatest foes. He suggested that the question ought to be faced boldly, and that we should either say at once that Lake Nyassa and the ways of access to it must remain within the sphere of British influence, or, if that was impossible, that we should negotiate with the other European Powers and induce them to place the Zambesi and the chain of the lakes in the same position as the Congo State. He might be told that England had plenty of territory already, and that it would be wise to diminish her responsibilities. But could anybody really think that the retreat of England from Central Africa would have good results? Would such a course
  544
  have no effect upon her interests elsewhere—in the Victoria Nyanza district, for example? Would her task in Egypt be made easier? Would it be easier to deal with Turkey after surrendering to France, Germany, and Portugal? Should we find it easier to deal with Arabia and Persia, with South Africa and the Zulus, and with India if the impression spread that we were a retreating Power, and that we were deserting our Indian fellow-subjects on the East Coast of Africa? The policy of retreating from a position we had once taken seemed to be a most fatal one. It might be thought he was exaggerating the knowledge of what went on, and the effect that knowledge would produce; but on that point be would quote what Sir John Kirk wrote to Lord Granville in November, 1884. Sir John Kirk said—
  "I was thinking that it would be well to ask the Sultan to ignore slavery as a legal status at Zanzibar. Unfortunately, just at present distorted accounts of our action in Egypt and of recent events in South Africa, maliciously circulated through the Arab Press, especially through an Arabic paper published in London, have made it more difficult for a Native Mahometan Ruler to take the initiative in such a measure.
  Their Lordships could have no idea how complete the communication was; everything that passed in Egypt and in Zululand, everything that was going on as to our political position was made known in East Africa, partly through Native journals and partly by an Arab journal published in London. Our position, therefore, was one that we must consider with the greatest care. Far be it from him to object to Germany co-operating with us, if she would, in the civilization and regeneration of Africa. Far be it from him to suggest that we should be jealous of other nations getting territories as we had done. But we must not allow any great blow to be struck at our power, good faith, and persistency. But we could not maintain our character unless we supported it from time to time by action. The whole story was a warning to us that we must show that we were not only united at home, but that we were thoroughly strong abroad.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY on STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, in the course of the interesting statement of my noble Friend he

  545
  dwelt a great deal upon the vast size and enormous distances of the continent which he discussed; but I think that in the arrangement of his subject he somewhat forgot the consideration which he exhorted us to dwell upon so much. I think he has confused, or rather mixed up, transactions which took place at enormous distances on the East Coast of Africa; and I think your Lordships will hardly get a clear view of what has taken place, and is taking place, unless you separate the consideration of transactions which took place in various parts of that enormous territory. In the first place, there is a misapprehension on the part of my noble Friend which I must correct. He speaks of England having retreated from that Coast, and talks of our being dethroned and of our power declining. Well, I can only say I do not know to what state of things he refers by way of comparison. Before the year 1884, which he has selected as marking an epoch, England had, as far as I know, no possessions whatever upon the East Coast of Africa and no territorial position in Zanzibar. All the power that England had may be summed in the one name of Sir John Kirk. He was a man of great ability and experience, and he had undoubtedly great influence with the Sultan of Zanzibar. Beyond that secondary and indirect influence which we may have obtained in the Council Chamber of Zanzibar we had no power or position on the East Coast. It was about 1884 the Germans proposed certain arrangements by which they should be allowed to occupy and to administer certain parts of the East mainland of Africa that was supposed to be in the dominion of the Sultan of Zanzibar. The coast line undoubtedly was under the Sultan; but how far inland his Dominion extended was a matter of controversy upon which it was very difficult to decide. Germany proposed that the claim of Zanzibar should not be left in an undecided and obscure position, but that it should be distinctly ascertained what Zanzibar really possessed, and that the territory which was outside the possession of Zanzibar should be occupied for the purposes of trade and influence by some European nation or other. Negotiations followed, and an arrangement was ultimately made on the principle of dividing English and German influence on the East Coast of Africa
  546
  behind the coast line which represented the genuine Dominion of Zanzibar. That arrangement had, I think, the sanction of four successive Foreign Secretaries. It commenced under the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville); the noble Earl opposite, who was six months at the Foreign Office (the Earl of Rosebery), took a part in these negotiations; I took a part in them during the first period I acted as Foreign Secretary; and they were concluded under Lord Iddesleigh. I venture to think that the arrangement was absolutely good; it was the very best arrangement for humanity and civilization we could possibly adopt. What advantage does my noble Friend think could be derived by humanity, civilization, or commerce from leaving the vast tracts of territory which he has described to be simply wandered over by naked savages or to be the hunting ground of slavers? You have one hope of stopping slavery in Africa, and that is, that by stopping its outlets from that vast continent, you will stop it at its source. You will never be able to dispute with the Arab slaver in every mountain, lake, and plateau of the interior, the bloodthirsty operations by which slavery is recruited; but what you can do is to make his operations unprofitable for him by preventing his having his issue from the coast by which alone his market can be reached. If your object is to arrest the Slave Trade, what more effective plan can be devised than that the most progressive nations of Europe should send their subjects to develop the territory, to increase trade, and plant settlements along the East Coast, through which the slave trade must be carried and across which the profits of the Slave Traders must be found? These things take time; you must not expect that the seed will grow up to a tree in a day. I believe the Germans are as heartily anxious to stop the Slave Trade as we are, and that the public opinion of Germany is as determined on that point as the public opinion of England. I think the result of the arrangements that have been made, by which German and English settlements will in due time be made on the whole East Coast of Africa, will be to give a heavier blow to the Slave Trade than could be given by any other arrangements. My noble Friend talked of Germany having annexed the whole

