Sitting of 27 July 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Report—Navy Estimates [Third Report] [No. 304]; Emigration and Immigration (Foreigners) [Inquiry not completed] [No. 305].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Doddingtree and Bewdley Bridges* [352]; Municipal Corporations (Local Bills) (Ireland)* [351]; Expiring Laws Continuance* [353]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* [354]; Public Works Loans* [355].
Report of Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures—Sea Fisheries Regulation [No. 303].
Further Considered as amended—Re-comm.—Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Local Government (England and Wales) [338], and passed.
Withdrawn—Liquor Traffic Local Option (England) [119].

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW APPOINTMENTS (WALES) —PUBLIC VACCINATORS.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that there is no vaccination station in Wales at which a public vaccinator is authorized to give the certificate of proficiency in vaccination required by the Local Government Board of every medical man before he can hold a Poor Law appointment, and that, in consequence, medical men obtaining Poor Law appointments in Wales have to make journeys, at much expense and inconvenience, to Bristol, Liverpool, or London, to obtain their certificates; and, whether he will take steps for appointing a public vaccinator in two or three of the larger Welsh towns?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that a certificate of proficiency in vaccination is required by the Local Government Board of every medical man before he can hold a Poor Law appointment. The certificate is required, not for a Poor Law appointment, but for the office of public vaccinator. It is the case that there is no public vaccination station in Wales at
  654
  which this certificate can be obtained; but the Board are not aware that any serious inconvenience has been occasioned thereby. The College of Physicians, the College of Surgeons, and the Apothecaries Society now require the certificate from every candidate for their diploma or licence, and hence most medical men now obtain these certificates before entering on practice. It is not usual to appoint examiners to grant these certificates in towns in which there is no School of Medicine. But if a Medical School should be established for Wales, I shall be prepared to consider the question of appointing an examiner who would be authorized to give these certificates.

  DEAN AND CHAPTER OF WESTMINSTER—THE STATUE OF THE LATE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, Whether it is correctly stated in The Daily News of July 19, that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, after having offered to place a statue of the late Earl of Shaftesbury in Westminster Abbey, have required the payment first of £400 and then of £250 before permitting its erection, and that, as the Memorial Committee have no funds available for the purpose, the statue remains in the studio of the sculptor; and, whether the claim is made at the instance or with the concurrence of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as receivers of the Abbey revenues; and, if so, whether, in consideration of the valuable services rendered to the nation by the Earl of Shaftesbury, the claim will be waived?
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY: I know nothing, as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, of the statement in The Daily News. No such claim has been made at the instance, or with the concurrence, of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Question relates to a matter with which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have nothing whatever to do, beyond seeing, under the provisions of the Westminster Abbey Act just passed, that any fees received by the Chapter for the erection of monuments have been carried to the Fabric Fund.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— COST OF THE MODEL SCHOOLS.
  MR. PINKERTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If last year the expenditure of public money in the model schools was at the rate of £3 12 s. per pupil in average attendance; if the number of new teachers appointed in the national schools was 552; and if only 33 of those had been pupil teachers in the model schools; if, in 1886, the passes in convent and monastery schools were higher than in model schools; and if this was notably so in the highest class; if the model schools are examined by the Head and District Inspectors; and, if the promotion of these Inspectors depends in any way on the success of these examinations?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that last year the expenditure of public money in the model schools was at the rate of £3 12 s. per pupil, which, however, included the cost of maintenance of the pupil teachers boarded at the establishments, matrons, servants, and other incidental expenses. The numbers are as stated in the second paragraph; but the 33 pupil teachers are exclusive of seven others who became teachers from Training Colleges, having, before they entered the Training College, been pupil teachers. The passes in 1886 show a very slight superiority in the infants and sixth classes of the convent and monastery schools over those of the model schools; while, as regards the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth classes the position is reversed. The aggregate percentage of passes is nearly equal in the two classes of schools, being in the former 90·1, and in the model schools 90 per cent. The reply to paragraph four is in the affirmative. To paragraph five in the negative.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— BUILDING GRANT FOR SCIENCE SCHOOLS.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Treasury would be willing to sanction the removal of the restriction on building, grants for Science Schools, which
  656
  makes it one of the conditions of grants in aid to such schools that they be built in connection with a School of Art, aided by a Departmental building grant?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said, that he must at present answer the Question in the negative. Great expenditure was being pressed upon the Government in connection with Technical Schools, grants for Colleges, and for the development of scientific and technical education. The Government was in sympathy with the movement; but it was necessary to look at the question as a whole, and to bring all these schemes together, and then to see in what order, and to what extent, these claims could be met.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything he possibly can to urge on legislation in this matter?
  MR. MUNDELLAasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any answer about the grants, seeing that they were near the end of the Session?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the method of carrying out the undertaking previously given proved to be extremely difficult. The matter was not in his hands, but in those of the Education Department, which had been looking into the various projects, and endeavouring to form a scheme. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that with all his desire to promote education he would find it difficult to formulate a scheme. The Government would do their best to facilitate legislation on technical education; but the right hon. Gentleman would see that it was impossible for the Government to undertake this Session more than they had already done.

  INLAND FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—ROD FISHING FOR TROUT.
  MR. A. L. BROWN&c.)asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that the tenant of Abbotsford has intimated his resolution to stop all angling by the public for trout in the half mile or so of Tweed which touches that estate; whether it is the case that a gamekeeper on the Neidpath Estate of the Earl of Wemyss has announced that within a month the public will be excluded from the water between Manor-

  657
  foot and Peebles; whether these two stretches of water have hitherto always been open to the public for trout fishing purposes; and, whether, on account of the action of many proprietors in excluding the public from fishings to which they have had access from time immemorial, he will bring in a Bill to give the public free rod fishing for trout on all rivers, streams, and natural lochs in Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am not aware of the facts stated in the first three Questions. But, assuming them to be correct, the question of the right of trout fishing in these waters is one which can only be settled in a Court of Law, and must depend upon title. I do not intend to bring in a Bill for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Lord Advocate, why the Government had not introduced their Salmon Fishing Bill, which had been repeatedly promised?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I do not think that arises out of the present Question.
  MR. A. L. BROWNsaid, that seeing that the Lord Advocate had so often promised to bring in a Fishing Bill, would he consent to print it, in order that they might see how the Government proposed to deal with the serious grievance which had arisen under the present unjust laws?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I will consider that point.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—DISCHARGE OF AN INSANE PRISONER FROM LIMERICK GAOL.
  MR. JORDANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the report is true that a man named Kennedy, from Clare, who was sentenced under the Crimes Act to a month's imprisonment in Limerick Gaol for taking part in a National League meeting on the Shannon, has become insane, and is discharged by the order of the authorities to obtain the care of his friends at home?
  MR. COXalso asked, Whether it is a fact that a prisoner under the Criminal Law and Procedure
  658
  (Ireland) Act named Kennedy, from County Clare, has been discharged insane from Limerick Prison before the completion of his sentence; and, if so, whether an inquiry as to his treatment while in prison will be instituted?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The General Prisons Board report that a man named Kennedy, from Clare, had been committed to Limerick Prison under a sentence of 21 days' imprisonment. Some 10 days afterwards he exhibited signs of insanity, and was removed to the district lunatic asylum.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to place in the hands of the House materials to enable the House to judge how the man became insane in prison?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I have no grounds.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not ask what grounds the right hon. Gentleman had; but he asked whether he would afford the House material to enable them to judge how this man became insane?
  MR. JORDAN: Has this man been sent home to the care of his friends?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that he has not; but that he has been sent to an asylum.
  DR. TANNER: Is he under the care of Dr. Barr, or any of his confederates?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  EJECTMENT AND CIVIL BILL DECREES (IRELAND).
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state the number of ejectment decrees for non-payment of rent, and also the number of Civil Bill decrees for the recovery of rent which have been granted at the recent sitting of the County Court in each of the following towns in the County of Down—namely, Downpatrick, Newtownards, Banbridge, and Newry; and, how many of these decrees include the old rents of holdings in respect of which the fair rents have not yet been fixed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he had asked for a Report

  659
  on the matter, but had not yet received it. He was not yet aware how far the information required would be available.

  COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION ACT, 1887, SEC. 54—THE CUMBERLAND COLLIERIES.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to give notice that the Special Rules for the Cumberland Collieries be revised as per 54th section of "the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887?"
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; it is my intention to propose Special Rules for the Cumberland District under the 54th section of the Mines Act of last Session.

  WAR OFFICE—HOURS OF LABOUR IN GOVERNMENT WORKSHOPS.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the case that eight hours is the recognized working day in the Government workshops except at Enfield?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE), in reply, said, the regular working hours of an ordinary day in the Government establishments were 9½.

  NAVY—HOURS OF LABOUR IN NAVAL WORKSHOPS.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If eight hours is the recognized working day at the naval workshops, Dockyards, &c.?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON), in reply, said, the average working day throughout the year of the men employed in the Dockyards was 8½ hours. The working day of the men employed under the Works Department averaged 9½ hours throughout the year.

  POST OFFICE—HOURS OF LABOUR AT THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM, asked the Postmaster General, If eight hours is the recognized working day in the Post Office?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES), in reply, said, in the Post Office the hours of attendance ranged from six to 10 a day, according to the nature of the employment.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked, if it was not the case that those who worked only six hours a day were the superior clerks?
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he had given all the information he had got; but, no doubt, it was the upper clerks' service where the work was only six hours.
  MR. LAWSON, asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether any new Regulations had been introduced to shorten the excessive hours of the London postmen?
  MR. RAIKES: I cannot say that any Regulation has been issued with regard to the hours of London postmen; but constant endeavours are made, as far as possible, to keep down the hours to a fair working day—that is to say, to as near eight hours as possible.

  POST OFFICE, DUBLIN—APPOINTMENT OF ACTING SURVEYOR'S CLERK.
  MR. TUITEasked the Postmaster General, Whether an officer of the Secretary's Office, General Post Office, Dublin, named Thompson, has recently been selected for employment as acting surveyor's clerk in Ireland; what is the length of his service in the Post Office; how many officers of the same rank as Thompson are there in the General Post Office, Dublin, the length of whose service exceeds his; whether the position of surveyor's clerk requires an extensive knowledge of postal and telegraph duties; how many branches of the Post Office has Thompson served in; and, on what principle of selection has such an inexperienced officer as Thompson been chosen before officers whose service in the Post Office so much exceeds his?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Sir, in reply to the hon. Member's six inquiries, my answers are as follows:—1, yes; 2, five years and 10 months in the Public Service, eight months in the Post Office; 3, seven; 4, yes; 5, one; 6, because of all the eligible candidates Thompson was the most suitable for the purpose.
  MR. TUITEasked how long had this officer been in the branch office?
  MR. RAIKES: I am informed that he had been five years and 10 months in the Public Service and eight months in the Post Office.

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL WORKS—REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether an Inspector of the Board of Trade has yet inspected the Channel Tunnel Works; and, if so, what is his Report as to their present state?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Yes; the works have been inspected, and have been found to be practically in the same condition as they were 18 months ago.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Report on the Table?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Yes, Sir.

  AMERICAN VISITORS TO IRELAND— POLICE SUPERVISION.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)(for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that visitors to Ireland from America are kept under special police supervision, and that the American Consul in Dublin has written to the Police Authorities complaining of their action in a certain case, and asking for an explanation?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Visitors to Ireland, as such, are not kept under police supervision. Dangerous or suspected characters are. The American Consul has neither complained nor asked for an explanation of the action of the police. He wrote to vouch for the character of an American gentleman staying in Dublin.
  MR. SEXTON: As a matter of fact, was there no ground for the statement of the annoyance by detectives to which this gentleman was subjected?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that he was subjected to any annoyance?
  MR. SEXTON: Yes, he was. His luggage was searched.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not aware of that.
  DR. TANNERasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the case of some American gentlemen in Cork who had been similarly dogged by detectives?
  [No reply.]
  DR. TANNER: I will give Notice of this Question.

  WAR OFFICE—EXPERIMENTS WITH MELINITE AT PORTSMOUTH.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON&c.)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the recent melinite experiments at Portsmouth, and seeing that a European Power of the first class has developed the use of that explosive during the last three years, and is now completely supplied with it in all branches of the Army and the Fleet, he can state whether the Government now regard the use of melinite as a necessary provision for the exigencies of modern war; and, if so, when it will be issued to Her Majesty's Forces?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The recent trials referred to were made with a higher explosive akin to melinite, but of which I am not prepared to divulge the composition. The results, though not yet complete, were of a satisfactory nature; and I have little doubt that, with the projectiles which are now under manufacture, we shall be able to make use of a high explosive.

  MARKET RIGHTS AND TOLLS (SCOTLAND)—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. MENZIESasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is in a position to state the names of the places in Scotland where the Royal Commission on Market Rights and Tolls intend to hold inquiries; whether he can give any information as to the time when those inquiries are likely to be held; and, whether the Commissioners will go themselves, or send Assistant Commissioners, to such places?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The Commissioners have decided to hold public inquiries into the management

  663
  of certain markets in Scotland, where abuses are alleged to exist or complaints are made, with reference to the levying of tolls or dues. The date of the contemplated visit of the Commissioners has not been fixed. It is not the proposal that the whole of the Commissioners but a quorum should visit Scotland.

  WAR OFFICE—THE NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES—MACHINE GUNS.
  MR. ROEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the fact that since the last competitive trial seven years ago new machine guns have been invented and many improvements made in the older weapons of that class, he will institute a searching competition trial, in order that the best instrument may be discovered and issued to the Naval and Military Services?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): It is not desirable to tie the Government down to the exclusive use of any one machine gun. For different purposes different machine guns may offer moat advantages; and the War Department will take good care to keep itself informed as to the progress of invention, so that it may be in a position to secure the weapon best adapted for use under all the varying conditions of our Service.

  ARMS (IRELAND) ACT—TRANSFER OF A GUN LICENCE.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Maurice Murphy, of Toames, near Macroom, who died a few weeks since, was the holder of a gun licence; whether his son, Maurice Murphy, handed the said licence to the authorities for the purpose of getting the transfer to his own name; whether a transfer was recommended by the local magistrates; and, why Mr. Caddell, the lately appointed Resident Magistrate, thought fit to refuse such a transfer?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that it is the case that the man named applied for a transfer of the gun licence possessed by his father, who had recently died. The transfer was recommended by a local magistrate. The
  664
  licensing officer, however, found upon investigation that it was not desirable a licence should be issued to the man, and he accordingly declined to accede to the application.
  DR. TANNERasked, whether it was not a fact that the transfer of the licence had been recommended by a local magistrate who knew Murphy nearly all his life; while it was refused by Mr. Caddell, the lately appointed Resident Magistrate, who had only been a short time in the district?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had already stated that the transfer was recommended by a local magistrate; but he was not aware whether that magistrate knew Murphy all his life or not. The licensing officer refused the transfer.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—PORTERAGE.
  BARON DE ROTHSCHILDasked the Postmaster General, Why stringent orders have recently been given to enforce the Rule as to the prepayment of porterage on telegrams instead of, as heretofore, allowing the Rule to be relaxed at the discretion of the officials?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): No fresh instructions have been issued in regard to the prepayment of porterage. The Regulations require that porterage shall be paid by the sender when practicable; it being considered unfair to the addressee that such charges should be borne by him. It not unfrequently happens that telegrams upon which the senders have not paid porterage are sent to persons who have little or no interest in the contents, and who naturally demur to paying for their delivery.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—MR. CECIL ROCHE, R.M.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Cecil Roche was in charge of the police on the occasion last week when he ordered Patrick Cleary and others to be brought before him whilst sitting on a stone wall, and performed judicial functions in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am

  665
  informed that the Resident Magistrate named was not in charge of the police on the occasion in question.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, is he aware that it is reported in the Press that Mr. Cecil Roche, when acting judicially at these evictions, has been in the habit of sitting on a wall wearing a billycock hat on one side of his head and down over his nose; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will instruct this functionary to have some regard for those decent forms which should accompany the administration of the law?
  MR. MACNEILL: May I ask, if Mr. Cecil Roche was not in charge of the police, what brought him there, or by whose authority he was sent there?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was sent there by the Divisional Magistrate.

