Sitting of 9 July 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Local Government (England and Wales) [182] [Fourteenth Night]—R.P.
Withdrawn—Mines (Limitation of Hours)*[241].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Select Committee—Pier and Harbour (No. 2)* [248], nominated.
Third Reading—Elementary Education (Birmingham)* [304]; Local Government (Ireland) (Ballymoney, &c.)* [302], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—RICHMOND ASYLUM, DUBLIN—ANNE REDDY, A LUNATIC.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is, at present, a patient, an inmate of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, Dublin, named Anne Reddy, who was in August, 1886, and again in March, 1888, registered as a Roman Catholic, and classed among the Roman Catholic patients; although the woman is, and has been since 1875, a Protestant; and, whether the Government will take steps to compel the Board of Governors of the Richmond Asylum to register the patient according to her religious belief?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have ascertained that the facts are as stated in the Question. I am having further inquiries made, with a view of bringing the matter before the Board of Governors of the Asylum.

  ADMIRALTY—TORPEDO ACCIDENT AT PORTSMOUTH.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is the case that the Fire Queen was pierced by a torpedo at Portsmouth on Saturday; and, if so, can he state the circumstances under which such an accident or misadventure could have occurred?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): While the torpedo fittings of Her Majesty's ship Severn were being tested on June 30 the torpedo fired on the occasion overran its distance some 90 yards owing
  710
  to the stopping gear not having worked, striking in its course Her Majesty's ship Fire Queen, and piercing her bottom. In order to save time the trial was being carried out in the harbour instead of outside, as is usually the case. The Commander-in-Chief has given directions that his express sanction must be obtained infuture for any trial inside the harbour. The damage to the Fire Queen is quite immaterial, and the vessel is ready again for service.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—CONVEYANCE OF MAILS, CO. TIPPERARY.
  MR. J. O'CONNORasked the Postmaster General, Whether Mr. Christopher Cullen, owner of a two-horse car, running between Castle Connell, County Limerick, and Newport, County Tipperary, offered to convey the mails to and from Newport for a sum of £5 per year; and, if so, whether he will see his way to granting the prayer of the Memorial presented last October—namely, that the locality of Newport should have the advantage of a morning despatch and an evening arrival of mails?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): It is the fact that Mr. Cullen offered to convey mail bags for £5 a-year; and, although this payment would represent only about a third of the total cost, I am prepared, under all the circumstances, to accept the offer and to establish a day mail. I will give instructions accordingly.

  INLAND REVENUE—THE INCOME TAX IN WALES.
  MR. J. BRYN ROBERTSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, having regard to the fact that the farmers and small traders in Wales do not understand English, he will cause Welsh notices for Returns of Income Tax to be circulated in the purely Welsh-speaking districts of Wales?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr GOSCHEN): It has not been found necessary, since the imposition of the Income Tax in 1842, to print the notices referred to in Welsh; nor has any difficulty been experienced in making assessments and collecting the duties by

  711
  means of notices in English. It may be added that all the poor rates on which the Income Tax assessments are based are made out and collected in English.

  THE DUTCH COLONIES—MILITARY SERVICE IN JAVA.
  MR. J. S. GATHORNE-HARDYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that British subject in Java are compelled to serve in the Auxiliary Militia there; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to remedy the grievance?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I have fully explained this matter in reply to the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. J. C. Bolton) on the 3rd instant. There is no Treaty between Her Majesty and the Netherlands by which British subjects would be exempted from service in the Militia it Dutch Colonies.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT(SCOTLAND) —TEACHERS IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  DR. R. MACDONALDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is a fact that the salaries of most of the teachers in the Island of Lewis, which were due last May, are still unpaid; is he aware whether there is a large deficiency of money in each parish due to the school board; whether the rate to be levied to make up this deficiency would amount to 7s. 6d. in the pound; whether, on this ground, the Parochial Boards have refused to levy a rate for the deficiency; and, what proposals have Her Majesty's Government to make to remove this deadlock, and prevent the closing of nearly all the schools in the Island?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The hon. Member appears to suppose that the Island of Lewis is under the jurisdiction of one instead of four school boards. Of these, three have recently been in communication with the Education Department in regard to their financial position; and, although the circumstances vary in each case, the state of matters regarding all three, undoubtedly, is very grave. I can only say that the Government have the
  712
  facts under their most anxious consideration.

  SCOTLAND—ISLAND OF COLL—CONVICTION OF CROFTERS.
  DR. R. MACDONALDasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been called to the statements of Alexander Mackinnon, crofter, and others resident in the Island of Coll, who were convicted of being concerned in a breach of the peace at the Sheriff Court in Tobermory on the 13th ultimo; whether such breach of the peace arose from these crofters refusing to allow a Committee of the School Board to examine their lands in order to determine a position for the site of a board school; whether the said Committee refused to produce any authority from the landlord to inspect the proposed site, and whether any intimation whatever had been given to the men who were convicted that their lands were proposed to be taken for this purpose; whether the Procurator Fiscal, who prosecuted these prisoners on behalf of the Crown Authorities, is land agent, factor, and rent-collector for the landlord on whose estate this alleged breach of the peace took place; and, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to prevent similar prosecutions in future by means of their own officials, while these officers in their private capacity are interested in the acquittal or conviction of prisoners according as their own private interests are affected?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am aware that certain crofters were summarily convicted of breach of the peace in connection with this matter. A new school being required, a site was granted by the proprietor, and a Committee of the Board appointed to choose a suitable site. On the day the Committee made the visit for this purpose, they were met on the high road by a crowd of about 20 persons armed with sticks, and one with a grape, and before they could explain their object they were ordered to turn back. A line was drawn up, and threats were made that if anyone passed he would be knocked down. One of the crowd asked if they had a warrant, and was told that they had come to look for a site, and to consult with the people as to a suitable one. They were even-

  713
  tually allowed to look over the ground, and fixed on a site near the present school, without further hindrance. There is no evidence to show that the Committee were asked to produce authority from the landlord, and no attempt was made at the trial to give this as an excuse for the misconduct of the people. For about 20 years the Procurator Fiscal or his partner have collected the rents on this small property; and during this time the relationship between the Procurator Fiscal and the tenants has been of the most friendly character. Only one of the tenants was engaged in this disturbance; and I am informed that the tenants on the estate knew perfectly well the object and date of the visit, and were not opposed to it, with the one exception I have mentioned. I am unable to see that the Procurator Fiscal was in any way interested in his private capacity in the conviction or acquittal of these offenders; and the persons implicated were ordered to be tried, not by the Procurator Fiscal, but by me.
  DR. R. MACDONALDasked, whether the Committee had any authority from the landlord to inspect the proposed site; and, if so, did they produce it?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he did not know whether there was any written authority; but he thought reasonable people would have allowed them to look about for a site for school, and would not have attacked them.

  LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)— ARREST OF MRS. SMITH, STORNOWAY.
  DR. R. MACDONALDasked the Lord Advocate, If it is true that Mrs. Smith, wife of John Smith, a cooper, of Perceval Row, Stornoway, was publicly arrested on the street there, by two policemen, on Saturday evening, the 16th ultimo, and conveyed to the police station, nearly a mile away, followed by a large crowd; whether the police, when she was arrested, on the way to the station, in answer to her repeated demands to know what the charge against her was, refused over and over again to give her any information on the matter; whether the police had a warrant to arrest her, and, if they had, why they refused
  714
  to produce it on its being demanded; whether one of these officers, in attempting in vain to find his warrant in his pockets, and failing to find it, told Mrs. Smith—
  "We can apprehend men and women, and search carts or anything else passing the streets, at any time we like, without a warrant, or anything else, as we like, ourselves;"
  whether, on arrival at the police station, Mrs. Smith's basket was opened, and a phial of whisky found among its contents; whether the police detained this phial and whisky, even though Mrs. Smith told them she bought it at a certain shop, which they could have verified for themselves, until she sent a special messenger to the shop to prove her statements; whether the police then sent Mrs. Smith about her business, without any expressions of regret for the mistake they had made; and whether, on an apology being demanded from them later on, they treated the demand with silence; whether he is aware that a public subscription is being largely contributed to by the inhabitants to compel the police to apologize publicly for their acts, and to prevent similar conduct by the police in the future; and, whether he will inquire into all the circumstances of the case?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): It appears that Mrs. Smith was seen coming out of a shop licensed by the Excise to sell beer and porter, where the police suspected illicit trafficking in whisky. Mrs. Smith was asked what she had in a basket which she carried. She refused to tell, and abused the constables, who told her that unless she showed them the contents she must go with them to the police office, which is about 300 yards, and not one mile, distant. This she agreed to do. It is not the fact that she was followed by a large crowd. The police had no warrant with them to arrest, nor did they pretend to have any other than a general authority to arrest. At the station a phial of whisky was found in the basket. Mrs. Smith said she purchased the whisky in another shop. No messenger was sent to the shop to verify her statement. She was not detained five minutes in the police station after the Inspector heard the charge,

  715
  and she went away with her basket and whisky. I am not aware that any public subscription is being got up in any way connected with this matter; but I am informed that the Inspector offered to send the policeman to apologize to Mrs. Smith, but a sum of money was demanded instead.
  DR. R. MACDONALDasked, if the police had apologized before his Question was put on the Paper?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he could not answer that Question.
  DR. R. MACDONALDinquired, whether the police had any grounds for suspicion?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he, was informed the police had information which led them to suspect Mrs. Smith.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)— TRAWLING IN THE ESTUARY OF THE CLYDE.
  MR. J. SINCLAIRasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the recent bye-law issued by the Scotch Fishery Board, prohibiting trawling within a line drawn from the Island of Davaar to the Ayrshire Coast across the Firth of Clyde, was within the competence of the said Board, and in accordance with the terms of the Fisheries Convention of 1882; and, whether it can be enforced in its present form; and, if not, what steps the Government will take to restrict the practice of trawling by some such line across the estuary of the Clyde?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a similar Question last Thursday. I may add that the Convention of 1882 does not apply to the West of Scotland.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSasked, whether the proposed byelaw had received the sanction of the Fishery Board as a whole; and whether each Sheriff who had a seat on the Board concurred in it, or if the byelaw was passed by a Committee of the Board; and, if so, what were the names of the members of the Committee?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: My right hon. Friend must give me Notice of that Question.

  LAW AND POLICE (LANCASHIRE)— SERVICES OF THE COUNTY POLICE AT BOLTON.
  MR. SHEPHERD CROSSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, having regard to the fact that the Corporation of Bolton have been compelled to pay the Lancashire Justices the sum of £6,584 3s. 2d. for the services of county police to assist the borough police in quelling disturbances arising out of the recent strike in the engineering trade, the Government will consider the propriety of making an additional grant to the borough in respect of the pay of such constables; or whether, considering that the amount paid to the County Justices exceeds by £2,723 13 s. 6d. the ordinary pay of the county police so employed, the Government will withhold any further grant to the County Justices until a fair allowance has been made by them to the Corporation of Bolton?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): No, Sir. The Home Office has no funds at its disposal out of which an additional grant could be made to the borough, even if it were thought desirable. Neither have I the power to withhold any grant in aid of an efficient police force maintained by the county. I may add that whatever was paid by the Corporation of Bolton to the Lancashire Justices was so paid under an agreement between the two.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— ACTION OF LIGHT ON WATER COLOUR DRAWINGS—REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF ARTISTS.
  SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If the Committee of Artists appointed to report on the results of scientific experiments made at the South Kensington Museum as to the fading of water colour drawings exhibited there has had any meetings; and, if so, when its Report will be laid upon the Table of the House; if he will grant a Return of all water colour drawings purchased for the nation by the South Kensington Authorities since the institution of the scientific inquiry two years ago; and, whether any especial precautions have

  717
  been taken to protect such drawings from the alleged injurious effects of daylight, pending the verdict of the scientific experts and artists appointed to consider the question?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: The Committee of Artists have had several meetings, and have expressed their opinion on the Report of the scientific investigation into the action of light on water colours by Dr. Russell and Captain Abney. The Report, with the opinion of the Committee of Artists, has been laid on the Table of the House, and will, I hope, be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days. If, when my hon. Friend has seen the Report, he still wishes to have the Return of water colours purchased since the institution of the scientific inquiry, I shall have no objection to grant it. No special precautions—other than those which are always used—have been taken to protect these drawings, pending the result of the inquiry.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (PERSONS PROCEEDED AGAINST, &c.)
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many persons were tried by each of the 10 Resident Magistrates appointed by the present Government out of the total number given in Parliamentary Paper, No. 241, of Session 1888?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A J. BALFOUR): It would be possible to obtain the desired information from Official Returns; but it would involve much labour; and as the information could serve no other end than to further attacks on members of a body who have been made the subject of too many unfair attacks already, I think no public advantage would be obtained commensurate with the inconvenience and labour that would be imposed upon the clerical staff.

  THE CIVIL LIST—HORSE BREEDING— QUEEN'S PLATES.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can state the amount of money taken from the Civil List that has been annually expended
  718
  in the course of the present reign in Queen's Plates; and, whether the House is to understand that in future years the whole of this annual amount will be given in Queen's Premiums for the purpose of improving the breed of horses?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer this Question. I have not been able to obtain the exact figures for each year; but I understand that the average annual amount may be taken as £3,200. For the last few years the amount has been £3,360; and that sum will, in future, be handed over to the Royal Commission for improving the breed of horses.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—QUEEN'S PLATES.
  MR. SUMMERSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the demoralization connected with the Turf, he will take into consideration the advisability of discontinuing the practice of placing on the Estimates sums of money for the purpose of Queen's Plates?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): So far as I am aware, no provision has ever been made in the Estimates for Queen's Plates for England. The money formerly voted for Queen's Plates in Scotland is this year merged in the sum which we are asking Parliament to vote for Queen's Premiums for the encouragement of horse-breeding. The only charge for Queen's Plates which still remains upon the Votes is that of £1,563 for Ireland. Personally, I am quite willing that this should be devoted to the same purpose as the money formerly given for Queen's Plates in Great Britain.

  ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY—NOTTING HILL—THE EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. MALLOCKasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he is aware that the room at Notting Hill, in which the preliminary examination of candidates for admission to the Royal Military Academy has recently been held, is situated so close to the District Railway that the noise of the trains disturbs candidates under examination, thus placing them at a disadvan-

  719
  tage as compared with candidates examined at other places; and, if he will arrange for these examinations to be held in future in some more suitable place?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The building is very close to the railway; but I am not aware that the passing trains have been found disturbing. In the opinion of the Superintending Examiner, the rooms are very satisfactory and convenient; and no complaint has been made to the Civil Service Commissioners by any candidate on the ground stated in the Question. It would be very difficult to find suitable rooms free from noise.

  RIOTS AND DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) —MILITARY DISTURBANCES AT DOWNPATRICK.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the attack made by 150 men of the 5th Battalion Royal South Down Rifles on a Catholic juvenile band at Downpatrick on its return from an excursion to Newcastle on Friday evening week; whether he has received any Report from Colonel Waring, who is in charge of the regiment, as to the conduct of his men on the evening in question; whether any inquiry has been made to find out the guilty parties; and, if so, with what result; and, what steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these periodical attacks by the Militia on the Catholics of Downpatrick?
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, will he allow me to ask whether it is not the fact that the attack made on the Catholic band at Downpatrick arose from the bandsmen shouting—"To hell with the Queen and the South Down Rifles?"
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have received Colonel Waring's Report, from which it appears that some men in the Militia, provoked by seditious and offensive language used by a Nationalist band—my information is that they did use the precise words mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh—made a rush upon it, and drove it into the railway station. It further appears that the uproar was
  720
  the affair of a minute; that it was immediately suppressed; and that no serious damage was done, not even a drum being injured.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, how it happened that this attack on a band of 12 boys by 150 Militiamen could be said to have been provoked by the use of seditious language by the band, when, as a matter of fact, the 150 Militiamen had been waiting for the train a long time before it arrived?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had no information that the band was composed of boys. [Cries of "Yes"] It was not so stated in the Report he had received. The cause for the incident was that language of a very gross character was used against the Militia.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had missed the point of his Question—namely, whether these Militiamen, who were said to have been provoked to attack the band of boys by the use of seditious language, had not been actually waiting for the band half-an-hour, or an hour, before the arrival of the train?
  MR. E. STANHOPEdenied that the men had been waiting for the arrival of the band.
  MR. M'CARTANsaid, as he was assured that no such language as that attributed to the band had been used, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to grant an independent inquiry into the matter.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked, as this was a matter of some importance, whether the Militiamen were entitled to take the law into their own hands in this manner?
  MR. CLANCY: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  Subsequently,
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the attack made by 150 of the men of the 5th Battalion Royal South Down Rifles on a Catholic juvenile band at Downpatrick on Friday week, Whether the police have made any inquiry as to the names of the Militiamen who led the attack on the band boys; whether any summonses have been issued against the ringleaders of

  721
  the attacking party; whether he is aware that one of the band boys was seriously injured; what steps were taken to protect the band on its return to the town; and, whether arrangements will be made in future to prevent such excursionists from being attacked by the Militia at Downpatrick?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The County Inspector of Constabulary reports that the police have been unable to identify any of the Militiamen concerned, and that there did not appear to be any ringleaders; the attack, which lasted about a minute, apparently having been a spontaneous one, provoked by the use of party expressions by the bandsmen. One of the bandsmen, I understand, received a cut on the nose about a quarter of an inch long. The police had no reason to anticipate that the band would require any special protection on its return to Downpatrick. But the local police, who attended the arrival of the train, at once afforded all the protection they could. In the case of any future excursion of this nature there will be assembled a sufficient force to prevent any possible disturbance.
  MR. FLYNNasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had any means of ascertaining whether the cut on the nose was measured?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1877—CASES OF WILLIAM HYNES AND OTHERS, CONVICTED AT MILLTOWN MALBAY.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the case of William Hynes, Patrick Collins, and Joseph O'Brien, who were convicted at Milltown Malbay on February 3, under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," of a conspiracy to compel or induce persons not to sell, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour, and whose sentences were increased on appeal to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, Whether at the hearing before the two Resident Magistrates, or at that before the County Court Judge, there was in any of the three cases any evidence of the particular conspiracy mentioned, or
  722
  any evidence beyond that of the personal refusal of the accused to supply goods; and, if so, what the evidence was; and, if not, whether, in view of the recent judgment of the Exchequer Division of the High Court of Justice in Dublin, in the case of "The Queen v. Heaphy and others," the Government will consider the propriety of either immediately releasing the three accused men from gaol, or of providing for a re-hearing of their cases by a competent tribunal?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): In the cases referred to, both before the Resident Magistrates and on appeal, the evidence went far beyond the proof of the personal refusal of the accused to supply goods. A Boycotting conspiracy of the most cruel kind was clearly proved, directed against an old woman named Hannah Connell, who was thereby reduced to starvation, having been kept without food for three days. Additional evidence of importance was given on the appeal; and it was clearly proved, from their own statements and other evidence, that the accused sent Hannah Connell away from their shops in pursuance of a Boycotting conspiracy. The recent judgment of the Exchequer Division has no application to the case of these men. The Government has no power to provide for the re-hearing of the cases as suggested. It was open to the accused to have had a decision of the Superior Court upon the legality of their conviction, if they had thought proper to take that course.
  MR. CLANCYgave Notice that when the Estimates came on he should draw attention to this matter, and should read out the depositions to the House, from which it would appear that no evidence of the kind mentioned was given.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—QUALIFICATION FOR JUSTICE OF THE PEACE—MR. A. MCCLELLAND.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state what property qualification has Mr. Adam McClelland, of Lucan, for the office of Justice of the Peace for the County of Dublin, to which he has recently been appointed, and what was the special reason for his appointment; whether

  723
  Mr. McClelland is a Protestant or a Catholic; whether more than two-thirds of the magistrates of Dublin County are Protestants, though more than three-fourths of the population are Catholics; and, whether the Government intend to take any steps to secure in that county a more adequate representation of the Catholic population on the Magisterial Bench?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that there is no property qualification required by law for holding the Commission of the Peace in Ireland. But before making an appointment the Lord Chancellor satisfies himself that the candidate has a sufficient independence of means. The appointment in question was made in the ordinary way. I understand that candidates for the magistracy are not required to state their religious persuasion; and the Lord Chancellor was not informed of the religious belief of the gentleman referred to. As regards paragraph 3, I have no information other than that contained in the Return presented pursuant to an Order of this House, dated March 10, 1886. The appointment of magistrates does not rest with the Government, but with the Lord Chancellor, who states he is always glad to consider the names of any properly qualified Roman Catholics who may be recommended to him.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) —THE TAAFFE ESTATE, CO. MAYO.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that before the appointment of Mr. P. J. Hughes, of Kiltimagh, as receiver over the Taaffe Estate in the County of Mayo, 95 per cent of the tenants signed a Memorial and sent it Mr. Justice Monroe protesting against the appointment; whether John Daly, of Ballyhaunis, was engaged for five days—namely, the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, and 26th of May, in serving notices on the tenants over whom Mr. Hughes is the receiver, and was protected by a force of 40 police and a District Inspector; and can he state at what cost those notices were served on the tenants, about 300 in number?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I cannot undertake to make any statement on the
  724
  subject of the first paragraph, which relates to the action of a Judge in his judicial capacity, and of which the Executive Government have no cognizance. The reply to the inquiry in the second paragraph is in the affirmative. The cost of the detachment of police is about £84 7s.

  THE TRUCK ACTS—COLLECTON OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS BY EMPLOYERS (BELFAST).
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the statement of the Attorney General that no provision in the Truck Acts renders illegal the collection by employers of the voluntary contributions of their employés in aid of a public hospital without the written consent of each employé, he will instruct the Inspector of Factories in Belfast that employers there may, as heretofore, collect, without the formality of written consent, the voluntary contributions of their employés in aid of hospitals in Belfast?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Inspector has not interfered to prevent the collection by employers of voluntary contributions by the men. He has explained to the employers that if such collection is made by way of deduction from wages, without the written assent of the workmen, it would appear to be contrary to the Statute. I do not understand that this is contrary to the law as stated by the Attorney General. Both the Inspector and the employers are, however, now aware of the opinion of the Attorney General on this particular point, and they will be guided in their action accordingly.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—JOHN PHELAN, OF DRANGAN, A PRISONER IN CLONMEL GAOL.
  MR. CONDONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of John Phelan, of Drangan, County Tipperary, who is now undergoing a sentence of two months' imprisonment in Clonmel Gaol for refusing to sell a box of matches to an Emergency man named Mitchell; whether he is aware that, though de-

  725
  scribed as a shopkeeper, he merely sells a few clay pipes and some boxes of matches, and that his family are in danger from destitution by his detention in gaol; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Government can see their way to remitting the remainder of the sentence?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I understand that Phelan was sentenced, with two others, to two months' imprisonment for taking part in a criminal conspiracy to compel and induce persons not to deal with Mitchell, who was a caretaker on an evicted farm. Phelan keeps a small shop. Mitchell had asked for a clay pipe, candle, and matches, which were refused. Phelan, in addition to keeping a shop, also works as a labourer. His family are, it is said, badly off through his having been sent to prison. Phelan and the two others appealed against their sentences. The County Court Judge confirmed it in the case of Phelan and one of the others. In the case of the third man the sentence was reversed, on the ground of insufficient evidence. The Government do not see their way to adopt the course suggested in the concluding portion of the Question.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—SESSIONS COURT AT MURROE, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. FINUCANEasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether a Sessions Court under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act was held at Murroe, County Limerick, on Tuesday, June 26, to try two men charged with assault; whether, although the accused with their witnesses and solicitor attended, the Court was adjourned in consequence of the attendance of only one Resident Magisgrate; and, whether a similar Court was held at the same place on last Tuesday, and adjourned on similar reasons; and, if so, will he direct that the expenses incurred by the accused shall be repaid to them?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): It is the fact that a Court under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act was held at Murroe, not on the day mentioned in the Question, but
  726
  on Monday, June 25, to try two men for aggravated assault. It is not the fact that the Court was adjourned in consequence of the attendance of only one Resident Magistrate. The case was heard by two Resident Magistrates; and as it had not concluded by 6 o'clock in the evening it was adjourned to July 3, the accused being meantime admitted to bail. One of the magistrates was unable to attend on the 3rd, and the case was further adjourned until the 12th instant. The accused had no solicitor in attendance on the 3rd. There is no reason for taking the course suggested by the Question.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— JUDGMENTS IN THE IRISH COURT OF EXCHEQUER—"BLUNT v. BYRNE."
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the assertion that the note of the Judgment of the Lord Chief Baron of the Irish Court of Exchequer in "Blunt v. Byrne," revised by the Lord Chief Baron, was made by Mr. Johnston, a member of the Dublin Press, Whether he is aware that Mr. Johnston was not even present in Court during the delivery of the Judgment; and, whether Mr. Holt, B.L., official reporter of the Irish Court of Probate, was engaged by the Attorney General for Ireland to supply for the Crown a report of the Judgment of the Irish Court of Exchequer in the Killeagh case, and was directed by an official telegram to furnish the transcript and post it to London in time for use by the Government in the debate in this House on the the 25th and 26th ultimo?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am now informed that Mr. Johnston was not present in Court during the delivery of the Judgment, and that the notes were taken in his absence by Mr. Murray, who is also a professional shorthand writer, by arrangement with Mr. Johnston. Mr. Holt was not engaged by the Attorney General for Ireland, by telegram or otherwise, to supply for the Crown a report of the Judgment of the Court of Exchequer in the Killeagh case.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was no engagement whatever between Mr. Johnston and Mr. Murray?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had answered to the best of his ability with regard to a subject of which he could not have any official knowledge. He was sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with the answer.
  MR. SEXTONregretted that the right hon. Gentleman's informants so often misled him, and gave Notice that he would call attention to the whole matter in Committee of Supply.

  CUSTOM HOUSE—EXAMINATION OF UNREGISTERED BAGGAGE AT DOVER.
  MR. LEGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused by the Custom House examination of unregistered baggage on the decks of the packets arriving at Dover; and whether he could provide for the examination taking place on shore and under cover?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The inconvenience caused by the Custom House examination of unregistered baggage on the decks of the packets arriving at Dover is well understood; but as the construction of the Admiralty Pier at which the packets almost invariably arrive is not such as to afford space for the erection of sheds, or other conveniences, for the examination of baggage on shore, no remedy short of requiring the examination of baggage to take place at the baggage warehouses at the respective railway stations could be devised; and I am afraid that the delay which would be caused in the starting of the trains would entail on the passengers a much greater degree of inconvenience than they have now to endure.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—CLAUSE 30—THE WHEEL AND VAN TAX.
  MR. LEAKEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of the Government to give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the proposed Wheel and Van Tax before discussing the application of the proceeds
  728
  of the tax under Clause 30 of the Local Government Bill; and, whether, if the assent of Parliament is obtained to the Wheel and Van Tax, the Government will recommend the application of the proceeds, together with those of the Horse Tax, to the maintenance and repair of main roads in the counties and the boroughs named in the Fourth Schedule of the Local Government Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I do not think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie) would be willing to suspend progress on the Local Government Bill in order to discuss the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill. The Wheel and Van Tax, as I must remind the hon. Member, is only a part of the proposals for the relief of the rates contained in the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill. The Bill also proposes a duty upon horses, and is a measure in which some £800,000 of the ratepayers' money is involved. With regard to the application of the Cart and Horse Taxes, the views of the Government are contained in the Amendment which my right hon. Friend has put on the Paper. If that Amendment is adopted the produce of these taxes, within any existing county, will be divided according to rateable value between the scheduled boroughs within that county and the rest of the county.

  FRANCHISE (IRELAND) ACT—VOTERS' LIST FOR THE REGISTRATION—MR. S. M'DERMOTT.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to any report of a discussion at the meeting of the Derry Board of Guardians last Saturday relating to the appointment of Mr. Samuel M'Dermott to assist the Clerk of the Union in the preparation of the voters' list for the registration; and, whether this Mr. Samuel M'Dermott is the same person who was employed as agent by the Conservative candidate at the last Derry election, and whom, on the trial of the Petition which followed, the Judges declared to have been guilty of illegal practices; and, if so, whether he will take any steps to prevent the employment of Mr. M'Dermott in the work of registration?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have no information as regards the alleged discussion at the meeting of the Board of Guardians of the Londonderry Union; but the Clerk of the Union explains that under circumstances of urgency he, at his own expense, employed Mr. M'Dermott, as having a thorough knowledge of the city, to assist him in defining and making out the different polling districts. Mr. M'Dermott acted, I understand, in the capacity alleged at the last election. I am not at present in a position to state whether he was declared by the Court to have been guilty of illegal practices; but I am making inquiry, and if I find such to have been the case I shall cause the clerk to be informed that it is not desirable that any person who has been found guilty of illegal practices at Parliamentary elections should be employed in connection with the preparation of voters' lists.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE CULLEN.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a Circular has recently been issued by Divisional Magistrate Cullen, giving instructions (inter alia) that—
  "In all important evictions likely to cause comment a reference should be made to me before protection is promised …. all harsh evictions should be reported to me before protection is promised. … protection in cases of demolition of houses or the wholesale clearing of estates should not be given without previous reference to me;"
  and, whether the issue of the Circular has the sanction of the Government?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am afraid that I can only give the same answer to the hon. Member as I have given on previous occasions to similar Questions—namely, that I do not feel called upon to answer any Questions with regard to alleged Circulars, which must either be forgeries, or have been obtained through breach of confidence of some person to whom they were entrusted.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION BETWEEN FRANCE AND ENGLAND.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General,
  730
  Whether an agreement has been made between France and England for conducting the telegraph service between the two countries independent of any private Company; and, whether he is prepared to state the nature of the agreement entered into and the rate per word of the cable messages which has been decided on?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that I am not yet in a position, with a due regard to the public interest, to give any information on this subject. As soon as the negotiations have reached a point admitting of it, I shall be glad to inform the House as to the arrangements contemplated.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—"THE BISHOP ANDREW'S CHARITY FOR POOR PRISONERS."
  THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENasked the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland, Whether the Charity Commissioners have had an application from the Prison Mission in Clapham Road asking for a grant from the fund entitled "The Bishop Andrew's Charity for Poor Prisoners; "whether such application was refused; and whether, since the application, several grants have been made to Charities not connected in any way with prisons or prisoners, notably to the Metropolitan Convalescent Home at Weybridge; and, if this is so, how is it that Institutions of that kind come within the objects of the Charity, while an Institution which directly deals with poor prisoners does not?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: An application has been made to the Commissioners for a grant from the prison branch of the Charity. The applicant was referred to the Trustees, and informed that the distribution of the prison branch was by a scheme of the Charity Commission of December 21, 1887, left to their discretion; and I must refer the noble Marquess to the same quarter.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—ELECTRIC LIGHTING.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOEasked the First Commissioner of

  731
  Works, Whether, in view of the serious deterioration of the stone fretwork of the interior of the Houses of Parliament, owing to the corrosive action of the products of combustion of gas, he will undertake to extend the system of electric lighting throughout the building, so as to avoid the evil consequences which attend the present system?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): To extend the present system of electric lighting throughout the whole of both Houses of Parliament would involve a very considerable expenditure, not less than £40,000, for plant. It would, however, probably effect a considerable saving in the annual cost of lighting the Palace. Before making any proposals upon the subject it would be necessary to consider whether some more economical way of obtaining the necessary current of electricity than that which we now use may be made available.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked, if it were not the fact that at South Kensington in two years a saving had been effected of the whole cost of the difference between gas and electricity?
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he was not aware that that was so.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. KILBRIDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the Superintendents appointed to conduct the recent Intermediate Examinations in Ireland specifying their religious denominations, their previous employments, the dates of their first appointment as Superintendents, the number of days they were actually employed, and the remuneration paid to each?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Assistant Commissioners of Intermediate Education inform me that 121 gentlemen and 47 ladies were employed as Centre Superintendents at the recent examinations. In each case about one-half were Roman Catholics. The Board have not materials for furnishing information as to the previous employment of the Superintendents in every case. The appointments are not permanent, but are
  732
  made each year. The number of days on which they are actually employed varies with the requirements of each centre. Superintendents, who are not obliged to sleep out of their homes, receive a daily allowance of £1 as long as employed, such remuneration, however, in no case to be less than £5, or more than £10. They also receive actual expenses of locomotion. When required to sleep out of their homes the remuneration is fixed at £10, if their services are dispensed with before the Sunday after commencement of the examination, and otherwise a bulk sum of £15. They also receive actual expenses of locomotion.