  547
  interior—the valley of the great lakes; but I do not recollect the instrument by which it was done, and I think my noble Friend has rather exaggerated in the language he has used. Germany and England have never affected to do more than to mark out the countries in which their influence will be exercised, and it is undoubtedly best that they should keep separate, if only for the purpose of not wasting force; but I do not think that any international right has yet been established over those marvellous waterways which my noble Friend so eloquently described. I have spoken of the arrangements between Germany and England with regard to Zanzibar, and I deny entirely that they have resulted in diminishing the influence of England upon that coast or diminishing the influence of England with Zanzibar. I believe that our influence is as great as or greater than it has been at any previous time. But I do not deny that in our relations with Portugal we have not been so fortunate. Matters are still in negotiation. I must speak with reserve upon many subjects on which I should like to speak fully if negotiations were not going on. Portugal claimed a strip of territory near Cape Delgado, on which there was a settlement of coloured merchants, many of them from Bombay. My noble Friend represented this claim as an insult to Great Britain, on the ground that the merchants were under British protection; but that protection existed only in his own imagination, for they had no British protection at all; they were simply subjects of the Sultan of Zanzibar on a narrow strip of land in the Bay of Tungi, which was claimed by Portugal, and had been claimed for many years. An examination of the Papers which have been laid on the Table of your Lordships' House will show that England and Germany have maintained that Portugal was in the wrong; still, it was by no means a case in which you could say that Portugal had no ground to go upon. The strongest point in favour of Portugal was a certain Treaty made with this country at the beginning of the century, in which Cape Delgado was actually named as the northern limit of Portugal's possessions. But if there was a good deal to be said for the claim of Portugal, it was a question that might very well have been submitted to arbitration, and I think that the action
  548
  of Portugal in the matter was hasty and rash, for, without giving notice to the Sultan of Zanzibar beyond hauling down the Consular flag, a Portugese man-of-war appeared, summoned the Governor to surrender, and when he refused bombarded the place. We do not think, after having taken advice, that International Law is broken, but it was very harshly tried indeed. We submitted a case for compensation to the Government of Portugal, but we have not yet received an answer. That being so, I will discuss the matter no further. But I want to impress on my noble Friend that there was no case of British protection, and that International Law was not broken. But after making those reservations I say that the conduct of Portugal could not be spoken of without considerable blame. Now, it is claimed that Portugal had the right to all that zone of territory stretching from the Zambesi to Mozambique on the Indian Ocean, and to Angola on the Atlantic; but the claim could only be made by some extraordinary doctrine of constructive acquisition. I believe it rests upon a decree of Pope Alexander VI. of saintly memory, but how far that can be admitted as an international ground I will not discuss. France and Germany had admitted the claim of Portugal, subject to any rights which other Powers might have. We have not admitted it. But upon that claim Portugal builds a further claim that the Zambesi is hers also, and undoubtedly if this zone of territory belongs to her there would be a fair contention to that effect. There is territory beyond, however, which is not Portugese, and with which we have some connection—namely, the district known as Matabeli's land, and also we have interests of an undefined, though very interesting character, with respect to those splendid monuments of British energy and enthusiasm shown on Lake Nyassa. We have informed Portugal that we absolutely cannot admit this claim to the possession of the Zambesi. The matter is still under discussion. The local authorities attempted to exclude the supply of the necessary ammunition to those now living on the Nyassa lake by way of the Zambesi; but we made representations to Lisbon, and I am happy to say that orders have now been given for the supply of ammunition, I do not like to pursue this