  PRIVILEGE—ARREST OF MR. O'KELLY, M.P.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Who is responsible for the placing this week of a number of detectives within the precincts of the Houses of Parliament; and, whether it is correct, as announced in The Times of July 26, that the authorities of Scotland Yard have decided it is most expedient the arrest should be made "after dark?"
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that no extra detectives have been placed within the precincts of the Houses of Parliament during this week. No such decision has been arrived at as suggested in the second paragraph of the Question.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked, was the House to understand that no extra detectives had been employed, or that they had been withdrawn?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that there had been detectives for a considerable period employed in the neighbourhood of the House of Commons. That had been part of the regular arrangement.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as it appears from the law expounded to us by the Solicitor General for Ireland that
  666
  no Irish Member of Parliament can be summoned to answer a complaint, even though he be in attendance here in discharging his Parliamentary duties, but that he must be arrested in the night and hurried over to Ireland next day in order to answer complaints under the Coercion Act—I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he will facilitate the passing of a Bill which will relieve Irish Members of Parliament from the kind of special penalty which seems to attach to their attendance for their Parliamentary duties?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware of any such facilities being in existence in England. Any facilities that at present exist are, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, confined to warrants. A warrant issued out of the jurisdiction of any magistrate may be executed in England and Ireland; but there is no such statutory power in the case of summons, and I see great difficulty in attempting to change the present practice. No summons issued in England can be served in Ireland, and vice versâ.
  MR. SEXTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to consider such an amendment of the law as would enable a summons to be served upon an Irish Member engaged in his duty here?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It is not applicable to Irish Members alone, but is equally applicable to English Members.
  MR. R. T. REID&c.): I would ask if the Home Secretary would kindly say whether there is any difficulty in law, or any objection to a summons being issued in Ireland and sent over in the ordinary way, either handed or sent in a letter, instead of handing over the person to the custody of the police—is there any objection in law to that course?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, the jurisdiction of a magistrate was confined to his own country. He believed the summons of a magistrate might be served in an adjoining county; but Parliament had never thought it expedient to extend the jurisdiction of magistrates to the country at large.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether an easy precedent did not exist in the statute under which permission was frequently given to serve writs of summons out of the jurisdiction; and whether the English practice was

  667
  not to avoid the issue of warrants except in serious cases, or where persons were suspected as likely to abscond?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, there was a wide distinction between the powers of the Superior Courts and those exercised by local magistrates.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, what change of circumstances, if any, had taken place in the present week which rendered it necessary and desirable to continue in the precincts of the House the presence of detectives; and whether their presence was considered necessary for the protection of Members of Parliament?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No change that I am aware of has taken place, and the same precautions that have been observed continue.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state, as a fact, that on Wednesday last there were no more plain clothes men about the precincts of the House than there had been previously?
  MR. MATTHEWS: That is what I stated distinctly.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman really deny that there were a number of men here on Wednesday that were not here on Monday and are not here to-day?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed distinctly that the same force of detectives is employed that has always been employed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, were the detectives who followed the hon. Member for North Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) detectives who have been in the habit of being employed about the House, or others who were brought in?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he would require Notice of the Question.
  Subsequently,
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, before the arrest of the hon. Member for North Roscommon, any intimation was given to him that his presence would be required in Ireland to answer the charge upon which the hon. Member has been arrested; and, if he can state why the uniform practice in Crown prosecutions in England of communi-
  668
  cating with persons against whom it is intended to institute Crown prosecutions before the issue of a warrant was not followed with regard to the hon. Member?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): No such intimation as that suggested in the first paragraph was given; and I am advised that no such practice as that suggested in the second paragraph exists.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it had not been the universal practice to make such communications in the case of Members of the House?
  MR. MATTHEWS: As far as I am aware it has not been universally the practice.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is quite clear, of course, that summonses issued in Ireland would not be of legal stringency in England; but where the person is resident in Ireland, and only comes here to attend to his Parliamentary duties, would there be any objection to issue a summons in Ireland, as though he were supposed to be at that time in Ireland, and to make him acquainted with the fact that such a summons had been issued in Ireland? That would give him an opportunity of making arrangements to have the summons served upon him.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): In the case of any future summons being issued against an Irish Member, will the Government proceed by way of notification, or will they smuggle him off in the dark, as in this case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think there is any precedent for the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman; but, of course, that is a matter to be decided by legal gentlemen. If it is assumed that when a notification is made to an Irish Member that a summons has been issued against him he will obey it, I am sorry to say that the experience I have had in the matter of some Members has been directly to the contrary.

  THE LATE MR. MANDEVILLE—PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CORONER— THE GOVERNOR OF TULLAMORE GAOL.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  669
  Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could state on what grounds the Governor of Tullamore Gaol refused on Wednesday to say whether he had any order to take the clothes from the late Mr. Mandeville, or give any evidence on the subject of his authority, so that important evidence was withheld from the jury; and, will the Government direct the Governor to give the evidence? The hon. Gentleman also asked, whether there was any objection to lay on the Table the instructions given to Dr. Barr; whether the Government would cause an inquiry to be made in regard to his conduct; and, also, whether the Government would suspend Dr. Barr's visits to the prisons?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Certainly not. I have seen no authentic report of the proceedings in Court, and I cannot conceive for what purpose such evidence would be important. I have before stated that, in my opinion, the use of necessary force is justified by the Prison Rules.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Solicitor General for Ireland, whether he did not consider the authority under which the Governor of the prison was acting was inadequate?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)said, he agreed with the answer that had been given by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.
  MR. HUNTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that Dr. Barr shall not again visit Mr. Dillon in prison, having regard to the fatal consequences that followed his visits to Mr. Mandeville?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is my desire and my duty to see that Mr. Dillon has the best medical advice possible.
  MR. MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that on the next occasion when Dr. Barr visits Mr. John Dillon he will not refuse to give Mr. Dillon his name and address?
  MR. HUNTER: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question. I wish to know will he give the House an assurance that Dr. Barr shall not visit John Dillon in prison?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have answered it.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE EVICTIONS ON THE VANDELEUR ESTATE, CO. CLARE—LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887.
  MR. M'CARTANasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, with reference to the eviction of Michael Cleary, of Carrowdoty, on the Vandeleur Estate, Whether he is aware that, under the 7th section of 11 & 12 Vict., a Sheriff or his officer is guilty of misdemeanour if, with intent to dispossess any person dwelling in a house, he "pull down, demolish, or unroof, in whole or in part" (except so far as is absolutely necessary to effect an entrance thereto) any such house, or building used as a dwelling house, whilst such person or any member of his family shall be actually within the same; whether this section has been incorporated in the 7th section of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887;" if it applies equally to all dwelling houses, whether the property of the landlord or of the tenant; and, whether the Government will take steps to prosecute certain Sheriffs and their officers who have violated this section by pulling down and demolishing larger portions of such dwelling houses than the necessities of the case required?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): My answer to the first throe paragraphs is in the affirmative. From the information before me it would appear that there was no demolition of houses while the inmates remained in them, except—in the words of the statute—so far as was necessary to enable the Sheriff or his officer to effect an entrance thereto. Any subsequent demolition would not be in contravention of the statute.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE COUNTY COUNCIL—CLAIMS TO VOTE.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, if an occupier claim to be placed on the list of Parliamentary voters, and his claim be admitted, he will be entitled to vote for the County Council, although he has not also claimed to be placed on the list of voters for the County Council?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): An occupier can, in the same form, claim to be placed on the list of Parliamentary voters, and on the list of county voters. If he limits his claim to the Parliamentary list, he would not in respect of that claim be entitled to be placed on the list of county voters; and if not on that list would not be entitled to vote.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE CODE OF RULES.
  MR. H. J. WILSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will place in the Library a copy of the Code of Rules or Regulations of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and also a copy of The Royal Irish Constabulary List and Directory?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Royal Irish Constabulary Code is a Departmental publication intended solely for the guidance of members of the Force. I cannot undertake to place a copy in the Library of the House. The other publication referred to is merely semi-official, and can be purchased by the public. The question of supplying it for use in the Library does not rest with me.

  POST OFFICE—RURAL POST OFFICES AND PUBLIC-HOUSES.
  MR. COXasked the Postmaster General, Whether there is any Rule of the Post Office prohibiting the use of a public-house as a rural post office?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES), in reply, said, as a rule, a post office was not kept at a public-house if any other suitable place for it could be found.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many post offices kept at public-houses in Ireland?
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he believed there were post offices kept at public-houses in Ireland as at grocers' shops in Scotland, which were somewhat similar establishments, in many parts of the country. But those were established before he entered Office, and the Rules might not have been so strictly observed;
  672
  but he intended to administer them as strictly as he could.
  MR. COX: If I bring under the right hon. Gentleman's notice a publican who has recently been appointed a rural postmaster in Ireland, will he have the post office changed?
  MR. RAIKES: I cannot say that; but I will inquire into the case?
  MR. WALLACE: On what ground does the right hon. Gentleman say that grocers' shops in Scotland are similar to public-houses in England and Ireland?
  MR. RAIKES: I made the statement, Sir, on the authority of a recent deputation to me, largely composed of Nonconformist ministers.
  MR. JOHNSTONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the post office at Rathmines is kept at The Freeman's Journal office?
  [No reply.]

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—MIDNIGHT MEETING AT WOODFORD—PROSECUTION.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Who was responsible for the selection of persons for prosecution for attending the midnight meeting at Woodford on October 16 last, and for attending the meeting near Woodford on January 31 last; and, whether he or the Attorney General give their approval, before prosecutions are instituted, for holding meetings or for making speeches in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): There is, I believe, no change in the practice which has always prevailed in Ireland. The Attorney General for Ireland is responsible for prosecutions; but naturally, whenever a question of public policy arises in connection with a prosecution, he consults with the Executive Government.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (MASTER AND SERVANT) BILL.
  MR. HOWELLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he will lay upon the Table of this House a copy of the correspondence and other communications with refer-

  673
  ence to the Statute Law Revision (Master and Servant) Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): In reply to the hon. Member, it would not, in my opinion, be desirable to lay upon the Table the correspondence and communications respecting the Statute Law Revision (Master and Servant) Bill; but if he will communicate with me I shall have no objection to showing them to him.
  MR. HOWELLgave Notice that he would take the earliest opportunity of moving an humble Address for the production of these documents.

  POLICE FORCE ENFRANCHISEMENT ACT, 1887.
  MR. EVANSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that considerable doubt exists whether, under the Act of last Session conferring the franchise on policemen, they are entitled to vote on municipal, school board, and other local elections; whether he is aware that some Revising Barristers have decided for, and some against, the claim; and, whether he will make a declaration as to the correct interpretation of the law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): My attention has not been called to the matter to which the hon. Member refers, nor was I aware that the decisions of Revising Barristers had not been uniform. As I understand the matter, the Act of 1887 only removed the disqualification so far as Parliamentary elections are concerned.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ADDITION TO THE STAFF.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can now state what additional assistance is being provided to the Charity Commissioners to enable them to carry out the further inspection and examination of endowed and other secondary schools?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Charity Commissioners are engaged in the inspection of the working of their schemes without any addition to their
  674
  staff, and it is not proposed to throw any other duties of the kind suggested upon them; but I understand that the Education Department have the whole subject under consideration, with a view to redeeming the pledges given at an earlier period of the Session.

  THE HYDERABAD (DECCAN) COMPANY —CHARGES AGAINST OFFICIALS.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the injurious nature of the charges and allegations that have appeared in the Indian Press both against Government and against private individuals and officials of repute in the matter of the Hyderabad (Deccan) Company's affairs, Whether he will undertake that the discussion on the Report shall not take place before the evidence taken before the Select Committee has been printed and circulated; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take that discussion in the present portion of the Session or in the Autumn Session?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Select Committee referred to was moved for by one of the hon. Members for Northampton, and I have not seen, nor am I aware, that the Committee have yet presented their Report. Till the Report is before the Government, I am unable to say whether it will be necessary to afford an opportunity for its discussion; and I cannot, therefore, give any pledge on the subject.

  THE REVISED EDITION OF THE STATUTES—PUBLICATION.
  MR. HOWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the earlier volumes of the New and Revised Edition of the Statutes, promised to this House early in the Session of 1887, will be ready for publication; and, whether he can state to the House the cause of the delay that has arisen with respect to such publication?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): On the 13th instant I informed the hon. Member of the causes of the delay in the issue of the Revised Statutes, and I have nothing to add to the answer I then gave.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE NAVY ESTIMATES.
  MR. HANBURY(for Lord CHARLES BERESFORD)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will state to the House the numbers and names of the Substantive Votes (Naval Estimates) he intends to take during the present Sittings; and, if, having regard to the probability that the greatest discussion will occur on Vote 8 (the Shipbuilding Vote), he will postpone that Vote till the Autumn Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)(who replied) said: We are anxious to adhere to the old practice of taking the Navy Votes separately, and thus obtain the supplies necessary for the next three months rather than from a Vote on Account. A good deal of evidence has been taken before the Select Committee on Navy Estimates, both upon the Admiralty Vote and the Dockyard Vote; and I do not propose to ask the House to discuss these Votes until such evidence is published, but would take the less contentious Votes, or those which do not raise questions of policy. The Vote is one which several Members wish to discuss; and, therefore, I would propose to take it as the first of the Votes to be discussed.

  THE WEST LONDON COMMERCIAL BANK—THE WEST LONDON PERMANENT BUILDING SOCIETY.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the fact that four Directors of the West London Permanent Building Society were also Directors of the West London Commercial Bank, and that the above Building Society drew £10,000 out of the bank a few days before the bank failed, the Government will institute an inquiry into the whole subject of this failure?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have no information as to the statement made by the hon. Member in his Question; but, assuming the facts are correctly stated, it appears to me that it is for the Shareholders of the bank and the depositors in the West London Permanent
  676
  Building Society to take such measures as they may be advised to protect their own interests.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: As I shall not be able to make any observation upon the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is about to make, I desire to ask him a Question in relation to the course of Public Business before he makes it. There is, undoubtedly, a desire on the part of all sections of the House that the Local Government Bill shall become law as speedily as possible, and every effort, I am sure, will be made to make rapid progress with it. I suppose, however, that in the event of the Report stage not being closed until a very late hour, the right hon. Gentleman will not press the third reading of the Bill to-night at a time when it would be impossible to make observations upon the Bill in general?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I must ask the House to consider that the inevitable effect of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal not to take the third reading of the Local Government Bill to-night would be to delay the adjournment of the Session for three or four days. If we do not take the third reading of the measure to-night it cannot be taken for three or four days, with the result that we shall be kept here much later in the month of August than the right hon. Gentleman himself would desire. I hope we may trust to the good and cordial feeling with which the Bill is regarded from all quarters to permit it to be read a third time to-night, without any great discussion, after the Report stage has been passed. If that course is followed it will result in great advantage to Public Business and to the convenience of hon. Members.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am sure that we are as desirous as the right hon. Gentleman can be not unnecessarily to delay the adjournment of the House for the Recess; but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would expect us to treat this measure as though it were not one of first-class importance.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I must leave the matter in the hands of the House; but I venture to express a hope that the

  677
  Report stage may be concluded before a very late hour.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON EDUCATION— THE REPORTS.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Reports of the Education Commission had been sent into the Home Office, as it was said they had been, and when would they be printed and circulated?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am afraid I must ask for Notice of the Question.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
  DR. FARQUFIARSONasked, Whether the Secretary of State for War was in a position to state which Votes he would take of the Army Estimates during the present Sitting. Would the Medical Vote be taken?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE), in reply, said, he did not propose to take the last-mentioned Vote, which was being reported on by a Select Committee. Votes 9 (Transport), 10 (Provisions), 23 (one of the Non-Effective Votes) would be taken; and they were also obliged to take Vote 13, because no new work had been begun since it was put down.
  MR. BAUMANNasked, whether, before the adjournment of the House, an Appropriation Bill would be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): No, Sir.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

  PAYMENT OF MEMBERS—THE DEBATE OF JULY 6.
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked the indulgence of the House while he made a brief personal explanation. It would be in the recollection of the House that a short time ago, in the
  678
  course of the debate on the Motion initiated by the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland (Mr. Fenwick) as to the payment of Members, he made a few observations with regard to that subject. In the course of his remarks he related an incident which came to his knowledge in the course of conversation while in Australia; and he now found that those observations had caused great offence in Australia. A telegram had been received from the Government of Victoria, addressed to the Agent General here, and he had had the honour of waiting upon that Colonial Representative, and had done his best to explain all that passed. The telegram which came from Melbourne was to this effect. He would read a portion of it only. [Cries of "Read the whole!"] He was the best judge of what he should read. The telegram stated that in the course of observations made by Admiral Field in the House of Commons on July 6, he stated—
  "That an able and wealthy Member in Victoria had told him that any Member of Parliament in the Victorian Assembly could be bribed."
  He did make those observations; but he also made other observations which apparently were not included in the telegram sent to the other side of the world. The conversation referred to took place in Australia in May or June, 1882, and necessarily referred to a period prior to 1882. He was informed by the Agent General that it was probably at a time when a great struggle was going on between squatters and capitalists and the rest of the community with respect to certain important legislation affecting land in that country. He felt it was but right to say that as this conversation took place in 1882, he could in no sense refer to the present time. He would not willingly give pain to any person living, much loss to their brother politicians on the other side of the world, who were engaged in building up a Greater Britain.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Perhaps, Sir, I may be allowed to say in connection with——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. W. REDMOND: I denied the statement at the time.