  POST OFFICE ACTS—CONVICTION OF MOORE AND WARREN.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Postmaster General, What were the wages of A. G. Moore and W. H. Warren respectively, who last week at the Central Criminal Court were sentenced to five years' penal servitude each for stealing post letters; and, whether he would be willing to furnish a Return of the letter carriers and postmen within the Metropolitan Area who, during the three years ending December 31 last, have been convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, indictable offences under the Post Office Acts, furnishing in each case the name (or initials), age, length of service, wages, date, and, nature of offence and punishment?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that Warren and Moore were in receipt of 23 s. and 28 s. a-week respectively, on a scale of wages rising by annual increments of 1s. a-week to a maximum of 30 s. a-week. I am not aware that there is any precedent for such a Return as the hon. Member asks for; and I do not at present see that any useful purpose would be served by giving it.
  MR. PICKERSGILLgave Notice to call attention to the subject.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS AT NEWTOWNARDS —FAIR RENTS.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a Resolution passed

  733
  at a meeting of the Newtownards Farmers' Association, held in the Ulster Hall, Newtownards, on the 2nd instant, with Mr. Hugh Ferguson, Chairman of the Newtownards Board of Guardians, presiding, complaining of the difficulty in getting fair rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners and the exaction of the old rents by the landlords; whether he is aware that Mr. Ferguson, the Chairman, is a tenant of the Lord Lieutenant, and, though entitled to the benefit of the fair rent from May, 1887, has been threatened with a writ of summons if the old rent, besides 10.s. costs, be not paid forthwith to the solicitors for His Excellency; and, whether he will cause some relief to be given to such tenants pending the hearing of their fair rent applications?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have not seen the Resolution mentioned, nor have I any information as to the circumstances of Mr. Ferguson. As, however, I have already pointed out, the Land Act of last Session protects a tenant from loss who may be required to pay the old rent pending the fixing of a judicial rent, inasmuch as the new rent becomes retrospective; and should it be less than the old rent, the tenant is empowered to deduct from the next payment any previous over-payment he may have made.

  ARMY (INDIA)—CASE OF CAPTAIN J. B. CHATTERTON (LATE BENGAL STAFF CORPS).
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the fact that Captain J. B. Chatterton (late Bengal Staff Corps) was compelled by the Medical Board to submit himself to the surgical operation of dividing the left tendon Achilles at the time and place specified by such Board; whether any, and what, delay occurred in the carrying out of the operation by the medical officers of the Board; whether, as a consequence of such delay, other, and how many, further operations were rendered necessary, which have resulted in the maiming of Captain Chatterton for life; whether the above facts are established by the evidence and certificates of Sir William Ferguson, Mr. Edwin Canton, Mr. Hancock, M. Nélaton, M. Anger, Signori Sivori, Jherini, and Mr. W.
  734
  Adams; whether the Secretary of State for India in Council, in 1876, as a special case, advanced the sum of £250, for urgent surgical aid, and deducted the sum of £12 10 s. each quarter for five years, in repayment of such advance; and, whether these are recorded in the India Office; and, if so, whether he will lay before the House the certificates of the above-mentioned medical authorities, together with the Orders, Proceedings, or Reports of the Medical Board, under the following dates:—September 5, 1868, January 5, 1869, and March 11, 1869?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): I must refer the hon. Member generally to statements which have been made on Captain Chetterton's case in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for India in 1881 and 1882, and by myself last week. The answers to the specific Questions put are as follows. To one and two, and, consequently, to four, in the negative. Three I answered in my statement last week. To five in the affirmative. To six there are no Papers which the Secretary of State considers it necessary to lay before Parliament; but if the hon. Member will specify in a Motion for a Return any Papers he requires the Secretary of State will consider how far his wishes can be complied with.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—FERMOY PETTY SESSIONS—"DEVANE v. KELLEHER."
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has seen the following report, in The Cork Examiner of the 3rd instant, of the proceedings in the Fermoy Petty Sessions Court, in the case of John Devane, bailiff, against Mr. Patrick Kelleher, Ballyhooly, arising out of the non-payment of the Leahy tax:—
  "It was proved in evidence that the plaintiff took a very valuable colt away, though others were offered to him which would have served his purpose equally;
  Mr. Rice, solicitor for the defendant, said that Mr. Kelleher had an action in the Recorder's Court against Devane for injury done to the colt;
  Mr. Eaton, R.M., said 'you have, and, if you think you can make anything out of it, well and good, but no person can take the law into his own hands;

  735
  Defendant is fined 5s. and costs.'
  Mr. Eaton then said, 'in a case of this sort, in future, do not issue a summons, but report in the matter to the Executive to take proceedings under the Crimes Act, otherwise we will have the country in an uproar;'"
  and, does it come within the province of a Resident Magistrate in Ireland to direct how prosecutions are to be brought?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The charge against Kelleher was for an assault on the bailiff while in the discharge of his duty, Kelleher having struck him in the face, for which he was summoned for a common assault, and fined by the Bench in the amount of 5s. No injury whatever was done to the colt, which was subsequently redeemed by the owner by payment of the decree with costs. The Resident Magistrate did not give any directions as to how prosecutions were to be brought. He pointed out that assaults on bailiffs were indictable under the Crimes Act; and that if they continued it ought to be reported to the Executive Authority to be prosecuted, if necessary, under that Statute.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887— PURCHASES BY GLEBE TENANTS.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that the glebe tenants who purchased their holdings, and who are anxious to take advantage of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 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 to the Land Commission 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; 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 arrears due; and, whether, considering the high prices paid by these tenants for their holding, and their inability to meet the required instalment at present, he will grant such an extension of time as will
  736
  enable them to dispose of their crops for the purpose of paying this instalment, and thus entitle them to the benefit of the 25th section of the Act?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): In accordance with the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, Section 25, Sub-section 5, the Treasury directed that in the cases referred to a certain portion of the arrear should be paid on or before the 1st of June, 1888, with a discretionary power to the Land Commissioners to extend the time to July 1, 1888, and due notice was given that non-compliance with the order would involve the loss of the benefit of the Act. Out of 48 mortgagors in the County Down 11 failed to comply with the conditions. Neither the Land Commissioners nor, as I understand the Act, the Treasury have power to extend the time; but legal proceedings have not been threatened for the recovery of the arrears.
  MR. M'CARTANasked, whether the Treasury would consider the feasibility of giving the tenants more time?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that, as he had pointed out, as he understood the Act, there was no power to do so.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884—REGISTER OF COUNTY ELECTORS—OWNERS BEING OCCUPIERS.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to the danger which owners of property, who are also occupiers, run of being excluded entirely from the Register of County Electors owing to the ambiguity of the supplemental precept and to the form of the heading of the occupiers' list issued to overseers, which latter directs that the occupiers' list,
  "Shall not contain the names of any Parliamentary voters except those entitled in respect of a household or £10 occupation qualification, or of a £50 rental qualification, reserved by section 10 of the 'The Representation of the People Act, 1884,'"
  whereas such persons, being also owners and appearing in the owners' list, have hitherto been excluded from appearing and being registered in the occupiers' list; and, whether he will direct some additional instructions to be issued to

  737
  overseers, directing them to include such owners in the occupiers' list?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The Local Government Board have received one letter, and one letter only, on the subject referred to in the Question; and it does not appear to them that there is any ambiguity, either in the supplemental precept or in the form of the heading of the occupiers' list, which would lead to the omission from the Register of County Electors of owners of property who are also occupiers. It is clear that persons who are duly qualified occupiers ought to be entered in the occupiers' list, although they may happen also to have an ownership qualification. If the overseers have hitherto excluded them, as suggested in the Question, they have exceeded their powers in so doing. It is the duty of the Revising Barrister, and not of the overseers, to deal with cases in which persons appear both in the occupiers' and owners' lists; and the County Electors Act has made provision for enabling the names of such persons to be retained in the occupiers' list for the purpose of voting at elections of County Councillors. If the hon. Baronet is aware of any cases in which the overseers are not fulfilling their duty in this respect it would probably be desirable for him to draw the attention of the Clerk of the Peace to the matter; and if there is any reason to suppose that the practice to which he refers is at all general in the county, the Clerk of the Peace will, no doubt, communicate with the overseers on the subject. The law casts on the Clerk of the Peace, not the Local Government Board, the duty of giving such instructions to the overseers as may be necessary.

  RIGHT OF PUBLIC MEETINGS․TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the judgment of Mr. Justice Wills on Friday last, in which he is reported saying,
  "Upon the materials brought before then Trafalgar Square is an open space regulated by Act of Parliament, which limited rights of way over it and extinguished others. By an Act of Parliament of the present reign it was vested in Her Majesty in right of Her Crown, and in
  738
  the Commissioners of Woods and Forests was vested the control and management of the Square. These powers were now vested in the Commissioners of Works and Buildings. Trafalgar Square was entirely the creation of statutes; and whatever rights were found in them the right of public meeting was not in any statute. Mr. Lewis had failed to establish the right of meeting in Trafalgar Square, or that the Commissioners of Works had the right to say whether it should be so used;"
  and, whether, considering that Trafalgar Square is not an ordinary highway, he will introduce a Bill for the regulation of public meetings therein, under conditions similar to those imposed by the Regulations framed for Hyde Park and certain other Parks by the Commissioners of Works?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Her Majesty's Government do not propose to introduce a Bill for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. JAMES STUART: Then, Sir, I beg to give Notice that I will to-morrow ask leave to introduce a Bill for the purpose mentioned.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—LIMERICK MAGISTRATES—COLONEL PERSE, R.M.
  MR. O'KEEFFE, asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Colonel Perse, R.M., was fined 5s. and costs by a full Bench of the City Magistrates for an illegal trespass committed by him on the Mechanics' Institute, at Limerick, on November 23 last; whether the local magistrates on the said conviction granted a case stated; and, whether such conviction was quashed by the Queen's Bench on technical grounds, that the summons did not come under the 8th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act (Ireland), although affirming that Colonel Perse had no legal right to enter said premises?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The facts are as stated in the first and second paragraphs of the Question. I have no official Report of the Judgment of the Queen's Bench; but from the reports published in the Press it appears that the conviction was reversed on the ground that the action complained of did not constitute an offence under the Act referred to.

  POLICE CONSTABLES' PENSIONS— LEGISLATION.
  MR. G. W. ELLIOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the fact that Bills providing for the pensions of police constables have been introduced in successive Sessions and have met with general approval, the Government will be prepared to bring in a Bill on the subject next Session or to give facilities to a private Member introducing such a Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Government fully recognize the importance of the subject of pensions for police constables; and they have every hope that it will be in their power to introduce a Bill in the next Session of Parliament to place the matter on a satisfactory footing.

  IRELAND—CITY CHARTER FOR BELFAST.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will now state whether a City Charter is to be granted to Belfast; and, if so, when it will be issued?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): This Question, which was first brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government by my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston), has now been decided; and the Government, finding there are no legal difficulties, will take the necessary steps for the grant of a City Charter.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— GOVERNING BODIES OF THE NATIONAL ART INSTITUTIONS—LEGISLATION.
  MR. ADDISONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience occasioned by the fact that the three great National Art Institutions—namely, the British Museum, the National Gallery, and the South Kensington Museum, are under different and separate Governing Bodies; and, whether he will consider the desirability of amalgamating the Trustees of the British Museum, the Directors
  740
  of the National Gallery, and the authorities at South Kensington into one Body, so as to secure greater unity, simplicity and efficiency in the administration of these Institutions?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The question raised is a large and difficult one, as the three Institutions named are managed under different Acts of Parliament, and awkward questions of Trust would arise. The proposal of the hon. Member might or might not lead to the favourable results he anticipates; but the Government, in the absence of further proof as to the wisdom of the amalgamation, are not prepared to give any pledge on the subject.

  GRANTS TO MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY—A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps to redeem the pledge repeatedly given that a Select Committee would be appointed to inquire into the subject of Grants to Members of the Royal Family?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH)referred the hon. Member to the reply he gave some time ago on this subject.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked, Whether the subject had been considered by her Majesty's Advisers?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the subject had engaged the serious attention of Her Majesty's Advisers, and they were reporting to Her Majesty on the subject.

  METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD— APPOINTMENT OF A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Islington Board of Guardians last Thursday unanimously passed a Resolution in favour of the appointment of a Royal Commission—
  "To inquire into the expenditure and conduct of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, as to the purchase of land for the erection of hospitals, the purchase of hospital ships and wharves, and as to the general management of hospitals under the charge of the Board."

  741
  That Mr. Elliott, the Chairman of the Guardians, and also a member of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, remarked that—
  "He was not at all satisfied with what was going on at the Board, and that clerks were receiving large commissions."
  And, whether he will take the necessary steps to extend the powers of the Commission now sitting on the Metropolitan Board of Works, so that it may also inquire into the proceedings of the Mepolitan Asylums Board, or, in the alternative, appoint a new Commission for that purpose?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Government are not aware of any sufficient ground for appointing either a new Commission to investigate the proceedings of the Metropolitan Asylums Board or to extend the powers of the Commissioners now sitting with regard to the Metropolitan Board of Works, so as to include an inquiry as to the Metropolitan Asylums Board.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. CHILDERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the time had not arrived when Public Business might begin at a quarter past 3 o'clock instead of half past?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he trusted the House would agree to begin Public Business at a quarter past 3 o'clock.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS V.—THE COLONIAL OFFICE VOTES.
  In reply to Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he should very much regret to interrupt the proceedings of the Local Government Bill that evening in order to take the Report of the Colonial Office Vote, on which an important discussion regarding Zululand was announced should be taken. He was aware that there was a desire on the part of some hon. Members to take the Report of the Vote that evening; but he should prefer to postpone it until to-morrow.

  INDIA—THE IRRAWADDY FLOTILLA COMPANY.
  In reply to Mr. BRADLAUGH (Northampton).
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)said, he had received a telegram regarding the payments made to the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company from the Viceroy at Simla, dated July 7, 1888—
  "My telegram 28th of June, Irrawaddy Flotilla Company. Charges against Civil as follows:—Passages—1885–6, Rs. 26,800; 1886–7, Rs. 1,19,000; 1887–8, Rs. 1,67,500. Total, Rs. 3,13,300. Passages, prisoners—1885–6, Rs. 9,400; 1886·7, Rs. 21,300; 1887–8, Rs. 23,700. Total, Rs. 54,400. Freight on stores—1887–8, Rs. 20,700. Freight on treasure—1885–6, Rs. 3,200; 1886–7, Rs. 7,900; 1887–8, Rs. 15,700. Total, Rs. 26,800. Conveyance of mails—1885–6, Rs. 1,15,300; 1886–7, Rs. 99,800; 1887–8, Rs. 96,000. Total, Rs. 3,11,100. Total amount for these years, Rs. 7,26,300. Payment for other services will follow."

  O'DONNELL v. WALTER (AUTHENTICITY OF LETTERS)—A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private Notice, and which, if he requires more time to answer it, I will put down for to-morrow. It is, whether, in view of the serious charges which have recently been made against the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), the Government will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the truth of those charges?
  MR. PARNELL: Just previously to the rising of the hon. Baronet I had intended to put the same Question. I now beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will grant a Select Committee, consisting, if he likes, entirely of English and Scottish Members of this House—I mean a Committee consisting of non-Irish Members—for the purpose of inquiring into the authenticity of the letters read at the recent trial, containing serious charges against myself and several other Members of this House.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Mr. Speaker, I received the Notice of the hon. Baronet as I entered the House;

  743
  but I have no hesitation in at once replying to the Question which he has addressed to me. I may say, Sir, that my view remains precisely the same as it was last year. This House is absolutely incompetent to deal with—to use the language of the hon. Baronet—the "grave charges" to which he refers, or be at any time a tribunal of the character indicated. I have the less hesitation in saying this, as there exists tribunals in this country on whose competence and absolute impartiality no doubt whatever can possibly be thrown.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to give Notice that I shall to-night put a Motion on the Paper to move for the appointment of such a Select Committee. I also beg to give Notice, that on Thursday I shall ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give me a day for the discussion of this Notice, in order that I may have an opportunity of repelling the foul and untrutful charges which have been made against me by his Attorney General?

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask further facilities from the House for the conduct of Public Business; and then I propose to make a statement as to the course of Business.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the possibility of giving facilities for the discussion of the Burials Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was not aware of the existence of the Bill in question; but if the hon. Gentleman would draw his attention to it he would consider what course should be taken with regard to it. He was afraid, however, he could not offer facilities for a discussion.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—TULLAMORE GAOL—DEATH OF MR. JOHN MAN- DEVILLE.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question which, if he is not in a position to answer now, I shall renew on Thursday. It is, whether the Go-
  744
  vernment have received intelligence of the death of Mr. John Mandeville, of Mitchelstown; and, whether the Government are taking any steps to secure an adequate investigation of the causes of his death?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I think I can answer this Question without Notice. I have not received any official intimation of the death of Mr. Mandeville, nor is it likely that I shall do so; but I am told that an announcement to that effect appears in the public papers. I imagine that the existing system of law is quite sufficient to cause any inquiry to be held into a death under suspicious circumstances, if such circumstances have arisen.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I beg to give Notice that I shall renew the Question upon Thursday; and if it is found by that time that the Government are not taking measures to have some sworn investigation as to the circumstances under which Mr. Mandeville came by his death, I shall take the opinion of this House in reference to it.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE BANN BARROW, AND SHANNON DRAINAGE BILLS.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Drainage Bills would be taken to-night; and, if not, when?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that they would not come on to-night, and he would desire to consult the convenience of the House on the subject. It was desirable to avoid a long discussion, because the Bills would be in the ordinary course referred to a Hybrid Committee, where they would be thoroughly threshed out. The time was extremely short, and he was anxious to pass the measures this Session.
  MR. FLYNNasked, did the right hon. Gentleman intend to take the second reading of the three Bills on the same evening?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought that the hon. Gentleman would feel that the Bills were of so analogous a character that the discussion upon one would do for the discussion upon all.

  DEATH OF THE GERMAN EMPEROR FREDERICK.

    ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
    MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House that he had received, through Her Majesty's Secretary of State, the following Letter from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin:—
    British Embassy, Berlin,
    June 29, 1888.
    Sir,
    I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your, letter of the 19th instant, transmitting to me the Message of Condolence, moved and carried, nemine contradicente, in the House of Commons on the 18th instant, and I have the honour to inform you that the Empress Victoria was graciously pleased to receive me in audience yesterday for the purpose of presenting the Address.
    Her Imperial Majesty desired me to convey through you, Sir, to the House, Her deep gratitude for this mark of sympathy with Her deep distress, and to express the hope that the Memory of the Emperor Frederick, Her dearly beloved Husband, may ever be preserved.
    I have the honour to be,
    Sir,
    Your most obedient, humble Servant,
    E. B. MALET.
    The Right Honourable the Speaker,
    House of Commons.

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 6th July.]

      FOURTEENTH 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. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the Amendment
      746
      which stood in his name on the Paper raised an important question in providing that should the Probate Duty grant be distributed among the counties—
      "So far as such sums will provide for the payments hereinafter directed to be made to the guardians of poor law unions in aid of the costs incurred for indoor paupers, and the remainder of the said sums shall be distributed among the said counties in proportion to their rateable value."
      He ventured to think, however, that the question raised by the Amendment had already been practically decided by the House; and, although he still maintained his opinion that the decision was an unfortunate one, he did not think he would be justified in wasting the time of the Committee by raising the point again in another form. He therefore did not propose to move the Amendment.
      MR. FULLERin rising for the purpose of moving, in line 28, after the word "pauperism," to insert the words "save in the county of London," said, the object of the Amendment was to secure that London should be treated separately from other counties. London was to be a county in itself, but its circumstances were entirely different from those of the rest of England. In the first place, the administration of the Poor Law in London was altogether different from that of the rest of the country, In London it was absolutely necessary that indoor pauperism should be the principle mainly resorted to.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, that before entering into the merits of the question it was desirable that the hon. Member should explain how his proposal was to work. Without some explanation the Amendment would be absolutely unintelligible.
      MR. FULLERsaid, that if the Committee consented to pass the Amendment, he would then be prepared to move a further Amendment to the effect that London, as a county, should receive one-seventh of the £1,800,000 which it was proposed to distribute, and he was now prepared to give his reasons to the Committee. London at the present moment had a population which amounted to one-seventh of that of the whole of England.
      MR. FIRTHrose to a point of Order. A number of suggestions

      747
      analogous to that made by the hon. Member had been made at the beginning of the consideration of the Bill. All of them related to that part of the Bill in which the clauses in reference to London came in.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that upon the point of Order he might remind the Committee that they had already decided that the Probate Duty was to be distributed in accordance with the amount of indoor pauperism. He would, therefore, submit that it would be absolutely impracticable to exclude one county from the operation of this particular decision of the Committee.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, that, no doubt, the matter was one of extreme difficulty. As he understood the hon. Member, he wished to reserve one-seventh of the duty for London. That, however, should be done by a separate clause at the end of the Bill.
      MR. FULLERsaid, he must leave it to the Chairman to decide the question of Order; but it seemed to him that London could be treated differently, and ought to be treated differently, from the rest of the country. London, as the Bill now stood, would receive a very large proportion of this sum of £1,800,000. The country districts were much poorer than London. Taking even the question of rateable value or Inhabited House Duty, which was certainly a test of wealth, it would be found that the House Duty in London averaged per house no less than 30 s., whereas in the country districts it averaged no more than 4s.. 6d. per house; therefore, he maintained, with all due deference, that those who were connected with the country districts felt that an undue advantage would be given to London in the division of this money unless some such Amendment as his were adopted. If he were allowed to move his Amendment, he should do so simply on the ground that, so far, those who represented the country had had no chance of explaining the very poor condition in which the country districts were, as compared with London, and how much more they deserved a greater portion of this grant than the Metropolis. He must, however, leave it to the Chairman to decide whether or not he was in Order in raising this point.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, he felt that the subject was one of great difficulty. It would be extremely difficult to deal with the matter in the way in which the hon. Member proposed to approach it, and he did not think it could be done properly in an Amendment of this kind.
      MR. T. E. ELLISasked, whether he could bring up the case of Wales on this Amendment, as he had examined the figures, and they were glaringly unfavourable to the Principality
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, that very much the same difficulty arose in the case of Wales as in the case of London. The whole sum to be apportioned was understood to include Wales, and he did not see how the Committee could disturb the rule which had been laid down.
      MR. FULLERsaid, it appeared to him that it was perfectly feasible to consider the peculiar position in which London stood, and not contrary to the provisions of the Bill, so far as they had gone. He thought the Committee were entitled to deal with one county first if it were considered necessary, and then deal with the rest.
      MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, that he had also intended to move an Amendment upon this point, but he understood from the Chairman's ruling that it would be out of Order. He trusted the Chairman would allow the sense of the Committee to be taken on some Amendment whether outdoor as well as indoor pauperism should be taken into account. He certainly thought they ought to be allowed to go into the figures. There was a strong feeling in the House that, as the Bill now stood, there would be the greatest inequality and injustice in the treatment of different parts of the Kingdom, and that point had hardly yet been realized by the Committee, and had not been discussed at all.
      SIR, WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that upon this particular point it was important that they should know how the matter stood. He was not aware that anything which had been passed as yet would preclude the Committee from adding "outdoor pauperism" as another element in the distribution of the Duty. Everybody admitted that the Committee had already included indoor pauperism as an element, and the question now

      749
      raised was whether they might not add another element—outdoor pauperism. The case of the Government was this—the object of the grant was to relieve districts according to their pauperism, but pauperism included outdoor as well as indoor pauperism. At one time, no doubt, there was a strong feeling in favour of the system of indoor pauperism as against that of outdoor relief. The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had on Friday offered to move would take away the inducement to Guardians to drive the people into the workhouse in future. As a matter of fact, what it meant was to stereotype an advantage in favour of those districts which had given the preference to indoor as against outdoor relief.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out that the right hon. Gentleman was not speaking to the point of Order, but was entering into the merits of the question.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would ask whether it was not competent to add to the Bill, as it now stood, the words "outdoor pauperism," so as to make the distribution depend on the standard which should include both elements of pauperism? His hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Winterbotham) proposed to add words to include outdoor pauperism, and he ventured to submit that nothing which had already been done was inconsistent with that proposal.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was, of course, no part of the duty of the Chair to examine the merits of proposals; but the Committee had on Tuesday decided that indoor pauperism should at least be one of the elements of distribution, and had further decided that it should be the only element of pauperism. The whole of the discussion on Tuesday turned on the advantage that would be given to those who adopted the method of indoor relief, and the decision was that indoor relief was to be the standard of pauperism.
      MR. FULLERsaid, that that did not stand in the way of his Amendment.
      THE CHAIRMAN: No; but it did in conjunction with the further reasons he had given. He did not think that he could accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.
      MR. RITCHIEthen moved to leave out the words—
      "During the financial year next preceding the financial year in which the sums were collected, and the indoor pauperism of a county shall,"
      in order to insert the following words:—
      "And such distribution shall, during the five local financial years beginning on the appointed day, be in proportion to the average number of indoor paupers during the financial year ending on the twenty-fifth day of March next before the passing of this Act, and after the end of the said five years shall, unless Parliament otherwise determine, continue to be in accordance with the same proportion. The average number of indoor paupers of a county."
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 16, line 28, to leave out the words "during the financial year next preceding the financial year in which the sums were collected, and the indoor pauperism of the county shall."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that this was the proper time to point out the effect of the Amendment. He fully admitted that it would, to a great degree, meet the objection as to the tendency in future of the measure to induce Guardians to prefer sending people to the workhouse instead of giving outdoor relief, a practice which was now admitted by the Government to be objectionable. He desired, however, to point out that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would be altogether ineffectual in securing that object. The right hon. Gentleman was going to stereotype the standard of pauperism in connection with the distribution of the fund. He might just as well have given a money sum for each Union in the Schedule. He would suggest it worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman whether upon the higher stage of the Bill he could not do this. As the matter now stood great inequalities would be created in every district. Where outdoor relief had prevailed the district which had resorted to it would be placed at a great disadvantage, so that he imagined the greater number of the agricultural districts in the country would lose very largely and receive an unduly small portion of the grant. Now, what was the object of the grant? It was to relieve the poverty of the districts. That

      751
      had been so stated by the Government. Then, why should they only take one class of pauperism. By taking both classes, those who received indoor relief and those who received outdoor relief, they would relieve the poverty of the whole of the districts. There might be circumstances which would induce one plan to be adopted instead of the other, and this provision of the Bill would give an unfair advantage to those who confined themselves exclusively to indoor relief, while it would place an unfair disadvantage upon those who practised outdoor relief. It would greatly increase the inequalities of the relief given. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there were inequalities, and this proposal would only stereotype them. He might point out many circumstances which would create great dissatisfaction in various districts in reference to the inequality of the distribution. The objection which had been taken in regard to Wales as compared with London had been pointed out the other day, and he would not refer to it again at any length except to say the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) had defended it as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman said it was true that London would gain enormously from the proposed grant, but then it would lose largely upon the grants in aid. The loss, however, of the grants in aid would be counter-balanced by the police grant, and he did not think they could sever the two questions altogether. It would never be found, if they left the control of the police with the Central Government, that the Local Government would consent to pay the whole of the cost; therefore, assuming that the Local Authorities bore the whole of the contribution in London, that would only form an argument in favour of the contention that there ought to be an Imperial grant for those purposes. He hoped that if not now, at any rate at a later stage of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would make some provision whereby greater equality and fairness in the distribution of the grant would be secured.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was hardly correct for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government might have left out these words and put the amount
      752
      which each Union was to receive in the Schedule, because the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that the amount of the Probate Duty would vary from year to year. It was, therefore, impossible to fix a sum to be given in relief of the poor rate. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that the object which the Government had in making this proposal was to give relief to the charges for the poor in the various districts; but the difference between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government was that the Government had taken the basis of indoor pauperism, whereas the right hon. Gentleman wished to introduce outdoor pauperism into the arrangements. So far as he knew, there had been no representation from any responsible Body, or any recommendation from any Commission or Committee, to the effect that there should be a contribution towards outdoor relief. There had, however, been a very large number of recommendations from Committees and Commissions in favour of giving some relief from a particular kind of property towards indoor pauperism. The recommendation had always been in the direction of indoor pauperism. He was very far from saying that in all cases outdoor pauperism had been unduly or lavishly given; but the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him when he said that all reformers had striven against the tendency which had existed in some parts of the country towards lavish expenditure in the shape of outdoor relief. The right hon. Gentleman would also acknowledge that nothing would be more improper and more destructive to the independence of the poor themselves than the lavish distribution of outdoor relief. If they were to give the distribution of the grant to London on the basis of outdoor relief, they might be giving a premium to what had been regarded as a reckless expenditure of the ratepayers' money.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, his only wish was that in taking a standard from the past it should include both elements of pauperism.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that he maintained, on the contrary, that there were parts of the country where there had been a reckless and lavish expenditure of the ratepayers' money, to the great injury of the people of the locality, and if they were to distribute the grant on