  549
  theme too far, because it would be very easy for language to drop from my mouth which would retard rather than advance an understanding. But I agree with my noble Friend in thinking that the possession of a vast natural highway like the Zambesi, under the peculiar circumstances of its history, cannot be claimed by Portugal. After all, it was discovered by Englishmen, and it is now principally used by Englishmen. It leads to settlements wherein Englishmen are conducting their operations, religious and commercial; and I think that, even according to the strictest doctrines of International Law, it is a matter of the greatest doubt whether a nation in full possession of the two sides of the Zambesi river has a right to exercise any jurisdiction to bar access to territories which lie beyond. The Rhine, the Danube, the St. Lawrence, the Congo, and other rivers have been declared free, and that being the case, and especially considering the very peculiar circumstances in which the Zambesi is placed, I am convinced that the opinion of the civilized world will be on our side when we say that the Zambesi must be a route open to all and not confined to one. I think that the religious and commercial operations on Lake Nyassa form a spectacle upon which Englishmen can look with pride, yet it is one of those achievements which our race has formed and will sustain rather by the action of the individuals of whom the State is composed than by the political machinery of the State. Some of the noblest things England has done in the world have been done in that way, by the initiative of individuals and not by the action of the Government. The only note in my noble Friend's speech that jarred on my ear was when he seemed to point to action, which means military action, on the part of England to assure the possession to these communities of Lake Nyassa. Has he really formed any idea of the task he is laying out for the Government of this country? If he proposes to send an Expedition which can subdue all this territory, according to our ideas of how Expeditions should be organized and what they should cost, I think he would find that the Expedition to Egypt of a few years ago would melt into the faintest insignificance compared with the task to which he has
  550
  invited this country. I will not use any language to encourage the belief that the Government will make any attempt, by military action, to support the commercial and religious efforts of the missionaries there. It is not our duty to do it. We should be risking tremendous sacrifices for a very doubtful gain. It is one of those tasks which must be and will be carried through by the individual Englishmen who have undertaken it. All that the Government can do on the sea coast, all that we can do diplomatically within the sphere of political efforts in this country, we will do. But we are certain that we should only injure instead of promote these great civilized and missionary efforts if we were to convert them into a cause of war, of war the most exhausting, the most terrible, the least remunerative in any sense—war with the countless savages who fill these territories; because it is not a civilized Power with which we have to fight; it is a collection of all the scum of humanity that is found over that vast territory which is governed principally by Arabs of the sort with whom we have dealt in the Soudan, who combine the grossest cruelty with a species of fanaticism. We must leave the dispersal of this terrible army of wickedness to the gradual advance of civilization and Christianity, which in these countries, though slow, seems now to be sure. And we may be convinced with my noble Friend that this country will not abandon the task to which she has once put her hand, but that she will carry it through successfully and to a triumphant issue by the proper action and the enthusiasm of her individual citizens.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, I desire to disclaim any wish for British military intervention in East Central Africa. I suggested that the Shire river and Nyassa Lake district should be placed, as has been done with the country assigned to England by the Treaty of 1886, north of German East Africa, under the sphere of British influence, or included in the Congo international arrangement. Both the existing Scotch trading Companies and Scotch and English missions would consider such intervention the greatest misfortune and hindrance to their work.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I do not endorse all the state-

  551
  ments of the noble Marquess. I confess I was amazed to hear him say that there never had been any direct British influence in Zanzibar.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Direct British power.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Marquess has associated that power with Sir John Kirk, and I am far from saying that his influence has not had a great deal to do with it. But that, I think, affords some slight justification for the general assertion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrow by) that as the noble Marquess had substituted another agent for Sir John Kirk he has had something to do with the diminution of British influence in Zanzibar.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Sir John Kirk retired.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: As to the voluntary nature of that retirement I am not quite certain. But the noble Marquess has associated two Foreign Secretaries on this side of the House with his policy in Zanzibar. It is true that under both my noble Friend who preceded me and myself there was a Commission of Delimitations carrying on the task in Zanzibar of inquiring into what were the exact limits of the Dominion of the Sultan. That is a very different thing from the Treaty which was signed by the Government of the noble Marquess, and which, so far as can be ascertained, actually limited the influence of the Sultan to a very material extent and practically confined his authority to the Island of Zanzibar itself. I am not fond of discussing questions of foreign policy in this House, but I should be wanting in duty and sincerity to your Lordships' House if I were to accept any association with the Treaty made by the noble Marquess in 1886.

AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT— SWINE FEVER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTON, in asking the Lord President of the Council, Whether the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council were taking any steps to check the large increase of swine fever by preventive inoculation, or proposed to issue any Order for the compulsory slaughter of diseased pigs and those in contact with them? said, some disease had been dealt with by various
  552
  Orders in Council for some years past, but after a trial of 10 years of Orders in Council, many of which had, no doubt, been only partially carried out, the result was that at the end of last year there were about 40,000 diseased animals, and the ratepayers had to pay £20,000 compensation for the slaughter in England alone. The present was the time of year when the movement of swine took place, and the last Return of the Royal Agricultural Society of June 26 stated that there were at the time 512 outbreaks, 2,961 animals attacked, 1,402 slaughtered, and 1,217 who died. The question had been fully gone into in an able Report by Professor Brown, which had been presented to the House, and he said there were only two ways of dealing with the question—namely, stamping out and inoculation. Stamping out had been tried but was not successful, because it had not been done uniformly. It had been done to a certain extent in Scotland, and there was less swine fever, except round Edinburgh, in that country than in England. Experiments had been made with the other alternative by Professor Brown; but he had been compelled to discontinue them on account of the interpretation which was placed on the Cruelty to Animals Act by the Home Secretary. Some correspondence had taken place which led to the belief that further experiments might be made. He thought that such experiments, being for the protection of animals from disease, should be permitted, and, no doubt, veterinary science would also greatly benefit from them. He trusted his noble Friend would be able to tell the House that the experiments would be continued.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, that at present the Local Authorities had the power of compulsory slaughter if they chose to exercise it, but this system had been tried upon a large scale in 1885 and 1886, and had been found powerless to stop the disease, owing chiefly to the fact that swine were cheaper animals than cattle and much more spread about the country, dealt in by jobbers, and largely in the possession of cottagers. On this account there was not that disclosure of cases of disease which there was in the case of cattle. He could, however, assure his noble Friend that Professor Brown and

  553
  those who were acting with him were taking every possible step to meet the requirements of the case. Experiments with regard to inoculation had gone on upon a considerable scale; but when they had arrived at a point where it was desirable that they should go still further, doubt had arisen as to whether the Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would not stand in the way. A letter had, however, come from the Home Office to say that these experiments could not be said to come within the clauses of the Act, and, therefore, did not require to be licensed. He could therefore assure his noble Friend that the experiments which had been tried in the direction of preventing the disease by inoculation would be at once resumed on a scale which would, he hoped, lead to some decision as to what was the best mode of dealing with the question. The experiment had been tried of stopping the markets, but this had proved unavailing, although it had succeeded for a short time. He could assure the noble Earl that as far as the Department was concerned every effort would be made to meet the requirements of the case.

FOREIGN MEAT BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD LAMINGTON, in rising to call attention to the subject of the regulation of the sale of foreign meat, and to present a Bill, said, that their Lordships must be aware that recent legislation had been in favour of compelling tradesmen to declare distinctly what they were selling. They had had the Merchandize Marks Bill, the Food Adulteration Bill, the Margarine Bill, all based on the sound principle that you might sell what you pleased, but should honestly say what you were selling. The British and Irish Industry Bill and the Beer Adulteration Bill, on the same principle, had been introduced this year in "another place," and were supported by very important names. He could not understand why meat should be the only exception to this sound principle; and he might add that all the most respectable part of the trade were in favour of such a measure. Chester was a most important agricultural district, and at a meeting held there on the 16th of June of the representatives of the Chester, Warrington, and Wirral Farmers' Clubs, Bolton Dairy
  554
  Farmers' Association, and Edgworth and District Agricultural Society, and supported by all the principal butchers, a resolution was unanimously passed to the effect that they much regretted that there had been no further legislation in regard to the sale of foreign meat, which was brought into this country and sold as English, and they prayed the Members of Parliament for the surrounding districts and the gentlemen interested in the matter to do their utmost to carry a Bill through Parliament to stop the sale of foreign meat as English. The Bill which he asked permission to introduce was probably the shortest Bill that had ever been presented to their Lordships. It consisted of one clause, divided into two sections. The first section provided that no one should sell or expose for sale, either wholesale or retail, any foreign meat without notice of the same; and the second provided that such notice should be on a board in a conspicuous part of the shop. It would be seen that he in no way even interfered with anyone selling foreign meat as British meat, fraudulent as such practice was, for when once it was clearly known that foreign meat was sold in the shop customers could protect themselves. His object was to give the poorer classes the benefit of the low price of foreign meat. It was a great hardship when poor people had to pay 2d. or 3d. more than the proper price. Formerly this Act would not have been required, for there were large depôts for the sale of foreign meat. Now these had ceased to exist, and the trade got all the advantage of the difference of price, to the great loss of all classes except the retail dealer. He had no desire to interfere with the sale of foreign meat, but it should be sold as foreign meat. A noble Lord had said on a recent occasion that the foreign meat was preferable to the home-bred meat; if so, why was the butcher ashamed to say so, and why did he not sell it at a fair price? The noble Lord who replied for the Government had said—"All I can advise purchasers is, when you wish to buy an article see that you get it." That was precisely what he wished to do. The noble Lord had also remarked that adulteration was sometimes desirable, as when water was added to whisky. That might be a good joke, but it was bad morality. Let them have Free Trade as much as they pleased,