MOTIONS.
  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE, EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER.
  Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order "Sittings of the House."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

  MOTION FOR LEAVE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to continue various Expiring Laws."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, the Bill introduced this year was a measure of an exceptional character. It was not only for the purpose of continuing the ordinary laws that were annually included in such a measure, but it was understood that it would deal also with some special matters. There was, for instance, the Irish Sunday Closing Act, and there were also certain provisions with regard to the Irish Land Commission. He thought it was necessary before they proceeded further with the Bill that the Minister in charge of it should state to the House what special provisions and powers were being included in relation to the various measures not ordinarily included in this Bill.
  MR. HOWELLasked, whether amongst various other Acts the Bill would include the Coal and Wine Dues Bill?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, it would obviously be for the Committee of the House, and hon. Members should wait until they saw the Bill, as then all these questions would be answered.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that perhaps he might reply to the hon. Member for West Belfast. It was true that the measures which the hon. Member had alluded to were not those ordinarily included in a Continuance Bill, although he believed that last year the Irish Sunday Closing Act was included.
  MR. SEXTON: It has been included for several years.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman would feel as he felt, that after the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the question of Saturday and Sunday Closing in Ireland, it was impossible for the Government to let the present Act lapse. The hon. Gentleman would also acknowledge that it was equally impossible for the Government to bring in new leglislation on the subject this Session. Anybody who was acquainted with the state of the Business of the House would feel that as much as he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) did. With regard to the provisions affecting the Land. Commission, the hon. Gentleman was aware that if something was not done the office of those Commissioners will come to an end on some day in August—he thought the 24th—and, of course, it was impossible for the Government to leave Ireland without a Land Commission. The whole land system in Ireland would break down; and, inasmuch as it had unfortunately proved impossible for them to carry through the House the Bill which he introduced, and which has been read a second time, he thought the most convenient plan was to continue the office of the existing Commissioners for another year.
  MR. SEXTONasked, would the proposal amount to anything more than continuance for another year; was there anything more than that?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is all.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked, whether during the Autumn Session steps would be taken by the Government to give effect to the Report of the Select Committee on the question of Irish Sunday Closing?
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAMasked, whether the provisions with regard to the Land Commission would involve any further strain on the English Exchequer?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the English Exchequer would undoubtedly have to pay the salaries of the existing Land Commission. There was no other additional obligation than that. He was afraid it would not be possible in the coming Session to occupy the time of the House with an Irish Sunday Closing Bill.
  MR. CLANCYasked, if this opportunity would be

  681
  taken to add to the strength of the Sub-Commission?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Sub-Commissions did not depend upon the Bill. The number of Sub-Commissions were not regulated by Statute at all.
  MR. HOWELLasked, whether the Bill would continue the Coal and Wine Duties beyond the stipulated period?
  MR. JACKSON: Certainly not.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINwished to ask, whether the suspension of the ballot for the Militia would be further extended by the Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he must ask the hon. Baronet to wait until he saw the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Sir Herbert Maxwell.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 353.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 338.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Long.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, further considered.
  Clause 2 (Composition and election of council, and position of chairman).
  MR. STANSFELD MR. STANSFELD (Halifax) moved that the term of office of the Chairman of the County Council should be one year instead of three years.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 32, to leave out the words "Three years," and insert the words "one year."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'three years,' stand part of the Bill."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that since the point was considered in Committee he had taken the opinion of several gentlemen well acquainted with the subject, and he found that there was a very general view in favour of one year. He would therefore accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.) moved to insert words providing that the Aldermen by virtue of their office should be Justices of the Peace for the county they represented. He did not understand what their functions were to be, unless they were to be magistrates like Scotch Bailies. He understood that in England an Alderman was a mere name, fiction, and farce.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 34, after the word "county," to insert the words,—"(5.) As respects county aldermen, their term of office shall be three years."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that he was a great admirer of Scotch institutions; but if the Bill were to be altered to make it accord with Scotch law, it would have to be re-committed for the purpose. In boroughs Aldermen were not magistrates, and Aldermen in counties would have the same functions as other members of the Council.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 34, after the word "county," to insert the words—"(5.) They shall by virtue of their office be justices of the peace for the county."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 (Transfer to county council of administrative business of quarter sessions).
  MR. A. M'ARTHUR MR. A. M'ARTHUR (Leicester) moved an amendment of Clause 3, which mentions among the powers and duties of County Councils, the licensing of houses and other places for music and for dancing, and the object of the Amendment was to provide that the licensing should be "under any general Act."
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 14, after the word "licensing," to insert the words "under any general Act."—(Mr. Alexander M'Arthur.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WOODALLsupported the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 11 (Transfer to county council of powers of certain Government departments and other authorities).
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he had on the Paper the following addition to Clause 11:—In page 6, line 17, after the word "councils," to add—
  "(3.) For the purposes of this section the fifteen county councils of Wales and Monmouthshire shall elect out of their number representatives to a general council for Wales, consisting of one person for each twenty-five thousand of the population of the county, and, if the population be not an exact multiple of twenty-five thousand, then also one additional member for such fractional part of twenty-five thousand over and above such multiple. The Members of Parliament elected for constituencies within the said thirteen counties shall, by virtue of their election to Parliament, be members of such general council for Wales."
  He could not move this as an Amendment, and at this stage of the Bill he did not propose to move it as a separate clause; but he should like, before withdrawing it, to say that his object was to do something towards removing the heavy burden which lay upon the House of Commons in dealing with local matters affecting Wales. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), and also Sir Charles Dilke, had in public papers advocated the principle of the clause which he (Mr. T. E. Ellis) had put down. He was satisfied the principle was a sound one, and he expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. C. T. Ritchie) would keep it in view when dealing with the question of Provisional Orders to be made by the County Councils or Joint Committees of Councils.
  Clause 12 (Entire maintenance of main roads by county council).
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT(for Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE)SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby) (for Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE) (Bradford, Central) moved to amend the clause by inserting—
  "The county council shall also maintain the roadside wastes on either side of any main road, and shall have the same powers as a highway board for preventing and removing obstructions, and for asserting the right of the public to the use and enjoyment of the said roadside wastes."
  He said, that roadside wastes were of great value, both as commons and as
  684
  means of finding employment for the poor, and in his own neighbourhood enclosures were going on which were, he believed, illegal, and which were unjust to the people living near. They were quite defenceless, and, therefore, the wastes ought to be placed in charge of the County Councils, through whom the people interested could assert their rights. These illegal enclosures had been condemned in the strongest terms by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 28, after "accordingly," insert "the county council shall also maintain the roadside wastes on either side of any main road, and shall have the same powers as a highway board for preventing and removing obstructions, and for asserting the right of the public to the use and enjoyment of the said roadside wastes."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment in the form proposed, for it would place an obligation, which it was difficult to define, upon the shoulders of the County Councils. There ought to be safeguard, too, against the interference of private rights. He was willing to charge the Councils with any powers which might be in existence to prevent obstruction, and to secure the use by the public of roadside wastes, and he would accept an Amendment so worded.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he accepted the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. JAMES ELLISsaid, it would be futile to give the Councils no more power than Highway Boards, for the Highway Act was being used to promote enclosures.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he preferred to abide by the Amendment as it had been put on the Paper by the right hon. Member for Central Bradford, who had special experience in the matter.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was possible the words to which he objected might involve a large interference with private rights.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he hoped the effect of the clause would not be whittled down. The roadside wastes in some parts of the

  685
  country had been cribbed by private owners in a way of which the right hon. Gentleman was not aware. At present poor people were often driven to pull down fences that encroached upon the roads, and this action being illegal they got hard measure at the hands of the magistrates. He desired, therefore, to put upon the County Councils, who represented the ratepayers, the duty of defending them in regard to these roadside wastes as against private owners.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid, he desired to urge the acceptance of the Amendment as it stood on the Paper. The only effect of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby would be to enable the County Council, if it should so please, to perform functions which were entrusted at present to the Highway Authorities. There were various cases in which the Highway Authority had refrained from taking action to defend public rights from fear of entering into a very large expenditure of the public funds. This difficulty would be largely removed if the power were vested in the County Councils. The County Councils would not have the same reasons for excessive caution. There were recently cases in the neighbourhood of London in which consider able strips of land had been taken away from the use of the public simply by reason of the apathy of the Local Authority and its reluctance to take proceedings.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to strike out the words "also maintain the roadside wastes on either of any main road, and shall."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman approved the Amendment on the whole. He believed that at Common Law the Highway Authorities had undoubtedly the power to prevent obstruction to the roadside wastes, but unfortunately they did not think they had, and as a general rule they did not exercise the power. They considered that they were only bound to maintain the roadway within 15 feet of the centre of the road. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to leave these words in, because they gave a direction to do that which the Authorities did not now understand it to be their duty to do.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was in entire accord, with the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter; but he was convinced that under the Amendment, as amended in accordance with his proposal, the County Councils would possess ample powers, and they were much more likely to protect the interest of the ratepayers than the existing Authorities.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would consent, under these circumstances, to the words being struck out.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 43, after the word "road," to insert the following sub-section:—
  "(3). The amount of such payment shall be such annual sum as may be from time to time agreed on, or in the absence of agreement may be determined by arbitration of the Local Government Board."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment proposed to the proposd Amendment, after the word "sum," to insert the words "representing the reasonable cost of the said maintenance, repair, and improvement."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
  Question, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Words inserted.
  Other Amendments made.
  On the Motion of Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT, the following Amendment made:—In page 7, line 37, after "county council," insert the following sub-section:—
  "(8) If any difference arises under this section between a county council and a district council as to the refusal of the county council to make a payment under this section to the district council in respect of any undertaking or road, or as to a road having been placed in proper repair and condition previously to its becoming a main road, or as to any notice given to the district council by the county council to place a road in proper repair and condition, such difference shall, if either council so require, be referred to the arbitration of the Local Government Board."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 41, after the word "road," to insert the words—"If the council of any

  687
  borough, not being one of the boroughs mentioned in the Third Schedule, nor a quarter sessions borough, deem itself aggrieved by the decision of the county council on any application made by the council of such borough to the county council to contribute towards the cost of maintenance, repair, enlargement, and improvement of any highway, it may, within twenty-eight days after notice of such decision, address a memorial to the Local Government Board, stating the grounds of appeal from such decision, and shall deliver a copy thereof to the county council. The Local Government Board may make such order in the matter as to the said board may seem equitable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and the order so made shall be binding and conclusive en all parties."—(Mr. Walter M'Laren.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he must point out that if any appeal were given, it could not possibly be confined to the small boroughs to which the hon. Member referred.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he would suggest that the power of appeal might be extended.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that was quite another matter. Of course, if the principle were accepted, it must be extended to urban and rural districts. While there was no doubt that the hon. Member was willing so to extend it, the Local Government Board could not consent to undertake the responsibility which it would have to assume if it were erected into a Court of Appeal on all questions connected with main roads.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, he deeply regretted the decision at which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived on the point. He hoped that the right hon. Gentletleman would recognize the equity of the claim, and would consent to allow an appeal. He could assure him that there was great reason to suppose, if he did not make any such provision, that there would be continual conflict between Urban Authorities and County Authorities, as the interests of the one would so obviously conflict with the other.
  MR. ROWNTREEsaid, he also was in favour of the Amendment, which he contended was a moderate suggestion to remedy the results of the hopeless minority in which the boroughs would find themselves in relation to the counties.
  SIR WATER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped that the
  688
  Amendment would not be accepted. In his opinion the County Authorities would be anxious to do what was right towards the boroughs in their districts, and he believed they might be trusted to do what was just and proper, without there being an appeal. If the appeal were allowed to the Local Government Board, there would be such a mass of appeals that they would never be able to get through them.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he objected to being lectured by the hon. and gallant Baronet, who had all along shown his distrust of the County Councils, by seeking to withdraw from them control of the police and other powers. He agreed that the County Councils being trusted with these matters, their decision should be final.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 226: Majority 123.—(Div. List, No. 240.)
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 14 (Qualification of medical officers of health).
  On the Motion of Sir LYON PLAY FAIR, the following Amendment made:—In page 9, line 2, leave out "the;" and in same line leave out "preceding," and insert "consecutive" instead thereof.
  Clause 20 (Transfer to county council of certain licences (transferred licences).
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Clause struck out.
  Clause 21 (Payment to county councils of proceeds of duties on certain licences (local taxation licences).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved to leave out the clause. He said those financial proposals of the Government were a mere nominal transfer and no real transfer of taxation. They constituted a fresh distribution of Imperial taxation; they were a leap in the dark, and were pretty sure to benefit the richer and injure the poorer localities.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, to leave out Clause 21.—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'After the financial year' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. He did not think the hon. Gentleman would find any Member in the House to support him in a Division.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 22 (Grant to county council of portion of probate duty).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL, in moving an Amendment altering the proportion of the Probate Duties to be paid to the Local Taxation account from "four-fifths" to "three-fourths," said, he had great cause of complaint in the treatment accorded in this matter to Scotland and Ireland as compared with that meted out to England. The total amount which was to be distributed to the localities as the Bill at present stood was 80 per cent for England, and 20 per cent divided between Scotland and Ireland. That was an unjust distribution. The population of Scotland and Ireland, according to the last Census, was close upon 9,000,000, and that of England under 26,000,000; and, therefore, considered solely from that point of view, Scotland and Ireland would be entitled to more than the Government proposed to allocate. If, however, the distribution was made according to the proportion contributed by those countries to the Revenue, his belief was that Scotland and Ireland might not come out badly, because, owing to the greater consumption of whisky in those parts, a larger proportion was contributed to the Imperial Revenue than by other portions of the Kingdom. His belief was that the proportion was vitiated by the inclusion of London in England. London was the capital of the Kingdom; it was the capital of Scotland, and London was full of Scotchmen and Scotch investments. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the point.
  Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 16, to leave out the words "four-fifths," and insert the words" three-fourths."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words four-fifths' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not know the circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman refrained from moving his
  690
  Amendment in Committee. He was bound to say, however, that this was a rather awkward moment to raise a discussion, after the Bill had almost passed through the House, and after all the calculations had been made on the basis laid down in the Bill—namely, four-fifths of the Probate grant. It was obvious that a great change at this moment would destroy all the calculations which had been made and upon which hon. Members had dwelt during the course of these discussions. He rejoiced to hear the wholesome doctrine laid down by the hon. Baronet that London was the capital of Scotland. He doubted, however, whether the hon. Gentleman was in entire sympathy on this point with many of the hon. Gentlemen among whom he sat. He demurred to the propriety of excepting London from those calculations. The principle followed in making the calculations had been not to make any general disturbance in the taxation, either local or Imperial, as between the three countries. It was impossible in a Bill of this kind to attempt to adjust all the questions of relative taxation between the three countries; and the principle followed was to attempt to solve in a fair spirit the division according to the existing taxation of the three countries. They thought it a fair way of testing the matter to consider what was the loss to the three countries respectively of the withdrawal from Imperial sources of the Probate Duty. They had made calculations accordingly, and he could assure the House that those calculations had been made with no bias towards any of the three countries, except in so far as they just gave the turn of the scale to Scotland and Ireland. He should be prepared when the Scotch Bill came on to say more on the subject.
  MR. CHILDERSasked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there was any Paper in print and laid on the Table explaining the distribution between the three countries under which the proportion of four-fifths had been arrived at? If not, one should be placed before the House.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that no Papers had been laid on the Table. He had explained that there were sets of figures pointing to those conclusions he had enumerated. They had also utilized the

  691
  calculations made at the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) considered the question of Irish taxation and the contribution of Ireland. Those figures had been examined and fresh figures drawn up to check them; and the general result was very much the same as that arrived at by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. O'DOHERTYsaid, he had to complain that the incidence of the Probate Duty in Ireland was unjust as compared with England.
  MR. FLYNNsupported the Amendment.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he hoped that the House would not embark upon a discussion of the incidence of the Probate Duty in England and Ireland. The calculation was made simply upon revenue, and the very fact that the Government stood in a position of sharp antagonism to hon. Members from Ireland made them all the more anxious to convince themselves that they were doing absolute justice in this matter.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 228; Noes 117: Majority 111.—(Div. List, No. 241.)
  Clause 23 (Application of duties on transferred licences, local taxation licences, and probate duty grant).
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 15, line 42, after "Contributions," insert—
  "Where a town, not being a borough, maintains its own police and receives any payment from the county council in pursuance of this Act towards the pay and clothing of such police, this enactment shall apply to such town as if it were a borough;"
  and in page 16, after line 8, insert the following sub-section:—
  "Where any part of a county is situate within the Metropolitan Police district, this section shall apply as if that part were the area of a borough maintaining a separate police force, save that the sum which would he payable to such borough shall be paid to the district councils in such part and shall be divided among such district councils in proportion to the rateable value of the area of each district."
  Clause 24 (Payments by county council in substitution for annual local grants out of Exchequer in aid of local rates).
  On the Motion of Mr. LLEWELLYN, the following Amendment made:—In
  692
  page 16, line 42, at end, insert the following sub-section:—
  "They shall pay to the guardians of every poor law union the school fees paid for pauper children sent from the workhouse to a public elementary school outside the workhouse."
  Clause 25 (As to Secretary of State's power respecting efficiency of police).
  Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 16, after the word "borough," to insert the words "other than a county borough."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 28 (General provisions as to powers transferred to county council).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 20, line 41, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "the county council may also delegate to the justices of the county sitting in petty sessions, any power or duty transferred by this Act to the county council in respect of the licensing of houses or places for the public performance of stage plays, and in respect of the execution as local authority of 'The Explosives Act, 1875,' or of the Act relating to contagious diseases of animals, or to gas meters."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he objected to the proposal to give the County Council these powers of delegation on the ground that to the judicial functions of Justices no new administrative functions ought to be added.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the Amendment was proposed in order to meet the objection raised in Committee that the general power of delegation contained in the clause was too large. The Government had agreed to take from the County Council the general power of delegation and to specify instead certain matters which might be conveniently delegated to Justices if the County Council should think it expedient to do so. It would be observed that the delegation would not be obligatory upon the County Council.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that if the County Councils should delegate those powers to the Justices there would be hardly anything left for them to do. There were two alternative modes of dealing satisfactorily with this question. The County Council might