      753
      any basis of outdoor relief, they would be giving a premium to such reckless expenditure. Everyone would admit that so far as the distribution was concerned, it was a far safer basis to take indoor pauperism than to take outdoor pauperism. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that no undertaking with regard to raising the question at a later stage was required from the Government. Opportunities would arise on the later stages of the Bill to raise the question again. For instance, there would be an opportunity on the Report stage, and he thought it would be unwise for the Committee to raise it now. It had formed one of the elements of all the discussions which had taken place in reference to the Bill; and, therefore, he was afraid that it was impossible for the Government to make any proposal to the Committee by which the question would be raised again.
      SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, that in the remarks he proposed to make he would keep himself strictly within the lines of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He thought it was exceedingly important, now that the distribution of the Probate Duty was to be stereotyped, that one or two facts should be clearly laid before the country before the distribution was stereotyped, and whether a vote was taken upon the question or not. It must be remembered that this provision was to be for all future time. There were two main reasons for choosing the test of indoor pauperism. The first was the administrative reason about which everybody was agreed. The other was that it gave a fair distribution of the Probate Duty with reference to the sacrifices which the different localities made in the shape of the grants they used to receive. He proposed to confine himself to the latter point alone. He would first take two counties—Northumberland and Norfolk Northumberland and Norfolk both sacrificed the same sum of money, that was to say, £37,000 or £38,000. Norfolk was to receive in Probate Duty £30,000, and Northumberland £19,000. Was it seriously intended that this monstrous injustice was to last for ever? He would now take the county, and put it against two others. He would take the county of Sussex. He observed that the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member
      754
      for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had been supporting the Government in the patriotic way in which he always defended the interests of Sussex. Now Sussex sacrificed £48,000 a-year; but there were two counties—namely, Herefordshire and Nottinghamshire, which would sacrifice exactly the same amount. Sussex would get £36,000 a-year, while Herefordshire and Notts together would only gain £23,000. Was this injustice to remain till the end of time? He would next take the counties of Berks and Dorset. Nobody would deny that Dorset was a poor county as counties went. Berks would sacrifice £22,000, and Dorset £19,000, or nearly the same sum. Berks would get £16,000 and Dorset £9,000. Was that injustice to remain to the end of time? He thought he had said enough to show to the Committee the inequalities that were to be stereotyped. But he would say one word in the justification which had been given for those inequalities—namely, the immense sacrifices of grant which London would make. London would sacrifice £600,000, and would get £500,000; but that was better than any other county. Wales would sacrifice £95,000 of grant, and would get £51,000. Now, what earthly reason was there, or what combination of reasons, why London should get five-sixths of what it sacrificed under a single head of Probate Duty, while Wales got only one-half, and why should this continue to the end of time? He did not wish to press the matter further, because he considered that is was impossible to answer these figures.
      MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, that since he had read the Amendment which had been put down by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, he had felt somewhat uncomfortable in regard to it. He had the honour of being the Chairman of the worst Union in the worst district in the whole of England and Wales in regard to outdoor pauperism. Unions were called bad Unions with reference to outdoor relief. They were blamed by what was called the official mind, by Poor Law Inspectors, and Poor Law auditors, in regard to the amount of their outdoor relief; but Unions ought not to be blamed wholesale for giving outdoor relief. There were circumstances which made it neces-

      755
      sary, wise, and discreet to give outdoor relief where an adjoining Union would not do so. For instance, the workhouse might be full, and the district might be a growing one, with an increasing number of poor. The Guardians might not desire to build and increase their debt, and thus they were encouraged to give the poor some slight relief outside, and not to drive them into the workhouse. He trusted that the Government, before they came to the Report stage, would reconsider the matter, and agree to omit the words "indoor pauperism." The clause would then run in this way—
      "The sum so paid shall be distributed among the several counties in England in proportion to the pauperism of the county."
      He did not think that if an Amendment of that nature were made any injury would be inflicted upon the Bill, while they would undoubtedly get rid of the hardship.
      MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had spoken of Dorset as a poor county; but what his right hon. Friend had stated in regard to distribution applied still more strongly to Wales, which was certainly the poorest part of the United Kingdom. At present Wales obtained from grants-in-aid £95,000 According to the proposed distribution of the Probate Duties she would obtain only £51,000. But if the apportionment were established on the basis of outdoor as well as indoor pauperism she would obtain £140,000, and if on the basis of population £288,000. The difference between these large sums and the paltry dole which she received, even taking into consideration her share of the transfer of the Licensing Duties, was so startling that he trusted the Government would reconsider the position of Wales before the Report stage of the Bill. If they did not, he, or one of his Colleagues from the Principality, would feel bound to raise it by an Amendment on Report.
      MR. ELTONsaid, that, however much he might desire to support the principle suggested by the Government, he preferred that which had been suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Derby, who had clearly shown that indoor pauperism had ceased to represent the
      756
      pauperism of the country; but yet it was taken by the Government as the standard of pauperism. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said that no demand had ever been made in respect of outdoor pauperism. However, that was very easy to understand. In all these matters they had to push along as they could, to go by steps, and get what they could. If they had started by demanding a contribution towards outdoor pauperism, it is quite certain that they would not have got very far. He represented the district where outdoor pauperism existed to a large extent; but, nevertheless, it did not deserve the stigma which the right hon. Gentleman's expression attached to it, for it could by no means be assumed to be profligate.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that he had never said that. What he did say was that it was well known that in some parts of the country such a state of things did prevail; but he did not pretend to specify any particular districts.
      MR. ELTONsaid, it would be assumed by ordinary persons dealing with the subject that, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, the great majority of those places which practised outdoor relief administered their duties improperly. In considering the matter, he hoped it would be felt that there were circumstances which had rendered it advantageous to give outdoor relief in preference to indoor.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, that before the discussion went further, he wished to point out the extreme irregularity of it. They were discussing a proposal which was not to be carried into effect now, but which might be considered on the Report stage of the Bill.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was not an unusual thing to question the Government upon a proposal as to whether they would give an undertaking to reconsider a particular matter on the Report.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, the proposal at present before the Committee was that for five years the proposal now made should not be changed unless Parliament arrived at a different conclusion. He had no hesitation in saying that he believed the original proposal of the Government to be the best. At the same time, they had given way, to a certain extent, on account of the genuine

      757
      fear expressed on both sides of the House that their plan would not be satisfactory. They were extremely anxious to consult the wishes of both sides of the House, and, therefore, they had given way. No doubt the system proposed to be introduced was one which was open to many of the objections which had been raised by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen as to the anomalies and inequalities it would create. It was perfectly certain, however, that the other proposal to include outdoor relief as well as indoor relief had led to even greater anomalies and inequalities. He was sorry that he could not give an undertaking on the part of the Government that they would reconsider their proposal. It was quite open for Parliament to reconsider it at the end of five years, and it would be open to hon. Members to discuss the question again upon the Report stage of the Bill. He could not give any undertaking in the matter.
      MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMSsaid, the suggestion which had been made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was worthy of attention—namely, that the question should be reconsidered on the Report. He would strongly urge upon the Government the propriety of coming to an arrangement of that kind, so that the House, at all events, might reconsider the basis of this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that he felt convinced if they combined indoor and outdoor pauperism they would lead the way to still greater anomalies and inequalities. Now he ventured to distrust that statement altogether. So far as the Principality of Wales was concerned, the anomaly would not be by any means so great if they included outdoor relief. He had drawn up a few figures to show what the condition of Wales was. The Principality had a population of 1,570,000, or about one-sixteenth of the Kingdom. He quite admitted that they were to get a sum of £38,000 from the Licensing Duties; but when they came to deal with the Imperial grant from the Probate Duty of £1,800,000, they found that the whole of the Principality was only to receive £51,000 a-year. Out of the entire arrangement by which £4,500,000 of the Imperial money was to be allo
      758
      cated, Wales would only draw, directly and indirectly, a sum of £208,000. He would venture to urge two points in connection with the matter. In a great part of Wales the people were extremely poor. They had no charitable endowments, but had to provide for everything out of their own resources, and it was a monstrous thing that they were to be fined in this manner for the privilege of getting Local Government. The basis of population had been proposed and rejected; but if they were to combine a system under which the grant would be distributed on the combined basis of indoor and outdoor relief, although Wales would even then not get what she ought to have, she would get £140,000 a-year instead of the £51,000 which she would get under the present arrangement. The Welsh people would never be satisfied to receive £51,000 a-year only for five years. They wished to approach the consideration of the subject in a spirit of equity, and the desire to see that every part of the Kingdom, so far as was possible, should get its fair proportion of the grant. They wanted to get rid of the system of unfairness by which up to the present time various localities had been defrauded of their rights. There could be no question about it, because it was clear on the face of it that up to the present moment Wales had not had her fair share of assistance from the Imperial Exchequer. He had no intention of anticipating the discussion which would take place on the Report stage; but sooner or later the question must be reconsidered with the view of including outdoor relief in the standard of pauperism. The fundamental principle of the Government proposal was altogether wrong, and he maintained that by a system of jugglery the distribution of the Imperial grants towards Local Government would be most unfair and unjust.
      VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, there was one point to which he wished to call attention, if there was to be a fresh discussion of the subject upon the Report. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had spoken as if the amount of the grant to be given from the Probate Duty to the various counties would be stereotyped for a longer period, for five years certain. It might be taken as certain that there would be much opposition from

      759
      localities interested to any re-opening of the question which would reduce their receipts, and, judging from the experience of this Session, it was not a subject which any Government would be in any hurry to take up again. But if Parliament did not deal with the matter again for a considerable period, the present proposal would be likely to produce absolutely opposite effects in different districts according to the changes of the population. In some it would induce the Authorities to force people into the workhouse, while in others it would induce the authorities to give an unduly large amount of outdoor relief. The character of the population was changing every year. According to the census returns of 1881, though the general increase was 14 per cent. there were 13 counties whose population had diminished, and 9 more which were practically stationary, the increase having been less than 2 per cent. His own county was one of them, and the increase there was entirely due to the growth of Plymouth, Devonport, Torquay, and places of that description. There had been an absolute decrease in the Union in which he lived of about 12½ per cent. What would be the effect, then, of this proposal upon Poor Law administration? The rural Unions would have a fixed sum given to them, and with a diminishing population, they would be able to indulge in liberal, if not lavish, outdoor relief. At the same time, the urban Unions, whose grant would likewise be fixed, would have a growing population, and in order to make the grant go as far as possible, they would be tempted to press the workhouse test rather further than was desirable. There was a time when outdoor relief was very freely given indeed in this country, and when the poor rates reached as much as £1 a-head in certain counties, and he supposed the labouring population were never in a more miserable condition. If hon. Members would look into the details it would be found that where outdoor relief was most freely given the wages were almost always lowest. It was well known that wages were highest in the Northern Counties, and he supposed there was no county in England in which the wages were lower than in Dorsetshire; and outdoor relief in Dorsetshire was 39 per 1000, as against 20 per 1000 in the Northern districts. It was not a ques-
      760
      tion between the wealthy ratepayers and the poor. It was invariably found that rates pressed most severely on the poorest section of ratepayers, who were not in a position much superior to those who were actually on the rates. Personally, he should like to see the number of small freeholders in the counties increase; but if there was to be a large extension of the system of outdoor relief, they would infallibly be rated out of their holdings as fast as they were put into them.
      MR. BARTLEYsaid, he was one of those who strongly supported the proposal in the Bill as it was first drafted, because he was satisfied that it was a sound and a wise system of administering the grant. He was afraid that in country districts relief was granted upon a system which had the effect of cutting down the wages of the poorest classes, so that they might be kept within the district in the winter and put into the humblest form of labour, such as market gardens, &c., at low wages during other periods of the year. He was afraid that the Government, by bringing forward an Amendment designed to please all sides of the House, had got into the usual difficulty of such a course. Hon. Members had now obtained a pledge in regard to indoor pauperism, and they were now trying to get another step, and to put in outdoor pauperism as well as a basis of dividing the grant. He hoped the Government would not entertain the proposal which had been made to them, but that they would stick to the principle they had already adopted. The Government had adopted this proposal, which, in his judgment, was not so good as their original one; but, at any rate, he hoped they would not proceed further in the direction indicated by the Amendment.
      MR. STUART RENDELsaid, he thought the Government might not be indisposed to hear one more argument based upon figures which demonstrated the case of Wales. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow had stated the case very briefly. If they compared the population of England and Wales, it was about 18 to 1, but the ratio of pauperism was 14 to 1, of wealth a gross rental 23 to 1, and of area only 7 to 1. The value of real property in Wales was about £3 9s. per

      761
      head of the population, while in England it was £5. Income Tax in England amounted to £15 17 s. per head; while in Wales it was £12 only, and in Cardiganshire it was only £8. Therefore, there was a difference in regard to the wealth of the two countries which was of the highest possible significance. There was another consideration which was also of great importance—namely, the absolute want of charitable endowments of any kind in Wales. The average charitable endowments of the English counties was about £55,575, whereas in the 11 counties of Wales, exclusive of Denbighshire, which had over £6,000, the total sum for the whole averaged only £1,674. The county of Glamorganshire, which in population was able to compare with an English county, seeing that it had 500,000 people, had no larger endowment than £1,920, compared with an average endowment in England from all the counties of £55,575, even including such counties as Rutland. This was a matter which entered largely into the question of the relative means of the two countries to sustain their poor. There was already a grievous anomaly and inequality, and it was impossible that the House of Commons could inflict such a further injustice upon Wales as was involved in the proposal of the Government. He challenged any Conservative Member in Wales to dispute his figures or the deductions he drew from them. If the proposed arrangement were carried out, it would deprive Wales of something like £50,000 a-year, to which it was by mere parity of treatment entitled; whereas the proper course would be to increase the ratio of grant to the Principality by taking population and area and charitable distribution into account, and not mere rateable valuation.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the rate proposed by the Bill for Wales was quite as much as that proposed for any other part of the Kingdom. He had not been able to go into the figures, but if that proposal now made was adopted, he believed that Wales would gain far more per £1 than any other part of the Kingdom.
      MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that that was probably true, but even if it were so the rateable value of every county in Wales was very small compared with that of the English counties. Wales was a very
      762
      poor country, and the population was large in proportion to the rateable value of property. If they took the population into account Wales ought to get £40,000 more than what she now got. In the same way, if they took outdoor pauperism and added it to the indoor pauperism, Wales would be entitled to an addition of £37,000 a-year. All these things tended to show that the proposal of the Government dealt very hardly with the poorer parts of the country, and especially with Wales. He denied altogether the suggestion of the Government that their proposal was favourable towards the poorer parts of the country. On the contrary, he believed that the proposal was most unjust to Wales.
      SIR JOSEPH BAILEYsaid, that the proposal had been received with the greatest possible discontent amongst the supporters of the Government. [Cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Members said "No, no!" but, unfortunately, the proposal was accepted by the Government at a time when the County Members were attending Quarter Sessions. It was under such circumstances that the Committee came to a decision to divide the grant according to the amount of indoor pauperism, and they were now asked to stereotype that matter virtually for all time or until Parliament made some new arrangement. That was a proposition which he did not believe any Member of the House, except the Government, or except, perhaps, the Metropolitan Members, would consider a fair proposition. He was sorry to trouble the House any more with the ever-recurring question of Wales and the adjoining counties. The pauperism of Herefordshire was larger than it was in London. The expenditure in poor rates was a little over 2s. per head, as against 1s. 10¾d. When, however, they came to deal with indoor pauperism the expenditure was very much less. How was it possible for anyone representing any part of Hereford or Wales to discharge his duty to his constituents, and, at the same time, willingly accept such a proposal on the part of the Government? The reason why London spent so much in indoor pauperism and other parts of the country so little was that London up to this time had drawn money from what was practically public funds to the extent of 5d. per head per day as a contribution towards the cost of indoor

      763
      pauperism. Therefore, it had been to the interest of the Metropolitan parishes to increase the indoor pauperism in comparison with the outdoor pauperism. If the Bill had remained as it was originally drawn it would have been far more favourable to the rural districts than it was now. The injustice would have been far less. But the mode of conducting Poor Law relief was now to be stereotyped for ever. He did not see how the House was to accept the proposal of the Government, and he hoped that his right hon. Friend would promise that it should be re-considered on Report. If that promise were not made he was afraid the Government would find themselves placed in a position of considerable difficulty.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had already pointed out that the Committee, having decided that the distribution was to take place according to indoor pauperism, they were only now discussing in reality the modification which was suggested in the course of the debate the other night as a means of getting rid of the inducement which some hon. Gentlemen thought Guardians would have under the original proposition to force people into the workhouse. That was the real question they were dealing with now—namely, whether some means could be adopted to prevent that result. He ventured to say that when he made the present proposal it was favourably received by both sides of the House. He would recommend the Committee, therefore, to allow the Government to insert a clause which they proposed, in order to meet the wishes of hon. Gentleman. Of course, it would be the duty of the Government to consider all the suggestions that might be made to them, and it required no assurance on his part that they would consider them; but he was not in a position to give any pledge. The Government were now proposing an Amendment with the view of modifying the original proposal in order to meet the objections which had been raised to it—that it would drive people into the workhouse, and that was really the only matter that they were now discussing. The whole matter would, of course, come up again on the Report.
      MR. RATHBONEsaid, he thought the Government ought to consider how the case would be best met. He strongly objected to
      764
      any proposal which would lead to laxity in giving outdoor relief. Indoor and outdoor relief should be placed on such a footing that, in dealing with the poor, the only thing considered should be which was best in each case as it came before the Guardians. Everyone who had worked among the poor would agree that it was a most disastrous thing to provide them with excessive outdoor relief. The Government were now giving a large concession in the relief of local taxation; but it had been shown by past experience that such concessions were not always beneficial to the ratepayers, and had impoverished the taxpayers, because the amounts granted from the Imperial Exchequer had been wasted. In London there had been a great improvement in the administration of relief; but that was not so in a great many parts of the country. On the contrary, there had been a tendency to go back to the old principle, which had nearly ruined this country in 1834. When the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board spoke of the danger of lowering wages by extending the system of outdoor relief, some hon. Member said "No, no!" Now, he maintained that outdoor relief did tend to lower wages. The indoor relief had, on the whole, been admirably conducted; but outdoor relief had been given unwisely. Of course, there was a great temptation to give outdoor relief in the case of women and families. It struck him as very curious that in Liverpool, where the drain on male labour was not greater than in other parts of Lancashire, there should have been this strange anomaly that a number of women who, with families, were able to do well in manufacturing districts, were hanging about the place lowering wages. He had represented to the Guardians that they were acting in a wrong principle in giving outdoor relief to families who could find work elsewhere; they ought not to allow those persons to hang on in Liverpool while they were able to obtain labour elsewhere. He had engaged, at his own expense, a gentleman of ability to visit the manufacturing districts and to find out what prospect there was of securing employment for this class of person. The Guardians went through the numerous cases they had on their list, and in every case where a woman cane before them who was suit-

      765
      able for employment in the manufacturing districts they refused outdoor relief. The consequence was that in two or three years they migrated something like 1,000 persons, many of whom were in danger of becoming prostitutes, and sent them into manufacturing districts. Not 10 per cent ever returned, and a most striking proof of the soundness of the system was to be found in the fact that two or three years after he heard complaints among the Guardians that it was difficult to get women to come as charwomen, though they got 2s. to 2s. 6d. a-day and their food. He would advise the Guardians to take a very decided objection to give relief to people who were idling their time away instead of working. Wherever that principle was adopted they were able to secure a spirit of independence among the poor, and to put down idleness and the practice of living upon rates wrung from people very little better off than the paupers them-selves. He hoped that they would divide the £1,800,000 partly by the outdoor relief calculation and partly by some other method. For his own part, he did not believe that any single method would work out in an altogether satisfactory way, and he would suggest that the Government should try to find out some method which would correct the inequalities which must exist if they took indoor pauperism alone as the test. He admitted that inequalities would exist, and the Government must admit it also. He was afraid, however, that whatever test they took there would still be inequalities in connection with some parts of the Kingdom.
      MR. SWETENHAM (Carnarvon, &c.)said, he desired to say a few words in corroboration of what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Rathbone). He was sure that the Committee felt that there was no one who understood this question better than the hon. Member, and that no one had given greater consideration to it. The reason for his (Mr. Swetenham's) rising was that, as far as he could understand, the Principality of Wales would be inequitably dealt with in regard to the Probate Duty to be transferred. It was exceedingly difficult to follow the figures which had been given, and to say how they would eventually work out. He had been very much struck by the observations made last week by the right hon.
      766
      Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler); because on the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman it appeared to him that the effect of the Government proposal would be absolutely deplorable in respect of Wales; and accordingly he had gone into the Lobby against the proposal made by the Government, in the hope that something would be done by which, at any rate, Wales would not be unfairly treated, as he apprehended it would be if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were not agreed to. At the same time, he agreed with every word that had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone). It was impossible, he thought, for anyone who had sat on a Board of Guardians not to endorse every syllable he had uttered. It would be found that where there was a strong determination and mind on the part of the Board of Guardians to carry out the spirit of the Poor Law, and where the Poor Law was strictly administered, as a general rule, there was less pauperism throughout the Union than there was when there was a lax system of administration, and outdoor relief was much resorted to. He could speak on that subject, because he happened to reside in an Union which was acknowledged to be one of the best regulated Unions in the country, and he was quite certain that he was correct in saying that the wages were higher there than in most country districts, and not only were wages higher there, but there was absolutely less pauperism in that Union than in any other Union in which there were corresponding attendant circumstances. He had also in his mind two other Unions in Wales which it would be invidious to refer to by name. In those Unions outdoor relief was administered. The result of that lax administration was that in the Unions in question there was a greater amount of pauperism than in the Union in which he resided; and he was perfectly certain that the amount paid for rates was very much larger than it was in his Union—in fact, it was very ruinous indeed. Therefore, he said that every word that had fallen from the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire deserved the most serious attention at the hands of the Committee. At the same time, he could

      767
      not be satisfied that Wales, as the Government proposal now stood, would receive its proper share of the amount to be allocated in the shape of the Probate Duty. It was not for him to make any further suggestions; but his object in rising was to express a hope that a more equitable arrangement would be arrived at with regard to the Principality of Wales, because he understood that the Committee had decided, and that rightly, that outdoor pauperism was not to be made the basis of distribution. He hoped, however, that the rule of indoor relief would not be made a hard and fast one, because he was convinced that its effect upon Wales would be most serious; and he trusted that before the Bill passed into law the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) would take the matter into his serious consideration between the present time and Report, in order to see if he could adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire, or meet the difficulty in some other way. He ventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) would give the Committee his assistance; and he believed that every just man would feel that before the Bill became law the poor districts of the country, such as those of Wales, ought to receive prompt consideration, and that the measure itself stood in need of amendment in the manner suggested.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he thought the Committee was in a position of some difficulty on account of having technically decided a certain thing. But he would point out that the two discussions which had taken place on the subject had proceeded on two different lines, and altogether on two separate issues. It was now laid down that they had adopted not only mainly, but exclusively, this element of indoor pauperism as the basis of distribution of the Probate Duty. As he understood the debate which took place last Tuesday upon the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for the Clitheroe Division of Lancashire (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth), the question at issue was that the basis of distribution should be population. Certainly, on Friday afternoon, the whole
      768
      discussion was with regard to London, and then only the financial question, their objections being on that occasion that London, which was well able to bear its own burdens, ought not to have any share in the Probate Duty beyond what fairly fell to it on the principle on which the grant was to be distributed to other parts of the country. They were now being pressed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to consider the question on the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the opportunity which would then be afforded with very great confidence; but he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) would like to know when that stage would be reached. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) had not led them to expect that that stage was at all near. If they had the prospect that the House would be permitted to have a full discussion of the question on Report, they might look forward to it with a certain amount of confidence; but he was afraid that the Report stages of Bills of that kind were usually reached when the Government were perfect masters of the situation and when the decision of the Government was practically embodied in the Bill. He wished to impress upon the Committeee that this matter should be threshed out now. He might be technically out of Order; but in a short time the Chairman would have to move "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and then there would be an opportunity of moving its rejection. No one had ever said that outdoor pauperism should be made the basis of distribution in future, and he quite agreed that nothing could be more absurd. Each county in England spent a certain amount of money on pauperism, both indoor and outdoor, and the Probate Duty was to be apportioned according to the amount of pauperism in the several counties; the Government then divided the amount, and said that the apportionment should take place entirely in respect of indoor pauperism. He regretted that pauperism was to be made the testing figure on which the calculation was to be based. The moment they proceeded to divide the grant among the various counties on the basis of pauperism, as proposed by the Government, the most startling ano-

      769
      malies became apparent. London only spent 21 per cent of its poor rates on outdoor pauperism. He thought that if the whole amount spent on indoor pauperism and outdoor pauperism in the country were taken—namely, £4,000,000, they might, upon that basis, arrive at a very fair distribution. He was bound to admit that the boroughs would prosper very much under that arrangement. Borough Members were quite satisfied with the Government proposal—it was for county Members and for the Representatives of Wales to protest against the arrangement.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he ventured to hope that the Committee would not longer continue the discussion of this question. He knew how very important and interesting it was; but it was, no doubt, out of Order, and with regard to the opposition suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) to the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," he would point out that if the clause were struck out there would be no grant at all. He could hardly think that the Committee would come to a conclusion of that kind. He said again that the Government believed that their original proposal was the best which, under the circumstances, they could make. They had proposed to modify their proposal in the direction pointed out by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee; they had listened carefully and continuously to all that had been said on both sides that evening, and he now repeated that it would be the duty of the Government to bear in mind all that had been said to-day, with a view to reconsidering the question before the Report stage. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that they had no desire to prejudice the decision to which the Committee might come by referring to any mere Government majority; but he hoped the Committee would accept the proposal as it now stood. It was quite understood that hon. Members were not committing themselves, and that the Government would carefully consider all that had been said in the course of the discussion.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought that what the right hon. Gentleman had stated was satisfactory, and that it showed an open mind. He was bound to say that, with regard to the
      770
      discussion which had taken place that day, the technical difficulty in the matter was that the Committee had agreed, by an overwhelming majority, that the Government proposal for the settlement of the question on the basis of indoor relief should be carried; but he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind the opinion expressed on the question not only on those Benches, but by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he quite agreed that the Committee should accept the proposal to omit from the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman certain words, but that the Amendment itself should not be agreed to without a Division being taken upon it, because he thought that the proposal of the Government was unreasonable. He could understand the proposal which the Government had made originally; its meaning was perfectly intelligible, and its object was to discourage outdoor relief, and to encourage indoor relief; but what was now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was utterly without any principle or reason whatever. The right hon. Gentleman proposed in future, without reason or principle, to stereotype the system of indoor relief which now existed, and to make it the basis of distribution of the Probate Duty. When they listened to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, it was quite clear that he was halting between two opinions; it was evident that he was holding to his original opinion, and yet, because he could not carry it, he was endeavouring to emasculate the clause. There was one view of the matter which had been urged by the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) and others—namely, that where outdoor relief was given wages were low, and where indoor relief was given they were high. He begged to contradict that statement with respect to Scotland, and the experience of Scotch Members would fully bear him out in the matter. He pointed out that the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire had only proved that to be the case with regard to Liverpool, by showing that the Liverpool paupers were driven away to Manchester and other places. He thought the Committee ought to accept the Amendment for the

      771
      omission of the words, but that they ought to divide against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he would suggest that the distribution should be in proportion to the average number of indoor paupers during the preceding five local financial years ending on the 25th of March next before the passing of the Act.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he should have no objection to that proposal.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Verbal Amendments made.
      SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that the discussion of that evening had been altogether upon the anomalies of Her Majesty's Government proposal as between different parts of England; but he should like to call attention to another point, and that was the anomalies which would he produced as between one part of a county and another. He might at once point out what its effect would be with regard to Lancashire. According to the Blue Book issued, 11 county boroughs of Lancashire would receive £138,578, and the County Councils of the county would receive only £83,326. There were similar anomalies with regard to other counties, and there were also anomalies as between borough and borough. Oldham, for instance, would receive a grant of £7,724, while Blackburn and Bolton, with nearly the same population, would receive £4,608 and £3,872. If they looked at the present grants, however, they would see that the disproportion was not nearly so large, as the boroughs of Oldham, Blackburn, and Bolton received respectively £7,542, £6,444, and £8,003. Under the proposal to distribute the grant in proportion to indoor relief, not only would the county boroughs receive far in excess of the amount which they would get according to population or rateable value, but there would be also the greatest anomalies and inequalities as between one borough and another. He did not wish at that moment to press the right hon. Gentleman too hard on the subject; but he might call attention to the fact that unless the Amendment which he had put on the
      772
      Paper with reference to Clause 30 were altered so as to give some more clear direction to the Commissioners and greater power of readjustment, the Commissioners would not be able to deal with inequalities so large as those he had mentioned. He and the noble Lord the Member for the Darwen Division of Lancashire (Viscount Cranborne) had placed upon the Paper Amendments to Clause 30, which proposed to give the Commissioners very much wider power. He wished to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman his opinion with respect to the principle which these Amendments contained; and if he received an assurance which offered with regard to Lancashire the prospect of a fair arrangement, he should not press the present Amendment to a Division. He hoped, therefore, that he should hear the views of the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject.
      Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
      After the word "proportion," add the words "but as between a county and the county boroughs (if any) situate therein, shall be distributed among the county boroughs and the county in proportion to their respective populations."—(Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he hoped the Government would listen carefully to the remarks of the right hon. Baronet opposite, because there was no doubt that in Lancashire very great difficulty would be introduced if the clause of the Bill remained in its present form. Of course, any general rule that might be laid down would produce some hard cases. He did not propose to go into the general question of hard cases as between county and county; but that there would be such he had no doubt. He thought, however, that they might see that the counties at large were, to some extent, entitled to the advantage of their circumstances. But they did not look on the great boroughs as apart from the county; they were the centres of the county district in which they stood; although they were not part of the counties they were supported from them, and their obligations ought to be read with the obligations of the counties. Under the circumstances, no

      773
      doubt, some modification must be introduced into the Government plan. He did not entirely approve the modification proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Clitheroe Division of Lancashire, because he only substituted one artificial arrangement for another; and although the right hon. Baronet's proposal would effect an improvement in the case of Lancashire, he did not think that it was the best arrangement that could be made. In his judgement, the Government had indicated the proper direction in which this matter ought to be set right—namely, to give very large powers to a Commission to arrange as between County Councils and the county boroughs with reference to the Transferred Licences and Probate Duties to be assigned. But he thought his right hon. Friend's Amendment on Clause 30 did not give sufficient power to the Commissioners to deal with the enormous amount of money which would be involved in any equitable arrangement in the county which he had the honour to represent; and, therefore, he had ventured to put down an Amendment giving much more definite power to the Commissioners, which he earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would favourably consider.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, it would be manifestly out of Order for him to discuss the Amendment to be proposed on Clause 30; but he would only say, with reference to the question raised by the right hon. Baronet opposite and his noble Friend who had just spoken, that the object of the Government was to deal, as he had always stated, fairly as between the counties and the boroughs. That principle he had always enunciated. When this discussion had accidentally arisen the other night, it was clear that the opinion of hon. Members was that, while they assented to the proposal of the Government to refer the matter to a Commission, they were of opinion that the Government proposal required strengthening in the direction of giving more specific instruction to the Commissioners for the proper adjustment of relations between the counties and boroughs, so that the one should not be more fairly treated than the other. He had, therefore, stated at the time when the clause came on that the Government would consider the best means of strengthening the Commission, in order to see if anything was necessary
      774
      to be done; and, perhaps, on his assurance that the Government were prepared to do that, the right hon. Baronet would not think it necessary to push his Amendment at the present stage, which he might point out, and with which he was quite sure the Committee would agree, had not offered a convenient opportunity for dealing with this matter.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he was not surprised at the manner the right hon. Gentleman had met the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for the Clitheroe Division of Lancashire (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth). It was suggested to him (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) that the county of Lancashire had been exerting its blandishments over the right hon. Gentleman. Now, it appeared to him that that matter ought to be settled at once. The proposal of his right hon. Friend was that the distribution as between counties and boroughs should be regulated on the principle of population. They were quite ready to have the principle of population adjustment applied to the whole of the Kingdom; but the Government had beaten them on that ground, and it appeared strange to hon. Members who supported that principle that the Government, having rejected it as between Lancashire and Yorkshire, should admit it as between Lancashire and Manchester.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he must point out that the right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when he (Mr. Ritchie) had said that it was not convenient to propose an Amendment of the kind without Notice. He had been averse to the question being decided in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman; but he had expressly stated that the Government could not assent to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the matter that was in dispute.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he thought it was only right and fair to take the earliest opportunity of entering their strongest protest against any such departure from the original understanding existing from the beginning between the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James). The cardinal principle laid down at the time was that there was to be no imposition upon the boroughs in addition to their present burdens. His right hon.