  555
  but let it be honest trade. And, at any rate, they should not so far abjure the word "Protection" as to refuse protection to the poorer classes of the community. In conclusion, he asked leave to present the Bill, and that it should be read a first time.
  Bill for the better regulation of the sale of foreign meat—Presented (The Lord LAMINGTON).
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of ONSLOW)said, that before making any remarks on the Bill he would like to see it printed. He believed the law as it stood gave ample power for inflicting penalties on those who sold foreign for English meat, and he did not see what was to be gained by obliging a butcher to put over his door a notice that he was licensed to sell foreign meat. It was not easy to know a British steak from a foreign one. He would not, however, oppose that stage of the Bill.
  Bill read 1a. (No. 206.)

THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—HYDE PARK—TREE PLANTING ON THE SERPENTINE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to call attention to the great disfigurement of Hyde Park caused by the planting of a straight line of trees on either side of the Serpentine, and to ask Whether the First Commissioner of Works had authorized this proceeding, the result of which was to shut out the river from view, and to give it the appearance of a canal? said, that the Serpentine was as picturesque an object as you could see in any park in Europe; but for some time past Chief Commissioners had been anxious to shut it out from the view of the public. Some time ago, Mr. Ayrton erected at a vast expenditure some unsightly mounds to intercept the view; but an outcry arose, and the mounds were removed, at further great expense. His right hon. Friend the present First Commissioner was a greater sinner than Mr. Ayrton, because these trees would undoubtedly shut out the view from both sides, and would completely mar the effect. The trees were placed with mathematical precision
  556
  about three yards apart on both sides of the river, and the Serpentine now resembled the Grand Canal in Dublin, or a canal in the Low Countries. Certainly there was nothing elsewhere so hideous in Art, and nothing to be compared with it in Nature.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, he was glad the noble Earl had called attention to this subject. These trees would be a great advantage to Hyde Park, but they ought to be in the right place. They were between the walk and the river, and, therefore, the beauty of the river was shut out from view. He hoped they would be removed and put in a place where, instead of interfering with its beauty, they would be a very great ornament to the Park.
  THE EARL OF MEATHwas underderstood to say, that he hoped the trees would be left as they were.
  LORD HENNIKER, in reply, said, their Lordships were aware that it was necessary to deal with trees in a great Metropolis like London in a different way to that in which they were treated in the country districts. As to the Question of his noble Friend (the Earl of Milltown), it was never intended to leave the trees in line as at present, but to break them up into groups. They were planted in soil like that in which they would find a permanent home. The officials of the Office of Works would watch each tree, so as to see which were the most flourishing, when it would be seen which it was best to move. It was proposed to commence moving the trees into groups next winter. These trees on the north and south side of the Serpentine were planted in February last year. In dealing with young trees like these, it was found to be better to move them as proposed, for they had only to be moved a short distance—a few yards, or a few feet—rather than to bring them up straight from the country. He thought he had answered the Question of his noble Friend—that was to say, that it was not intended to keep the trees in their present position, but to break them up into picturesque groups.

  ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law as to the endowment of the archdeaconry of Cornwall—Was presented by The Lord Steward; read 1a. (No. 202.)

  EXETER AND TRURO CHAPTER FUNDS APPORTIONMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make better provision for the apportionment of funds between the endowments of the Cathedral Church of Exeter and the endowments of the Cathedral Church of Truro, and for other purposes connected therewith—Was presented by The Lord Steward; read 1a. (No. 203.)
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.