  693
  be given power to form a small standing committee of their own Body to perform the duties to which the Amendment referred, or matters might be left at present as they were on the understanding that those duties would be fulfilled by the District Councils when they should have been constituted. This change would amount to a repeal of half the Bill. If the Amendment were passed, he should regard the Bill as an absolute farce.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had attacked the Government on very insufficient grounds. Considerable difficulty might arise if these powers, which frequently had to be exercised at very short notice, were left in the hands of the County Council, because, even if the Council appointed a committee, it was extremely improbable that all the members of that committee would reside in one district. Occasionally, when there was a sudden outbreak of contagious disease among cattle, it was absolutely necessary that the Justices in Petty Sessions should carry out the regulations under the Act. He felt certain that if this Amendment were not accepted, and if the Justices were excluded, very great inconveniences would arise in some counties, and there would be very great danger to the health of the herds. He thought they might safely leave the County Council to exercise the discretion which it was proposed to give to them.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT moved to amend the Amendment by inserting words providing that the County Councils should only be allowed to delegate the powers "until district councils were established."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
  In line 1, after the word "may," to insert the words "until district councils are established for the purposes of local government under any Act of a future Session of Parliament."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
  Question put, "That those words be inserted in the said proposed Amendment."
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, that it was not necessary to delegate to magistrates powers with regard to weights and measures and gas
  694
  meters. He argued also that powers as to contagious diseases of animals should not be delegated.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 188: Majority 45.—(Div. List, No. 242.)
  MR. HOBHOUSE MR. HOBHOUSE moved to omit from Mr. Ritchie's Amendment the words "or of the Act relating to the contagious diseases of animals," on the ground that under the Act of 1878 the county authority could delegate its powers to subcommittees partly composed of ratepayers. A mixed committee of County Councillors and farmers would be a better administrative body than one composed of justices alone.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the words "or of the Act relating to contagious diseases of animals."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the said proposed Amendment."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the words in his Amendment, "or to weights and measures, or to gas metres," were omitted, and the Amendment in the following form was agreed to.
  "The county council may also delegate to the justices of the county sitting in petty sessions, any power or duty transferred by this Act to the county council in respect of the licensing of houses or places for the public performance of stage plays, and in respect of the execution as local authority of 'The Explosives Act, 1875,' or of the Act relating to contagious diseases of animals."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 20, at end of line 41, insert—"Provided that, as soon as district councils are established for the purposes of local government under any Act of a future Session of Parliament, the power of delegation to justices conferred by this section shall determine as from the day appointed for the coming into office of such district councils."—(Mr. Hob-house.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that the Amendment just inserted

  695
  of Mr. Ritchie would take away from the County Councils the powers proposed to be transferred to them by another part of the Bill.
  MR. LONGcontended that it was necessary to make such a provision, in order to meet emergencies in dealing with such things as the outbreak of cattle disease.
  MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, he thought it would be unwise to leave power to delegate the powers of County Councils as regarded cattle diseases to a committee of magistrates only.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT moved to amend the clause by providing that the financial adjustment, as between counties and boroughs, should remain in force for three years, and no longer.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 22, line 33, after the word "adjustment," to insert the words "and such adjustment shall remain in force for three years, and no longer."—(Sir William Harcourt.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that to put that provision in the Bill would be to keep up a constant ferment between counties and boroughs.
  SIR HENRYJAMESfavoured the principle of the Amendment, but thought that a re-adjustment should only take place on application by one or another of the authorities concerned.
  MR. RITCHIEpromised, on the clause relating to the Commissioners, to bring up words providing that there should be a re-adjustment at the end of five years, on application to the Local Government Board by one of the authorities interested.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR. WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Government to explain their financial proposals as now amended.
  MR. RITCHIE, in reply, said, that the new method in which the Probate Duty was to be distributed did not affect the appointment of the Commissioners, who would have to adjust the distribution of the new taxes between boroughs and counties.
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 31 (Certain large boroughs named in the schedule to be treated as counties).
  MR. RITCHIE MR. RITCHIE moved an Amendment, having the effect of excepting "transferred licences" from the other Local Taxation licences in respect of the distribution of which an equitable adjustment between each county and each borough was to be made by agreement between the councils of such county and such borough.
  Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 20, to leave out the words "transferred licences."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he objected to such "Local Taxation Licences" as were raised in boroughs, and which should form part of the boroughs' funds, being "apportioned equitably" between the boroughs and counties. The proceeds derived from such licences really belonged to the boroughs, and ought not be "apportioned" between the boroughs and the counties either equitably or otherwise. He could see no reason for treating "transferred licences" in a different manner from Local Taxation Licences and Probate Duty grant.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that if the right hon. Member for Derby had not represented a borough, he might have been expected to have risen in his place and make a vigorous attack upon the very proposal he was now putting forward. He considered that the omission of the words was necessary, so as to enable the Commissioners to make an equitable adjustment of the financial relations, and it would be for them to equitably adjust the amount received from these licences between the counties and the boroughs.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to apply the same principle to the Metropolis?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that London, being a county in itself, would occupy a very different position from a borough which was cut out of a county.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in moving an Amendment, at the end of the 2nd sub-section, providing that the financial adjustment entered into between county and borough "shall remain in force for three years and no longer," said, he wished to point out that the adjustment in the Bill was a final one, founded on a condition of things likely to change. Great changes might take place not only in the population, but in the wealth of different districts, and to fix an adjustment now which was to be regarded as permanent would be unwise and unjust. This financial arrangement must be a tentative one, because how it would work out no one could tell.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 22, line 33, at end insert—"Provided that such adjustment shall remain in force for three years and no longer."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he wished to point out, in answer to some previous observations, that London kept a smaller amount of the Licence Duties than it might fairly claim as compared with the Licence Duties collected in other parts of the country. He thought that Derby would benefit twice as much, if not more, by this new financial arrangement than London would. He thought that the financial adjustment must be one lasting for some considerable time; but to limit the period to three years would be to keep up a constant ferment between county and borough with the view of getting the arrangement upset in a short time. Much friction would thereby result. It was hoped that the Commissioners would settle the matter in a fair and equitable way, and the Government had no doubt they would do so.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he supported the view of the right hon. Member for Derby, that there should be some revision of the adjustment at some time. Hardship would be inflicted if those adjustments were to be made permanent; because alterations might take place in the population and the wealth of localities. If the Amendment were carried, however, they would have to begin by fresh legislation at the end of the proposed period for a new adjustment. In those circumstances, he suggested a
  698
  modification, to the effect that either of the interested parties to the adjustment might go to the Local Government Board and ask for a special re-adjustment, where there was anything like injustice apparent.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I should be glad to do that.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, he thought that one of the great dangers likely to arise from this Bill would be the friction arising from the want of proper adjustment between boroughs and counties. He though the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Derby a reasonable one.
  MR. S. HOAREsaid, he hoped the Government would be able to give the House some hope that there would be a period fixed when this question could be revised. He supported the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that he was anxious to make an arrangement which should work satisfactorily, and he would suggest that on the Commissioners Clause the Government should introduce an Amendment fixing some period, say, five years, and giving all parties who thought themselves unfairly treated the opportunity of making complaint to the Local Government Board.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.) moved to omit Subsection 3, enacting that in making such adjustments the Commissioners may consider the effect on the financial position of the county of the provisions of this Act with reference to all the county boroughs deemed to be situate therein.
  Amendment proposed, in page 22, to leave out Sub-section (3).—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he hoped that the Government would retain the sub-section. The words were, no doubt, slightly obscure, but the meaning was tolerably plain—namely, that the Commissioners should consider the financial effect upon the county of having these large boroughs taken out of them. If these words were taken out, there would be no sufficient words of direction as to

  699
  the apportionment of the Exchequer contribution.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that it was impossible to tell what meaning would be given to the words by the Commissioners. The Commissioners might think they had power to levy taxation, or to alter the incidence of taxation between urban and rural districts. The Government had promised that the boroughs placed in the IVth Schedule should neither lose nor gain by the arrangement. The end aimed at by the sub-section was sufficiently attained by other words in the clause.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that throughout the whole career of the Bill, he had found nothing more embarrassing than the suggestions made on behalf of individual interests. The words were introduced in consequence of representations made on behalf of Lancashire. He had always felt that the words were obscure, and there was a great deal of force in the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury. He would appeal to the right hon. Baronet opposite the Member for the Clitheroe Division of Lancashire whether the sub-section was really necessary?
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the words were not perfectly clear. All that was meant was, that the Commissioners should be able to take into consideration the financial adjustments which would be necessary between the boroughs and the counties. There were now 14 borough counties in Lancashire, whereas, as the Bill was introduced, there were only two. He would propose that, instead of the sub-section, the following words should be inserted:—
  "In making such adjustment the Commissioners may consider the effect on the financial position of the counties of the provisions of this Act causing the boroughs situate therein to become county boroughs."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that his right hon. Friend's suggestion was worse than the sub-section as it stood. The other portions of the clause sufficiently carried out what was desired.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not think that the sub-section was necessary, as the other part of the clause would give all the protection asked for.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid, he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) would give them an assurance to that effect, they need not insist upon the retention of the words.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could give that assurance. He fully believed that all the interests of Lancashire were adequately protected by the clause without the sub-section.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the boroughs were returned as county boroughs on the distinct understanding that the county at large should not suffer by the change. That was the point of the matter, and he did not feel so certain as the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill that the Commissioners would necessarily understand the arrangement in the sense in which it was agreed to by the House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, there could be no doubt that the understanding was that neither the county nor the boroughs should lose. There was an absolutely equitable arrangement of the matter; but if, on further consideration, they found that there was anything which would suggest unfairness, the Government would endeavour to rectify it in "another place."
  Question put, and negatived.
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, as follows:—
  "Provided, that at any time after the end of five years from the making of an agreement or award adjusting the financial relations of any county or borough the Local Government Board shall have the power to appoint an arbitrator charged with the duty of making a new adjustment."
  Other Amendments made.
  On the Motion of Mr. MACLURE, the following Sub-section inserted, in page 24, line 41:—
  "Where for the purpose of calculating any contribution or payment to be made under this Act, it is necessary to ascertain the rateable value of both a county and a county borough, such rateable value shall be ascertained in like manner as the basis or standard for a county rate is ascertained at the date of the passing of this Act, but such rateable value shall be fixed by a joint committee composed of representatives of all the councils concerned, and the number of representatives for the county, and each county borough respectively shall be

  701
  settled by agreement, or in default of agreement by the Local Government Board."
  Clause 32 (Application of Act to larger quarter sessions boroughs not treated as counties).
  MR. GULLYproposed to insert the following sub-section:—
  "It shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen at any time, on petition from the council of the borough, by Order in Council to declare such borough to be a county borough, and from the date named in such order such borough shall be a county borough within the meaning and for the purposes and subject to the provisions of section 31 of this Act."
  He said, that while the Bill was passing through Committee an Amendment had been moved at this point, which had had the effect of cutting out a number of Amendments dealing with the case of boroughs with a population of less than 50,000. He contended that the test of population was a rough and rude one. He thought boroughs like Cambridge, Carlisle, and Oxford—all places of considerable antiquity, and capitals of large districts—had greater rights to self-government than places like West Ham and Bootle, which were mere aggregations of bricks and mortar in the suburbs of a large town. Again, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had already departed from the population test and had admitted some boroughs on the ground that they were counties in themselves. He thought that there should be some tribunal which should be able to settle claims of this description.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 29, line 20, after the word "elections," to insert the words—"(8.) It shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen at any time, on petition from the council of the borough, by Order in Council to declare such borough to be a county borough, and from the date named in such Order such borough shall be a county borough within the meaning and for the purposes and subject to the provisions of section thirty-one of this Act."—(Mr. Gully.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WATSON, in supporting the Amendment, said, he considered it to be very hard that such boroughs as Carlisle, represented by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gully), and Shrewsbury, his own constituency, should be excluded from the schedule of borough counties.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could not too often say how much he regretted that the Government were not able to adhere to the original proposal; but they could hold out no hope of going below the limit of 50,000. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment, which would leave it open to any borough to make this application. That would be to introduce an element which would be by no means conducive to good relations between the boroughs and the counties. The hon. and learned Member for Carlisle (Mr. Gully) spoke of West Ham, and said that antiquity had more claims than bricks and mortar. The Government had great respect for antiquity, as they had shown in the case of Canterbury, but they attached much more importance to bricks and mortar. West Ham had a population approaching 200,000, and if any borough had a claim to be made a county, West Ham had. He should be very glad if he could meet the wishes of every hon. Member with respect to his own particular constituency; but that would be impossible, considering the framework of the Bill.
  MR. ROWNTREEsupported the Amendment.
  MR. AINSLIEsaid, he felt bound to express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman had conceded so much already.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman might make the concession asked for.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 35 (Application of Act to smaller quarter sessions boroughs with population under 10,000).
  SIR GEORGE RUSSELLin moving, in page 30, line 12, to leave out "according to the Census of 1881," in order to insert "on the 1st day of June, 1888," said, as the Census of 1881 was so remote, and the country was on the eve of another Census, it seemed to him that it would be very unfair to take the popuulation of the 10,000 boroughs at the rate of the census of 1881. In pressing the Amendment on the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, he might, perhaps, use the argumentum ad hominem, and ask the right hon. Gentle-

  703
  man what he would think if he were to estimate his position in 1888 by comparing it with what it was in 1881.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 30, line 12, to leave out the words "according to the census of one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one," and to insert the words "on the first day of June one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight."—(Sir George Russell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LONGsaid, he regretted that it was necessary to make a difference in the proposals in the Bill dealing with 50,000 boroughs and those dealing with 10,000 boroughs. He could assure the hon. and learned Member that the difficulty the Government had already had in having to contend with the representations from gentlemen connected with the different boroughs in the contry with regard to the 50,000 limit would lead them to believe that it would be a very dangerous thing indeed to accept this Amendment. There was nothing which would enable the Government to declare whether boroughs were rightly estimated or not, and, under the circumstances, although they regretted that smaller boroughs should be placed at this disadvantage, it would be absolutely impossible to accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 37 (Application of Act to Metropolis as county of London).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 33, line 13, after the word "councillor," to insert the words "Provided that there shall be no further appointment of county aldermen after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five."—(Mr. James Rowlands.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LAWSON, in moving to insert an Amendment in page 31, line 14, said, he contended that the London County Council should have exactly the same authority as that possessed by the Council of any other great town, or even of any small district. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would seriously con-
  704
  tend that the Governing Body in London was less fit than others to exercise these powers, having regard to the community they would represent?
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 34, line 11, after the word "purpose," to insert the words "The London county council shall have the same powers of promoting and opposing Bills in Parliament, and otherwise acting for the promotion and protection of the interests of the inhabitants of the county, as if the county council were a governing body within the meaning of the Act of the Session of the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-one, intituled 'An Act to authorise the application of funds of municipal corporations and other governing bodies in certain cases.'
  Provided that so much of section four of the said Act as requires any consent of owners and ratepayers shall not apply to any expense incurred by the county council if it be approved by not less than two-thirds of such council."—(Mr. Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, he felt it his duty to give the Amendment his cordial support. This power would enable the County Council for London to initiate many works of improvement, and a power which was possessed by the Corporation of the City of London ought certainly to be given to the County Council of London.
  MR. BAUMANNsaid, he could not approve the Amendment, which appeared to him to be, to some extent, unnecessary. The Metropolitan Board of Works, whose powers would be transferred to the new Metropolitan County Council, at present possessed the right of promoting and proposing Bills, subject to two very wholesome and salutary restraints, one of which was that, in addition to each Bill having to pass through the ordinary ordeal of a Private Bill, there must at the end of each Session be passed a Public Bill, which was termed the Metropolitan Money Bill, and which authorized the expenditure previously sanctioned by each Bill. This, he thought, was a very salutary safeguard, requiring as it did that the Public Bill should run the gauntlet of the House, and it also had the advantage of enabling the House to gather, from the contents of the Public Bill, the total liabilities which it was proposed to incur. The Metropolis was so vast, and its population so immense, that it required