      775
      Friend had endeavoured to obtain a subvention to the county funds. To that he should offer the most strenuous resistance; and if the right hon. Gentleman looked, he would find that, unintentionally he was quite sure, he was departing from the understanding arrived at on an earlier stage of the Bill, if he acceded to any such proposal. He certainly hoped the Government would not in any way attempt to alter the understanding arrived at, or otherwise they would only bring upon themselves a very protracted discussion, because they contended that the boroughs were dealt unfairly with in the Government Bill, inasmuch as they were not to receive the amount to which they were entitled. They were, however, prepared to accept the arrangement that had been already proposed; but if there was to be a roving Commission sent about the country with power to add to the taxation of the boroughs, he said that it would be the duty of all borough Representatives and county Representatives also to offer the proposal the strongest opposition in their power.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he ventured to hope that the Committee would see the necessity of proceeding with the clause before them, and not attempt to discuss Clause 30. He assured the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) that there was no disposition on the part of the Government to depart from the principle which they had laid down; their object being to secure, as far as they were able, that there should be no undue advantage either to the county or the borough.
      SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that he had put down some Amendments to Clause 30 at the request of 60 boroughs named in the Schedule. He could only say that they would resist any proposal such as that contained in the Amendment of his right hon. Friend. It was not population alone which determined this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had entered into a most clear understanding with reference to boroughs, and he had no doubt that it would be strictly and honourably adhered to.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question put, and agreed to.
      On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 16, line 32, leave out "direct" to "and," in line 34; in page 17, line 13, leave out "any," and insert "such number of;" and in line 15 leave out "when exceeding," and insert "as exceed."
      On the Motion of Sir JOHN DORINGTON, the following Amendment made:—In page 17, line 18, after the word "day," insert—
      "Provided always, That any paupers maintained under any contract or agreement in a workhouse other than that of the union to which they are chargeable, should be included only in that number of paupers of the union to which they are so chargeable."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 22 (Application of duties on transferred licences, local taxation licences, and probate duty grant).
      On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 17, line 28, leave out from "licences" to "on," in line 32, and insert "and."
      SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he did not understand the meaning of the words in paragraph i, Subsection 2, "paying the costs incurred in respect thereof, or otherwise chargeable thereon." These words might imply a good deal, and he trusted the right hon. Genntleman would enlighten the Committee as to their meaning.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the words were inserted because it was assumed that there might possibly be some charge in connection with the matter, but the Government did not include any charge for collection.
      COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he did not propose to move the Amendment in his name which dealt with several matters of great importance, and the nature of which would make it desirable for him to reserve his observations until a subsequent stage of the Bill was reached.
      On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 18, line 38, leave out "it," and insert "and is in excess of what the County Council consider necessary to carry forward to the next account, such excess,"
      MR. WOODALLsaid, he hoped the Government would be able to meet him in part, if not altogether, with regard to the mode of payment from the Exchequer to the boroughs, and in order to give an opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman of expressing his views on this matter he begged to move the omission of subsection (3).
      Amendment proposed, in page 18, leave out Sub-section (3).—(Mr. Woodall.)
      Question proposed, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Clause."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, the intention of the hon. Gentleman was perfectly clear. He (Mr. Ritchie) did not think the hon. Gentleman had ever disguised the fact that the intention of the various Amendments he had put down in connection with the boroughs was that they should stand, as it were, on their own bottoms with reference to finance; that for the purpose of finance they should form no part of the county. The hon. Gentleman would know that it was quite impossible for the Government to accept that proposal, striking as it did the very framework of the Bill.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 19, line 3, after "council," insert "other than the council of a borough."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 23 (Payment by county council in substitution for annual local grants out of Exchequer in aid of local rates).
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 19, after line 20, to insert the words "Provided, that nothing in this Act shall be construed to repeal any enactment relating to, or in anywise to affect any payment out of the Exchequer by way of composition for or contribution towards any local rates, in respect of any Government property.—(Mr. Woodall)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE PRESIDENT of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that if he thought there was the smallest doubt on the subject referred to in his Amendment he would willingly accept his proposal. There was nothing in the Act which could be construed as repealing any enactment relating to or in anywise
      778
      affecting these payments out of the Exchequer, and the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would be, therefore, unnecessary.
      MR. WOODALLsaid, he wished the right hon. Gentleman to understand that every one of these Amendments had been most carefully considered by responsible and experienced men, and he was convinced that they were necessary.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was quite certain that nothing in the Bill affected any contribution out of the Exchequer on account of local rates on Government property. If, however, the hon. Gentleman found that it was otherwise between the present time and the Report, he would, when that stage was reached, be happy to consider the proposal.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he should be very brief in the remarks he had to make in support of the Amendment to the clause standing in his name. He proposed to omit the words which stated that the County Councils should pay to the Guardians, or to the proper Local Authority, such sums as the Local Government Board certified, in substitution for local grants—
      "For payments to public vaccinators under Section 5 of the Vaccination Act, 1867."
      The effect of the section was that the County Councils would have to pay the sums on the certificate of the Local Government Board; and the answer was anticipated that eventually those Councils would object to the payment of money in respect of matters over which they exercised no control. This matter of vaccination had recently been fully discussed; and, therefore, he would not, in the present state of Public Business, occupy any time by making a statement upon it now. The object of the payment of bonuses was well understood, and the result had not been achieved. It did not obtain in Scotland or Ireland, and he begged to move the omission of the words in question, so that the practice might not be perpetuated in England.
      Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 33, leave out from the word "appliances" to the word "and," in line 34, inclusive.—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Government did not insert the words in order to stereotype their views on the matter. This was one of the grants paid from the Exchequer at present; it had been paid for a great number of years; it was considered as a portion of the payment made to Vaccination Officers in respect of their fees, and it was intended to secure an efficient and proper administration of the Vaccination Law. It had always been considered essential that this matter should be dealt with by the localities, when the organization which they now proposed was set up. But, of course, if hereafter the House should arrive at any decision on the question of vaccination, and should decide upon an alteration of the law, that alteration could always be made applicable to this portion of the Bill.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the chief objection to the localities dealing with these grants. That objection was that at present these sums were granted out of sums provided by Parliament; they were put down on the Estimates, and hon. Members had always an opportunity of raising a question on the subject, and of dividing against the Votes when they came forward in the usual way. Now, by what the Government contemplated it would be very easy to avoid that. They were, in fact, doing by the proposal what the right hon. Gentleman said they were not doing; they were going to stereotype all these payments. They had started with the notion that what they wanted was Local Government and decentralization, and now there was no Local Government in the clause whatsoever. These grants had hitherto been borne on the Estimates, and they were now to be charged on the County Councils in respect of the licences and Probate Duty handed over to those Bodies; payments which had been voted by that House in the past, were now fixed and stereotyped, and were to he paid compulsorily in future by the County Councils. Therefore, he said, it was not Local Government that they gave here; there was no discretion allowed to the County Councils to deal with these matters. Not only was that the case, but there was no decentralization. The purview and control of the House of Commons in respect of the disposal of these sums of money was
      780
      taken away, and placed in the hands of the Local Government Board. If the Government had given larger powers to the County Councils, they might have granted, within certain limits, the power of dealing with these Votes; but the Bill had been eviscerated in this respect, and the principle of Local Government no longer existed in the clause.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, right hon. Gentlemen opposite had done their best to get the boroughs taken out of the counties, and now they made it a reproach against the Government that that had been done. They said the Government had eviscerated the Bill, because they had taken out the boroughs at their own desire. But he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there was as much Local Government in the Bill as before. Right hon. Gentlemen, however, said that the Government were not giving boroughs which formed counties, or were counties in themselves, sufficient powers of reviewing these Parliamentary grants. He admitted there was some force in that contention; but he put it with some confidence to the Committee that great confusion would be caused if County Councils, as soon as they were formed, had to review every possible local contribution. When the Councils had been thoroughly established, he thought it would be open to question whether they should not have more power in reviewing grants, and it would be the desire of the Government to give greater powers afterwards than the Councils would have in the first instance. He thought it would be desirable that when these Councils first started, overwhelmed as they would be with business, they should not have cast upon them the duty of reviewing every grant made for local purposes. He asked what would be the position of the Councils if they were left entirely in the dark as to what their contributions would be for the first few years? Parliament would not have said its last word when the Bill was passed; and he thought the House would have to consider how to effect that great object in which they all were concerned with regard to decentralization and taxation.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was fond of putting unfavourable

      781
      interpretations on words coming from that Bench. He strongly protested against the words used by the right hon. Gentleman at the commencement of his speech. He (Mr. Stansfeld) had never said that the Government had eviscerated the Bill, but simply that he regretted that the Bill was not originally constructed in a way which should have made these Amendments unnecessary. He had pointed out that this was not decentralization, and the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that it was a distinct flaw in the Bill. After the Act passed into law it would be competent for the hon. Member for Northampton, or the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) to raise this question of vaccination grants, but there would be no method left them but to bring in a Bill. This sum of £18,000 now became the fixed payment; it became permanent by Act of Parliament; the County Councils could not dispute it, and that House could not say that the grant should not be made. That could only be done by Parliament itself; but everyone knew how difficult it was for a private Member to pass any Bill through the House dealing with a subject of the kind.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 249; Noes 123: Majority 126.—(Div. List, No. 199.)
      MR. W. H. JAMES, in moving to omit, in page 19, from lines 34, 35, and 36, the words—
      "And for poor school boards under section ninety-seven of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870.'"
      said, the constituency which he had the honour to represent was very greatly affected by the proposal of the Government. Gateshead was a poor constituency, and £644 was paid in aid of its poor schools. Of course, it was impossible to make out a case from the circumstances of his own constituency; he desired rather to put this matter on the ground that it was the only matter relating to education in the Bill. He proposed this Amendment particularly in view of the probability that, if not in this Session, at all events in no distant Session, the whole question of the grants for elementary education would be revised by Parliament. In his opinion, this was a question which
      782
      ought to stand over until such time as it could be dealt with as a whole, and not in the fragmentary manner now suggested. It was as well to bear in mind that the total grant which was concerned in this matter only amounted to about £7,000, and £1,100 of that was paid to the County of Durham alone. His own borough came within the 50,000 limit. It would not be a county in itself for the purposes of the Bill, and he urged that as some reason why he should make this proposal. The amount paid in Wales was about £2,000, and he thought, although the Welsh Members had been somewhat unfairly treated with regard to Clause 21, they would support the very moderate proposal that this sum should not be taken from them.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 19, lines 34, 35, 36, to leave out the words "and for poor school boards under section ninety-seven of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870.'"—(Mr. W. H. James.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that, as his hon. Friend had stated, the matter was by no means a large one. The whole grant only amounted to something like £7,000, and it was a grant they would be sorry to see the poor schools in any way deprived of. But as they were giving the County Councils or Local Authorities the revenue out of which it was paid he held that they ought to take this burden upon their own shoulders. It was quite evident that if they were to continue to make this grant from Imperial sources it would be contrary to the principle adopted in that Bill. He thought they did rightly in laying upon the shoulders of the County Councils who were drawing the revenue the obligation to pay these poor schools; and, in his opinion, that was all he could fairly ask the Government to do.
      MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that this was part of the Parliamentary grant under the conditions of the Act of 1870. It was really a portion of the Imperial grant. The sum was not large; on the contrary, it was a very small sum, only £7,000. [Mr. W. H. JAMES: £6,200.] It fell with exceptional severity on poor districts. More than £2,000 of the total went to Wales alone. He noticed that in the

      783
      Memorandum published by Sir Francis Sandford the other day, which was the only light they could get thrown upon the Parliamentary grant, that it was proposed to return this grant. They had not yet received the Report of the Royal Commission, although portions of it had appeared in the Press. According to the portion they had seen it was not proposed to abolish the grant. In his opinion, having regard to the fact that the Report of the Commission had not been made, and that what they knew of it was in favour of the retention of these grants, they ought to be retained as a portion of the Imperial grant and Parliament ought to exercise control over it. If they deprived the districts of the grants they would make matters extremely hard for the poorer districts. He did not mean to say that this was a very great matter, but he could not help thinking that it would operate very hardly upon some of the Welsh counties and many of the poor districts of England.
      MR. GOSCHENsaid, there was no doubt there was something in the remarks of hon. Members. It would fall with exceptional severity on the poorer districts, and, therefore, the Government would not persist in retaining these words in the Bill.
      MR. JOICEYsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made this concession, because the clause as it was introduced would be found to operate very hardly upon Gateshead. Gateshead was exceptionally situated, and he felt satisfied that the concession of the Government would give great satisfaction to the people of that town.
      MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his concession.
      Question put, and negatived.
      VISCOUNT EBRINGTON, in moving to insert after the word "paid," in line 38, the words "not less than," said, this Amendment and another he had on the next page were really consequential on one which came still further down on the Paper. The object was to reduce the grant from the counties to the Unions from 4d. to 3d. per day for each indoor pauper, and to allow the County Authorities to spend the remainder in such way as they
      784
      thought fit. In order to leave their hands free he proposed not limit the sum they should pay for officers of health, inspectors of nuisances, and police to one-half, but would allow them to give five-eighths or three-quarters, or any portion they might think proper. He must not go at length into the Amendment to which this was really consequential, though when he reached that he felt confident he should be able to show the right hon. Gentleman there were a great many Unions in which 4d. per day per head would defray the whole cost of the keep of the paupers; in fact, which would be the only expense the Unions would be put to if they filled up the workhouses. The expense of warming and lighting and the salaries would be just as much for the smaller number as for the larger. He was bound to say the line the Government had taken in regard to this grant did not make it less advisable to diminish the amount the Unions would receive.
      Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 38, after the word "paid," insert the words "not less than."— (Viscount Ebrington.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, there would be very great practical inconvenience in accepting the Amendment of the noble Viscount, because they might then have varying amounts of grants in the different districts. He did not think that it was at all likely that County Councils would be very anxious to increase the amount of grant that was made, and he did not know, therefore, whether the power would be very much taken advantage of if it were given. What the noble Viscount said about the contributions to indoor poor did not apply particularly on this Amendment. He had not a doubt that even if the Committee were to restrict the County Councils to the payment of 3d., or of any smaller sum, the County Councils would find plenty of good outlets for the money left in their hands without giving to them the power of increasing the payments such as the noble Viscount had suggested. In this matter the Government did not inquire whether the amount which was now paid in the shape of grant was adequate or inadequate—they felt that if they were to go into all these questions it

      785
      would be impossible, within anything like reasonable time, to pass a Bill of this character. They had been content to take the grants as they found them, and to place on the shoulders of the County Authorities the obligation of continuing them. He did not think it would be well to vary them in the way suggested by the noble Viscount.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 19, line 42, to leave out "as amended by this Act."
      MR. BRUNNERsaid, he wished the right hon. Gentleman to consent to omit the words—
      "But if the Local Government Board certify to the Council that such medical officer has failed to send to the Local Government Board such report and returns as are for the time being required by the regulations respecting the duties of such officers, made by order of the Board under the said section, a sum equal to such half of the salary shall be forfeited to the Crown, and the council shall pay the same into Her Majesty's Exchequer."
      The effect of the provision as it stood was that, if a medical officer of health did not send in his Returns to the Local Government Board, the Local Government Board might instruct the County Council not to pay to the District Council or the Rural Sanitary Authority, as it was now, the half salary to which they were entitled. Now, this put it in the power of a medical officer of health who had quarrelled with his District Council to fine the District Council one-half of his salary. The Bill did not give to the District Council the power of reducing the salary, because the medical officer of health had not sent in his Returns; and this provision, therefore, as he had said, put it into the power of a medical officer to fine his employers. If the provision were that the Local Government Board might refuse this one-half grant if the medical officer of health had distinctly failed in his duties in an important particular, there might be something to be said for it; but as it stood now it was, to his mind, most distinctly a blot on the Bill, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not refuse to exclude these words.
      Amendment proposed, "in page 19, line 42, after the word "Act," to leave
      786
      out from the word "but" to end of sub-section in page 20.— (Mr. Brunner.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. FIRTH: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this clause does not apply to London?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that with reference to the Amendment before the Committee he must point out the enormous importance of securing, in some way or other, that the Local Government Board should receive these Returns regularly. It was of the very highest importance to the public health of the country that the Local Government Board should be quite certain that these Reports would be secured. It was upon these Reports mainly that the Report of the Local Government Board in connection with the public health of the country was based. Upon many occasions it was upon these Reports that the Local Government Board took action when the action of medical officers was not such as accorded with their duties to the public health of the country. It was only with a view of securing that these Returns should be regularly made that the Government inserted these words in the Bill, and he thought it would be unwise if some such provision were not adpoted.
      MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman had determined to retain these words, because he regarded them as being of very great value in the interests of the public health. Decentralization was no doubt a good thing in a certain degree as regarded administration; but he held that it should never be carried so far as to prevent the House of Commons and the country from having the fullest information as to what was going on in the different districts. If there was one thing more certain than another, it was that publicity as regarded the public health of one district was of great value to the rest of the community. He might, if time permitted, give many illustrations in support of that view. He hoped, however, that they would regard it as a fundamental principle throughout this Bill that, although they decentralized from time to time, they should always retain the fullest publicity as regarded

      787
      matters of public health and matters of public accounts. He hoped they would always maintain full and entire publicity, so that the country might know what was going on, and that the whole community might derive advantage from the experience of any particular locality.
      SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the importance of having the Reports sent up to the Local Government Board, and as to the Local Government Board having some machinery to compel the Reports to be sent up. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman, however, that when he brought this question forward on the second reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman at once assented to a suggestion he made, and which he presumed the right hon. Gentleman would have given effect to by an Amendment. The matter, no doubt, had escaped the right hon. Gentleman's attention; and if that was so, the Amendment might possibly be made on Report. The suggestion he made was that in order that the County Councils should know something about what was happening to the health of their districts, these Reports might be sent to the County Councils, and the County Councils might through their expert medical officers consider them, and have full knowledge of them before they reached the Local Government Board.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he quite remembered that the point was raised on the second reading. He remembered undertaking to see what steps could be taken to carry the view of the right hon. Gentleman; but amidst the enormous amount of detail connected with the Bill the point had been omitted. His idea was to insert an Amendment providing that the medical officer should be bound to send his Report to the Local Government Board, and to send a copy also to the County Council, who might make such representation to the Local Government Board on the Report as they thought fit. He hardly thought that the Report should be submitted to the County Council first, because it might be that prompt action was necessary to be taken by the Local Government Board. He thought also that the County Council ought to have power to make such representations to the Local Government Board as they thought
      788
      necessary upon the Report, and he would take care that an Amendment to that effect was inserted.
      SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, and he thought that that would be a great improvement upon what he (Sir Lyon Playfair) suggested.
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, that it was the District Council who would be fined, and not the medical officer. It appeared to him that instead of the last words of the sub-section—namely,"and the Council shall pay the same into Her Majesty's Exchequer," they ought to insert the words "and the Council shall be empowered to deduct such sum from the medical officer's salary." He did not think they ought to punish the ratepayers, and at the same time to allow the medical officer to receive his salary.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could not altogether dissociate the District Council from the responsibility involved in the performance of his duties by the medical officer. It would certainly be unwise to leave it possible for the District Council to make a profit by the nonperformance of his duties by the medical officer.
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, he certainly thought the amount ought to be deducted from the salary of the medical officer.
      MR. BRUNNERasked, what he was to understand the President of the Local Government Board had agreed to? He quite agreed that the public health should be protected by the publication of these Returns; but he wanted to point out that a District Council was obliged to pay this salary, and having paid this salary they were to be fined for the laches on the part of the medical officer, against whom they were absolutely helpless. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should keep in his hands the power of dismissing the medical officer. There was certainly no possibility of the District Council making a profit.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had simply agreed to consider the question whether under the Bill the position of the County Council in this matter was a right and proper one. He would consider whether any injustice was done to any authority, and, if so, would endeavour to remedy it on Report.
      MR. HENEAGEasked, if the right hon. Gentleman would insert the words "shall be empowered to deduct such sum from the medical officer's salary," in lieu of the words "shall pay the same into Her Majesty's Exchequer," in line 7?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he preferred that the matter should remain as he had said.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. RANKINsaid, he desired to move his Amendment in a slightly altered form. The Amendment on the Paper only applied to the outdoor pauper lunatics; but in the form in which he desired to put the Amendment his proposition would apply to all pauper lunatics. In the altered form his Amendment would read—
      "They shall pay to the Guardians of every Poor Law Union wholly or partly in the county, or to the council of each borough in the county, not being a county borough, a sum not exceeding three shillings a-week, and in no case exceeding the actual relief granted, for each pauper lunatic chargeable to such Union, or to such borough who is certified to be a lunatic by a medical officer of health, or by the medical officer of the Union, and before payment of such grant by the county council, they shall require a certificate from a medical officer of health that such cases have been properly treated and cared for."
      Under this Bill the grant of 4s. per week for pauper lunatics in asylums was to be done away with, but it was re-created in exactly the same form, and he would state the objections he saw to that. In the year 1859 the number of pauper lunatics in the country was 31,401. In the asylums there were 17,640; in workhouses 7,963; and with relatives 5,798. In the year 1873, the year before the 4s. grant was given, there were in asylums 31,479; in work-houses 4,343; and with relatives 7,070. There was, no doubt, a large increase in the number of lunatics in asylums, and a large increase also in the number in workhouses. He did not say it was the case, but he had no doubt it was the case, that a much more strict treatment of pauper lunatics took place during this year. But he took another year for comparison—namely, the year 1887. In the year 1874 the 4s. grant to pauper lunatic asylums was given. Now, what did they find in 1887? In that year they found that there were 49,253 pau-
      790
      per lunatics in asylums, 17,381 in workhouses, and only 5,809 with relatives. That was to say, the percentage of pauper lunatics in asylums rose from 59·51 in 1873 to 67·99 in 1887; in workhouses there was a falling-off in the percentage from 27·12 to 23·99. The falling-off in the number of lunatics with relatives was from 13·37 in 1873 to 8·02 in 1887. His contention was that the 4s. grant which was paid for every pauper lunatic in an asylum had the tendency which it was obvious it would have—namely, of sending a great number of cases into asylums which probably were not cases for asylums at all. It was obvious from the figures he had given, and from the change in the percentages in the different treatment of the lunatics, that such was the case. Of course, the grant was originally made from Imperial taxation to assist local rates; but that now was not the case, and it would make very little difference to the Unions how they got it. His object in moving this Amendment was to do away with the inducement to the various Unions to send pauper lunatics to the asylums. Allow him to give figures in regard to the cost. He found that if the number of lunatics in asylums had increased in proportion to the increase of population, there would have been an increase between 1873 and 1887 of 6,485; but the excess over the due increase was actually 11,289. He found that the average cost per head in building asylums was £224, and that would produce an excess of cost in the building alone of these institutions of £2,464,000 since the year 1873. That, he thought, should be known to the ratepayers of the counties and Unions, so that they might see what a large cost this 4s. per head per week grant had been to the different Unions. He would also point out that the £110,000 for maintenance of asylum paupers was at least £10 per head more than it would have been had the paupers been in workhouses or otherwise treated. If to the £110,000 per annum they added the interest upon the £2,464,000, to which he had already referred, they got a sum of £184,000 spent every year, owing, as he believed, or, at all events, in a great measure owing to, the 4s. per head grant. Now, he had testimony, but he did not propose to adduce it, to show that, in the opinion of a great many competent authorities, many of

      791
      the cases which were sent to asylums could be perfectly well treated in workhouses, and according to many, too, could be perfectly well treated with their relatives. The cases of children of weak intellect, and the cases of old persons who were simply in their dotage, could be better treated by friends at their own homes. This grant was a premium to parents and relations to get rid of their unfortunate friends, to whom they owed a duty. If the grant were reduced as he proposed, and equal treatment meted out to the whole of the insane and pauper poor, that tendency, at all events, would be got rid of. He had been a visitor of asylums for a great many years, and he could speak from personal observation that there were numbers of cases in asylums which were not by any means cases which ought to be there. He, however, would not trouble the Committee with any further statistics on this point, but trusted that the Government would be able to accept his Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 20, leave out sub-section (d), (e), and (f), and insert "They shall pay to the guardians of every poor law union wholly or partly in the county, or to the council of each borough in the county, not being a county borough, a sum not exceeding three shillings a-week, and in no case exceeding the actual relief granted, for each pauper lunatic chargeable to such union or to such borough, who is certified to be a lunatic by a medical officer of health or by the medical officer of the union, and before payment of such grant by the county council, they shall require a certificate from a medical officer of health that such cases have been properly treated and cared for."—(Mr. Rankin.)
      Question proposed, "That Sub-section (d) stand part of the Clause."
      THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)said, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Rankin) argued that the present system, under which 4s. per week was paid for the maintenance of pauper lunatics, tended rather to increase their number, and thereby to increase expenditure. In the next place, the hon. Gentleman contended that paupers were sent into lunatic asylums who ought not to be sent, and whom it would be better to maintain in the workhouse or with their relatives. The Government were not prepared now to accept the proposal, which would interfere with existing arrangements and the
      792
      law under which these payments were made. The pauper lunatic asylums were very extensive properties of the various counties and large boroughs; and any proposal which would tend to interfere with the way in which they were at present managed, and not the purposes for which they were used, would be a dangerous one, and far too serious a one to be dealt with in an Amendment of this kind. Might he say one word in justification of the course they intended to follow in regard to this Amendment? He thought that anybody who was at all cognizant with the condition of the Poor Law in this country must be convinced that when any poor person, whether old or young, was so unfortunate as to be afflicted with weakness of intellect, they were infinitely better off not only on their own account, but on account of those among whom their lot was cast, if they were placed in an establishment built for the purpose of receiving them, and if they were attended by people who understood the management of their particular cases, and who were able to treat them with a very large amount of kindness, and able to apply to their cases, varying and difficult as they were, all that science could prescribe to relieve and, if possible, to cure them. He did not think his hon. Friend quite realized the true character of the boarding-out system. It was possible these poor, unfortunate creatures might be treated well during times of the day when their friends were able to keep an eye on them; but he asked any hon. Member of the Committee whether there must not be frequently times during the day when poor people were unable to exercise over their unfortunate relatives that supervision which ought to be exercised, and which was indispensable to proper treatment and care of these unfortunate people? He did not think that on grounds of economy, or of the humanity of the treatment of these people, it would be advisable to accept the Amendment.
      MR. C. T. DYKE ACLANDsaid, that agreeing as he did with the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, he asked the Government whether they could not go so far as to alter the words "equal to," in each of these sub-sections, to "not exceeding," so that the counties, if they had opinions in the direction of the

      793
      views of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rankin), would be able to deal with the cases which they had in their own county. There was no doubt whatever that the tendency of this grant during the last few years had been to produce a waste of public money. Certainly, that had been the experience in several counties in the West of England. Each county might deal with its own cases if the words "not exceeding" were inserted in place of "equal to," and the alteration would not necessitate any change of which the counties did not approve.
      MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, he would not do anything to increase the number of those unfortunate people who were kept outside asylums. A great number of pauper lunatics were capable of cure, but a cottage was no place for them. From the Reports sent up by the medical superintendents of the different lunatic asylums they saw that a very large proportion of people who were sent there were cured, if not permanently, certainly for a time. He differed from his hon. Friend (Mr. Rankin) in regard to the advisability of sending pauper lunatics to workhouses, in preference to asylums, on account of the cost. He believed there was no greater cruelty than to send these people to workhouses where there was no proper accommodation for their reception. It was cruelty to them, because their life was less tolerable and the chance of cure was very remote—it was cruelty also to the other people who had to associate with them, especially children.
      MR. ALLISONsaid, it was unfortunate that the Government did not seem disposed to make any concession. The system suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Rankin) was working satisfactorily in Scotland, and experienced medical men in the English lunatic asylums were very much in favour of extending the system to this country. He thought that everybody who visited lunatic asylums must know there were many people in those establishments who would be far better in their own homes, or in workhouses, or in quieter places than asylums usually were. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. Llewellyn) had alluded to the fact that these people were not so easily cured outside asylums; but there
      794
      were a great many cases of old people who were beyond all hope of cure. He was sure that such people would he equally well off in their own homes, or in properly arranged wards of Union workhouses. He earnestly hoped that some concession might be made to them in this matter, as he thought it would be very unfortunate to stereotype the present expensive system by anything contained in the Bill.
      MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it now stood. The observations which he had been able to make of the treatment of patients in lunatic asylums inclined him to favour the collection of these unhappy people in such institutions, where they could have the best advice, where they could enjoy recreation in the open air, and where in the long winter nights they could be supplied with such amusements as their poor capacities enabled them to enjoy. Some reference was made to the economy of keeping patients in workhouses. In his opinion it was most cruel economy. In workhouses patients did not receive the treatment to which they were entitled. If they were to have the treatment which their cases required it was far more expensive in workhouses where only a few were collected. Then reference was made to the treatment of the afflicted poor by their relatives in their own homes. He confessed that if there had been one reform more valuable than another during the last few years it was the removal from our towns and villages of the silly imbecile creatures who had been the sport of the boys and young people in their respective communities. The old condition of affairs was a disgrace to the country, and he rejoiced at the removal of these unfortunate people, in some cases to the workhouse, and in other cases to the central asylums, where they received the best treatment which science, and skill, and care could confer upon them. He trusted the Government would adhere to these provisions, because he believed they were beneficent in the interest of the patients, and also in the interest of the entire community.
      MR. RANKINsaid, he did not propose that cases which would beneficially be sent to asylums should not be sent to asylums. He only proposed that there should be equal treatment, so that no