  705
  far greater protection than any ordinary town, and it could not safely be emancipated from all Parliamentary control. He submitted that the House ought not to relax by one jot the control of Parliament over the proceedings of the County Council of London, which was to succeed the Metropolitan Board of Works. In London the stakes were too large, the opportunities were too tempting, the immunity was too easy in a City where no one knew what his neighbour was about, for Parliament to dispense with a single guarantee or cheek.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he had listened with amazement to the speech of the hon. and learned Member. In the Bill it was sought to construct a directly representative Governing Body; and any speech more thoroughly marked by utter distrust of that Body than the speech of the hon. and learned Member he had not heard. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that because London was rich the members of the County Council would be so thoroughly saturated with notions of corruption that they might not be trusted to look after the interests of their constituents. If this were a sound view, why constitute and trust such a body at all? The hon. and learned Member had not given a single reason, except that London was a large place, why London should be deprived of the power at present possessed by every municipal borough in the country.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he scarcely thought that the observations of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Baumann) were open to the severe criticisms of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Charles Russell). He did not think that his hon. and learned Friend had shown marked distrust of the County Council, as had been suggested. His hon. and learned Friend was one of the first persons to express to himself the desirableness of giving the County Council of London as much power as could be given consistently, and to increase the importance of the County Council of London. He pointed out that Parliament had placed a restriction on the Municipal Corporations. He admitted that the provisions of the Borough Funds Act ought to be reconsidered; but, so far as they went, they said that, with reference to particular powers,
  706
  there ought to be a reference to the owners and occupiers before those powers were exercised. It was admitted on all hands that this was impossible in London, because of the largeness of the area. The importance of the question connected with London was in this—that the town was so enormous; and if the restrictions were considered necessary in smaller areas, they were 10 times more necessary in London. He believed that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) would have this additional disadvantage if the first election in London were complicated with this question. He believed that if those powers were conferred a party might arise in London—a party of suspicion—with reference to the action of the London Council in those matters, and this might greatly interfere with the return of members to the London Council of the class they desired to see there. By accepting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, they would be greatly adding to the burdens in connection with the work which the London Council had to do so as to seriously interfere, not only with the election of its members, but with the routine work which they had to take over from the Metropolitan Board of Works. The power of opposing Bills had already been conceded, and the Council would have the power of promoting Bills now enjoyed by the Board of Works. He urged the House not to further increase the duties and responsibilities of the new Council.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he thought this proposal was one which the House might very safely consider. They were simply asking for the new and large Council of London powers which had already been entrusted to the smallest Local Boards in the country.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, if it was the opinion of the Government that the London County Council was fit to administer the affairs of this great Metropolis, it ought to have the powers which were entrusted to the smallest Municipal borough in the Kingdom.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, it was impossible for the Government of this country, considering the enormous functions it had to perform,

  707
  to exercise proper control over the Governing Body of London. He hoped the Government would not refuse to London the powers which were given to so many Local Bodies throughout the country.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the debate had been most ably conducted on both sides, and he would ask the London Members to assist the House at once to come to a decision. The fact of the case was well known to the House and the country, having already been thoroughly discussed in Committee. The Government regretted that they were obliged to oppose the proposal of the hon. Member in its present shape, although he admitted that the time must arrive when extended powers would have to be given to the County Councils.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, that the London Members had not either on this or on any other question unduly occupied the time of the House. They would take a Division on the matter if the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accepting the Amendment. The chief merit of the Bill was the creation of a London County Council, and if they were not going to give the Council anything to do, what was the good of bringing it into existence? Were they going to keep from the County Council of London powers which were already possessed by the most paltry Local Board in the country? The new Body was a representative Body, which the Board of Works and the Asylums Board were not. There were ample safeguards in the requirement of advertisements, second meetings of the Council, an absolute majority of the Council, and the consent of the Local Government Board or the Home Office, as the case might be, before any of these powers could be exercised.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERremarked, that the County Councils were like young bears, who, so to speak, had all their troubles before them. Speaking from experience, he thought that the Council would have a great deal to do without these powers, which would be very dangerous powers, until it could be seen how the new system worked. There was no reason to suppose that the popularly elected Body would be more economical than the Bodies which it displaced. Perhaps 12 months hence he would have the opportunity of pointing
  708
  out many lathes and many difficulties in the Local Government scheme. He thought it was very undesirable that they should unduly tax the powers and duties of the new County Council for London at the outset, particularly with regard to the promotion and opposition of private Bills.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid, he hoped the Government would soon lose the terrible fear which they seemed to entertain of London and the London people, who were a very law-abiding people. If their fears on this subject were genuine, instead of giving either Local Government or Home Rule, they had better introduce a Coarcion Bill for London.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 164: Majority 26.—(Div. List, No. 243.)
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 42 (Application of Act to certain special counties).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 38, line 30, after the word "Cambridge," to insert the words—

  "(d.) The Liberty of Peterborough and the residue of the county of Northampton shall be respectively separate administrative counties for the purposes of this Act, and are in this Act referred to as divisions of the county of Northampton."—(Mr. W. J. W. Fitzwilliam.)

  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he agreed that there was much to be said for Peterborough; but to carry out the intentions of the Amendment a number of new clauses would have to be added. He was afraid the claims of Peterborough would have to be left to the tender mercies of "another place."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 44 (Saving for salaried chairman of quarter sessions of Lancashire).
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 40, to leave out Clause 44.—(Mr. Maclure.)
  Question, "That the words 'Nothing in this Act' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. WARMINGTON, in moving to add, at the end of Clause 48, which deals with the boundaries of counties, an Amendment providing that the boundaries of the counties of Monmouth and Brecon should remain as now existing, said, that under the Bill where an urban sanitary district was situate partly within and partly without the boundary of a county the district should be deemed to be within that county which contained the largest portion of the population of such district. The result in the case named would be that the county expenses and local rates would be considerably increased. The population of Monmouth generally were against the change, and the magistrates were unanimously opposed to it. They asked the House of Commons to say that the circumstances of the case were so peculiar that the boundaries should remain as at present.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 44, line 7, after the word "York," to insert the words—
  "(e.) The boundaries of the counties of Monmouth and Brecon shall remain as now existing."—(Mr. Warmington.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 182: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 244.)
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 53 (Future alterations of boundaries of county and borough, and of electoral divisions of a county).
  On the Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, the following Amendment made:—In page 46, after sub-section (e.) insert—
  "(f.) Or that the alteration of any area of local government partly situate in their county is desirable."
  Clause 56 (Additional powers of Local Government Board as to unions).
  MR. C. T. D. ACLAND, in moving an Amendment in page 49, line 12, providing that in the case of a Union situate in more than one county the Local Government Board might continue it as one Union, not only for the purposes of indoor paupers, as provided by the Bill, but also for the levying and administration of the poor rate, said, that his object was to pre-
  710
  serve Unions as one great area for Poor Law purposes.
  Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 12, after the word "purposes," to insert the words "or for the levying of the poor rate."—(Mr. Charles Ackland.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that there were cases in which it would be undesirable to separate two Unions, because it would impose upon one of them the obligation to build a workhouse which at present sufficed for both. These were known as Doyle Unions, which were one for indoor relief but two for outdoor relief.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 59 (Appointment of Commissioners).
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 51, line 14, after "Act," to insert—
  "The Right honourable The Earl of Derby, the Right honourable John George Shaw Lefevre, John Lloyd Wharton, esquire, F. Mowatt, esquire, and Joseph J. Henley, esquire;"
  page 52, line 10, after "settlement," to insert—
  "And until a final settlement is made the authority of the Commissioners shall extend to determine the proportions in which payments are to be made to the councils of counties and county boroughs out of the Local Taxation Account, and all payments so made shall be taken into account in the making of the adjustment."
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 72 (Annual budget of county and district Councils).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 62, line 10, after the word "rate," to insert the words—"A copy of every such estimate, as mentioned in this section, together with the estimated amount of any contribution or rate required to be levied, shall be sent to every county councillor not less than fourteen days before the meeting of the council at which it is proposed to order the contribution or rate to be made, and shall be sent in the same manner in which notices of meeting are sent to such councillor."—(Mr. Maclure.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 74 (Amendment of County Electors Act, 1888).
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, in page 65, line 39, after

  711
  sub-section 2, by inserting the following sub-section:—
  "The names of the parliamentary electors and county electors in the lists in each polling district may be numbered consecutively; and such portion of those lists as consists of the names of parliamentary electors may be taken to form the register for the purpose of parliamentary elections, and such portion of those lists as contains the names of county electors may be taken to form the register of county electors."
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 88 (Special provisions as to adjustment in the Metropolis).
  On the Motion of Baron DIMSDALE, the following Amendments made:—In page 77, line 7, leave out the first "county," and insert "counties;" after "Surrey," insert "and Middlesex respectively;" line 8, leave out "sum," and insert "sums;" leave out "county," and insert "counties;" after "Surrey," insert "and Middlesex respectively;" and in line 10, leave out "a liability," and insert "liabilities."
  Clause 97 (Interpretation of certain terms in the Act).
  On the Motion of Captain COTTON (for Mr. Tatten Egerton), the following Amendment made:—In page 81, line 24, at end add—
  "And the expression 'property' shall further include, in the case of the county of Chester, any surplus revenue of the River Weaver Trust, which is or would but for this Act be payable to the quarter sessions."
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 100 (First election of county councillors).
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 84, at end of line 24, insert—
  "The sheriff having authority in any administrative county, or largest part thereof, shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be the sheriff of that county."
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 102 (Preliminary action of county councillors as provisional council).
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—Iu page 85, at end of line 22, insert—
  "And the term of office of such chairman shall end on the ordinary day of election of chairman in the three years next after the passing of the Act."
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 112 (As to commission of the peace for London).
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 92, line 32, at end, insert—
  "The fees payable to the clerk of the peace and clerks of the justices and other officers and authorities in Middlesex at the passing of this Act, shall be the first fees which may be taken in the county of London by the clerk of the peace, the clerks to the justices, and other officers and authorities in the county of London, and may continue to be taken until they are abolished or altered in manner provided by law with respect to the abolition and alteration of such fees."
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 118 (Grant and application of part of probate duty and of horse and wheel tax during the year ending 31st March 1889).
  Amendment proposed, in page 100, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words "trade carts."—(Mr. Causton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'trade carts' stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 100, line 38, leave out sub-sections (iii.) and (iv.), and insert the following subsections:—

  "(iii.) If the amount received by the local taxation account from the duties on licences for trade carts, locomotives, horses, mules and horse dealers under any Act of the present Session, exceeds the sum so payable to county and highway or other local authorities, the excess shall be divided between the metropolis and quarter sessions boroughs, in proportion to their rateable value, as ascertained by the valuation lists, or where there is no valuation list by the last poor rate;

  (iv.) The share of the excess distributed to the metropolis shall be divided between the Commissioners of Sewers in the city of London and the vestries and district boards in the parishes in Schedule A and the districts in Schedule B to 'The Metropolis Management Act, 1885,' as amended by subsequent Acts, according to rateable value as ascertained by the last valuation lists, and the share distributed to quarter sessions boroughs shall be paid to the councils of such boroughs;

  (v.) If any payment is made under the foregoing provisions of this section respecting roads to the council of any quarter sessions borough, or to any authority for a highway area wholly or partly situate in such borough, or to the highway authority of any parish or district in the metropolis, the share of such quarter sessions borough, parish, or district in the distribution of the balance shall be reduced by the amount of the said payment, and, if less than that amount, shall not be paid, and any sum arising

  713
  from such reduction or non-payment shall be added to the balance and distributed accordingly;

  (vi.) Any sum payable in pursuance of this section to a county authority or the council of any borough, not being a highway authority, shall be paid to the county or borough fund as the case may be, but any other sum payable under the provisions of this section respecting roads, or respecting the division of the excess to any highway authority commissioners of sewers, vestry, or district board, shall be applied in aid of the costs of the roads maintained by such authority, commissioners, vestry or board;

  (vii.) Any balance remaining after the above payments shall be divided among the counties in England, in accordance with the provisions of this Act with respect to the division of the probate duty grant, and the share assigned to each county on such division shall be applied towards paying to the guardians of each poor law union wholly or partly situate in the county such sum as is directed by this Act to be annually paid by the county council of such county to such guardians;

  (viii.) Any balance remaining after the payment to the guardians of such union shall be paid to the county council of the county upon its coming into office, and, if there is any county borough in the county, the sum so paid shall be included in the adjustment under this Act between the councils of the county and borough."

  Schedules agreed to with Amendments.
  MR. RITCHIE: It is necessary that I should now ask the House to recommit the Bill, in order to introduce two Amendments which have been omitted. I beg to move, Sir, that you do now leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill re-committed in respect of an Amendment to Clause 15, and an Amendment to Clause 17.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made, in Clause 15, page 9, line 12, after "road," to insert—
  "And the Act of the Session of the forty-fourth and forty-fifth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter seventy-two, shall be repealed;"
  and in line 18, before "such," insert "and of the expenses of the Commissioners;" in Clause 17, page 10, line 24, after "authority," add as a separate sub-section—
  "(3.) The Local Government Board, by Provisional Order made on the application of the
  714
  council of any of the counties concerned, may constitute a joint committee or other body representing all the administrative counties and county boroughs through which a river, or any specified portion of a river, passes, and may confer on such committee or body all the powers of a sanitary authority under 'The Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876,' or such of them as may be specified in the Order; and the Order may contain such provisions respecting the constitution and proceedings of the said committee or body as may seem proper, and may provide for the payment of the expenses of such committee or body by the administrative counties and county boroughs represented by it."
  Bill reported; as amended, considered.
  MR. RITCHIE: I now beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am sure we must all be very glad that we have at last reached this stage, and the first observation which I will make upon the Bill will be to offer the congratulation of this House to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure we have all recognized the ability, the temper, the conciliatory demeanour, and the strong common sense which he has displayed, and which has enabled him to carry a measure of this magnitude through the House of Commons. At this time of night I shall not think of detaining the House by endeavouring to make any lengthened observations on the character of the Bill. Any observations we, on our side, may have to make upon it must, I am afraid, be reserved for another place—I do not mean the House of Lords. We have places in which we can comment upon the proceedings of Parliament which are not the other House. Glad as I am that this measure should have been launched, and should have sailed into port safely, I must say I wish it had been a bark of larger burden, and that it had carried a more valuable freight. The character of this Bill is two-fold. There belongs to it both the machinery you have created, and the work you have given that machinery to do. As regards the first part—that is to say, the machinery you have created—I have very little except approval to express. You have removed what we consider an inefficient machinery, and you have created by the Bill a new machine. No doubt, there are some

  715
  defects in the machine from our point of view, but I will not dwell upon that question now. At all events, I must say you have now in place of the hand loom created a great steam power; you have made a great manufactory, as it were, and you have put into it a powerful machine in the shape of a popular Representative Body. But having done that, what are the looms which you have put into the manufactory for your machine to work—what is the work you have given your machinery to do? Well, that is to be found in Clause 3, and I am sorry to say that it seems to me that the work is too narrow and insufficient for so a great a machine as you have set up. Besides the work connected with the Pauper Lunatic Asylums—which will be transacted, I imagine, as it is at present, by a small Committee—and work connected with reformatory schools, which will not occupy much of the attention of the County Councils, and work connected with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts—though we are told they are very likely to be delegated to the Justices—and work connected with the bridges and main roads, and besides the divided authority you have given County Councils in regard to police administration, this great popular representative Body will have nothing to do. Now, I am quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman will declare that that is not what he wishes this Body to do, but all the rest is reserved for the future. I regret that, because I am afraid that if you elect this Body with this uninteresting task before it, you will not get that interest taken in it, and those persons elected which you would desire to have. I regret, therefore, that a considerable part of this Bill has, during its progress through the House, been struck out, and that the County Councils, at the commencement of their work, will find that work of a very narrow kind. And to this part of the question also belongs the other observation, that not only have you set this Body very little to do, but that in the course of the Bill its means of doing it have been reduced. You have diminished its power over the funds at its disposal, and its borrowing powers. It must be remembered that few great works can be undertaken, and you have cast upon one single generation the whole burden of work, such as great
  716
  arterial drainage schemes, or the building of bridges, and things of that kind—works which may last for centuries. But, above all, I regret that you should have thought it necessary to refuse to these great Bodies, and even to the great County Council of London, the power of promoting Bills—that is to say, of applying to Parliament for power to carry out works which they may consider essential to the community. There seem to me defects in the measure of a character which I am afraid will, to a considerable degree, diminish its utility. I am afraid people will think that you have created a very imposing machine, and that you have given it a very little to do. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman promises us something in the future. He says that in this respect there is to be some paulo post futurum provision—and I hope paulo will be the emphatic word in that sentence, and that we shall soon have provisions which will give to these County Councils greater dignity and utility than I am afraid is contained in the four corners of this Bill. There is an old saying that "batchelors' bairns are aye good children, for they hae yet to be born," and that is a proverb which may be applied to the clauses of this Bill that we have not seen, but which we are promised in the future. However, with all these defects, I, for one, look upon this measure with satisfaction, because I am sure that it must be the commencement of great things in the future; above all, I have seen with satisfaction the clauses relating to London Government. There is enshrined within the Bill a principle for which, on this side of the House, we have always contended—namely, that there ought to be a single government for London. But the proposals which have been made at various times by the Corporation, especially to break up London into small fractions, are finally disregarded and put an end to by the provisions of this Bill, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, this Bill is only an embryo of the future plans for the government of London, which I hope may one day assume a form which may be worthy of the Metropolis of England. Therefore, although he was unable to say that the Bill was in all respects such as he should have desired, he could not help congratulating the House on having

  717
  made a long step towards the completion of a great work, and in that sense he thought the House might cordially agree to the Third Reading of the Bill.
  MR. RITCHIE: Sir, my first duty is to recognize, and we most cordially recognize, the spirit which has actuated the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in what he has just said; and I am greatly obliged to him for the compliment he has been good enough to pay me with reference to my conduct in reference to this Bill. Then, Sir, I have this to urge—that whatever may have been my conduct in carrying it through, it would have been quite impossible for me to succeed in my endeavour if I had not received the cordial assistance of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House; and my thanks are therefore due to hon. Members in all quarters of the House for the assistance they have given the Government in passing the Bill. First, and naturally, those thanks are due to my hon. Friends on this side. I know there are in the Bill many provisions which must have been to some extent unpalatable to many of them—especially hon. Gentlemen who have for so many years been charged with the management of the affairs of Local Government, and whose conduct in that respect has met with universal approbation. There must have been some feelings of the kind I have described, when it was found that those powers which have been exercised by Quarter Sessions for many years were to be relegated to a Body so differently constituted; but, notwithstanding this, they have cordially assisted the Government during the passage of the Bill, and I welcome with the utmost satisfaction the opinions expressed on both sides of the House that in the future efforts will be made by those hon. Gentlemen to continue to take an adequate share in county government. Sir, it would have been an unhappy incident in these discussions if we had reason to suppose that hon. Gentlemen who have hitherto taken a leading part in county government would not freely offer themselves to the electors under the new condition of affairs; but I may call attention to the fact that our minds are relieved from any apprehension of that kind by the knowledge, which we have, that gentlemen in the counties, of all shades of politics, are prepared to accept the
  718
  new condition of things, and do their utmost to make the county government of the future at least as good as the county government of the past. I thank hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and in all parts of the other side, for the manner in which they also have assisted the Government in passing this Bill. I know well that it bristles with subjects on which hon. Gentlemen are naturally exceedingly anxious to express their views to the House and the country; but they have refrained in a remarkable degree, believing, I am sure, that they would probably assist the progress of this great measure best by refraining from an undue expression of opinion with reference to its various provisions, on many of which they hold strong opinions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has said that he approves, to a large exent, the machinery of the Bill; but he does not think that the work which we have thrown upon the County Councils is altogether adequate to the machinery set up. With reference to this, I would say that no prudent manufacturer, having started new machinery, would overload it; he would rather desire to test all the bearings of the machinery which he has set up, in order to see whether it is capable of enduring the strain of the additional work which he hopes at some future time to cast upon it; and, Sir, that is the view we have of this Bill. We do not at all wish, and we have never said, that the work we have cast upon this great machinery is the only work which we think it will be capable of properly performing in the future; on the contrary, we think there is a great future for the Councils we have set up. But we believe also, that it would be most imprudent and unwise for us to over-load at the outset the machinery now created. We believe that in future it will be found thoroughly capable of performing all the work which the country may think fit to devolve upon it. The Government has no desire to take undue credit for what they have done; but it must be acknowledged by the House that we have accomplished that in which many previous Governments have failed. We have succeeded, to the universal satisfaction of the House, in setting up these great Councils throughout the lenghth and breadth

  719
  of the land, thoroughly representative as they are; but, in addition to that, we have set up in this great City of London a Body which, I think, will prove to be adequate to sustain the enormous burden that will be thrown upon it. In saying this I do not wish to disparage the amount of good work which the Metropolitan Board of Works has done in the past; and I hope that the cloud which is passing over that Board will not obscure from the minds of Londoners the work which they have done; but the time has now arrived when a Body so constituted must be replaced by one which is truly representative. We have set up that Body, and we believe that it will be a very great benefit to the people of London. I do not desire now to say one controversial word in connection with this Bill, and nothing remains for me but to conclude by again expressing my cordial thanks to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite and to hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House for the assistance they have given to the Government in our endeavours to settle this great and complicated question in a manner which I believe will be satisfactory to the country.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

QUESTION.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—ARREST OF MR. O'KELLY.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) whether the Crown will agree, on Wednesday next, to the application for the adjournment of the case of Mr. O'Kelly until the House adjourns for the Autumn Session? He thought, as there had been such long delay in taking proceedings against Mr. O'Kelly, that when application was made on his behalf next Wednesday, the Crown ought to be able to adjourn the proceedings to enable him to return to London, and take his part in the discussion on the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. MADDEN)said, this Question had come upon him without any Notice. The House would, of course, see that, as the matter was not in his discretion, he could not now answer the Question of the hon. Member. All he could say was that the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman should have fair attention at the hands of those whose duty it was to decide the matter.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Question again on Monday.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, if the reply of the hon. and learned Solicitor General were not satisfactory, he should, on Wednesday, move the Adjournment of the House.

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  Ordered, That the Committee of the Chairmen's Panel have leave to make a Special Report.
  Mr. Campbell-Bannerman reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Henry James to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in the place of Mr. Osborne Morgan.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION.
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection have leave to make a Special Report.
  Sir John Mowbray accordingly reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Mr. Bradlaugh; and had appointed in substitution Mr. Cremer.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MOTIONS.

  DODDINGTREE AND BEWDLEY BRIDGES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Hastings, Bill to relieve the inhabitants of the Hundred of Doddingtree, in the county of Worcester, of the obligation to repair and maintain the Bridges of the Hundred, and to transfer to the county of Worcester the liability of the Borough of

  721
  Bewdley to repair and maintain the Bridge over the River Severn in or near to such Borough, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hastings, Sir Edmund Lechmere, and Sir Richard Temple.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 352.]

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (LOCAL BILLS) (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Sexton, Bill to enable Municipal Corporations in Ireland to apply Municipal Funds in the promotion of Local Bills in Parliament, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sexton, Mr. Murphy, Mr. T. D. Sullivan, Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. O'Keeffe, Mr. Richard Power, and Mr. Peter M'Donald.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 351.]

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to further amend the Acts relating to the raising of money by the Metropolitan Board of Works; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Sir Herbert Maxwell.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 354.]

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to grant money for the purpose of certain Local Loans; and for other purposes relating to Local Loans, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir Herbert Maxwell.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 355.]

  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the expense of collecting Statistics relating to Sea Fisheries under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for the regulation of the Sea Fisheries of England.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government (England and Wales)* (238).
Committee—Report—Indian Councils Act, 1861, Amendment (224).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Committee—Pier and Harbour (No. 2)* (223).
Third Reading—Local Government (No. 13)* (207), andpassed.

SALE OF INDECENT PUBLICATIONS AND PHOTOGRAPHS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE,in rising to call attention to the impunity with which large numbers of indecent publications and photographs are sold or distributed illegally to young persons, and to ask the Government whether the Public Prosecutor may be instructed to take proceedings in the more important cases of the breach of this branch of the law, said, he was sorry to obtrude this subject upon the House; but he deemed it a public duty to bring under notice some striking facts illustrative of a very peculiar trade that was extensively carried on in London and a few large towns in this country that might be stopped by publicity. He had always supported Free Trade, but not smuggling, which was an illegal trade, prohibited by law. This trade was for the sale of the virtue and beauty of poor girls of the lower classes, who had to earn their livelihood by drudgery and hard work, and it became worse than the Slave Trade. This trade was one in which it was not easy to get a profit, particularly as much competition existed. The dealers had to increase their customers and also to provide the articles wanted by their customers, and all this required skill, ingenuity, hard hearts, and a degrading selfishness. The method which was now found most successful was the gratuitous distribution of leaflets and photographs to excite in pure-minded young women of the lower classes, the hope that they might have pleasant living without labour. Printed papers were thrust into the hands of young women walking in the streets, beginning with something attractive and interesting, and ending with a notice of where more could be obtained. He held in his hand one of these letters, which were sent by post to housemaids. It was directed to the young servant girl who cleaned the door steps, and contained obscene information and indecent photographs, and requested the servant girl, if she wanted more, to put a bit of white paper on the kitchen window at a time mentioned, and gave the house where the sender was to be found. That was only one out of many devices practised to influence the simple minds of young

  621
  women. For example, pernicious pamphlets were thrown over the walls of girls' schools, and there were many well-known shops where books and pictures most pernicious to both sexes were sold in quantities; a translation of Zola's novels had been selling at the rate of 1,000 a week. The existing law might be sufficient if it were more easy of execution; but there was no effective execution of it in London. Much work and much time were required to obtain the necessary evidence, and the exertions for this object of the two vigilance societies had been unremitting. The stipendiary magistrates in London had been found unwilling to give the official meaning to the legal terms "obscene" and "indecent" the meaning that the Vigilance Associations contended for. Probably this was owing to their apprehension that they would not be supported by public opinion; but the National Vigilance Association often prosecuted a proper case when they did not obtain success, for the sake of attracting public attention to these evil practices which were unknown to the ordinary public, though the Public Prosecutor hesitated to bring an action in which he did not feel sure of success. The extensive demoralization of young women of the lower classes seemed to justify a more general intervention of the Public Prosecutor, on the ground that it was a public object to preserve the purity and modesty of the rising generation. This was not a case in which injured persons could appeal to the law; if done at all, it must be by those who had the care of national integrity and virtue. Foreign nations had much stricter laws than England. There were above 20 Germans carrying on this trade in London, because the application of the law in Germany prevented them from making the profits they got in England. They could also make money by decoying unsuspecting English girls to go to Germany to be employed in the singing coffee taverns, where careful arrangements were made for their ruin. In the United States the law was so effective that impure literature and pictures could hardly be obtained. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government, amid all the important and pressing subjects with which they had to deal, would find time to take steps to save thousands of weak and
  622
  helpless girls from untold misery, degradation, and corruption of body and soul. In conclusion, he begged to ask the Government whether the Public Prosecutor might be instructed to take proceedings in the more important cases of the breach of this branch of the law?
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid, he was certain that they would all recognize with the noble Lord that anything which undermined the moral character of the young was hurtful to the nation. He believed that what the noble Lord had said with regard to the practice of disseminating literature of this character was strictly true in every particular. There could be no doubt that owing to the facilities of the present day such literature could now be spread in a manner which would have been impossible at one time, and the greatest possible care should be taken that all these facilities should not be misused for immoral purposes. It was perfectly true that there were dealers going about throwing letters addressed to the servants down areas, telling them to put certain signs in the window if they wished for literature of the class referred to. It was impossible to get hold of these men, because they left no address. Their object was simply to pervert the minds of servants. These letters sometimes got into the hands of ladies. Again, a large number of indecent pamphlets were distributed by quacks, being sent round in many instances to schools. He was glad to say that in the case of one school he knew of, the boys had got hold of the man and given him a good ducking, so that he never came again. Then there were pamphlets which were addressed to ladies whose names appeared in the birth column of the newspapers. Were these things to be allowed to go on? Were they obliged to allow science and civilization to be so misused that they were to have this horrible literature thrust upon them by the Post Office? Of course, it was not the fault of the Post Office, but something ought to be done. Who was the Public Prosecutor? He did not know; he had not even known his name until the Lord Chancellor had told him yesterday. He would like to see the Public Prosecutor placed in a different position from that in which he now found himself. In the State of New York not only was there a Public

  623
  Prosecutor for every county, but he could act on his own motion, without having to wait until the Treasury told him to prosecute. It might be said that it was impossible to pass any law which would check these evils. But in Sheffield there was a local Act under which any person posting or circulating any bill or printed or written paper of an obscene or indecent character rendered himself liable to a penalty not exceeding 40 s., or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one month. If it were possible for a Local Authority in Sheffield to pass a bye-law of that kind, he did not see why Parliament could not pass a general law of a similar kind for the whole Kingdom?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he did not believe there was any greater source of corruption in this country than that which the noble Lord near him had brought before their Lordships. It was not merely immoral publications to which he referred, but descriptions in writing which were criminal as well as immoral. He did not think that the Post Office ought to circulate poison of that sort. It must be surely possible to devise some means of preventing the Post Office and the public streets from being used for such purposes.
  EARL BROWNLOWsaid, he was not aware that there was any legislation which dealt specially with the case of young persons in connection with this subject. On the contrary, the aim of all our legislation was to prevent the publication or exhibition in shop windows of indecent matter in regard to any age or sex. The practice of the Home Office was when notice had been given of the publication and distribution of indecent publications, photographs, or pictures, to refer the matter to the Commissioners of Police, who took steps immediately to deal with the evil. He thought he could say that the police had not been lax in the performance of their duties in that respect; they were perfectly alive to the importance of the subject, and there had been a great many prosecutions. With regard to the action of the Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a similar Question on the 8th of May, said that, acting on his own discretion, he would certainly urge prosecution in any case in which it did not appear that more harm than good would be the result.
  624
  The practice of the police, when they endeavoured to put down the sale of any indecent publication or picture, was to bring the matter before the Public Prosecutor, who exercised his discretion in the case.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEobserved that it had been stated that, when the Public Prosecutor was put in motion, it was a necessary preliminary that the person who set him to act should make himself liable for half the cost. He had himself, on one occasion, put the Public Prosecutor in motion. He had not to give any guarantee, and the work was done entirely to his satisfaction.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, the answer of the noble Lord was satisfactory as far as it went, but it did not go far enough. He thought that what was wanted in London was a less cumbrous law than the existing one—a summary mode of proceeding which should act surely, inexpensively, and rapidly, and in which, though the punishment might be small, it should be effectual.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBUBY)said, he thought the noble Lord on the Cross Benches was under a misapprehension. The Attorney General could direct a public prosecution against anyone, and the Public Prosecutor must act under the direction of the Attorney General. As a matter of fact, Public Prosecutor was a name which had in recent years been given to the Solicitor to the Treasury. But in this country, subject to certain exceptions, anyone might prosecute. Anyone who prosecuted, however, whether a Public or Private Prosecutor, must prove what he alleged. There was no use in proceeding against a person unless you had some proof. Some of the most injurious practices were carried on by people whom no one was able to trace, and it was a strange complaint to make against the Public Prosecutor that he did not prosecute persons whom he had not discovered. Undoubtedly, those who indulged in this traffic surrounded their operations with all possible secrecy and took every precaution to avoid publicity. He would wish to say one word of caution. He quite recognized the excellence of the motives of the noble Lord who had introduced the subject. Everyone must heartily sympathize with his intentions. There was one remark of the noble Lord which revealed a state of