      795
      inducement should be given to send those who could be better treated out of asylums into asylums. He maintained that there were many cases which could be treated much better out of asylums. Curable cases, undoubtedly, ought to be sent to asylums, but there were hundreds of cases which were not curable and which might be treated much more happily and more comfortably for the lunatic outside of the asylum. He trusted that if the Government could not see their way to accept his Amendment, they would, at all events, accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Launceston Division of Cornwall (Mr. C. T. Dyke Acland), by which County Councils would have the power to reduce the amount if they thought fit.
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not yield to the request of the hon. Member for the Launceston Division of Cornwall (Mr. C. T. Dyke Acland), because the only effect would be that if they chose County Councils could starve the lunatics in order to get them taken home. That would be to the disadvantage of the lunatics themselves, and it certainly would be to the disadvantage of the safety of the general public. If the lunatics were sent to the towns and villages, the police force would have to be increased, and the money saved in one direction would be expended in another.
      MR. BRUNNERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rankin) had advocated the dismissal from lunatic asylums of all incurable cases. He (Mr. Brunner) had been extremely grieved to see several incurable cases of young women in his own neighbourhood turn out most disastrously. These poor creatures had been the prey of every scoundrel in the neighbourhood. Here were the very cases which ought to be sent to the asylum.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked why his right hon. Friend had put in the clause, "clerks of assize and their officers?" Clerks of Assize had never been paid out of the county funds. They were appointed by the Judges, and they had nothing on earth to do with county matters excepting at the Assize, when
      796
      the whole of the expenses were paid out of Imperial funds, and he protested strongly against an endeavour to place more burdens on local rates. He moved the omission of the words.
      Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 26, to leave out the words "clerks of assize and their officers."— (Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought that this was one of those matters which might very fairly be left to the County Council, seeing that the County Council were to be given considerable revenue.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid that they might just as well be asked to pay the Judges.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the Amendment. These were expenses which ought to be under the control of Parliament.
      MR. FIRTHsaid that the salaries of the officers of the Central Criminal Court were in exactly the same position.
      MR. F. S. POWELLsuggested that the hon. and gallant Baronet should withdraw his Amendment, and that they should omit the whole of Sub-section (k).
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Wigan. He had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect as the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, but he did not move it, because he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would accept any Amendment coming from the quarter of the House in which he sat.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present, and he was unwilling to agree to the omission of the sub-section until he had consulted with his right hon. Friend. If he agreed to the omission he would reserve to himself the right to reinstate it on Report if he saw reason to do so.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, it would be as well that the right hon. Gentleman should make himself familiar with all the details of the Bill, so that he would not be under the necessity of postponing any

      797
      matter until he consulted the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 21, leave out from the word "and" to the end of line 30, inclusive.— (MR. F. S. Powell.)
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      MR. FIRTHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of having the clause so framed that it would apply to London?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to reserve any discussion on the subject until they reached the London Clauses.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause 24 (As to Secretary of State's power respecting efficiency of police).
      MR. BRUNNER MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich), in moving to leave out the words "numbers and," in line 8, said, the clause as it now stood provided that if the Secretary of State considered that the police of any county had not been maintained in a state of efficiency as regarded numbers and discipline—
      "He may order the council of that county to place the force in a state of efficiency in the manner mentioned in the order."
      His desire was that, as regarded the number of the police, full authority should be placed in the hands of the County Council. He believed, and was prepared to argue, that the County Councils might be trusted to maintain their police in efficiency in every respect. He maintained that if the County Councils, by judicious action, by kindly consideration towards the people over whom it ruled, brought the people into such an orderly state that they gave the authorities little trouble, that there was very little crime in the county, the Council ought to get the benefit of such a condition of things by a reduction in the numbers of the police. Surely the first virtue of a Governing Body was so to rule its people that little or no force need be used in governing. When they got a County Council who ruled its
      798
      people so that it needed few police, it would be wrong to allow the Secretary of State to come down upon it, and say—"You must have more police." The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) had been in conflict with some of the boroughs of Yorkshire on this point, and he (Mr. Brunner) was very strongly on the side of the boroughs against the right hon. Gentleman, because he considered they were far more fitted to decide how many police they should have than the Secretary of State was. He was perfectly aware the Secretary of State did not decide these matters; it was the permanent officials at the Home Office; but in the counties of Lancashire and Cheshire, with which he was specially acquainted, he could find dozens of men who were far better fitted to decide this question than any permanent officials at the Home Office.
      Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 8, leave out "numbers and."—(Mr. Brunner.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid, he wished to point out that the Amendment was objectionable, for the reason that it would give the Secretary of State no general authority over the police. In Lancashire there would be about 14 independent bodies of police, and, unless the authority of the Secretary of State was maintained, there would be no getting these bodies to act in common.
      MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, he should support the Amendment, because surely the representatives of intelligence and property in a county would be best able to judge of the question as to how many police were required in that county than the Secretary of State. The County Councils, to his mind, would be a much better authority to lay down what the numbers of the various police forces which were required in their localities should be. If they decentralized at all let them decentralize in this direction.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, the observations of the hon. Member proved too much, for, if he was right in his con-

      799
      tention, the same would have to be said of boroughs. His experience, during his short tenure at the Home Office, had been that the operation of that Department in connection with the police forces of the country had been, not in the direction of raising the numbers, but distinctly in the direction of keeping the numbers down. The chief difficulty that the Home Office had to deal with in connection with the borough police was the demand which the Local Authorities were continually making for an increase in their local police forces. The people who lived in the various localities seemed to be always desirous of increasing their police forces, and the authority of the Home Office had hitherto been exercised almost universally in the direction of retrenchment. He could not recall a single instance where the action of the Secretary of State had been in the direction of increasing the number, unless the application had come from a recently extended and very thickly populated district. It was always customary to subject the Local Authorities who proposed to increase their police force to a very rigid cross-examination in order to discover whether the proposed development of the police force was really necessary. In his opinion, it would be most dangerous, from an economical point of view, to place a power to increase the number of the force in the hands of the County Councils.
      MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, they must not assume that the boroughs were quite content with the existing arrangements, and he must say he hoped the Government would yield to the representations of the bon. Member for the Northwich Division of Cheshire (Mr. Brunner), and would eliminate these words from the Bill. He thought that, on the whole, the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) rather tended in that direction, for he said that the Home Office, in any representation that they had had from Local Authorities on this matter, had generally been urged in the direction of an increase in the force. But such an increase was one which could only take place at the expense of the ratepayers; and it might be argued from that that the Local Authorities might, with perfect
      800
      safety, be intrusted with the management of this question. They would not be likely, from motives of economy, or from any other motive, to run the number of police down to a point below safety. And there was another matter in connection with this subject which he thought the Committee ought to bear in mind, and that was that the Home Office was necessarily on this question very much in the hands of the Inspectors of Police. An Inspector of Police reported in a certain case that the number of the police force was too low. The Watch Committee of the Town Council, on the other hand, might say that the number was sufficient for the purpose; and the Home Office, acting upon the Report of this Inspector, compelled the Local Authority, against its own judgment, to increase the number of police, for, usually speaking, they were guided by the opinion of the Inspector, and the result was that the view of one individual was allowed to override the opinion of the Local Authorities, and to force the Local Authorities into an expenditure which they themselves thought they ought not to bear. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would resist the Amendment of the hon. Member.
      MR. ADDISONsaid, he would ask the Committee to look at the position in which they would be placed if this Amendment were carried. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be intrusted with the power of seeing that the police forces in the country were maintained in a state of efficiency and discipline, but would leave them no authority in deciding the question as to the numbers which should constitute the forces. Now, it appeared to him that one of the most important conditions of efficiency, as far as the police were concerned, was that it should not be deficient in numbers, because, however able and disciplined the men might be, the force could not be said to be efficient if, numerically speaking, it was too weak for the duties it had to discharge. He would appeal to the experience of hon. Members opposite, who were members of Watch Committees, or who had ever been connected with Watch Committees, to say whether those Bodies were not thoroughly satisfied with the super-

      801
      vision of the Home Secretary in regard to this question of police?
      MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, that he had been twice Mayor of Bath, and from his experience in connection with that municipality, he was in a position to say that on more than one occasion the Home Office had endeavoured to increase the number of local police in that city. He was, at any rate, under that impression. To his mind, the decision of the numbers of the police forces would be better left to the discretion of the County Authorities. If they did not trust these Authorities, they ought not to create them; but if they were going to create them, at any rate they should show confidence in them by giving them this power.
      MR. W. SIDEBOTTOMsaid, he hoped the Government would accede to the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had said that he did not know an instance where the number of the police had been increased by the action of the Home Office. There might be no case where the number of the police had been increased by the direct action of the Home Office; but he (Mr. W. Sidebottom) could give a case where the number of men had been increased in consequence of the action of the Inspector of Police, and this was in the borough which formed part of the constituency he represented, and with which he had had the honour of being connected as Mayor. The Inspector of Police in that district had informed the Watch Committee that if the number of police was not increased so as to have one policeman for every 1,000 of population, he would be obliged to report to the Home Office that the force was numerically inefficient. In some districts no doubt, one policeman to 1,000 of population was the correct number to employ, but in other districts one per 1,000 was more than the requirements of the case necessitated in the opinion of those best able to judge, as the crime in some localities was so much greater than in others. He could only say that he thought the County Councils would be perfectly competent to decide on the question of the number of police without reference to the Home Office. Seeing that this Bill was said to be a measure of decentralization he thought it would
      802
      be unwise to maintain a system of centralization in connection with the police, and to keep the control over these Bodies in the hands of the Central Department.
      MR. KENRICKsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department contended that the Home Office rarely forced police upon boroughs against the judgment of the Watch Committees. Well, that might be so; indeed, he believed it was, and for this reason—large boroughs were generally allowed to have their own way in these matters; but as the object of this Bill was to confer powers upon newly created Bodies, he thought the Committee would make a fatal mistake if they showed distrust of these new Bodies, and acted as though their judgment was not to be relied upon. If they were to make the County Councils a success, it was necessary, in the first place, that they should repose some trust and confidence in them. Any attempt of this kind to limit their authority and their discretion would be a great mistake. Having regard to that which they all desired—namely, the success of this measure when it came into operation, it must be obvious to everyone that a local body such as a County Council would be more familiar with the local conditions of a certain district than the Government or any Inspector of Police sent over by the Local Government Board could be.
      An hon. MEMBER: The Home Office and the Local Government Board.
      MR. KENRICK: Well, it must be obvious that the County Councils would know more about the police requirements of their district than any official of the Home Office. The condition of certain districts, as had already been pointed out in the course of this discussion, varied very considerably. It would be a great mistake, for instance, if the Watch Committee of Birmingham were compelled to keep up a police force equal to that of Liverpool, as the conditions of the two towns were wholly different, and as the character of the populations was not the same. He spoke from his own experience in the matter, and he submitted that the Inspectors were nearly always in favour of the adoption of a cut and dried rule—of a system to be applied to all Watch Committees in all

      803
      parts of the country. That, to his mind, was a very objectionable policy; and although it might be true that it had not been applied to many boroughs in the country, that was owing to the fact that these boroughs were large and important, and had been able to get their own way.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that the whole question now under consideration was this—whether or not the Central Government were to be responsible in any degree for the maintenance and efficiency of the police. That really was the whole question, for it would be absurd to make the Home Office responsible for the efficiency and the discipline of the Body over whose numbers they had no control. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Brunner) was not to leave out the whole clause—not to strike out the responsibility of the Home Office with reference to the maintenance and efficiency of the police—but only to take from them all responsibility as to the numbers of the police force in the various districts throughout the country. Now, he (Mr. Ritchie) maintained that there was really nothing between leaving out the whole clause and striking out this provision. The effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would clearly be to do away with all responsibility attaching to the Home Office. The Central Government acted on this question of the efficiency of the police throughout the whole country, and the present Amendment simply had reference to the authority of the Home Office as against that of the County Council—because, as the hon. Member very well knew, the power which the Amendment would take away from the Central Department was one which was now exercised throughout the whole of the boroughs. It was a far reaching Amendment, and the Committee should weigh very carefully what it was proposed to do before they assented to a suggestion depriving the Home Secretary of any power in connection with the numbers of the police, which really meant any power in connection with its efficiency. The Government maintained that the efficiency of the police was much more than a local concern, and that view had always been maintained even by the most advanced Radicals. In past times, no one held
      804
      that view more strongly than John Stuart Mill. If the hon. Member who moved this Amendment would study the writings of that great political economist, he would find that there was nothing upon which greater stress was laid than the maintenance of a central control over the police. John Stuart Mill then went so far as to advocate that the police force should not be a local force at all, but an Imperial force throughout the country. Well, the Government would be sorry to make any such proposal as that. They were not making a new proposal at all on the present occasion when they said that that which existed in every borough in the Kingdom should continue to exist in the counties under the Bill creating new County Authorities. They maintained that if there was to be any change in the relations between the Central Government and the police of the country, the alteration should be made by means of a general Bill which could be discussed in all its bearings. The police should certainly not be made the means of an Amendment of a clause. He therefore hoped the Committee would not consent to the Amendment, which really meant the striking out of the whole clause.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that this clause was really are-enactment of what existed before, he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had not liked to contradict him. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken with good authority at his elbow; but the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the clause contained words to this effect—that if the Secretary of State considered that the police of any county had not been maintained in a state of efficiency, in point of numbers and discipline, he might order the Council to place the force in a state of efficiency in the manner mentioned in the Order, and then came the material words
      "And it shall be the duty of the county council and of the standing joint committee of the county council and quarter sessions to comply with the requirements of the order, and such compliance may be enforced by writ of mandamus."
      Now, were the Committee to understand that the Home Secretary possessed any

      805
      such power as this at the present time? Could he go to Birmingham, for instance, and say to the Local Authorities there,—"You shall have a certain number of police, and if you do not comply with my order I will enforce compliance by a writ of mandamus?"
      MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he would say—"If you do not comply we will withdraw the grant."
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he knew that the grant could be withdrawn, and he would come to that point directly.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that his observations had been restricted to the Amendment.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that anyone would have assumed, from the statements they had heard from the Front Ministerial Bench, that there was a power in the Central Authority for controlling the police of the country, and that obviously it would be wrong in such a Bill as this and in such a way as that proposed to alter that power; but he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) did not understand the matter in that way at all. He did not think that under the present law power was vested in the Central Authority for controlling the police of the Kingdom. As he understood the law at present, the Council and Borough Authorities had absolute control as to the number of police they might see fit to employ. Parliament, however, came forward and said—"We will give you half the cost of your police provided you comply with our views as to its efficiency; if you choose to go without that grant you may have as few police as you like." But there was no power in the Central Authority to enforce its desire by means of a "writ of mandamus." In that respect this clause was creating a new power altogether. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said he had no experience at the Home Office of any attempt to force upon local Governing Bodies the employment of a larger number of police than those Bodies thought requisite. Well, he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) could say this, that prior to the time when his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was at the head of that Department, the tendency was to enforce a larger number of police than was wanted upon Local Authorities. The Home Office, for in-
      806
      stance, was of opinion that Birmingham should have more police than Birmingham itself thought it wanted. A Police Inspector—and these officials were really the authorities in this matter, for the Home Office acted entirely upon their recommendation—reported that Birmingham should have more police; but Birmingham rebelled against the opinion of the Home Office, and having a distinguished Representative in the House, who could look well after its interests, the town eventually had its own way. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) was prepared to concede to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it was desirable that there should be a Central Authority with respect to the efficiency of the police. He thought also that that control should exist in counties as well as in boroughs. But what was objected to was counties and boroughs being compelled to subordinate their own local knowledge of their requirements as to the number of police to the opinion of gentlemen in London. Unless the right hon. Gentleman omitted the words in the clause giving the Home Secretary control of the police "in point of numbers," he should support the Amendment.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; the Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
      CAPTAIN COTTONsaid, it was perfectly impossible that the question of the efficiency of the police could be kept separate from that of the numbers of the force. The efficiency of the police included both their numbers and their discipline, and the two points must go together. He hoped the Government would stick to their guns, and not assent to the introduction of such an anomaly as would be created by the adoption of the Amendment, the effect of which would be to bring about endless confusion.
      MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he desired to say a few words in answer to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). He thought the right hon. Gentleman would find, if he looked into the matter, that under the Statute 2 & 3 Vict. relating to the county police, the number of the force was not left to the discretion of the Justices. The 1st section of that Statute enacted that the Justices might,

      807
      in the first instance, declare by report in writing to the Secretary of State how many constables were required for the preservation of the peace, the protection of inhabitants, and the security of property, but such number of constables should not be more than one man for every 1,000 of the population. The next section stated that it should be lawful for the Justices, with the consent of the Secretary of State, from time to time, to increase or diminish the number of constables; so that the County Justices had not the power of varying the number without the consent of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had pointed out that the existing law did not make provision for the Home Secretary to enforce compliance with his order by a writ of mandamus, and he (Mr. Matthews) was not sure whether the mandamus would lie if the Justices increased or diminished the force without the consent of the Secretary of State; but there was no doubt some process by which they could be made to obey the law. By the Statute of the 19 & 20 Vict. the Government grant for the maintenance of the police could not be paid except upon a certificate of the Secretary of State that the force was efficient in point of numbers and of discipline. Therefore, the provisions of the present Bill were exactly analogous to the Act which applied when the county police were in the hands of the County Justices. It could not be said that the Government were showing want of confidence in the County Councils. Therefore, he submitted that the preservation of law and order was not a matter of Local Option, but should be left in some degree under the control of the Central Authority.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, he could not agree that the present Bill left the law precisely the same as it was under the 19 & 20 Vict. By Section 15 of the 19 & 20 Vict. it was lawful for the Government to appoint three Inspectors to visit and inquire into the state and efficiency of the police, and in that section the word "number" did not occur. Then they come to Section 16, which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had read, and there they found it stated that a certificate from the Secretary of State was required to the effect that the police were maintained in a state of efficiency in order that the Government
      808
      contribution might be obtained, and there the word "number" appeared. What, therefore, he said was, if they did did not go further than that Act, and they ought not to go further than that Act, they would not require this sub-section at all. The 1st sub-section of this clause said that if the Secretary of State did not consider the county police maintained in a state of efficiency in point of numbers and discipline, he might order the County Council to place them in such a state of efficiency, and if the County Council did not comply with his order he might enforce compliance by writ of mandamus. The Government had gone out of their way to claim this new power. He (Mr. Stansfeld) was not lawyer enough to say whether this new power in the shape of a mandamus would apply when the existing law already provided a remedy without this enactment, that remedy being the refusal of the Government contribution if the police force was not maintained in a state of efficiency satisfactory to the Home Office. He could not say whether that power would exclude the mandamus, but he trusted, at any rate, that Sub-section 8 would be altogether omitted.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)said, he should like to point out that the intention of the older Act was that on the question of numbers there should in every case be a reference to the Secretary of State. He (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) had been responsible for the administration of that grant in aid, subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State, for some time, and whenever applications for grants in aid were made, it had been his practice to make inquiries as to the numbers and efficiency of the police. The only occasions on which the power of withdrawing the Government grant had been threatened to be used had not borne directly upon the question at issue, but had had reference in one case to the condition of places in a county in which people were confined awaiting trial, and had had reference in another case to the refusal of a borough to dismiss a Head Constable who had been proved to be addicted to habits of intemperance.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, the Government had shown that they felt this power contained is this sub-section to

      809
      be unnecessary, because both the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State of this Department had told them that, in their experience, they had never known a case in which the Home Office had insisted upon an increase of the numbers of the police.
      MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Such a case has not occurred for the last three years.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, that if that were so, and the Government had had no experience of insisting upon an increase of the number of the police, what did they mean by introducing this sub-section, seeing that in the other sub-sections they continued the powers which already gave him control over the efficiency of the police, who were under the management of the County Justices. It seemed to him that the first sub-section of the clause was unnecessary, on the statement of the Secretary of State and the Under Secretary of State.
      MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, he did not propose to follow right hon. Gentlemen who had lately spoken in their interpretations of the law, but it seemed to him that no answer had been given by the Government to the objections which had been raised to the enlargement of the powers of the Home Office. And that seemed to him to be one of those most important points which were constantly being raised in connection with that most ponderous Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had said time after time that the basis of the Bill was trust in the people who would form the County Councils; but he (Mr. J. E. Ellis) contended that that was another instance which went to show beyond all doubt that the Government did not trust the people. The people of the localities, he contended, had a great deal more interest in the preservation of law and order in their districts than could possibly be taken in the matter by anyone in London. But it almost seemed to him that the system of bribing localities—for it was nothing else—to surrender powers which they could exercise most fitly by offering them money if they would give the Home Office the control over the numbers and efficiency of the police, was a most pernicious one. The Quarter Sessions in the division he had the honour
      810
      to represent had a Chief Constable who came before them last year, and applied for an increase in the number of police. The proposal was one of very doubtful expediency, and a committee was appointed to inquire into the matter, the result being that the suggestion, at any rate to the extent to which it was made, had not been carried out. The Home Office, acting upon the advice of their Inspector, thought that the number of police should be increased in the county of Nottingham; but the County Magistrates did not think so, and they refused to adopt the suggestion of the Inspector, in spite of all sorts of threats of pains and penalties if they did not give way. He very much doubted whether the Inspector had any right to introduce the name of the Home Office on that occasion; but he had done so, and that sort of thing took place all over the country. This was one of the evils of the present subsidized police system. An ex-military officer was appointed as Chief Constable, and necessarily viewed the situation largely from a military point of view, and this official put himself into communication with the Inspector under the Central Department, who, in all probability, was also an ex-military officer. In this way, the police in certain localities were very frequently increased, in spite of the views of the Governing Authorities in those localities. The Public Departments were full of Inspectors who were constantly making recommendations, although, as a general rule, they knew very little about the condition of the localities to which those recommendations applied.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he did not propose to go into the question as to whether the Home Office or any other Central Department could exercise control over the police, as that question, he thought, could be more properly raised on the Amendment in his (Mr. Conybeare's) name, to reject the whole of the clause. The only argument, so far as he had been able to gather, in listening to this debate, which had been advanced by the Home Secretary and his Colleagues on the Front Ministerial Bench, was that the influence of the Home Office had always been exercised in the direction of diminishing the police force. Well, so far as that was a matter of fact, it was doubted and denied by very good

      811
      authorities sitting opposite to those right hon. Gentlemen. But, supposing it were the case, as stated by the Home Secretary, he (Mr. Conybeare) did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman, or any of his Colleagues, insisted upon the retention of this power on the ground that it was essential to the safety of Her Majesty's subjects; but the right hon. Gentleman had been careful to explain to them that it was owing to that anxiety they had in the interests of the ratepayers and the protection of the rates. Well, to his (Mr. Conybeare's) mind, the ratepayers were quite able to look after their own pockets, and would satisfactorily exhibit their power in that respect if the control of the police were left in their hands. He protested against the ratepayers being under the thumb of ex-military officers in police matters, and was, in fact, totally opposed to any Central Authority having power in this matter.
      MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought they should recollect that, hitherto, there had been some check on the Home Secretary in the direction of compelling the Local Authorities to do what he thought right in regard to increasing the police, because half the expense of maintaining the force had been paid by the State, and if the police were increased in a particular place, it would of necessity entail increased expenditure on the part of the State. But, in future, that check would be removed as the whole of the cost would be defrayed by the localties. He thought the Committee ought to be very careful not to enlarge the powers of the Home Secretary, so as to enable him to increase the numbers of the police. It appeared to him that the clause, as now drawn, would increase the authority of the Secretary of State, and give him greater power either to induce or compel Local Authorities to adopt the recommendations of his Inspectors.
      MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he thought the fears of right hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the control of the Secretary of State in this matter were somewhat without reason. It was only the other day that they had a long discussion as to the Charity Commissioners. That was not a question of voting money for the purposes of that Commission, but of the reduction of the grant
      812
      for the payment of the Chief Commissioner, and if the question of the payment of the Chief Commissioner could occupy the House during the whole Sitting on the mere question of administration as to the question of a school here and there, he was quite sure that any complaint which anyone might have of the manner in which the Home Secretary discharged his functions under this clause would occupy the attention of the House for no less a period when the question of the police administration came before them in Committee of Supply. Therefore, he thought the control of the Home Secretary might be regarded as sufficient and complete. But he thought they should not lose sight of the fact that the police in a country like England, where people were constantly passing to and fro, and various districts were constantly in communication with each other, was really a national question, though there doubtless might be a local element to be considered in the management. If there were any weakness on the part of the police force in any county, or any deficiency, those extremely busy men who were active all over the country—namely, the criminal class, would soon find out that weakness or deficiency, and the result would very soon be an increase of crime in that unfortunate locality. He thought the localities would obtain great advantage from the experience of a Central Department which had the opportunity of watching the general progress of these matters, and comparing the conditions of various districts, and would be, therefore, in a position to give solid advice to the localities as to the administration of the police force. He thought it would be a great act of unwisdom if this experience of a Central Department were thrown aside, and if the police were left to be managed by the accident of local feeling from time to time. He had confidence in the Local Authorities, and he had often expressed that confidence in the course of these debates; but because he felt that confidence, it did not follow, as a matter of course, that he thought there was no value in the experience gained by the Central Office in the many opportunities they had of watching events separated both by space and by time. They must remember that not long ago the management of the gaols was regarded as a local

      813
      business, the county magistrates having entire command of them. A change was made in this matter, however, and he confessed that it was to him and to most Members on that (the Conservative) side of the House a most distasteful change. But the alteration was effected, and he believed now that no one would agree to go back to the system of managing gaols which prevailed originally. They had centralized in that matter, and he believed with very good effect. Though he did not desire to increase centralization in regard to the police, he believed that what they had done in the matter of gaols might be some guide to them in this matter also, and might be a warning to them not altogether to decentralize and throw away the advantages which might be derived from the experience of a Central Department having control over the police. He hoped, on the whole, that the Committee would stand fast and retain the clause as it now stood.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he thought the Government, after the speech they had just heard, might well say, "Save us from our friends." The Government contended that they were re-enacting the law as it stood; whereas the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. S. Powell) had been defending, on broad and general principles, an assimilation of the arrangements as to the police force, similar to that which existed in the matter of gaols.
      MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that all he contended was that, seeing that they had adopted a system of centralization in connection with gaols without any bad affect, they should not fear the retention of a certain amount of centralization in connection with the police. He was not at all praying for mere centralization.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he did not think he could admit that the change in regard to the centralization, so far as the gaols were concerned, had been such a decided success as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. Let them see what the present law was with regard to the control of the police. In the counties, the original number of the county police had been fixed by the Quarter Sessions with the approval of the Home Secretary, and it was not in the power of the Quarter Sessions either to increase or diminish that number without the
      814
      consent of the Home Secretary. If the Home Secretary was of opinion that the force ought to be increased, or if he was of opinion that the force ought to be decreased, he had no power whatever to compel the Quarter Sessions to adopt his views; his only remedy, so to speak, would be to withhold the Government grant which had been entirely on the Home Secretary's certificate. If the Home Secretary's certificate was withheld, it of course implied a forfeiture of the grant itself. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would, therefore, see that the County Authorities possessed an independent control over the police. In boroughs, under the provisions of the Act of 1882, which was a Consolidating Act, it was provided that the Watch Committee should, from time to time, appoint a sufficient number of fit men to be borough constables. There was no control whatever given to the Central Authority over the Watch Committees; there was not even an instruction laid down as to one man for a thousand of population to guide them, The Watch Committee were, therefore, independent as to the number of police they thought necessary for the protection of the borough; but, of course, the grant to the boroughs was subjected to the same conditions as that of the counties, and in that way, if the Home Office was dissatisfied with the action of a borough Watch Committee, it withdrew its consent to the payment of the Government grant. They came, therefore, back to this—that the control of the Home Office really consisted in its power to withhold the grant. Well, but the clause went much further. No one wanted to diminish the control which at present existed; but a new provision altogether was put in to the effect that the Home Secretary was to have absolute power. not only as to efficiency, not only as to discipline, but as to numbers. If the Home Secretary was of opinion that any borough or county had not a sufficient—[Mr. MATTHEWS: Not borough, but county]—Under a subsequent section boroughs were made counties, and this provision would apply to all such boroughs as Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds, as much as to Lancashire and Yorkshire. If the Home Secretary was of opinion that a borough or county had not a sufficient number of police, the clause not only contemplated