  625
  mind with which he could not agree. The noble Lord said that it was not so much desirable to get a conviction as to make the matter public. Now, he believed that to make the matter public would only do more harm. He would give an illustration of what he meant. A very vile pamphlet was being sold in the City of London. The City Authorities thought it right to prosecute, and he himself was counsel for the prosecution. One result of that prosecution was that public attention was called to that which had been circulated only by the hundred, perhaps, and it went through several editions, and its circulation was increased by many thousands. The learned Judge who tried the case called the attention of the jury to the fact that the circle of impurity and corruption which existed before had been widened tenfold, or, perhaps, a hundredfold, by the institution of the prosecution. As to the complaint that if a prosecution was instituted in respect of the publication of indecent matter, the indecent matter had to be set out in the indictment, he would point out that there was now before their Lordships' House a Bill to provide that that need not be done. He thought it was his duty to refer to these matters, because, while entirely sympathizing with what had been said, he believed it would rather interfere with the improvement of the condition of things. Everyone desired to exaggerate the state of the case, and to suppose that by some alteration in the law the necessity of proof could be dispensed with. That must, in the first instance, be obtained before a prosecution was instituted, and he believed that, so far from its being desirable to prosecute unless there was a reasonable chance of conviction, the tendency should be exactly the other way, for if prosecutions were instituted in vain the commission of offences of a similar character was encouraged.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, in rising to move for—
  "A Return showing the working of the Labourers (Ireland) Act up to the 31st of May, 1888—(1) number of cottages already completed: (2) actual cost of cottages already completed, exclusive of preliminary expenses and law costs: (3) preliminary expenses and law costs
  626
  —(a) expenses incurred by Local Government Board; (b) expenses incurred by Boards of Guardians (including medical report, architects' fees, solicitors' costs, expenses of defending appeals against cottages authorized, and miscellaneous expenses): (4) number of cottages occupied: (5) number of cottages occupied and not paying rent: (6) number of cottages let to evicted tenants: (7) number of cottages in which persons in receipt of outdoor relief are resident: (8) trades or occupations of persons in occupation of cottages: (9) highest and lowest weekly rents charged: and (10) number of cottages condemned by the sanitary or local authority (and in lieu of which new cottages have been erected), but which are still inhabited,"
  said, that the Returns moved for in the House of Commons were not sufficiently explicit owing to the complicated nature of the Labourers Acts. In 1885 Her Majesty's Government brought in an Act with the object of making the Act of 1883 workable. He had the honour of introducing that Act, and he was extremely sorry that he did so, for a worse Act never was passed. It opened the way to any amount of jobbery. The Boards of Guardians had the administration of the Act in their hands, and they administered it as only Irish Boards of Guardians could. It was reported to him that the Act had been worked entirely for political purposes. If a man happened to be a Land Leaguer, or, which was the same thing, a National Leaguer, he could always obtain a cottage, but even if he were the best labourer in Ireland and not a National Leaguer he had no chance. A noble Lord, a Member of their Lordships' House, had informed him that a Guardian had stood up at a meeting of a Board, of which he (the noble Lord) was a member, against a proposal of this kind, in order to put a stop to some jobbery, and be heard two men say, "We will put two cottages upon him." That was the way this Act was worked. Then, the salaries under this Act were enormous. First, the clerks of the Union, who were a hardworking body of men, had very large salaries, but they did a great amount of work and he did not object to their being well paid for it. But, then, there was the medical Inspectors, who, he thought, might very well do this extra work without any extra salary. Then they had a solicitor attached to some Boards of Guardians for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, and in addition to that they had for the erection

  627
  of these labourers' cottages an architect, and it could well be imagined how the ratepayers' money was being spent. Many cottages were unoccupied, and, in many cases, the sites selected were very inconvenient. He had heard of cottages being built on land where no labourers were required. He was informed, too, that some cottages were occupied without any rent being paid, which was only to be expected when the Guardians themselves taught the people not to pay rent. Then, he had heard that some of these cottages were let to evicted tenants; he had heard, too, that some of them were let—but he hoped it might not be true—to persons in receipt of outdoor relief, for that was a direct breach of the law. Most careful definitions had been laid down of who was a labourer, yet he was told that these cottages were often let to men who did not pretend to be labourers. Again, he was told, and, in fact, he knew from experience, that the landlords had not received anything like the value of the land on which the cottages were built. It was proposed by the Act of 1885 that the landlord should let the land for 99 years to the Board of Guardians, and the Sub-Commissioners were to fix what the rent was to be, but the rent that was fixed was often perfectly ridiculous. In the case of a purchase the landlord in many cases received neither the purchase money nor the interest on it. Not only had these Acts been a great injury to the landlords, but he was told that the National Leaguers themselves who administered the Acts had become extremely dissatisfied with them, and spoke of them as most injurious to their interests. They did not recognize that the failure of these Acts was due to their own administration of them. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would grant the Return he moved for, because, if he was correct in the information he had received, it was necessary that their Lordships should know how these Acts were administered.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House—
  "Return showing the working of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts up to the 31st day of May, 1888:

  1. Number of cottages already completed:

  2. Actual cost of cottages already completed, exclusive of preliminary expenses and law coats:

  628

  3. Preliminary expenses and law costs—

  (a) Expenses incurred by Local Government Board;

  (b) Expenses incurred by Board of Guardians (including medical reports, architects' fees, solicitors' costs, expenses of defending appeals against cottages authorized, and miscellaneous expenses):

  4. Number of cottages occupied:

  5. Number of cottages occupied and not paying rent:

  6. Number of cottages let to evicted tenants:

  7. Number of cottages in which persons in receipt of out-door relief are resident:

  8. Trades or occupations of persons in occupation of cottages:

  9. Highest and lowest weekly rent charged:

  10. Number of cottages condemned by the Sanitary or Local Authority (and in lieu of which new cottages have been erected) but which are still inhabited."—(The Marquess of Waterford.)

  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, there was no objection on the part of the Government to the Return moved for, and it would be granted in the form in which it stood on the Paper.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked their Lordships what other result could they expect from such legislation than the natural consequences—namely, jobbery, extravagance, and the robbery of landlords, of which the noble Marquess had so justly complained. Such a Return as that moved for would be useful in the study of the question of Local Government. But he thought his noble Friend had omitted one point. He would suggest that an 11th point should be added, asking for the total profits or loss to the ratepayers.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, he could not, without Notice, promise to give the Return suggested by the noble Earl.
  Motion agreed to.
  Return ordered to be laid before the House.

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION— REMOVAL TO RICHMOND PARK.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD WANTAGE, in rising to draw attention to a Petition now presented to the First Commissioner of Works with reference to granting a portion of Richmond Park as a site for the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association, said, the National Rifle Association had been told to take a leaf out of the book of the Artillery Association; but he desired at the outset to remind

  629
  their Lordships of a point which was sometimes overlooked. The Artillery Association, which held its meetings at Shoeburyness, an admirable association which had produced admirable results, was a purely military body. The National Rifle Association was quite different, and the object of its founders was to promote rifle shooting generally. It was founded on the principles of the Tir Fédéral of Switzerland, for the purpose of rendering rifle shooting a national pursuit and pastime in the reign of Queen Victoria as archery was 300 years ago. Of the distinguished persons who stood round the cradle of the National Rifle Association he would only mention three—Mr. Sidney Herbert, never to be forgotten among Secretaries of State for War, who sacrificed his life to his official duties as much as ever soldiers did; the Prince Consort; and Her Majesty the Queen, who herself fired the first shot on the ranges. These had recognized how wide was the scope of the objects of the National Rifle Association—the Prince Consort by starting an All Comers' prize, which had been kept up down to the present time, and Her Majesty by the speech she graciously delivered on the 2nd of July, 1860, upon Wimbledon Common. Her Majesty said—
  "I have witnessed with pleasure the manner in which the ancient fondness of the English people for manly and sylvan sports has been converted by your association to more important ends, and has been made an auxiliary instrument for maintaining inviolable the safety of our common country."
  Under the head of "All Comers" there came to Wimbledon such men, for instance, as a mechanic, who had invented a new system of rifling, or a new sort of breech action; or, perhaps, a Scotch laird, dressed in a suit of tweed, carrying a sporting rifle on each shoulder and with a black pipe in his mouth. Such sights as these vexed the spirit of the visitor to Wimbledon, who expected to see nothing but soldiers in tight tunics and properly adjusted belts; but they could not forego their "All Comers," rough and ready as they were, even under the apprehension of being pronounced mere picnicers on the common. The National Rifle Association and those who directed it had been blamed in some quarters for bringing the Queen's name into the present question with re-
  630
  gard to Richmond Park. He was responsible for having first approached Her Majesty, and he thought then, as he thought now, that they could not have moved in this matter of the use of a Royal Park without such assent as Her Majesty was pleased to give them. Whatever might be the decision ultimately given by Her Majesty's advisers, the good will shown to the Volunteers by the Queen on this Question of Richmond Park would ever remain a matter of grateful feeling on their side towards their Sovereign. Should the decision be adverse, it would, of course, be accepted at once, and nothing further would be said. Should it be in favour of their request, they would hope that the Ministers of the Crown and the Commander-in-Chief would assist in furthering the objects of the association in their new departure. As their Lordships were aware, the Petition now made was to be allowed to use a portion of Richmond Park for the annual meetings of the association. This scheme, unfortunately, had not commended itself to the Commander-in-Chief. He desired, with all respect, to speak of the Illustrious Duke in his public capacity. The objections which His Royal Highness had raised to the National Rifle Association remaining on at Wimbledon Common were of a similar nature to those he now made as to their going to Richmond Park—namely, danger to the public. This danger—if danger there were—had, as regards Wimbledon, existed for the last 28 years, during which period there had never been a single accident, though 1,000,000 shots had been fired at the ranges there on each meeting. If the ranges used by the National Rifle Association on Wimbledon Common were dangerous, equally so must be the other ranges on the Common used throughout the year by Metropolitan Corps. They must, in that case, be equally closed on the ground of danger. Neither could the process of closing them stop there. Every other range in the country that did not possess a mountain behind the targets must be equally closed. The Commander-in-Chief, like all other public men, was liable to error, and in his official capacity was not, and, he felt sure, did not desire to be, exempt from criticism. He would proceed to show that in the opinion of the National Rifle Association the Commander-in-Chief was wrong on

  631
  this point. The fact of the past 28 years of perfect safety seemed to be an answer to the apprehensions of the Illustrious Duke, and in confirmation of this he might mention that he had received a letter from the clerk of the works of the National Rifle Association, who stated that compensation was annually paid to the occupants of certain cottages situated behind the butts, to enable them to reside elsewhere during the Wimbledon meeting, but that the people did not do so and continued to occupy their houses, and their children went to and from school without any evil results whatever. The Commander-in-Chief had referred to the future issue of a now rifle with increased range, but the small-bore rifle, with a similar range to the rifle alluded to, had been constantly used for 20 years at Wimbledon by all comers, although not as a military rifle, and none of the dangers anticipated had arisen. He mentioned this in order to prove the safety of the ranges and the skill of those who came up to shoot at the meetings of the National Rifle Association. In confirmation of that he would quote the Petition of the association to the First Commissioner of Works. It said—
  "Your petitioners, however, would point out that competitors at the annual meetings consist of specially selected shots. Their accuracy of fire has been tested by means of a screen opposing an area of 600 square feet immediately behind the butts, through which no bullets have passed out of 20,000 shots which have been fired during the first part of the meeting at ranges up to 600 yards."
  That experiment was continued for the remaining eight days of the meeting, and during that time not one single bullet passed through the screen, showing that every bullet was either caught on the target or else on the butts. About 10 years after the association was established an Act of Parliament was passed which gave them considerable rights on the common. Unfortunately, that well-intentioned and well-considered Act which gave them compensation for the expenditure, amounting to about £45,000, which they had made in the event of their being removed by the conservators of the Common, was of no avail, because it was not the conservators who were now forcing them to move. They were now told to go elsewhere without a single word in acknowledgment of the services they had rendered; they were told to go anywhere so long
  632
  as they went far enough. In their extremity the National Rifle Association turned their eyes to the Royal Park of Richmond, a Park noted for its beauty, its magnificent trees, and its sylvan glades so freely open to the public. Those of their Lordships who had read adverse letters in the newspapers, he was sure, would be surprised to hear that not one of those trees would be injured in the slightest degree, and that not one of those sylvan glades would be interfered with. What they were now asking for was simply to put the butts and rifle ranges in a part of the Park never open to public and known as the Paddocks. A danger which had been pointed out caused apprehension—namely, that having got in the thin end of the wedge, they would wish to proceed further and have greater rights. The National Rifle Association would not do so. They desired a range which should not be used by any rifle corps. Parsons came to compete at their annual national meeting from all parts of the Kingdom and from the Colonies. The Canadian Government voted public money to send over to this country their picked shots to compete at our national meeting, and those men had distinctly stated that in no case would they come if they were relegated to some distant place. They would come for a national competition; but they would not come to a place where other men were acquainted with the light and shade and the different effects of the breeze. That was the modest request the National Rifle Association made for that small portion of land called the Paddocks. They were indebted to the great courtesy, good will, and friendship of the First Commissioner of Works and the Illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge), who had given them every opportunity to examine that piece of ground, to mark out the ranges and the trees, not, of course, as had been foolishly alleged, permanently, but with whiting, which could be easily washed off. The Commander-in-Chief had sent down a military officer in order to see what facilities and what danger there might be. No adverse report had been made by that officer, who was the secretary of the committee which was now investigating the capabilities of the new rifle. There were only 30 or 40 trees which would have to be cut down, and

  633
  those were of an inferior character. The hill at the foot of which it was proposed to place the targets rose 90 or 100 feet above the range, and the bullets which passed the targets would be caught in that rising ground or in the trees which crowned it. The footpaths were far out of range. The chief opposition they had to meet was from those persons who had the great advantage, boon, and pecuniary gain of living in close proximity to a Royal Park which was protected from the builder. Such was the selfishness of those persons who had enjoyed the advantages of Richmond Park that they grudged, for one short fortnight of the year, the use of this part of it to the men who gave up so much of their time to acquire a knowledge of arms. They who were advocating those men's case were told they were no better than Trafalgar Square agitators, and it had been further alleged that the trained men engaged in the work of national defence had threatened to lay down their arms if they were not allowed to have Richmond Park. That was simply a calumny. It could not be supposed that men with ordinary spirit would consent not to make some effort in order to carry on the association which had lasted so long. Besides the piece of ground called the Paddocks, about 600 acres of the Park proper would have to be surrounded by a cordon of police during the shooting hours, but they would not have to enclose it. He would conclude what he had to say by reading to their Lordships an analysis of the Petition which had been got up in three days, because it was thought no time should be lost. It was signed by 63 Members of their Lordships' House, 102 Members of the House of Commons, 48 officers of the Regular Army, 34 soldiers and sailors, 357 Volunteer officers, 2,161 Volunteers of the rank and file, 71 mayors, 264 magistrates and municipal officers, 30 prominent provincial citizens, and 1,494 members of the general public, making a grand total of 4,624. The Petition was got up at Wimbledon, and a more unanimous and earnest prayer he never remembered to have been put forward.
  THE EARL OF FIFEsaid, that this was a question about which the inhabitants of Richmond Park and its neighbourhood felt strongly, and had a strict right to be heard. As an owner of property, he had been asked to give
  634
  expression to some of the objections entertained against the proposal. He had no technical knowledge; but he thought no unprejudiced man could deny that there must be in the neighbourhood of London, within reasonable distance, some localities admirably suited for the purpose of the National Rifle Association, without depriving, even for a short time, the public of one of their not very numerous resorts in the neighbourhood of London. Those who advocated this scheme had lost sight of the fact that of late London had increased very rapidly in the direction of Richmond Park. Some 20 years ago Richmond Park was considered a long way from London. But it was not so now, and from daily observation he could testify to the presence of large numbers in the Park every day in the week. It was said the meeting only lasted a fortnight in the year; but with the preparations beforehand, and the clearing up after, for at least a month in the best part of our short summer, the people would be deprived of the enjoyment of a great portion of this beautiful Park. He knew the place very well where it was proposed to place the butts, and there was hardly any place less suited for the purpose. It was very easy, upon paper, to define the range of shooting; but it would be almost impossible to control the bullets, which would fly about in all directions. He was told that during the week at Wimbledon there were 1,000,000 shots fired. If the Government consented to the proposal, not only the portion of the Park devoted to the meeting, but its neighbourhood, would be in imminent danger. Richmond Park was surrounded by a thickly-populated district, and with modern rifle shooting going on in the vicinity all sense of security and enjoyment would be entirely gone. As to the sylvan objection to the scheme, he believed that 75 trees had been marked for destruction; and if the cutting down of trees were once permitted, it was impossible to say what devastation might ultimately be involved. Again, if the proposed inroad on Richmond Park were once allowed, the precedent would be followed in other cases—a great many other open spaces in the neighbourhood of London might soon come to be seriously interfered with. This proposal came at a very inopportune moment, when hundreds of thousands of