      815
      the withholding of the grant, but it enabled the Home Secretary to enforce his view by a writ of mandamus. That was a great alteration. This management of the police was a matter which had always been under the control of the boroughs; but they were now, it seemed, going to give the Court of Queen's Bench power to go into the boroughs at the instance of the Secretary of State to order that borough to increase its police force. He did not think that should be done in this Bill. He admitted that the Question was a very difficult one. The existing system had worked well. The Secretary of State had never been able to get up in that House and state that such and such county, or such and such borough, had an insufficient number of police. He submitted that the clause was introducing a very radical change into the existing law, for which no case had been made out. He would ask the Government to reconsider their position, and would support the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), that Sub-section (1) was not necessary at all, and that ample protection would be given under Sub-section (2).
      MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, that before the Government put their foot down finally, he hoped they would take into full consideration the argument just now urged. This Amendment was not proposed from the point of view of desiring an alteration in the existing law, but from the point of view of desiring that the existing administration should not be more centralized. The Government had proposed—on that (the Opposition) side of the House, they thought quite unnecessarily—a change conferring on the Home Secretary greater power than he possessed at that moment. They did that concomitantly with giving a larger control over the police to the people generally through the Committee of the Body elected by them; and surely when they were giving this larger control to the ratepayers generally, that was not the time at which to increase the central control; for what was the great guarantee to them for a well-conducted police force, if it were not that they were now about to constitute a representative body to control them? Hon. Gentlemen opposite
      816
      had spoken as though there was some danger involved in this, as if a popular Body would be less likely to desire the preservation of law and order and safe living, if he might so say, than the smaller non-representative Body, the Court of Quarter Sessions. On the contrary, they on that (the Opposition) side of the House were deeply and really impressed with the belief that they would have more care taken of the police force, and would be more safe, and would have greater confidence in the police now that the control of the force was vested in a representative Body; more than it was before, and now that there would be less reason to introduce the interference of the Home Secretary than formerly. Let him recall what, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was much better acquainted with than he was—namely, the historical origin of this interference of the Home Office in the management of the police. The origin was not any expressed desire of the Home Office to interfere, but the fact that the Local Bodies were not able or willing to accept the responsibility of the whole maintenance and efficiency of the police, consequently a grant was made to them from the Consolidated Fund, in return for which a certain amount of control was rightly claimed by the Central Body. That grant was for the pay and clothing of the police, and it was really in connection with that pay and clothing that the Home Secretary's power of interference was established. He sincerely hoped that right hon. Gentlemen opposite would reconsider this subject, and would not unnecessarily introduce new matter into the Bill, which would only delay a measure which they and the Opposition were equally extremely desirous of seeing become law. He trusted that the Government would leave the matter as it now stood.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he understood the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) to be that Sub-section l should be omitted, which would leave the matter as it now stood so far as the Home Secretary was concerned. Well, the Government were prepared to accept that suggestion, and to omit the sub-section, leaving the law as it stood.
      MR. BRUNNERsaid, that, under the circumstances, he would withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrwn.
      On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, sub-section (1) struck out of the Clause.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he could not allow the opportunity to pass without recording his protest against the policy of the clause. Some of them felt very strongly that it was a great mistake that the Central Authority of the Home Office should have any control over the police. The omission of the subsection which had just taken place would leave the powers of the Home Secretary exactly as they were at present; but their desire was not to leave them as they were, but to take every opportunity of doing away with his powers in respect of the local police. The particular principle upon which he took his stand, and would be prepared to argue the question at length, was that to place this matter in the hands of a Central Authority at the Home Office was to introduce an unconstitutional practice. Because it placed under the control of and at the disposition of the Government of the day a new armed force, or standing Army, in the shape of the police. The police had at various times been regulated by law, and therefore he could not say that that principle was illegal. But he held that it was distinctly unconstitutional, and had been the cause of much of the mischief which had occurred in Ireland and also in London. They were prepared to fight for the omission of the whole clause; and it was only because of the important concession which the right hon. Gentleman had made that he refrained from moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 25 (Grant by county council towards maintenance of indoor paupers).
      MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, when he gave Notice of an Amendment to exclude London from the provisions for the different Unions, the President of the Local Government Board had not given Notice of the Amendment now on the Paper for the distribution of the grant according to the number of indoor paupers. Fivepence a-head was already given to
      818
      every Union in London for each indoor pauper, in addition to the 4d. that was to be granted under the Bill. It seemed to him, therefore, that the application of this money was not a wise one. But the right hon. Gentleman had given Notice of an Amendment providing for the distribution according to the number of outdoor paupers, and had thus removed the original objection which he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had to the clause. But, on the other hand, his proposal introduced matters which were also objectionable, inasmuch as he had stereotyped the contribution made by the Council of London to the Unions according to the number of indoor paupers which might exist at the time of the passing of the Act in London. He need not remind the Committee that there was a very great difference in the expenditure upon indoor paupers and outdoor paupers in the various parishes in London. Stepney, St. George's-in-the-East, and Mile End expended on outdoor paupers almost nothing. There were in Stepney only 218 outdoor paupers, and only 192 in St. George's-in-the-East, and so on. On the other hand, in some parishes the expenditure on outdoor paupers was very considerable. The proposal of the Government appeared to stereotype the grant to the various Unions in proportion to the existing number of paupers in London, and without regard to particular parishes increasing in population, and that seemed to him altogether unsound in principle as well as unjust. He, therefore, proposed to except London from the provisions of the clause. The Committee would observe an Amendment lower down on the Paper pointing out what he wished should be done in the case of London. He proposed that the whole contribution to the county of London out of the Probate Duty, including not only the two-thirds now proposed to be given in the shape of 4d. every day for indoor paupers, but also the one-third to be distributed according to the rateable value, should be distributed according to population, and not according to the number of indoor paupers. The effect of the proposal would be to somewhat improve the position of the populous parishes, in which there was a very large amount of pauperism. He had made a short calculation, and under the proposal of the Bill he found that Hackney would re-

      819
      ceive about £18,000, whereas upon the proposal based upon population it would get £28,000, or an increase of £10,000 for that parish alone. In Lambeth parish, under the Bill, the contribution would be £26,000; under his proposal £32,000. The City of London, on the other hand, would get £32,000, of which £9,600 would be the contribution for indoor paupers, and £22,000 on the rateable value, whereas his proposal would give the City of London only £10,500; and considering that pauperism there was not very great, that appeared to him to be a fair sum. And the same might be said with regard to the Strand. Under the Bill, the City of London would practically receive in respect of rateable value £32,000; whereas on the principle of population, the proportion of the City would be only £7,500, making a difference of £24,500. That amount would be divided among the poorer parishes, and thus the richer parishes might lose some money under his proposal; but the difference would be divided among those poorer parishes which had a large population, and consequently more pauperism. His proposal appeared to him to offer a fair basis of settlement, and was not open to the complaint which stereotyped the grant which had to be made out of the Probate Duty to the different Unions according to the number of paupers which existed at the time. That basis appeared to him to be thoroughly unsound, because it made no account of the varying conditions of the different parishes in London, or the increasing population from time to time of some of the outside parishes.
      Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 40, after the words "county council," to insert the words "with the exception of the county council of London."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the right hon. Gentleman had asserted that the cost of maintaining the indoor poor in London was very much less than the amount which would be received by the Union, if they were to receive 4d. for each pauper in addition to the 5d. which they already received. Instead of 6d. being the cost of the indoor pauper in
      820
      London, it was 7 3/10 d.; the cost of loans was 3 6/10 d., and other matters 5 1/10 d.; in all, 1s. 4d. a-day. The right hon. Gentleman would see that the actual cost of maintenance was 7 3/10 d., and he would also know that it was impossible to increase to any extent the number of indoor poor without increasing the buildings; his own experience would tell him that if such increase had to take place, there was hardly any amount to be conceived in reason which would pay the Guardians for carrying out such a policy as was suggested, because there was in Great Britain no city where the cost of sites and buildings approached to anything like the cost of such things in London. The right hon. Gentleman would know that the Guardians could not increase their resources in that respect without enormously increasing their rates also, and, therefore, that the money proposed to be given would, in no shape or degree, compensate them for their increased expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman having acknowledged that, as far as the amended proposal went, there would be no inducement whatever to increase the number of indoor paupers, he had laid stress on the fact that the City of London would be a great gainer, and. he went on to state his conclusion that in a rich parish there would be a gain at the expense of the poor parishes. He (Mr. Ritchie) would like to hear what hon. Gentlemen who represented London would say on the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. They knew perfectly well that, so far as the poorer districts in London were concerned, that the basis of indoor poor would place them at a very great disadvantage. It might be perfectly true that here and there some rich locality would gain so far as the gross amount was concerned; but there was no doubt whatever that the poorer parishes by the proposal of the Bill would gain very largely in respect of their poor rates, and, therefore, whether the right hon. Gentleman regarded the matter from one point or the other, he (Mr. Ritchie) maintained that the proposal in the Bill was, so far as London was concerned, one which would effect what they most desired to realize—namely, something approaching to an equalized poor rate. The whole question of the application of the Probate Duty had now been discussed at very considerable length, and

      821
      the Government had undertaken that they would consider the question of the allocation of the money; that being so, he would suggest to the Committee whether they should not now pass the clause, on the understanding that before Report the Government should consider the discussion which had taken place that night with a view to seeing, upon the expressed desire of the Committee, whether some basis of a more satisfactory character could be agreed to. Hon. Gentlemen would understand that they would not commit themselves to anything more than they now stood committed to on the clauses they had already discussed.
      MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and would not press his Amendment.
      MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked, if the Government intended to turn their special attention to the necessity of meeting the altered circumstances which might arise. The scheme they had suggested was based, as it were, on an instantaneous photograph of existing indoor pauperism, and did not allow for possible variations in years to come.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that was precisely what they proposed.
      MR. C. T. DYKE ACLANDsaid, the Poor Law Authorities would look forward to another settlement of the question. Hon. Members on that side would not be able to accept the "instantaneous photograph" as a settlement. He therefore hoped the Government would not include outdoor pauperism as an element of the question, nor base anything on the condition of pauperism in the present year.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Government had never stated or thought that outdoor pauperism was a proper basis on which to rest distribution. They had simply said, they would consider the discussion which had taken place that night. They did not intend to commit themselves to the principle of outdoor pauperism; nor did he believe that was the principle that was approved on the opposite side of the House.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he did not propose his Amendment in any spirit of hostility to the principle of the proposal of
      822
      the Government, and he was bound to express his surprise that it had met with so much opposition on that side of the House, especially when he remembered that Sir Charles Dilke said, in. 1882, that there ought to be a contribution by the Counties to the Unions of a substantial nature in aid of the cost of maintenance of indoor paupers; but that opinion, like many others, appeared to be a thing of the past. But, although he thought it was right that some encouragement should be given to Guardians, he did not think that too much temptation should be put in their way, and that too high a premium should be put on the workhouse test. A proposal to give 2s. 4d. a-week for every indoor pauper would, in his opinion, be too great a temptation. When a workhouse was two-thirds full, the salaries and working expenses of the house would be no less than when it was quite full, and the proposed sum would, in some cases, defray the whole cost of maintenance, with the addition of clothing and interest on loans. He had some figures which showed that 10 Unions in the South-Western district were able, some years ago, to provide the provisions of the inmates of the workhouses at from 2s. 3d. to 3s. a-week, and since that the contract prices of meat and provisions had fallen. Therefore, he thought the Government might fairly reduce the grant from 4d. to 2d., and there would then be no ground whatever for saying that there would be any temptation to the Guardians for bringing poor persons into the house. Unless the Wheel and Horse Tax was more productive than had been stated in some counties, a great portion of the grant of 4d. would have to be provided out of the county rate. In Wiltshire, it seemed to him that the whole of it would have to come from that source, because the Licence Duties and Probate Grant would do no more than cover the cost of main roads; in Dorsetshire the county would have to provide 2d., and other counties 1d. He thought that was an additional argument in favour of reducing the grant, and for the reasons given he would move the Amendment standing in his name.
      Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 1, to leave out the words "four pence" and insert the words "two pence."—(Viscount Ebrington.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      THE SECRETARY To THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)said, his noble Friend had in the course of his remarks referred to the county of Wiltshire, which he(Mr. Long) had the honour to represent. He appreciated his noble Friend's strong desire that his county should not suffer, but he thought he was in error in supposing that there would be any new charge on the counties. The County Authority would continue to bear the half-cost of the maintenance of main roads as at present; and, therefore, he did not think, on the ground of increased cost to counties, the Amendment of his noble Friend could be accepted; nor, after the concession made by the Government, did he think there could be any reasonable desire on the part of the Committee to reduce the grant any further.
      MR. RATHBONEsaid, he thought the Government would be wise to reserve their freedom in this matter as well as in the other; because, by reducing the amount of the grant from 4d. to 2d. or 3d., there would be a much larger sum left for the purpose of rectifying the inequalities so much complained of.
      MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he had had no scruple in supporting the Government in distributing the Probate Duty between the counties on the basis of indoor pauperism, because he had never looked at that proposal as an objectionable part of the scheme; but he always considered that a direct grant to Guardians of so much a head might work prejudicially in the rural districts. In those districts the cost of indoor maintenance was much less than in towns, especially the Metropolis, and, from inquiries he had made in rural Unions, he found that the grant of 2s. 4d. a-week would, in many cases, almost or entirely cover the cost of keeping of indoor paupers. It was perfectly clear that there were many Unions in which it would not be necessary to raise the establishment charges in order to admit more paupers into the workhouses. That was the administrative ground on which they supported the Amendment. With regard to the financial ground, it had been said, truly, that the charges pro-
      824
      posed to be put on the counties by the Bill were not new charges. At the same time, it would appear on the face of the Bill as if the Government intended the House and the public to believe that the charges for indoor paupers and main roads would be entirely covered in the case of every county by the relief afforded from Imperial taxation. But it had been pointed out in an able article in The Economist that there would be a deficiency in many counties unless the Wheel Tax amounted to more than it appeared likely to do; and, therefore, he thought the Government would do well to accede to his hon. Friend's proposal to give the Committee a pledge that they would reconsider the provision to give 4d. a-head for each indoor pauper.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought he had made it clear that the reconsideration of the Government would extend not only to the clause already passed, but to the present clause. He was bound to say that if the original proposal had been accepted, the Government were prepared to accept a reduction of the amount in question from 4d. to 3d. At the same time, he hardly thought it worth while to make any alteration in the clause now. The Government had undertaken to consider all the matters dealt with in both clauses of the Bill, and therefore he hoped the Committee would allow the present clause to remain as at present. Hon. Gentlemen must see that it was impossible not to admit that even if the amount of the county rate was not greatly reduced by the contribution from the Exchequer, it was perfectly immaterial so long as the general local rates throughout the country were lessened by the contribution of the Government. He had nothing more to add except that he entirely held to the promise that the consideration of the Government should be given to both clauses.
      MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman would see that when they were going to take indoor pauperism once for all as a means of allocating this money, no administrative consideration came in at all. The whole question before them was as to whether it was adequate or inadequate, a proper or improper, distribution of the money. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would simply consider the

      825
      question of fair distribution for the next five years.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought that the question had been sufficiently threshed out in the discussion which had taken place upon it. The point referred to by the hon. Gentleman must form an element of consideration with the Government.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—
      In page 23, line 1, leave out from "head," to end of line 2, and insert "and such grant, during the five local financial years beginning on the appointed day, shall be reckoned according to the average number of indoor paupers so maintained during the financial year ending on the twenty-fifth day of March next before the passing of this Act, and shall after the end of the said five years, unless Parliament otherwise determine, continue to be reckoned in accordance with the same average number."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 26 (Supplemental provisions as to local taxation account and Exchequer contribution account).
      On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 23, line 11, after "this," insert "or any other;" and in line 12, after "Exchequer," to insert "or to the Treasury."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      General Provisions as to Transfers.
      Clause 27 (General provisions as to powers transferred to county councils).
      Amendment proposed, in page 24, lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words "either to the Justices of the County sitting in petty sessions, or."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)said, that the Government, having complete confidence in the discretion of the County Councils, could not accept this Amendment.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he did not think that many hon. Members would agree that the Government had that amount of confidence in the County Councils which they professed. However, that might be, Mem-
      826
      bers on those Benches had not complete confidence in non-responsible magistrates, and they objected to any attempt being made to delegate the powers of the Councils to them. The hon. Gentleman said this matter could be safely left in the hands of the Councils. They had to keep in view that, owing to the mischievous institution of County Aldermen, the probability was that by this dodge the Government had secured the "parson and squire" element on the Councils; and the great majority of the Councils would have power to delegate all manner of important powers to the magistrates in Petty Sessions, by which means the door would be opened to evasion of the principle that the people should have the control of the affairs of their own counties.
      SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, that if the Government had no better reason to urge against the Amendment than had been stated by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long), he saw no objection to the words of the hon. Member. He should like to have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board as to what he considered the kind of authority which should be delegated to the County Justices.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he would point out to the hon. Gentleman that it rested altogether with the County Councils whether or not they would transfer any of these powers. The Committee had already passed Clause 4, which transferred to the County Council certain powers of the Justices out of Session, powers in respect of the licensing of houses and places for the public performance of stage plays, and so on. It was with reference to any emergency arising under the powers of that clause that the section now under discussion was framed. The object was to establish an authority which would be easily accessible for such purposes as the licensing of stage plays.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, if that was the intention of the Government, they ought to say so in the clause.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that this clause as it stood almost amounted to a repeal of the whole Act. They had transferred

      827
      certain powers from the Justices to the County Councils. There was no slur implied upon the County Justices by this process, as it was simply part of a long-contemplated scheme of the reform of Local Government. But now it was proposed that the County Councils should delegate back any of those powers to the Justices sitting in Petty Sessions, and he must say that it seemed to him that to pass such a provision as this was to cast a slur upon the newly appointed Councils. He could quite understand the County Clause, which was taken from the Municipal Corporations Act; but that Act compelled the Municipal Corporation to appoint out of its own Body a certain Committee to deal with this matter, and he thought that they should follow the same rule here. Words ought to be put in to cover that.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he thought that might be done by introducing words similar to those contained in Section 4. He would suggest whether it would not be more in accordance with the principle of the measure and find favour with the Committee generally, and be more desirable on the whole, if these powers were delegated to the District Councils. He would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) whether that suggestion could not be accepted—whether it would not put the clause in harmony with the general principle of the Bill if they were to give power to the County Councils to delegate these powers to the District Councils rather than to the Justices of the Peace?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the County Councils would have that power under the Bill as it stood, but the hon. Gentleman would understand that there would be occasions when it would be to the convenience of the district that powers such as they had mentioned should be exercised by the County Justices—that was to say, that it would be convenient to exercise the power of appealing to two Justices of the Peace, who would be readily accessible, rather than waiting till the County Councils should be called together in order to appeal to the larger authority. If the Committee desired it, he would have no objection to limiting the powers to the purposes of Clause 4.
      MR. CHANNINGsaid, that assuming that the Government
      828
      should be unable to proceed with the District Council portion of the Bill, it would only be possible under this clause for the County Council to delegate these powers to the Justices of the County, or to a Committee of the County Council.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that if unfortunately the Government found themselves unable to proceed with the District Council part of the Bill, they would at a later stage introduce an Amendment defining the meaning of the words in the clause.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he hoped the alteration would be carefully considered before the Report stage.
      MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he hoped that care would be taken to give ample power of delegation. At present the Quarter Sessions had no such power, and he was confident that great inconvenience arose therefrom. So far as regarded the Justices at Petty Sessions, it would be easy to introduce words in a sub-clause defining their powers.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, after what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton had said, it might be better not to amend the clause, but to pass it on the assurance of the Government that they would amend it on Report in the sense he (Mr. Ritchie) had pointed out.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the next Amendment stood in his name.
      THE CHAIRMAN: There is a long Amendment here containing several sub-sections, and in my opinion this should be moved in a new clause. The hon. Gentleman will, therefore, move the next Amendment on the Paper in his name.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that the next Amendment in his name was on page 24, at the ending of line 5 to add—
      "Provided, that in the constitution of any such committee the number of county aldermen appointed to serve thereon shall in no case be more in proportion to the number of councillors so appointed than the number of aldermen in the whole council bears to the councillors."
      The number of County Aldermen on the County Councils had been fixed at one-fourth of the whole Body, and he desired to maintain the same proportion of County Aldermen on any Committee to which the powers mentioned in the

      829
      clause were delegated. He did not wish to detain the Committee by any remarks in support of this proposal. It seemed to him to be a perfectly reasonable and fair proposal, and in making it he did not wish for a moment to derogate from the virtue of the non-representative element, but only to secure that the elective element, on the importance of which the Government placed so much stress, should not be ousted, but should have its fair proportion of all the duties as it had on the Council as a whole.
      Amendment proposed—
      In page 24, at end of line 5, add,—"Provided, that in the constitution of any such committee the number of county aldermen appointed to serve thereon shall in no case be more in proportion to the number of councillors so appointed than the number of aldermen in the whole council bears to the councillors."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. LONGsaid, there was nothing unreasonable in the view of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, but he (Mr. Long) thought that anybody cognizant of the manner in which the affairs of a county were conducted would realize that it might frequently be of advantage to the County Council if a number of Aldermen or selected councillors to serve on a particular committee were appointed in a larger proportion than their numbers would warrant under the Amendment of the hon. Member, for the reason that the work required to be done might be such as those gentlemen were especially capable of performing, and for the reason that those gentlemen would be better able to devote their time and attention to the duties in question than ordinary members of the Council. The object to be aimed at in forming a committee ought to be to get as much special knowledge and ability as possible, so as to secure the doing of the work in the best manner; and surely the County Council might be trusted to appoint its own committee.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 28 (Summary proceedings for determination of questions as to transfer of powers).
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he begged to move, in lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words—
      "The Lord President of the Council, the Secretary of State, or any Government Department, or of the," in order to insert "a."
      Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 16, leave out from beginning of line to "Chairman" in line 17, in order to insert "a."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      Question, "That the word 'a' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      BARON DIMSDALEsaid, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name—namely, after "Chairman," in line 17, to insert, "or of the respective Chairmen where there is more than one Chairman." He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would have no objection to the Amendment, as it was intended to meet the case of several counties, notably the counties of Hertfordshire and Suffolk.
      Amendment proposed, in page 32, line 17, after the word "Chairman," to insert the words "or of the respective Chairmen where there is more than one Chairman."—(Baron Dimsdale.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that this Amendment was unnecessary, as the object the hon. Member had in view was met by the Amendment which they had just agreed to on his (Mr. Ritchie's) suggestion, substituting "a Chairman" for the words of the Clause.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 29 (Standing joint committee of quarter sessions and county council for the purpose of police, clerk of the peace, officers, &c.).
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, he begged to moved the Amendment standing in his name—namely, in line 27, after the words "consisting of," to insert the words "not more than eight members appointed by quarter sessions, and eight members appointed by the

      831
      county council." He wished to restrict the number of these standing joint committees to 16, which he thought would be a good number to transact the business provided for under this clause. He did not think that any Watch Committee in any borough had a larger number of members than that. He had heard it said that 12 would be a good number, but it appeared to him that counties were so large in some cases that it would be difficult to find members to attend regularly if the number were restricted to 12, and therefore he proposed 16. If, however, the Government should prefer another limit, and would state their view, he should be glad, if possible, to meet them.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 24, line 27, after "consisting of," insert "not more than eight members appointed by quarter sessions, and eight members appointed by the county council."—(Mr. Heneage.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was making a proposal and moving an Amendment which was hardly a necessary one. It was hardly possible to fix on any number which could be laid down as a general rule applicable to the cases of all counties. The right hon. Gentleman said, that if the Government would accept the principle of the Amendment, he would be glad to meet them in any proposal they might make as to the limitation of the numbers of the members of the joint committees. It appeared to him (Mr. Long) that it would be desirable to leave the decision in this matter to the County Councils themselves. They would be best acquainted with the local circumstances, and would be better able to select a fitting number.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage), he only proposed a maximum. He did not say that the number upon these joint committees should be 16 and no less. The Municipal Corporations Act limited the Watch Committee to one-third of the whole Body, and on the precedent of that Act it seemed to him (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) that the limit of 16 would be too small. The Amendment would
      832
      make it that one-half should be appointed by the Quarter Sessions and one-half by the County Councils, and, to that extent, he thought the Amendment was a good one, as the clause itself was not clear on that point. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) thought that these joint committees should be composed of equal numbers of each Body from which the members were drawn. If the Amendment were not accepted there should be something introduced into the clause to make it clear that the committees should be appointed in this way of equal numbers.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he did not think it was conferring too great a power on the County Councils to give them authority to fix the numbers of these joint committees; but he certainly thought it desirable that something should be put in the clause to make the original intention of the Government clear—namely, that there should be an equal number of the two Bodies upon these joint committees.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that that object would be obtained by leaving out the word "such," in line 27, and inserting the words "an equal," which would make the line read, "consisting of an equal number of justices, &c."
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 27, to leave out the word "such," in order to insert the words "an equal."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he begged to move the next Amendment, which stood in his name—in line 28, to leave out the word "members," in order to insert the words "elected councillors." The object of this Amendment was perfectly clear—namely, to provide that the members appointed by the Councils should be elected representatives and not the selected County Aldermen. He thought the Amendment just accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was an argument in favour of this Amendment, because the right hon. Gentleman, by accepting that Amendment, recognized

      833
      that it was desirable to preserve an equal proportion between the non-representative Justices and the more or less representative members of the Councils. As the members from the two Bodies on their joint committees were to be equal, he thought it would only be carrying out to its full extent the object of the Government if they accepted this Amendment, which would provide that elected, and not nominated, members of the Council should form half of these joint committees.
      Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 28, to leave out the word "members," and insert the words "elected councillors."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'members' stand part of the Clause."
      SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, he thought that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division was necessary after the insertion of the words "an equal." When those words were inserted it was forgotten that a large number of those County Councillors would already be County Justices, and that it would not be necessary, therefore, to preserve the interests of that class. He thought it essential, however, that they should take care that the elected members of the Council, at all events, equalled the number of Justices appointed outside the Council; and, therefore, he had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
      MR. LONGsaid, that it was impossible to accept the Amendment. The Committee had accepted the principle of selected members or Aldermen on the Council, and it would be absolutely out of harmony with the principle so accepted to proceed afterwards to limit the powers of the selected Councillors. The hon. Member who had just sat down had said that he thought the nominated members would be in many cases Justices. Well, however that might be, they would not be nominated by outside authorities, but by the Council itself; and he thought it would be unreasonable and inconsistent to exclude these Aldermen from the choice of the Council in forming these committees. It would not only be unjust, but absurd, after having given power for the selection of these County Aldermen on
      834
      the Councils, to proceed to limit their powers.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that the object of this last Amendment was to secure that upon these joint committees there should be an equal number of members of the County Councils and of the County Justices. He had so often appealed to the Government to follow the precedent of the Municipal Corporations Act that he felt bound to urge them to follow it right through in this respect as in others. He did not know how this would work out—he had voted against County Aldermen altogether—but the Committee, having adopted the principle of County Aldermen, and seeing that they were to be on the Councils, and seeing that under the Municipal Corporations Act the power as contained in this clause was given, he thought they should adopt that principle all round. His experience of Municipal Councils was that the Aldermen were often the most useful members. As a rule, they had been longer connected with the Town Councils than the elected members, and were more familiar with the duties of the office.
      MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, he thought when a principle was mischievous the best thing to do, irrespective of precedents, was to try and limit the operations of that principle all round. They had departed from the precedent of the Municipal Corporations over and over again, and he could not see why they should not do so on this occasion. Within the four corners of the Municipal Corporations Act there was no joint committee whatever; and, therefore, there was not even a satisfactory precedent to guide them. He did not wish the magistrates to be a dominating force on these joint committees, unless they were elected members of the Councils. Of course, he did not object to any County Council member of a joint committee being a member of a Court of Quarter Sessions; only let him, in the first place, pass through the ordeal of an election.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he could not quite accept the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend who had just spoken that hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House regarded the whole principle of County

      835
      Aldermen as essentially mischevious, and that they were not going to make any compromise whatever in the matter. Whenever they saw any possibility of attacking this mischievous principle they were determined to do so. The importance of this joint committee was that it had to deal essentially with the police. They had had a long discussion that evening about the control of the police, and he (Mr. Conybeare) had said on an earlier Amendment, which he had not pressed, that his view was that the Central Authorities should not have any control over the local police; and if the Central Authorities—that was to say the Home Office—were not to have, nor was it possible that they could have, control over the local police, he held that it was still more impossible and undesirable that unrepresented, irresponsible local magistrates should have control over the local police. If such control were given it would produce a want of confidence in the administration of the force in the different localities, which it was their greatest desire to prevent. That being so, he did not think he should be bound to take the sense of the Committee on this joint committee, because it was a matter of principle. He would say this—that the Government had got on so well that night that they were becoming too self-confident, and it was desirable to show that they could not tumble in on the Report stage any Amendment which had been discussed in Committee.
      MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he would join in the appeal to the hon. Member not to press this Amendment to a Division. He had voted against the County Aldermen, and was as opposed to selected members being on the County Councils as anyone in the House; but when they had got these Aldermen there he thought it was a very great mistake to limit their duties. They might be experienced men with special knowledge, whom it might be very desirable to have upon a particular committee. And it must be borne in mind that of the members of the County Council three-fourths would be elected by the ratepayers, and that it would be this Body who would have the selection of the members of the joint committee. He thought they could be trusted in the matter.
      MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, he should like to remind the hon. Gentle-
      836
      man that they had already limited the powers of the selected Aldermen, and having limited them in one direction it was desirable that they should limit them in another.
      MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he would make a suggestion to his hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare), which might, perhaps, get the Committee out of a difficulty. It had been stated by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board that having assented to these County Aldermen they could not limit their powers; but if the Amendment were altered so as to read that the number of Justices appointed by Quarter Sessions, and the number appointed by County Councils should in no way exceed the number of selected Councillors, it would effect that which the hon. Member was asking for.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is speaking to another Amendment.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 252;Noes 81: Majority 171.—(Div. List, No. 200.)
      MR. RANKIN MR. RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster), in moving the following sub-section:—
      "The joint committees shall have the management of all shire halls, county halls, assize courts, judges' lodgings, lock-up houses, justices' rooms, and police stations,"
      said, under Sub-section 3 of Clause 29, questions referring to various buildings would be referred to and determined by the joint committees, and he thought it would be advisable to further specify the buildings named in the Amendment. It was usually the case that shire halls and county halls were part of the same building that contained the Courts of Justice, and he thought it would be inconvenient to have two Bodies to look after the same building, and he therefore suggested that the management of all the buildings mentioned in the Amendment should be placed in the hands of the Joint Committee. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would see the drift of this Amendment, and would accept the proposal.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 24, line 35, to insert the following sub-section;—"That joint committees shall

      837
      have the management of all shire halls, county halls, assize courts, judges' lodgings, lock-up houses, justices' rooms, and police stations."—(Mr. Rankin.)
      Question proposed, "That the Sub-section be there inserted."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would point out to the hon. Gentleman that this Amendment would be entirely at variance with the decision the Committee had already come to on Clause 3. If the hon. Member would look at that clause he would find that the Committee had already transferred to the County Council all matters relating to shire halls, county halls, assize courts, and so on; and, having passed that provision, it would be entirely at variance with it to accept this Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he begged to move the rejection of the clause. This was the last Amendment with which he should trouble the Committee that night, and he only desired to say a word in moving it, in order to emphasize the objection which they on that side of the House entertained to this idea of the joint committees altogether. He did not want to pose as a prophet, but he thought it worthy of consideration whether the result would not be that the institution of these joint committees would turn out to be a misfortune. It appeared to him that the proposal was to save the susceptibilities of the county magistrates. The Government expressed trust and confidence in the County Councils which they themselves had established, and yet they insisted on introducing these joint committees, which were merely a sop to the rather ruthlessly disturbed feelings of the county magistrates, and would be of no use whatever. He rather thought that these joint committees would prove a delusion and no more. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had given them some figures to show what proportion of the magistrates were in the habit of taking part in the management of county affairs. He could not speak as a county magistrate, because he had never been one; but from the observations he had been able to make outside, he ventured to say that a very small proportion com-
      838
      paratively of the magistrates in any county were working members of the commission. Take the case of the county in which he was spending some time yesterday in the West of England—he would not give the name of it—there, out of 300 magistrates in the county, not more than 40 were in the habit of taking part in the county work. Now, if that was the case throughout the country—and he believed it was—they would find that nearly all the energetic practical men amongst the county magistrates were selected Aldermen. That being so, he should like to know where they would get the other magistrates to perform the duties which would be conferred upon them under this clause? The magistrates they would get would only be second-class magistrates—those who were not accustomed to the duties and who were not sufficiently popular to be elected on County Councils. They would be gentlemen to whom they would not care to give such powers if they had to be elected. He thought that experience would prove that these joint committees, so far from being valuable, would prove a pig in a poke. It was in order not to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division that he rose to express his opinion upon the principle of the clause.
      Question put, and agreed to.

    PART II.

      APPLICATION OF ACT TO BOROUGHS, THE METROPOLIS, AND CERTAIN SPECIAL COUNTIES.
      Application of Act to Counties.
      Clause 30 (Certain large quarter sessions boroughs named in the schedule to be treated as counties).
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's) moved, to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "shall," and insert—
      "Being a borough which on the first day of June one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, either had a population of not less than fifty thousand, or was a county of itself."
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 35, line 13, to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "shall," and insert the words "being a borough which on the first day of June one thousand eight hundred and eighty eight, either had a population of not

      839
      less than fifty thousand, or was a county of itself."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      Question,
      "That the words 'being a borough which on the first day of June one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, either had a population of not less than fifty thousand, or was a county of itself,' be there inserted."
      MR. ROWNTREE MR. ROWNTREE (Scarborough), in moving to amend the Amendment by striking out "fifty" and inserting "twenty-five," said, he very greatly regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Carlisle (Mr. Gully) was not in his place to move the Amendment; but he (Mr. Rowntree) trusted that the Committee would give careful consideration upon the ruin which it was sought to bring about in certain municipal boroughs for the gratification of County Councils. The Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Carlisle would include 29 boroughs in the Schedule List of exempted towns, every one of which had a larger population than the City of Canterbury, which it was already understood the Government was willing to add to the Schedule. Now, it might fairly be asked why these boroughs should wish to be exempted, and he would ask the Committee to look at the position in which they now stood in this matter. As the Bill was originally placed before the House there were two strong pleas in its favour. First, that it would assist in the devolution of some of the Business which now crowded on this House to the County Councils to be formed under the Bill, and in regard to which boroughs as well as urban districts of counties must continually look to the County Councils. Speaking as a Representative of a Quarter Sessions borough, he freely acknowledged that if it was suggested that if they had to look to the county of York for those things to which they now looked to the Local Government Board in that House they would not have accepted the proposal for a moment. But what happened? The Quarter Sessions boroughs, and many of the old historical boroughs, which for centuries had exercised the right of self-government, and which had obtained those rights in many in-
      840
      stances at very considerable cost, were asked to place themselves under the jurisdiction, to some extent, of the County Authorities from which the large towns having great urban populations were, first of all, eliminated. In the case of the borough he had the honour to represent they would have some six representatives out of 72 taken from the surrounding rural district, and there were other boroughs in just the same position. Take the borough of Cambridge and many others which would stand alone amidst large rural populations. He submitted to the Committee that that was a very undesirable position in which a self-governing body should be placed. Why should this committee take away some of the freedom of self-government which Corporations had so long enjoyed? Why should this be a disabling Statute to so many Corporations? One of the strongest arguments for this Bill was the good use Corporations made of the powers which had been intrusted to them, and he urged strongly upon the Committee that whilst he did not wish to say a single word in dispraise of the way in which the large cities and boroughs had governed themselves, the self-government of the smaller boroughs had really been unassailed—that the self-government of the smaller boroughs would compare most favourably in very many respects with the self-government of the largest boroughs and the largest cities. He believed that if careful comparison were wanted in respect of certain questions of administration—in respect of police and so forth—it would be found that the smaller boroughs came out even the better of the two. The chief object of this Bill surely was to supply self-government to those districts of the counties which had not enjoyed it hitherto, and he was sure that no Representative of any borough wished for a moment to interfere with that object or to do otherwise than to assist it to the fullest possible extent. He thought the Committee ought to consider very carefully now whether they should place this disability on the 29 boroughs to which this Amendment applied. He did not wish to go into the details of the financial question, but he must put the broad statement before the Committee, because it appeared to him to be a very strong one

      841
      indeed. They had frequently heard that a Commission was to be appointed to regulate and adjust the financial relationship of the exempted boroughs and cities and the counties from which they were taken. It would be seen that the basis of that settlement would be the present money relationship of the two, and what he wanted to submit to the Committee was that they were going to place a new financial liability for all the future on the smaller boroughs, which were less able to bear any additional strain than the larger boroughs and cities they were proposing to exempt. The Committee had heard on many occasions that it was the hope of the Government, and no doubt it was the hope of the Committee, that additional powers would in future be conferred on the County Councils. What did that really mean? If hon. Members would carry their minds back to the Municipal Corporations Act, and compare the powers which were now intrusted to Corporations with the powers intrusted to them then, they would get some idea of the way in which the machinery of the Corporations had been enlarged, and of the reasons which had led to additional expenditure by Corporations. If, as was most likely, precisely the same course was taken with regard to the County Councils, that meant that the county rate to which the self-governing boroughs were to be made liable, in addition to their own rate and expenditure, must, in all probability, be increased from year to year. Now, he asked the Committee, why should the smaller boroughs with less than 50,000 inhabitants be liable in the future for their fair share of Imperial taxation, for the full share of the taxation within their own borders, and also for a share of the county expenditure, while in the future the large cities and boroughs were to be only liable for their share of the National Expenditure, for their own expenditure within their borders, and for whatever contribution they had in part given to the counties? It meant a future additional expenditure for the new machinery. The new powers which would be given to the County Councils were to be shared by the smaller boroughs, who had all their own expenditure upon their shoulders at the present time. He submitted that that was not a fair position in which to put these
      842
      Corporations. As he said at the commencement, the Government proposed to exempt the City of Canterbury, which had a population of 20,000. Every borough which would come under the scope of his Amendment had a larger population than that. Very many of them had historical claims which he thought would vie even with the claims of the City of Canterbury. The borough he represented was as entirely independent of the county as any of the boroughs or cities which were counties in their own right. They paid nothing to the county; they got nothing from the county; they paid fee farm rents now as the price of the old Charter which first gave them their liberty; they claimed that they had done nothing to forfeit that privilege; they asked nothing but to be allowed to continue in the full and undisputed right of self-government which they had enjoyed hitherto, and that they should not be asked to share in the future expenditure of machinery of the county outside, to which, he was sorry to say, on account of its purely rural character, having little or nothing in sympathy with the urban population, they could not look for any help or assistance. He earnestly hoped the Government, who had been lowering the line of exempted towns from the time the Bill was first introduced, would, at any rate, now carry the matter out to what he thought was a more logical sequence, and leave the boroughs which had the control of their own police, which had their own Quarter Sessions, and which had full powers of self-government, free from any control and liability to the new County Councils.
      Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "fifty," and insert the words "twentyfive."—(Mr. Rowntree.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'fifty' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
      SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, whether this Amendment referred to all cities and boroughs which were now counties in themselves—would it, for instance, include the City of Lichfield? The words of the Amendment were, "either had a

      843
      a population of not less than 50,000, or was a county in itself." The City of Lichfield had always been a county in itself. It had its own Quarter Sessions, its own Sheriff, its own police, and was managed entirely as a separate county.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the Amendment, taken by itself, perhaps, bore the interpretation the hon. Member seemed to fear; but the Amendment, taken with the clause and the other Amendments of the Government, showed that the city in which the hon. Baronet was so interested would be included in the Schedule. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Rowntree) had dealt with the question from two points of view, one from what he would call a Local Government point of view, and the other from a financial point of view. With reference to the financial question, the hon. Gentleman had said that the borough which he represented was a borough which had never contributed anything to the county rate. By the Bill Scarborough would not have to contribute anything to the county rate which it had not hitherto contributed. No doubt, that borough, along with all boroughs in the county, would have to bear its share of any rate which might be entailed in consequence of any of the new powers which were given under the Bill, or might in future be given. But the hon. Member must know that so far as that particular contribution was concerned it must be of an extremely limited character. The hon. Gentleman said that in consequence of the Government having reduced the limit of population which they originally proposed in the Bill, boroughs which were under the limit of 50,000 would be placed at a disadvantage. He (Mr. Ritchie) had more than once had occasion to say that so far as the Government were concerned—certainly so far as he personally was concerned—they greatly regretted that they had seen reason to lower the limit of population below that which was originally fixed. There was no question in his mind at all that if the Government had been able to adhere to the limit of population they originally fixed upon, the County Council, under the Bill, would have been a greater and more powerful Body than the Body they were now setting up. But right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House knew that very strong arguments
      844
      were brought to bear in order to obtain a reduction of the limit of population—arguments not only from the borough point of view, but also from the county point of view; and both from the county and from the borough standpoint the Government were pressed, and pressed very strongly and very continuously, to reduce the limit of population to 50,000. He was sure that no one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) how strong were the arguments which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen were able to use in order to induce the Government to accept the proposal which they made. But although the Government reluctantly assented to the reduction of the limit of the population, he was very far indeed from admitting that by the limit they had now fixed upon they would secure a powerless County Council. On the contrary, he believed that although the County Council, if the Government had been able to adhere to the original proposal, would undoubtedly have been more powerful and more important than it was now, yet the retention of all boroughs under 50,000 would secure for the County Council certainly as much power and efficiency and urban element as would secure that the County Council which was being set up would be a large and powerful organization. If they were to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman and reduce the limit to 25,000, he was satisfied they would enormously damage the power and prestige of the County Councils. It was impossible to contemplate a County Council of any great power and influence which was mainly founded on the representation of the rural element, and that was what would very largely follow if they were to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. His firm conviction was that as time went by those boroughs which were still retained in the county would have no reason whatever to regret their retention within the county. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that there would be a considerable interference with local Governing Bodies within the borough areas. He did not agree with the hon. Member. On the contrary, he considered that by forming these boroughs and rural areas into one County Council, they would give an amount of independence and life and

      845
      vigour to county administration which it would be impossible to secure otherwise. These boroughs would exercise a very powerful and large influence in the decisions arrived at by the County Council of which they were members. The hon. Gentleman also seemed to think that with the exception of that of the boroughs in the counties the population represented by the County Council would be entirely rural. That would not be the case, because the hon. Gentleman knew quite well that, in addition to the boroughs, there were many urban districts throughout the country which partook very largely, if not entirely, of the same element of population as boroughs, and these would be included in the counties. If the hon. Gentleman would point out in what way he thought the municipal self-government of the boroughs included in the Amendment would be interfered with, he would be very glad to give full consideration to what he had to say. To go back to the question of the financial relations, he entirely admitted that if the county boroughs were to be treated as counties in themselves, and if there was not some re-adjustment of the financial relations between them and the counties, the boroughs which remained in the counties, and the urban districts, and the rural districts, might have just cause of complaint. The Government believed that by the proposals they had to make all cause of complaint would be removed. They believed that neither from a sentimental, nor administrative, nor financial point of view would the boroughs which remained in the counties be in any way injured. They acknowledged at once that they would have been glad to have retained in the counties boroughs with under 150,000 inhabitants. They now took 50,000 as a very fair limit below which it was not possible for them to go. He believed that when the smaller boroughs came to have experience of county government, they would have no cause to regret being included in the counties; indeed, his conviction was that before long some of the boroughs which were to be treated as counties would be glad to come back to the counties and form part of the great administrative machine which would, in the future, have committed to their care matters of a much larger and more weighty character than anything now transferred to them.
      MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he regretted that the Government ever departed from their original intention to fix the limit at the 10 boroughs named in the 4th Schedule. When they lowered the limit to 50,000, they raised powers in the county which would be antagonistic to the County Council, and were to that extent taking away from the value of the Council and depreciating its work. To take an example from one of these boroughs, he felt sure that, by making Wolverhampton a county in itself, they were lowering the position and influence of the County Council in Staffordshire. Knowing the town even better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), he considered that the right hon. Gentleman had done no good work for the town by being instrumental, with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), in getting the limit reduced. He was convinced that if Wolverhampton were included in the county, it would improve its own position and influence, and would add additional weight and authority to the County Councils, and be of more service to the county as a whole, than if it remained separate.
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, he felt considerable difficulty in deciding what course to take with respect to this Amendment. He should certainly have supported the Government had they stood by their original proposal, and he regretted they ever reduced the limit below 100,000. Boroughs of those dimensions ought to be excluded from the County Council; but when they got down to 50,000, a large number of additional considerations with regard to the particular interests of the boroughs arose which must be taken into view. He had presented a Memorial from Great Grimsby, praying that that borough should be included in the Fourth Schedule. Within the old limits of the borough there were not 50,000 people, but the town itself had a population of 56,000. Great Grimsby was entirely distinct in all its interests from the county. It was the first fishing port in the Kingdom, and it was the sixth shipping port in the Kingdom. It had no community of interest with the county, and yet it was to be included in the county for purposes of government. The cases of

      847
      Grimsby and Leicester were very hard, simply because they had not taken steps to extend their limits. If this Amendment was not accepted by the Government, he would propose to add to the clause the words—
      "A borough which shall obtain a population of fifty thousand, by incorporation or otherwise, shall, after inquiry by the Local Government Board, be a county in itself."
      Unless he could get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the claims of such places as Grimsby to separate government would be favourably considered, he should certainly, in the interests of the borough he represented, vote for the present Amendment.
      MR. WHARTONsaid, he thought the Government were quite right in excluding boroughs of 50,000 inhabitants from the county. If all the large towns had been kept in the county of Durham, the result would have been that the Council would have been composed of 31 rural members and 46 urban members. The rural members would thus have been entirely swamped by the representatives of the urban districts.
      MR. WOODALLsaid, it was evident the general sense of the Committee was that the great ideal County Authority this Bill intended to set up had been seriously marred by the alterations which had from time to time been made. He sympathized with the right hon. Gentleman in the very candid expression of regret that he had had to bow to the representations of the large boroughs. But the right hon. Gentleman would be surprised to learn, from the observations of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Wharton), that there was some justification for the course he had taken. He (Mr. Woodall) could not follow his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Rowntree) into the Lobby, because he thought that, under the circumstances, it would be better for them to take the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board at his word, and endeavour, during the further progress of the Bill, to fairly arrange the relations between the urban and rural districts, and to minimize as far as possible the encroachments which the Bill would make upon the various Corporations.
      MR. WATSONsaid, that a very strong feeling had manifested itself in the borough which he represented against the town being thrown into the county. For centuries the town had managed its own affairs, and managed them to the complete satisfaction of the ratepayers, and it resented the proposed change.
      MR. ROWNTREEsaid, he must again ask why the smaller towns under 50,000 inhabitants should be called upon to pay a share of the new charges in the county, while the larger and wealthier towns should be exempt? He trusted that the Committee would agree to leave the boroughs which had so long enjoyed the privilege of self-government in possession of that privilege.
      SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, that in introducing the Bill the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board declared that there was no intention to take away the rights or privileges of any borough or city. But now they found the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to take away the rights of municipal government from a city which had had the control of its own affairs for centuries; a city which had its own Quarter Sessions, and which appointed its own Sheriff. If the English language meant anything—
      THE CHAIRMAN: The Question now before the Committee is, whether "fifty" or "twenty five" be the figure? The subsequent words are not under discussion.
      DR. TANNER: I claim to move, "That the Question be now put."
      MR. HENEAGEasked, whether the boroughs now included in the Fourth Schedule were to be the only boroughs to be included in the Schedule; whether there would be provision made in the Bill to enable boroughs who might attain the required population to be counties in themselves?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that power would be taken to enable boroughs to apply to be constituted counties under the Bill.
      MR. BRUNNERasked the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee what boroughs would be included in the Fourth Schedule?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was not possible for him to give the names of the

      849
      boroughs, because, as the Committee knew, he had undertaken that boroughs who could give satisfactory proof that they had a population of 50,000 should be included in the schedule.
      SIR WALTER FOSTERasked, how the right hon. Gentleman hoped to ascertain the population?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, the population could be easily arrived at. If they ascertained what was the increase in the number of inhabited houses they could form a pretty correct estimate of the population.
      DR. TANNERsaid, that in order to give the hon. Gentleman time to make inquiries he begged to move that the Chairman do now report Progress.
      THE CHAIRMAN: In the exercise of the power vested in me, I think I ought to refuse to put that Question.
      Question, "That the words 'fifty' stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 225; Noes 79: Majority 146.—(Div. List, No. 201.)
      It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  BARROW DRAINAGE BILL.— [BILL 313.]
  (Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  BARROW DRAINAGE BILL.— [BILL 313.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would suggest that the Government should give precedence to this Bill over the two other Irish Drainage Bills. There appeared to be much less objection to it, and there would probably be less opposition to it than to the others.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he hoped the House would agree to give a second reading to the whole group of Bills. They all rested upon the same basis, and each involved expenditure of public money for the common benefit. It would be invidious for one part of Ireland to say—"We will agree to this expenditure
    850
    for the benefit of our own district, but we will exclude other parts of Ireland from like benefits." He hoped there would be no question of precedence, seeing that all the Bills were based on one principle.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the Bills in reference to the Bann and the Shannon were much more likely to provoke opposition, and his suggestion would increase the chances of the Government securing the passage of one Bill out of the three.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the right hon. Gentleman must not suppose that Members were going to allow the Bills to pass without protest. He could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's description of the Bills as involving expenditure for the common benefit. The object was the benefit of a few landlords; there was no benefit for the taxpayers of the country.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

MOTIONS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the facilities which exist for the creation of small holdings in land in Great Britain; whether, either in connection with an improved system of Local Government or other-wise, those facilities may be extended; whether in recent years there has been any diminution in the number of small owners and cultivators of land; and whether there is any evidence to show that such diminution is due to legislation."—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, that among the Members nominated for this Committee, the Scotch constituencies were not fairly represented. Could not an addition be made from Scotch County Members?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS)said, it would be inconvenient to increase the number beyond 17. The Committee had been struck in the ordinary way, nominations from the other side being made by his hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Arnold Morley).
    DR. TANNERsaid, there was a total absence of the names

    851
    of Irish Members. Surely the hon. Gentleman would not pursue a Separatist policy?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid, he must refer the hon. Member to the hon. Member for East Nottingham. For his own part, he wished Irish Members to be included; but the names of certain Scotch Gentlemen were substituted.
    MR. ARNOLD MORLEYsaid, that was so. But perhaps if his hon. Friend would put off the appointment of the Committee the matter might be arranged.
    MR. ANDERSONhoped there would be an arrangement to include Scotch County Members. Only two Scotch Borough Members had been nominated, none representing counties or the Northern part of Scotland.
    DR. FARQUHARSONjoined in the protest of his hon. Friend. It was a monstrous thing that in relation to a matter in which counties were essentially interested Scotch counties should not be represented; at least two such Members should be added.
    Motion deferred till Thursday.

    AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL.
    Select Committee nominated on Aire and Calder Navigation Bill:—Mr. Austin, Sir Henry Roscoe, Mr. William Beckett, and Captain Cotton nominated Members of the Committee.

    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
    Select Committee nominated on Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, re-committed as to Torquay Harbour Order:—Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Conybeare, Mr. Francis Powell, Mr. Mallock, and Mr. Round nominated Members of the Committee.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading Solicitors (195); Fishery Acts Amendment (Ireland) (86), discharged; Libel Law Amendment (190).
Committee—Report—Limited Partnerships (159).
Report—Habitual Drunkards Act (1879) Amendment (No. 2) (138).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Local Government (No. 13)* (207).
Committee—Report—Pier and Harbour*(135); Tramways (No. 3)* (191); Public Health (Scotland) (Kirkliston, Dalmeny, and South Queensferry Water)* (177).
Third Reading—Local Government (No. 6)* (181); Local Government (No.9)* (182); Local Government (No. 12)* (183); Local Government (No. 7)* (200); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries (West Loch Tarbert)* (145), and passed.

HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE LATEEMPEROR OF GERMANY.

  ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): My Lords, as directed by your Lordships, I forwarded to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin the Resolutions of Condolence with the Empress Victoria of Germany, passed by your Lordships' House, and I have received the following reply from Sir Edward Malet:—
  "My Lord Chancellor,
  I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordships' Letter of the 19th inst., transmitting to me copies of two Resolutions of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, conveying Messages of Condolence to the Empress Victoria from their Lordships' House, and I have the honour to inform your Lordships that Her Imperial Majesty was graciously pleased to receive me in audience yesterday, for the purpose of presenting these Messages. Her Imperial Majesty desired me to convey to their Lordships' House, through
  684
  your Lordship, her gratitude for these marks of sympathy with Her deep distress, and to express the hope that the memory of the Emperor Frederick, her dearly beloved Husband, may ever be preserved."
  Letter ordered to lie on the Table, and to be entered on the Journals.

AFFAIRS IN ZULULAND.

  QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLEasked the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could communicate to the House any information with regard to the situation of affairs in Zululand?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): Perhaps the best reply I can give to the noble Earl's request is conveyed in a telegram I received last night from Sir Arthur Havelock, dated the 8th of July:—
  "In consequence of defeat of Usibepu and withdrawal of police magistracy at Ivuna 23rd June disturbance has become serious. Natives of coast district to the north of Zulu Native Reserve, through fear of Dinuzulu, have taken part in rebellion. Attack upon magistrates of districts threatened. British troops and native contingent gave assistance to-day. Am confident forces now in Zululand are sufficient for restoration of good order, unless any unexpected complications arise. Dilatoriness in adopting necessary measures mainly caused by delay in collecting native contingent. Military authorities will not move without native contingent. It is believed that affair at Hlopekulu will have produced good effect. Government of New Republic maintain friendly action and professions. I have reason to believe there are a few freebooters with Dinuzulu. Local newspaper reports much exaggerated. Will telegraph at once any important changes in the situation of affairs."
  My Lords, it is impossible to deny that, though the situation is not dangerous, it is still serious, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to state in a very few words the position of affairs in Zululand as far as I can make it out. Dinuzulu, the son of the late King Cetywayo, and his uncle, Undabuko, are both together at a place called Ceza, on the North-West frontier of Zululand. What is the exact force they have with them it is difficult to make out, but Sir Arthur Havelock thinks we may number them at about 4,000. The Imperial Force is as follows:—A regular force of 300 Cavalry, 120 mounted Infantry, 440 Infantry, two light guns and two gatlings. Then there are reinforce-

  685
  ments, which have probably arrived by this time, of 677 Royal Scots and 21 artillerymen. There are of Zulu Carabineers 25 mounted and 135 foot, besides 250 Basutos and some Native levies. I have no exact information as to where the main body of Imperial troops is at present, but it has been found necessary on the way up to Ceza to disperse some insurgent levies under one of the Chiefs called Tshingana. The following telegram gives the shortest account of the matter. It is as follows:—
  "Tshingana having collected insurgent bands at Hlopekulu, near White Umvalosi River, has been raiding and plundering loyal Natives, it became necessary to dislodge him before advance to Ceza. 2nd July, police with native and Basuto levies, with support of troops, advanced to Hlopekulu, found Usutus in strong position, from which they at once opened fire. Usutus dispersed with heavy loss after six hours' fighting. About 1,000 cattle captured. Casualties on our side:—Killed—Lieutenant Briscoe, 1st Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers; Trent, leader of native levy; and three police and Basutos. Wounded—Eight Basutos. Losses among native levies not yet ascertained; Tshingana supposed to be escaped."
  My Lords, our duty is a very plain one; it is to advance and to put down Dinuzulu and Undabuko, and to prevent any further resistance to British Authority. When this has been successfully accomplished, I think that it will be easy for us to treat the other Chiefs who have risen against us with leniency. It is not difficult to understand why some of these Chiefs who gladly accepted the Sovereignty declared in May of last year have now risen against us. There have been all kinds of rumours spread through Zululand of the decline of the British power, and of our intention to retire. There has also been a feeling of distrust and doubt as to the finality of the arrangements made by the British Government and the continued maintenance of the Sovereignty. Every endeavour has been made to remove that distrust, and I think I may say that success has attended those endeavours. But now, unfortunately, they have heard of the failure in April last of the police to seize four men in Undabuko's kraal, from which they had to retire, and also of the far more serious failure in June last, when the police and troops intended to execute warrants against Dinuzulu and Undabuko, but were resisted in force and obliged to retire. No doubt, the rumours of these two events
  686
  have been much exaggerated, and the retirement of the troops has been treated as if the British Army had been defeated. In these circumstances a distrust has undoubtedly been revived against the British Government among the Natives. Looking at what has passed in Zululand for many years, I cannot altogether wonder that the Natives feel this distrust as to the maintenance of our Sovereignty in Zululand, and are, therefore, afraid that if Dinuzulu again secures power they will be treated harshly. This shows the necessity for speedy and decisive action against Dinuzulu and Undabuko. I am satisfied that Sir Arthur Havelock and General Smythe will take every necessary step, and that they feel the importance of carrying out our plans. I should like to add one other observation. I have seen it stated that the Boers—the Leaders of the South African Republic and the New Republic—are supporting Dinuzulu and Undabuko. Sir Arthur Havelock has pointed out that he does not believe that the Leaders of the New Republic have taken this step, though there may be some individual Boers who are with the Chiefs. I am quite satisfied, and I am glad to make public my belief, that the Leaders, both of the South African Republic and the New Republic, have lent no countenance to Dinuzulu's action, but, on the contrary, have endeavoured as far as possible to support us.

ELECTIONS (INTERVENTION OF PEERS AND PRELATES IN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS)—RESOLUTION.
Moved, "That the first paragraph of Standing Order No. XX. be suspended and that the consideration of the Report from the Select Committee on Elections (Intervention of Peers and Prelates in Parliamentary Elections) have precedence of the Orders of the Day and Notices which stand before it."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
Motion agreed to.
Then the said report was considered (according to order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY), in moving the reception of the Report, observed that their Lordships would remember that the Report of a Committee of the House of Commons, which had been sent to their Lordships repeating a Resolution which from time to time had been passed

687
every Session since the year 1641, had been referred to a Committee of their Lordships' House. In that Report certain statements had been made, but the nature of the infringement suggested had been unfortunately so wrapped up in ambiguity that it was very difficult to know what was intended by the Resolution. If it had referred simply to the absence of any right on the part of a Peer to vote in the election of a Member to serve in the House of Commons, he believed that none of their Lordships would have denied that by the Common Law of England a Peer was not entitled to vote. But the ambiguous language that a Peer should not concern himself in an election had been misunderstood to mean that Peers had no right to take an ordinary interest in electoral contests. While he believed, on the one hand, that no one would doubt that Peers are not entitled to vote in elections, on the other hand he believed that there was not the smallest foundation for suggesting that a Peer, like any other person interested in an election, could not take a lawful part in promoting the election of a Member of Parliament. The first conspicuous instance of action on the part of a Peer giving rise to this Resolution of the House of Commons was where a Peer had sent a letter to a particular borough ordering that a certain person should be elected member for that borough. In that case it was not unnatural that the House of Commons should resent such an occurrence as an undoubted interference, and the form of the Resolution specially passed indicated what it meant. A later instance was where an assault had taken place. But at present they had a modern Act of Parliament which made it penal to exercise any undue influence, and Peers as well as others were under that law. In these circumstances the Committee to whom their Lordships had remitted the consideration of this question had thought it right to make the following Report:—
"Inasmuch as a Resolution of one House of Parliament cannot affect the law, it is unnecessary to take any action on the Report of the House of Commons as to the continuance of the Sessional order with reference to the intervention of peers or prelates in Parliamentary elections."
That which was contrary to the law in a Peer was equally contrary in a Com-
688
moner, and that which was unlawful in a Commoner was equally unlawful in a Peer, and in his opinion there was no other distinction. As the Resolution of their Lordships' Committee had suggested, neither House of Parliament could either make or unmake law, and the Resolution of the House of Commons neither added to nor took away from what the law was. He begged to move that the Report of the Committee be received.
Moved, "That the Report be received."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ESHER (MASTER of the ROLLS)said, that he wished to say a few words, speaking entirely upon his own responsibility, which would be in no sense the opinion of their Lordships' House, with regard to the Resolution and Report of the House of Commons sent up to their Lordships. He would call their Lordships' attention to the extreme vagueness of the Resolution. It would be most difficult to say what interpretation was to be placed upon the Resolution. A good deal would depend on what was meant by interference. In the application of the Resolution to the case in 1641, to which the Lord Chancellor had referred, the Peer, he supposed, was the patron of the borough, and directed that a particular person should be elected as Member of Parliament. Such interference would by the Common Law be most improper. The second case, that of interference by force of arms, would no doubt also be most improper; but both would be as much illegal interference if done by any other person as by a Peer of the Realm. The Resolution could not pretend to be a judicial decision. The House of Commons had at one time the power of giving judicial decisions with regard to elections which were brought before it. But when there was no case before it upon which the House of Commons could adjudicate, it could not give anything like a judicial decision. A protest on the part of the House of Commons was but a pro-test, and could not have the effect of law before any judicial tribunal. Such a Resolution would have no effect whatever of any kind upon the law. As to the question of what the law is, and to the allegations in the Report, there is no legal penalty for interfering at an election, and no person

689
could be imprisoned for doing so. The only case in which the Resolution could possibly have any effect, if it could have an effect, was on a Parliamentary inquiry into the subject-matter of the election—namely, whether it was a due election or not. But the Resolution of the House of Commons could have no effect, because the House of Commons has given up the power of inquiring into the validity of an election, and the only tribunal which could inquire, and whose decision would have any effect, was the tribunal of the Judges appointed to try Election Petitions. Neither a Resolution of the House of Commons nor a Resolution of the House of Lords, nor both combined, would have any effect upon the Judges. The Judges must decide by Common Law or by Statute Law if anything should be alleged to have been done contrary to Statute. As he understood that this was the first time that this Resolution of the House of Commons had been sent to their Lordships' House, this is the first time that the House could take no notice of it. As it has never before come before them, it is impossible to say that their Lordships' House have failed to controvert it. It could not, therefore, be properly said that their Lordships, by not controverting, had made any admission. In the same way he was bound to say that this Resolution had never been brought in any shape or form to the attention of any judicial tribunal whatever. But if there had been an admission by their Lordships' House, it could be no higher than a declaration by the House; and, as he had said, a declaration of their Lordships' House would have the same effect only as a declaration of the House of Commons; and a joint declaration of both Houses would have no effect of any kind on the Common Law; it could neither add to it nor take from it. The Report went on to say that the Sessional Order of the House of Commons had been recognized by the Courts as a declaration of law. That was not so. He was party to a case in which not that Resolution, but a Resolution passed in 1699 was brought before the Court. This case was not called to the attention of the Committee of the House of Commons, though it is on the Journals. That case was that in consequence of the Earl of Manchester having voted at
690
an election, the House of Commons resolved that no Peer in this Kingdom had any right to give a vote in the election of any Member of Parliament. That Resolution was brought before the Court as the judicial decision of the House of Commons upon an Election Petition in which the seat was claimed, and the election was declared void. It was the decision of the House of Commons, therefore, given as a judicial decision determining the election. Such a decision, therefore, would probably be treated as a high authority by the Court of Common Pleas. He affirmed that the Resolution that Peers should not vote at elections, which was passed year by year by the House of Commons, had no effect what-ever. That Resolution had never been brought before any judicial tribunal of the country, and it was therefore erroneous to say that the Resolution was evidence of the Common Law of the land. The only Court that could come to a decision as to whether the interference of a particular Peer was or was not according to the Common Law of England was the Court of Judges of Election Petitions. If their Lordships were now to come to any decision on the subject it would be a futile decision and would have no effect whatever. The matter must be left to the only tribunal that could decide it. He, therefore, strongly advised their Lordships to adopt the Resolution.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he heartily agreed with every word contained in the Resolution. No Resolution of the Houses of Parliament could affect the law. It was quite certain that a Resolution passed by the House of Commons could not create the law if it did not otherwise exist. He was not, however, prepared to say that the declaration which had been made by the House of Cammons year after year for nearly two centuries was at variance with the Common Law of this country. If his noble and learned Friend opposite said that there was no decision which supported such a Resolution, he could only say there was no decision against it. Unquestionably it could not be denied that the impression had prevailed and been acted upon for many years that a Peer was not justified in taking that part in the election of Members of Parliament which every other subject could exercise. Distinction had been drawn between a

691
Peer taking part in ordinary political discussion and taking part in elections. Where the dividing line came in was a question which he did not think it necessary to decide. All he wished to say was that the matter should be left where it was. They could not by any expression of opinion make the law other than it was. He thought it was much better not to admit any new definition, especially as by immemorial usage there had been abstention on the part of Peers from taking part in elections. One other matter he ought to mention was that the Resolution of 1700 was brought to the attention of the Court of Common Pleas, and was referred to by Chief Justice Bovill in his judgment, though he quite agreed there was no decision in the case. He ought, also, to mention that after the Act of Union a new Standing Order was made which contained the old declaration, but in different terms, and making other provisions with reference to the action of Irish Peers. Therefore, it was not a mere reiteration from year to year, but the matter was considered by the House after the Act of Union. He entirely supported the Motion before the House, but he wished to make it clear that he was entitled to reserve his judgment as to what the Common Law had been.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was glad this discussion had taken place, because the fact that there was not absolute harmony among the Law Lords who had spoken with regard to the exact state of the law confirmed the necessity for approaching the subject with extreme caution; moreover, that want of harmony made the decision of their Lordship's Committee more satisfactory, as they were entirely agreed as to their Report. The state of the law on the subject appeared to him, as a Member of the Committee, to require very much more lengthened and elaborate inquiry than could be afforded to it on that occasion. The very fact that it was acknowledged on all hands that neither House of Parliament could by Resolution affect the law showed that there was no practical necessity for expressing an opinion on the Resolution of the Commons. He would, therefore, recommend their Lordships to adopt the Resolution.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): With reference to the legal argument of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell) I shall not venture to offer an opinion, but he diverged for a moment from a mere statement of the law to what he conceived to be a statement of fact, and on that point I do not think he was accurate. He stated that the immemorial usage was that no Peer should concern himself in an election at the time it was taking place. If he had said that that had been a general custom I should not have disputed it; but it has been by no means a universal custom. I have known Peers to vote at elections; at University elections it was a common thing. I have taken part myself as a Peer in proceedings about an election after the Writ was issued. I believe it has been frequently done, and the only rule limiting it has been the power of the House of Commons, up to a recent date, possessed of cancelling an election without giving any reason for that annulment. Of course, as long as the House of Commons had that power, if any Peer thought he had a right to interfere and did interfere, and the result was the annulment of the election, his labour would be thrown away; but as to the fact that they have aften interfered I have no doubt whatever. I venture to prophecy that, as matters are carried for decision more to the hustings and the platform and less to the House of Commons at Westminster, your Lordships, not as Peers, but simply as ordinary citizens, will at all times express your opinions, as you undoubtedly have the right to do, as to who are the best persons to frame financial laws which you will have to accept, and to select the rulers who will rule the country in which you dwell. If you have no right to express opinions on these matters, you are, in respect of them, in a position more disadvantageous than any citizen of this country who is not an elector. There would then be three graduated stages of disability—electors who can vote, non-electors who cannot vote but may express opinions, and Peers who may neither vote nor express opinions. I do not think the Constitution places you in that position. I believe that the very fact that you have no power in this House to deal with the selection of those who govern the country, the very fact that by usage you

693
abstain from dealing with financial matters, does morally and practically confer upon you the right which is possessed by the humblest subject of her Majesty of expressing at all times freely your opinions upon all political matters which are before the country.
Motion agreed to.

NAVAL EXPENDITURE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BRASSEY, in rising to call attention to the foreign squadrons, and to the large expenditure on ships not effective for the operations of war or the protection of trade, said, that he disavowed all intention to criticize the present Admiralty, which had rendered excellent service to the country. His object was to propose a change of system, to increase the building of effective ships by diminishing expenditure on those which were comparatively ineffective. The experience of the last two years must have impressed on all who were interested in the Navy the imperative necessity of concentrating our efforts on essentials. Under a Government which could not be suspected of indifference to the security of the Empire we had seen a sweeping reduction of Navy Estimates. He did not condemn the Admiralty for accepting reductions, or the Government for showing some distrust of the assurances so glibly given in various quarters that the country was ready to spend unlimited amounts on the increase of the Navy. The experience of every Chancellor of the Exchequer was the same. Proposals to build ships and to raise seamen were popular enough. There was always some fatal objection to new taxes. Impressed with the difficulty of increasing Estimates, while at the same time earnestly desiring to obtain more protection for our commerce, he would consider the means—in effect the only means—by which the object in view could be attained. It was not necessary to make exaggerated statements as to the inferiority of the British Fleet in comparison with other Powers. In the construction of swift and powerful vessels great progress had been made within a recent period. In vessels built or completing we had established a decided superiority. When, however, we turned to the programme of building
  694
  now in course of execution in France and England, it was evident that our position in the future was seriously threatened. Setting aside the torpedo gunboats, which were in no sense cruisers, the English programme of shipbuilding for 1888–9 included the two first-class cruisers, Blake and Blenheim, 9,000 tons, 22 knots; the five second-class cruisers, M type, 2,900 tons, 20 knots; and two third-class cruisers, 1,800 tons, 19.5 knots. The French shipbuilding programme was much more ambitious. It included the 20-knot ships Dupuy de Lôme, belted cruiser, 6,360 tons; and the Davoust and Suchet, protected cruisers, 6,027 tons. Their list of 19-knot vessels included 11 ships—Tage, 7,045 tons, Cécile, 5,766 tons, three Alger type, 4,162 tons, and six third-class cruisers, Surcouf type, 1,850 tons. Of ships steaming 19 knots and over France was building 14, England nine. Making full allowance for greater rapidity of construction, when we looked to the vessels in progress in France and to the figures recently published by Lloyds, showing the approximate value of our Mercantile Marine to that of France as £93,000,000 to £9,000,000, we saw that greater efforts were required on the part of the British Admiralty. As an immediate step Sir Arthur Hood recently asked for six additional cruisers. The question to be considered was how such a reinforcement of the Fleet might be obtained with the least charge to the public. When we were building for the protection of commerce speed was the first condition of efficiency, and we were now, as in the past, wasting money in building too many cruisers greatly inferior in speed to those building in France. We were building four third-class cruisers of the Barossa class—1,580 tons, 16.5 knots. No figure was named for those ships in the Estimates; but the cost could not be less than £400,000. Then there were the five ships of the Buzzard class, 1,140 tons, 14.5 knots, and the Melita, 12.5 knots, costing, in round figures, £65,000 each. There were also 15 gunboats of the Pheasant type—13 knots; cost £41,000. In all we had in hand 25 comparatively slow vessels, which would cost in the aggregate at least £1,405,000. France had only five vessels of the corresponding class. The

  695
  cost would be under £400,000. We were spending on cruisers conspicuously inferior to those building for France, Italy, and the United States, a sum which would have given us 10 more 20-knot cruisers of the Medea class; and it was not open to question that such an addition to the Navy would have been more valuable for the protection of commerce than any number of gunboats. All that unsatisfactory expenditure on peace-service vessels to which he had referred did not fall on the Estimates of the current financial year; but the proprotion chargeable to 1888–9 formed a serious deduction from the money available for building effective ships. Excluding indirect charges, £2,667,000 was taken for new construction in 1888–9. An analysis showed that the expenditure on ships designed for war service, including the armoured and protected vessels over 19 knots and the torpedo flotilla, was £1,944,814. Surveying and other necessary services absorbed £101,000. Thus far the appropriation of the shipbuilding Vote was entirely satisfactory. What was not satisfactory was that we should spend no less than £621,520 on protected vessels under 17 knots and unprotected vessels under 15 and 14 knots. The excessive construction of vessels of inadequate speed was not a new defect in our naval administration. The extent of this drain on our resources was shown in some striking figures presented to Parliament with the Navy Estimates of this year. Taking the period from 1866–8 onwards, our total expenditure on shipbuilding was £33,134,851. Looking through the figures in detail, it was painful to see that millions had been sunk in corvettes, sloops, and small vessels designed only for peace requirements, not suitable by reason of insufficiency of speed for the protection of commerce, and not powerful enough for the line-of-battle. Our larger partially protected ships approached very near in the cost per ton to some of our most powerful ironclads, and in the last 10 years we had completed 16 such vessels of the Comus and Satellite types, none having a speed of more than 13 knots. Eleven corvettes of somewhat inferior speed had been built, the earliest having been completed in 1870. Since 1872 we had built 19 sloops, 15 gun vessels,
  696
  and 28 cruising gunboats, with speeds ranging from 14 knots in the latest to under 10 knots in the earlier types. The total cost of these vessels was no less than £5,483,733. The cost of maintenance after completion to the 31st of March, 1887, was given at £1,385,000; and if they added the Dockyard incidental charges apportioned to each ship, amounting to over £1,018,610, they arrived at a total expenditure in the period subsequent to 1865 amounting to £7,887,522. It was because we had been building so many vessels adapted only to peace requirements that we were driven, when the prospect of a conflict with Russia seemed imminent, to take up at great cost for conversion into cruisers merchant steamers absolutely unprotected and weakly armed, but possessing the speed which was indispensable, and in which the ships built for the Navy were wanting. That unhappy experience should not be renewed. They had been more successful in France in checking unprofitable expenditure on what had been happily described as the poussière navale. Of 13 to 14-knot vessels France had four and England 26. Of vessels of 13 down to 10 knots France had 43 and England 52. Under 10 knots France had 15 and England 69, Mere harbour-service craft were not included on either side. It was worthy of notice that our numerical superiority increased as we descended in quality. No administration would willingly have incurred a large and continuous expenditure on vessels known when they were laid down to be practically useless in war. We had been building, and we were now building, to satisfy demands pertinaciously pressed upon the Admiralty for the display of the flag in every quarter of the globe where we had commercial interests to protect and Consuls to represent us, no matter how inferior the vessel upon which it was borne. How seriously our Administration was hampered by these impolitic requisitions was readily seen upon an examination of the squadrons on foreign stations. Taking the numbers as they stood at a recent date, of ships steaming 17 knots and over, we had nine, as against two French ships. Of the ineffective class steaming 14 knots and under, our ships in commission were 63, to 29 under the French flag. These

  697
  numbers were exclusive of 11 tenders to our reserve ships, and the gunboats attached to our home ports. Where we were dealing with savage races, as in the Eastern Archipelago or the Pacific, the mere display of the flag was sufficient for the maintenance of order. With civilized nations, however, it was not the flag, but the effective power of which it was the symbol which alone produced any sensible impression. France was the only foreign Power which had attempted to follow our system of maintaining numerous small vessels in every quarter of the globe, and her policy in this regard was condemned by her most distinguished officers. Nothing existed in our naval administration for which no good reason could be given at the time when it was established; but many things were survivals of the past, and not suited to present conditions. That was eminently true in relation to our foreign squadrons. The excessive number of small vessels under the British Flag on foreign stations originated in the building of gunboats by hundreds in the Crimean War, for service in the Baltic. Having these gunboats on our hands, the desire to find a use for them was natural, and at a time when communication was slow and difficult, it was desirable to keep vessels near at hand to give protection to British interests. With the introduction of the telegraph and steam, the conditions were altered. The policy which we should follow in the altered circumstances of the case was well described in a letter which he had received from Sir Spencer Robinson. Instead of showing our flag in slow and inefficient but costly vessels, scattered singly over the globe, squadrons of swift and powerful vessels should be kept ready at home, and at certain stations abroad, within reach of the electric telegraph, and thence despatched to the place where a naval force might be required. Flying squadrons under the British Flag should occasionally visit every sea. If a question were raised as to the means by which officers and men would be trained when the small vessels were reduced, the answer was that there was little to stimulate energy, no emulation, and but limited opportunity for gaining professional knowledge in scattered vessels of inferior type. The instruction of the navy would be best carried on in
  698
  flying squadrons, in training squadrons, and by an annual mobilization, such as the present Board of Admiralty had twice carried out, to the great advantage of the Service. He should be glad to learn that the Admiralty had resolved on some revision of the programme of building now before Parliament. It would be satisfactory to receive the announcement that those fast cruisers were about to be ordered which Sir Arthur Hood was so desirous to lay down. As an immediate practical step, he would urge that our naval requirements abroad should be specially considered at the Foreign and Colonial Offices. As a result of such an examination, he looked for the gradual withdrawal of some 30 or 40 small craft. With Estimates framed in anticipation of peace, we must look for the means of strengthening our position, not so much to an increase of expenditure as to efficient administration. He submitted the case, which he had endeavoured to state as clearly and plainly as he could, with confidence to the deliberate consideration of the Government.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, the noble Lord, with the knowledge he had of the conduct of affairs at the Admiralty, must be perfectly well aware that in the month of July it would be impossible to make any radical change in the programme fairly considered and decided upon in the early part of the year. He could only assure the noble Lord that the suggestions he had made would be kept in view by the Admiralty when the building programme for next year came to be considered. He thanked the noble Lord most cordially for his kindness in providing him with a précis of his speech, because it would enable him to deal with the various subjects he had taken up. Now, since the year 1885, the First Lord of the Admiralty had laid down no less than 57 vessels, and of 60 vessels now building, 56 would be completed in two years' and the remainder in three years' time. The whole of the vessels now being constructed were being pushed forward in the most rapid manner possible, a considerable saving of money being effected thereby, and the present rate of construction was such that we were turning out two ships for one of any Foreign Power. In his enumeration of the shipbuilding programme of 1888–9,

  699
  the noble Lord should have mentioned in addition the Australian cruisers and two torpedo boats; while, with regard to comparisons with the French programme, which he said was more ambitious, he had to point out that that programme existed only on paper, no commencement having yet been made in carrying it out. It was perfectly true that great efforts were required on the part of the British Admiralty in the building of effective cruisers, and in 1890 the relative number of cruisers of France and England would stand thus:—France would have 13 cruisers and England 22 cruisers, with a speed of 19 knots. With regard to the noble Lord's remarks on the list of comparatively small vessels, he maintained that it was an absolute necessity that we should build small vessels as well as large, considering the variety of our interests to be protected and the overwhelming proportions of our commerce sailing every sea. He did not quite follow what the noble Lord tried to prove by his figures showing the comparative number of small vessels of France and England; but, for one thing, they showed that France, with fewer Colonies and less trade and a smaller Mercantile Marine, found it necessary to employ 29 small vessels; while we, with our much larger trade, found it necessary to employ 61, the respective interests of the two countries being, as the noble Lord had shown, as 93 to 9. The building programme had been most carefully considered by the Board of Admiralty. They had to consider the strength of our squadrons on foreign stations based on the requirements of each station, and they were of opinion that vessels of various classes were absolutely required in order to protect those interests efficiently. For instance, in the East Indies, the Pacific, China, and Australia, where long distances had to be covered, and where facilities for re-coaling were few and far between, it was necessary to have a certain number of vessels of moderate size sheathed and coppered in order to maintain their speed without docking frequently, and that such vessels should be provided with a moderate amount of sail-power to enable them to economize their coal. Again, it was absolutely necessary to have gun vessels of mode-rate draft of water in order to ascend the rivers. This was indispensable on
  700
  the coast of Africa, the East Indies, and China. Fast vessels with steel bottoms were quite unfit for such duties. He remembered an instance in which, having been sent to destroy a piratical stronghold on the coast of North Borneo, piloted by a smaller ship belonging to the East India Government, that small vessel was ashore four times in one forenoon; had she been a fast vessel, with a steel bottom, instead of destroying the stockades, which he did two days afterwards, our whole time would have been employed in repairing the smaller vessel, if, indeed, there was anything left of her to repair. It was also necessary to have some fast cruisers on the foreign stations, and as the slow vessels completed their time the Government were replacing them with new and fast vessels. In China, for instance, the Audacious, flagship, was being replaced by the Impérieuse, having a speed of 17 knots. The Leander, of the same speed, was also on that station, and the Porpoise, of the same speed, had also been sent there. In Australia, the Nelson, flagship, would be replaced by the Orlando, with a speed of 19 knots, and one of the newest gunboats, the Lizard, of 715 tons and 13 knots speed, had replaced two sailing schooners. On the West coast of Africa, the Brisk, 1,770 tons, was about to replace the Icarus, of 970 tons. In the Meditteranean they had four vessels of 17 knots speed, the Phaeton, Fearless, Scout, and Surprise, and this course of replacing slow cruisers with fast ones would be proceeded with. No foreign vessel on any foreign station could steam 16½ knots, the speed of the Barracouta class. Armament, coal-carrying capacity, and sea-going qualities were more essential on distant stations than mere speed on the measured mile, which was often obtained by a sacrifice of these qualities and by light scantling. Then the noble Lord said that 30 or 40 of our slow gunboats ought to be gradually recalled and paid off, beginning with those on the Mediterranean Station and on the coasts of America. But, as a matter of fact, we had only 13 slow gunboats in commission on foreign stations, three in the Mediterranean, three on the North American Station—to which one relief had gone—one at the Cape, four at the China Station, and two at the Australian. Three new gun-boats had already gone out, and those

  701
  now building were for the purpose of replacing these 13 gunboats. Then the noble Lord suggested that a training squadron and a flying squadron, such as that which had been cruising under the German Flag, should occasionally be seen in every quarter of the globe. As a matter of fact, the German training squadron consisted of four corvettes. The English training squadron consisted in like manner of four corvettes, the crews being changed every six months. The Channel Squadron also served as a training school, and on each of the foreign stations the ships were assembled annually and cruised together as a fleet for about throe months. Looking to the varied interests of the country, scattered as they were over every part of the globe, they did not think it possible, or even desirable, to concentrate their vessels as suggested at the end of a telegraph wire. Then the noble Lord hoped that the Admiralty had resolved upon some revision of the programme of building now before Parliament; in lieu of the gunboats not as yet commenced it would be satisfactory to receive the announcement that those fast cruisers were about to be ordered, which Sir A. W. Acland Hood is desirous to lay down. But what were the words of Sir A. W. Acland Hood? In answer to Question 4,315 before the Commissioners, he used these words—
  "As I said before, I do not consider it a point of vital importance, but I should be glad to see six more fast cruisers by the end of 1890."
  With regard to that building programme, it consisted of the two most powerful protected cruisers in the world, the Blake and the Blenheim, of 9,000 tons displacement, 22 knots speed, and coal-carrying power to steam 15,000 knots at 10 knots speed; the Vulcan, 6,600 tons, 20 knots speed, and coal-carrying power to steam 12,000 knots at 10 knots speed; the Bellona and Barham, third-class cruisers, of 1,800 tons and 19½ knots speed, four protected and sheathed third-class cruisers of the Barossa class, of 1,580 tons and 16½knots, and two gun vessels of the Buzzard class, 1,040 tons and 15 knots, with a draft of 12ft. 2in. These last vessels were for the distant foreign stations. They were building six improved Rattlesnakes, first-class gun vessels of 750 tons and 21 knots speed; five fast
  702
  cruisers of 2,500 tons each and 19 knots speed; and two torpedo gunboats of 750 tons and 21 knots speed for the protection of trade in Australia. This was a very suitable programme to meet our most pressing requirements. It was the largest building programme we had ever had with the exception of one in the time of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Northbrook). The noble Lord advocated speed as the one essential. The noble Lord forgot the price that had to be paid for speed; the boiler and engine-room space had to be increased, to the detriment of the health and comfort of officers and men. The noble Lord had travelled much by sea, but he had always had the comfort of a yacht, and he little knew what it was to serve for years, or even months, in a hot climate on board a man-of-war. With regard to the question of building small vessels, he would ask the noble Lord, who had been for five years in the Admiralty, whether he had ever during that time condemned that policy as he now did? Had the noble Lord ever remonstrated? If he did so it was evident that he had failed to carry his Colleagues with him. If he did not remonstrate while he was in Office, why did he come down now that he was in Opposition, and condemn a policy which he had himself supported? As a good many remarks had been made at meetings, and in the public Press about the unprepared state of our Navy, it might be interesting to their Lordships to know what had actually taken place during the past week in the organizing and assembling of the two Fleets at Spithead and Portland. On July 2 the Commanders-in-Chief at the home ports were informed by telegraph that certain vessels were to be commissioned on the 4th, manned and prepared in all respects for sea as rapidly as possible. On the 7th the following ships were assembled and organized into fleets:—At Spithead, 13 armoured ships, 11 cruisers, 2 torpedo gun vessels of 20-knots speed, and 12 first-class torpedo boats, in all 38 vessels, under Admiral Baird; at Portland, 9 armoured ships, 8 cruisers, 2 torpedo gun vessels, and 12 first-class torpedo boats, under Sir George Tryon; inclusive of 9 armoured ships of the coast district squadron, and 4 of the Channel Squadron, the whole manned by 16,090 officers and men, The ships,

  703
  when commissioned, were in the condition in which they would be at a time of strained relations—coaled, and with their filled shell on board. In addition to the 22 armoured vessels at Spithead and Portland, we had in commission 7 battle ships, and 1 torpedo ram in the Mediterranean, and 8 armoured ships abroad, making a total of 37 armoured ships, and the armoured torpedo ram in commission, and ready for any service. He did not wish it to be supposed, from what he had said, that he was attempting to show that the strength of the Navy was sufficient for the various duties which in time of war it would be called upon to perform. The First Lord of the Admiralty had said, on more than one occasion, that we were not so strong as we ought to be, or as strong as we would be provided that his building programme was steadily pursued; but that, in his opinion, it was better to carry out a continuous and well-considered building programme rather than to rush into a hasty, and what might be termed, a panic programme.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he should not enter into the general question of the comparative strength of different European Navies, which was a subject difficult adequately to discuss in a debate in that House. He, however, desired to refer to the matter of the supply of naval guns. This was a vital point in regard to the strength of our Navy. All other preparations were futile unless there were the necessary guns available. He thought he should be supported by a consensus of opinion that we were at present very deficient in the matter of such guns, and that this was, in some degree, due to the competition between the Army and Navy. The recently constructed 12in. gun, corresponding to the 43-ton gun, which cost so large a sum of money, and consumed two years in its manufacture, had been an entire failure, and could not be used in its present condition. Nor had the 10in. guns been a success. His noble Friend said that the policy of the Admiralty was a policy of rapidity. That was certainly a very excellent policy, for the great cause of complaint hitherto had been the enormous delay in the manufacture of the necessary guns. No doubt as time progressed guns which were excellent at one period became obsolete; but that
  704
  was no reason why guns of the best type should not always be available. It was owing to the Germans having acted on this principle that when the Danish War broke out they found themselves so advantageously placed. And at the present time Germany continued to act upon this principle; and, as a matter of fact, found no difficulty in getting an adequate supply of Krupp guns. Nor should we find any difficulty if we proceeded in the right way. Manufacturers were quite ready to carry out any orders they received, provided that the orders were given in time, and upon a sufficiently large scale to make it remunerative for them to lay down the necessary plant. To manufacture such guns as these, very expensive plant was required, and manufacturers would not provide it on the mere chance of future orders; they must get large orders before the outlay was incurred. Our Colonies found no difficulty in obtaining the large guns that they required. In Victoria, New Zealand, New South Wales, and Canada there were guns of the most modern type. But it must be borne in mind that guns could not be got at the moment that they were required, and that if they were to be obtained at all they must be ordered in time, and upon such a scale as to induce manufacturers to undertake the contract of supplying them. When, some years ago, the Commission, of which he was Chairman, was appointed to inquire into the coaling stations, the state of Gibraltar, Malta, Halifax, and Bermuda was withdrawn by the Government from the scope of that inquiry. He did not blame the Government for that, but the fact threw upon the Administration of the time, and all succeeding Administrations, a grave responsibility. He did not, on the present occasion, desire to refer to Bermuda and Halifax, though he believed that adequate steps were not being taken there, and that things were in a condition of slumber and apathy. But Malta and Gibraltar were essential to our naval subsistence in the Mediterranean, and he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would look closely at the state of affairs there. Very serious questions arose owing to the altered condition of naval affairs, and that which was satisfactory a few years ago might not be so now. Though he was aware that much money had been spent on

  705
  these stations, still he feared that all that was adequate was not being done. He had information which he did not desire to lay before the House, but which led him strongly to urge Her Majesty's Government to attend carefully to those important Mediterranean positions.

  SOLICITORS' BILL—(No. 195.)
  (The Lord Esher.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD ESHER (MASTER of the ROLLS), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, among other things, the Bill provided for the transfer to the Incorporated Law Society of the custody of the Roll of Solicitors, which heretofore had been in the custody of the Clerk of the Petty Bag. This would lead to a considerable saving of salaries. The Bill also provided for the admission of solicitors by the Master of the Rolls upon production of a certificate from the Incorporated Law Society of having passed the final examination. On production of the admission, signed by the Master of the Rolls, and on payment of a fee of £5, it would be the duty of the Registrar of the Incorporated Law Society to cause the name of such person to be entered on the Roll of Solicitors. With regard to an application to strike a solicitor off the Roll, or an application for the hearing of allegations against a solicitor, the Bill proposed that the Law Society should appoint a discipline committee of not less three or more than seven members, who should make inquiries into the matters alleged. If the committee were of opinion that there was no primâ facie case of misconduct the Society need proceed no further. But if the committee believed that there was a case, it would be the duty of the Society to bring the report of the committee before the Court, which would make such order as it might think fit. If the committee of the Law Society came to the conclusion that there was no foundation for the case, the party who insisted that the solicitor had misconducted himself would not be prevented from going into a Court of Law, though the Law Society would not be bound to follow up the case.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Esher.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  LIBEL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  (The Lord Monkswell.)

  (NO. 190.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MONKSWELL, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had passed through the House of Commons. It proposed to alter the law in two directions. First, it proposed to extend the conditional privilege now enjoyed, and in the next place to amend the law of libel in the direction of restricting to some extent the costs and damages. It was proposed to give not an absolute but a qualified immunity. If there was absolute privilege it would be impossible to break down a plea on the ground of malice, but that was not so where there was only a qualified privilege. The word "scandalous" had been used in connection with the words "blasphemous and indecent" as destroying the immunity which might be otherwise claimed for a report. But if "scandalous" were taken by Judges in the ordinary sense of the word, its retention would do away with all privilege, as every report affecting character might be considered as scandalous. Clause 4 would extend the law of privilege to fair reports of meetings of County Councils, when established, Town Councils, and Board of Guardians as to which the public would naturally desire to know what was going on. But nothing contained in the clause would affect anything which was not of public interest. He ventured to think that that proviso was not necessary. Clause 7 proposed that a person charged with libel should be capable of showing by evidence that the person who complained of being libelled had already received compensation in other actions he had brought. He ventured to think that the measure was a very moderate one, and that it had been conceived in the interest of the public, as well as in the interest of newspapers. It did something to mitigate the present state of the law when

  707
  it was brought into operation by unscrupulous and designing persons.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Monkswell.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he had no intention of moving the rejection of the Bill at the present stage, but he wished to give Notice that when the Bill went into Committee he should certainly move either to omit or modify the 4th clause. That clause was very much dealt with in "another place," and he thought that some of the modifications there made should be got rid of. The language in regard to what were public meetings should be carefully guarded. The Act of 1831, which justified the publication of proceedings in public meeting, carefully guarded the privilege, and made it a qualified privilege by enacting that the publication must be for the public benefit. In this 4th section the "public benefit" had been converted into "public interest." What did those words mean? He was afraid it was only true to say that if matter was particularly slanderous it was particularly interesting to the public. The whole substance of the section appeared to him to be open to exception, as there were meetings of various kinds described. He thought that the clause was an extremely dangerous one, and when it came on for discussion in Committee he should, as he had said, either move to omit it or to considerably modify it.
  LORD COLERIDGE (LORD CHIEF JUSTICE of ENGLAND)said, he did not wish to oppose the Bill at this stage, but he should have an Amendment to propose which had been suggested to him by a committee of very respectable provincial newspaper proprietors. He wished to give Notice, therefore, that he should move an Amendment to the clause which dealt with the powers of the Public Prosecutor. He thought that further protection was needed against criminal libel actions.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he gave his hearty support to the Bill. He thought it was desirable that the law should be amended in the manner suggested. It was quite true that the provision affecting the publication of the proceedings of public meetings might be open to observation as being somewhat too large; but as the proceedings
  708
  in Parliament, in which the public were interested, had been held to be privileged, so the public were interested in the proceedings of local bodies which, at present, were not privileged, but to which privilege should be extended. The public took an interest in the proceedings of local bodies, and it was for the public advantage that they should be published, but there should be some limitation. The reports of such proceedings should not be protected if the public were not admitted. He agreed with the noble Lord who introduced the Bill that the word "scandalously" ought to be omitted. It seemed to him to have been inserted inadvertently. One clause in the Bill extended the immunity from criminal proceedings. With regard to that matter, he thought it was only right that, if the immunity was extended, it should be extended only on the condition that the offending newspaper should insert a contradiction or correction of the libellous matter.
  LORD ESHER (MASTER of the ROLLS)said, his principal objection to the Bill rested on Clause 4. He had been unable to gather what was to constitute a meeting a "public" meeting. A meeting of shareholders in a railway or other undertaking was not a meeting to which the public were admitted; but it might be a matter of interest to shareholders who were not present to know what had taken place. He hoped that in Committee those who were interested in the Bill would determine what was meant by a public meeting.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that as the phraseology of some of the clauses had been criticized in this stage, he thought it might be useful to mention, that in the description of meetings as "lawfully convened, or held for a lawful purpose," the disjunctive "or" was improper, and that it ought to be the conjunctive, "and."
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 17 th instant.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.