  635
  pounds were being spent in order to increase the scanty number of breathing places for this great city. He did not believe that the great majority of Volunteers shared the opinions of the National Rifle Association. Most of them came from long distances, and could have no special interest in the exact spot chosen for the competition unless it was suggested to them. He did not believe they would wish to interfere with the comfort, convenience, and enjoyment of the public. He hoped the Government would not assent to this proposal, which, at the best, was only a makeshift scheme, and involved a gross violation of public rights as well as being a piece of intolerable Vandalism.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he thought that all who had had to do with the management of the Rifle Association ought to share the responsibility undertaken by his noble Friend. It was in 1860 that Her Majesty made the first bull's-eye on Wimbledon Common. He stood by her side, and had taken part in every meeting since. If the noble Earl's estimate of 1,000,000 shots per Wimbledon meeting was correct, some 28,000,000 of shots had been fired at the range since the Wimbledon meetings commenced, and he was not aware that a single accident to the public had ever happened in that period. It was not, therefore, too much to say that the danger referred to by their opponents was purely imaginary. It should be remembered that those who fired were trained riflemen, under the orders of officers who were themselves practised shots. There was no reason to expect that the future would be different from the past. Extra care had always been used, and it was an exaggeration to say that bullets were firing all over the place. The people would not be deprived of the Park for a month, as the noble Earl had said. The meeting only lasted a fortnight, and it was proposed to hold it in a part of the Park to which the public were not admitted. It argued very little patriotism not to be willing to endure this possible inconvenience for so short a time. Those who had been Volunteers for 28 years knew the immense sacrifices which had to be made by men to render themselves efficient members of the Force. Many in the House could remember the constantly
  636
  recurring panics of the last generation, and would admit that no small debt of gratitude was due to the men whose patriotism had relieved the country from those periodical panics. He claimed for the National Rifle Association that it had changed the English people into a nation of riflemen; and, if the Association were not to have their convenience in some degree consulted, it would he a very poor return for the very considerable amount of patriotism they had shown in the defence of their country.
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid, that having listened to the debate with great care he could not admit that any convincing argument had been used to show that the Volunteers required Richmond Park for purposes of shooting. If, as he had said, the majority of the Volunteers came from long distances, it would be a matter of very little consequence whether the rendezvous was a place within two or three miles of London or 10 or 20 miles of London. He declined to allow, even for a moment, that he was unpatriotic in not at once jumping to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary for the protection of the nation that the Volunteers should shoot in Richmond Park and nowhere else. On these grounds he was distinctly against the prayer of this Petition, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would not grant it.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, that as one who had been a member of the National Rifle Association for 20 years, and done all he could to support the Volunteers, he believed that if a rifle range were chosen well away from London, in some open part of the country where they could enjoy field exercise and drill, as well as engage in shooting, it would do more to promote the efficiency of the Volunteers than merely coming up to London for a fortnight in the year, to shoot in Richmond Park. The noble Lord had pointed in triumph to the Petition in favour of Richmond Park, signed by 4,000 persons; but, as he understood, the Association sent down a notice requesting all the mayors to sign the Petition, and many of them had done so really knowing nothing of what they were signing, having no knowledge of Richmond Park whatever, and never having been there, he should think. That was the way things were got up. As against the 4,000 petitioners, he would point to the

  637
  4,000,000 of Londoners who would not wish any of their not too ample breathing space taken away from them, and who, he hoped, would long have Richmond Park preserved to them intact.
  THE DUCKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I have been so pointedly alluded to by the noble Lord who brought forward this question that I feel bound to make some remarks. I am sorry to detain your Lordships, but statements have been made as though I were the person who mainly opposed the scheme for securing Richmond Park for the National Rifle Association in addition to putting a stop to the shooting at Wimbledom. I hope noble Lords will understand that I am as great a friend of the National Rifle Association as the noble Lord (Lord Wantage). I concede to him nothing in that respect; but I cannot understand why the position and fate of the Association should be dependent on the question of shooting either at Wimbledon or at Richmond Park. If I were convinced that there is no other place suited to shoot at but those I have named, of course the case would be quite different; but I cannot imagine why, in this country, where we have all sorts of ground available for various purposes, it is impossible to find another place where the shooting could be carried on in exactly the same manner, and I believe a better manner, than at Richmond Park. In answer to the noble Lord, I would only refer to the letter which the noble Lord himself wrote. He wrote a letter in which he very wisely, as I thought, said that if Wimbledon should cease to be available, it would be a good thing to consider whether a large space of ground could not be found where the shooting of the National Rifle Association should take place, and where Volunteers could be collected from time to time for the purposes of exercise and drill. I thought that a most admirable proposition; and if the noble Lord will only adhere to his own view of the case as stated in that letter, he may depend upon it that I will support him by every means in my power. As my name has been so prominently put forward by the noble Lord, I ought perhaps to state that as Commander-in-Chief no question has ever been put to me on the subject; but I was addressed as Ranger of Richmond Park, and in that capacity I was approached one day by the noble Lord,
  638
  who said that it had been suggested—I am open to correction if I am wrong—to Her Majesty that it would be very desirable that, as the National Rifle Association was not to remain at Wimbledon, they might have the use of Richmond Park; and I understood from him—he will correct me if I am wrong—that Her Majesty had so far assented that she said she personally would have no objection, provided the authorities who had to deal with such a case were of opinion that no evil results would follow. That was a natural question to be put to the Ranger, and the question having been put to me, I most distinctly told him that, while I would consider the matter till next morning, I was afraid there were a number of reasons—of danger and the public use of the Park—which would make it undesirable that the National Rifle Association should be allowed to shoot there. Next morning I wrote a letter to the noble Lord, and he will be so good as to remember that I distinctly laid down the reasons why I gave that opinion. I said I considered the time had come when all shooting at targets ought to take place away from villas, gardens, or habitations. I did not mean that the Volunteers should go to a Sahara, to a distant or disagreeable portion of the country, because I think there are large tracts of land perfectly accessible, and which are still perfectly safe. I submit I did my duty as Ranger of the Park in giving that opinion. To my great surprise, and without consent or notice—your Lordships will remember I am at the present time the President of the National Rifle Association, elected annually by that Association, several times having tendered my resignation at the business meetings, being always re-elected—in spite of that fact, at the very last meeting, when I was again re-elected in the same way, the noble Lord, without any notice, as I have remarked, said—"I am going to make a statement about Richmond Park." Well, I was astonished beyond measure, because, at all events, I supposed the question would have had some further elucidation before such a statement should be made to the meeting. I wrote to the noble Lord immediately, and explained to him that I had nothing to do with the decision on the question; that it lay really with the Chief

  639
  Commissioner of Works and Her Majesty's Government, and that I, as Ranger, would carry out what orders I received either on the part of Her Majesty or Her Advisers. I have no more to do with the stopping or not stopping the shooting at Richmond Park than the noble Lord has himself. An application was then made to the Chief Commissioner, and the Chief Commissioner had an interview with gentlemen representing the Association. Such is the way in which this singular idea has been put forward—that I, in my individual capacity, have put a veto on shooting in Richmond Park. As regards shooting there, I may just observe that I ought to know something about the Park. It was stated that the portion desired for the purposes of the Association is not part of the Park. It is as much part of the Park as any gentleman's park in England who has a certain portion hedged off for the purpose of feeding cattle or of providing grass for deer which have to be maintained in the winter. It is my impression that it is for such a purpose that this portion of Richmond Park has been distinctly kept. It is a most extraordinary idea that this land does not belong to the Park—most singular. If you were going to shoot into the part of the Park which is not used by the public, I can understand the argument; but the shooting is proposed to be from this portion into the Park. Now, with regard to the question of trees. What I say is, that you are going to cut down trees in a portion of the Park which will very materially affect the appearance of the Park. I was very much astonished to hear that a General Officer had said that only three trees would have to be cut down. I have taken considerable trouble to ascertain the number considered necessary, and I understand there are 75 trees which would have to come down. I quite agree with what was said by one noble Lord, that when you once begin cutting down trees, there is no doubt that very many more will probably follow; it is a case of first this tree and then that tree being discovered to be in the way. Then it is stated that there is a great rise in the ground. Well, measurement has been made, and it shows that the highest point behind the 1,100 yards' range is 42 feet. I ask your Lordships whether that is a safe mode of
  640
  shooting? But we are told that there are such a number of trees that they will stop any number of bullets. All I can say is, I should be sorry to see that considered as safe; because my noble Friend must know as well as I do that it very often happens that when anything is hit, the glance of a bullet is very much more dangerous than a direct shot. Allusion has been made to a military officer himself having gone down there, and having said, very properly, that, as a range, nothing could be better. But that is not the question—the question is, Are you to seek a range in Richmond Park? I have no doubt there are plenty of good ranges; but are you to seek a range in the Park when the very fact of your being in the Park at all under such circumstances must be a danger to the public? We are told that only half the Park will be taken. I must say I should be sorry to drive about the Park during the shooting, and I do not think your Lordships would care to send your families there. I believe that if the National Rifle Association go into Richmond Park you will have to shut the Park for the time being during the shooting hours. Then I am told that, though the preparation for the meeting and the putting of the ground in order again will take about six weeks, only 12 days are occupied in actual shooting. Are we to be told that Richmond Park is to be made available for 12 days' shooting when you can find other places if you only look for them? Have the noble Lord and his Friends gone into the question of other ground? No doubt they have heard of other ground, but what further notice have they taken? None. At least I have heard nothing about it. I do not understand how a distance from London of 16 or 17 miles is to be any real detriment to the National Rifle Association. I believe it stands upon much firmer footing, and I should be sorry to think that it stood on such a delicate footing that it would be seriously affected by a distance from the Metropolis of 16 or 18 miles, or even 40 or 50. It may be a façon de parler which I had, perhaps, better not use to say that I know several places; but I know excellent places for such a purpose. For instance, there is one near Brighton; there is also Pirbright, if the Government would agree

  641
  to it—and I believe they would. I know that Pirbright has been sneered at by some noble Lords; but Her Majesty's Guards shoot at Pirbright, and I cannot see why civilians should not shoot on the same ground as soldiers. It is suggested that screens might be put up behind the targets. The noble Lord who makes that suggestion looks at the matter from one point of view, while I look at it from another; but I do think I know more on that point than the noble Lord. I say frankly and honestly that there is very considerable danger, and I can assure him that a large number of bullets are annually picked up in my neighbourhood. For 28 years I have said nothing about it. I have always wished that the Association would go somewhere else; but I have never said anything all that time. When, however, I heard that nothing was to be done in this direction, and that they were going to spend money on butts in order to remain at Wimbledon, then I considered that the time had decidedly come—and I said it generously and without any bad feeling—for them to seek ground elsewhere, which I should have thought they could have found by this time. Some people have been under the impression that I did it for myself and my interests only. Certainly I have not overlooked my interests; I do not see why I should not look after them when they are seriously interfered with. Considering that during 28 years I never said a word, I do not think I have been very grasping or ungenerous to the National Rifle Association; but I must frankly say that I considered it my duty also to look after the interests of my neighbours, many of whom are not as safe as the noble Lord seems to think they are. The noble Lord who brought forward this question spoke of cottages from which the inhabitants never moved, though they were in the line of fire. I do not know to what cottages the noble Lord referred, but I think that he is under a mistake; I know people who have to leave their house whenever the National Rifle Association is at Wimbledon. I consider that shooting now, with the improved rifles, is far more dangerous than it was when it commenced at Wimbledon, and we have to look forward to its being still more dangerous; and therefore why should we make a range for a short period of time when,
  642
  as the noble Lord said, the time cannot be far distant when they must go elsewhere? Therefore, I say, that in the interests of the National Rifle Association it would be far better for them to make up their minds to the inevitable, to the growth of population, and the increase of London, and to seek a new place where all the advantages of the old one would be found. I have been over and over again described in connection with this matter as an enemy to the Volunteers. Am I to be told that the Volunteers—that great and fine body of men—depend upon the National Rifle Association for their existence? I have a much higher and more exalted idea of the Volunteers of England. I believe they are men who can be depended upon and relied upon; and though they, no doubt, rejoice in having an opportunity of shooting for prizes and showing their prowess, I do not believe for one moment that it will make the slightest difference as to their numbers whether the National Rifle Association exists or not. I hope it will continue to exist; I will give it every assistance in my power. But it is an extraordinary thing that anyone who opposes the peculiar views which it now puts forward must be considered an enemy to the Association or to the Volunteers of this country. I am afraid I may have been somewhat warm in making these observations; but the fact is, I certainly do feel strongly that I have been put forward very unfairly by a large section of persons because I have given my opinion honestly and fairly in my capacity of Ranger, and in no other capacity, and because I merely stated to the noble Lord what my opinion was on his proposal, which was that of taking advantage of Her Majesty's having permitted him to ask the question whether Richmond Park might not take the place of Wimbledon.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, the illustrious Duke suggested that the National Rifle Association looked upon this annual meeting as vital to its existence. It was not a question whether the National Rifle Association would cease to exist or not. What they urged was that its national character would be changed, and that its double purpose—namely, to encourage the Volunteers, and to make this nation a nation of riflemen like the Swiss—would be in danger of ceasing if they were driven to a dis-

  643
  tance from London. His noble Friend who introduced this subject had put this matter, and, indeed, the whole bearings of the question, so clearly before that House that had it not been for some remarks that had fallen from the illustrious Duke he should not have thought it necessary to intrude himself upon their Lordships' notice. The Gold Medal of the Association, which went with the Queen's Prize, told what the nature of their Association was. On the left there stood the figure of an archer with the date 1300, on the right there stood the figure of a rifleman with the date 1860, thus showing how the founders of their National Rifle Association hoped to make the rifle in their day what the bow was in the earlier times of English history—namely, not only an effective weapon of defence, but also an arm of amusement, which from its accuracy and range would lead men to meet in friendly rivalry at the butts, and make rifle shooting a national pastime, in which all, the classes and the masses, would equally take part. They believed that rifle shooting induced men to remain Volunteers who otherwise would cease to be in the Force. When they brought not only Volunteers but "all comers" to the rifle contests it was necessary that they should be near London. When they started at Wimbledon they tried to make the meeting as pleasant as possible to those who came there, whether Volunteers or not. They induced Jenny Lind to sing to the Volunteers, and they got, among other pulpit celebrities, the Bishop of Peterborough to preach to them. And now the social pleasant camp life was sneered at and denounced as a demoralizing picnic and "adventitious attraction." Greater rubbish was never talked than that about picnicing on Wimbledon. The Military Authorities appointed an officer, generally an officer in the Guards, to command the whole. There was also a camp officer. He would like the illustrious Duke to say whether, notwithstanding all this picnicing, there had been any case of misconduct on the part of any Volunteers? Let them, then, hear no more of that rubbish about picnics. But now they had to find some suitable place for their meeting—banished as they were from Wimbledon—and Richmond Park seemed to be the most suitable. It was said that they had not sought elsewhere for a fit place; but that was not so. A Com-
  644
  mittee of the Council had made all possible inquiry, and the result was that no place appeared to them to be so well adapted to their wants as an outlying portion of Richmond Park, from which the public were always excluded, and which was used for agricultural purposes. They heard much of public opinion on this subject; but there was a public opinion which was worth considering, and that was the opinion of the Volunteers who came to Wimbledon from all parts, not for the purpose of learning to shoot, but for testing the shooting taught elsewhere. At a mass meeting held at Wimbledon he put this question on the 1st resolution—"Are you of opinion that it is desirable that the meetings should be held near London?" and there was not a dissentient voice. His noble Friend had referred to a very important part of the question—namely, a permanent range. He had shown it was not at all the object of the National Rifle Association to have a permanent range. If you were to have one, no one would come from Canada, from Australia, from India, from Scotland, or other parts, simply for the reason that you must have a neutral range where no men were in the habit of shooting. The illustrious Duke had, at a dinner at the "Star and Garter," spoken of dozens of ranges as being available; but here he had only mentioned two places which he thought would be suitable—one of them was Brighton Downs, the other Pirbright. He supposed his noble Friend (the Earl of Fife) had not got a villa there. ["No."] Brighton Downs, he admitted, would be perfectly safe; but did the illustrious Duke think that Brighton Downs fell within the category of places near London?
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: It may not be near London, but, as a matter of fact, the Railway Company would take the men down to that place in an hour and bring them back in an hour—that is, two hours—for half-a-crown; and I do not think the thing could be done cheaper or better to Wimbledon.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that Wimbledon was assuredly nearer to London, and 6d., the present railway fare there, was certainly a less sum than 2s. 6d. And now as to Pirbright, the other place named by the illustrious Duke. That might do very well for soldiers, but it would not do for Volunteers. There was very much mirage in the

  645
  month of July, and you could not shoot with mirage—the target danced before you. Soldiers shot early in the morning, and if they did not shoot to-day they could put it off until to-morrow. But here you had men brought a long distance, and the whole thing would break down if they could not shoot at certain hours. If they went from London they changed the national character of the Association. He meant by "national" what interested everybody equally in rifle shooting, the classes and the masses. He believed rifle shooting was a great element in the continuity and permanence of the Volunteer movement. One word about Richmond Park. Richmond, they were told, was not to be thought of. The sylvan beauties of the Park would be destroyed; the ranges would be unsafe. Now, as it happened, on the outlying portion of the Park that they proposed to occupy there were few, if any, trees of any value. There was, no doubt, a druidical worship of all trees which he quite understood—indeed, his own feeling was at first strongly against the Richmond plan; but, looking at it exactly as he should if a similar request were made for the use of his own park, he could truly say no injury would be done to the beauty of the Park. His noble Friend on his right said that the public would be excluded from the Park for months. They would be only excluded from two-fifths of the Park—where about 15 persons passed in a day—for a portion of 12 days of each year. The illustrious Duke, in his speech at the Star and Garter, talked about the danger at Wimbledon, because of the necessity for policemen to keep the public off the ground. If they had at Wimbledon a cordon of police, in addition to their danger-signal, it only showed the extra precautions they took. But would His Royal Highness tell him of any range in the Kingdom where soldiers or Volunteers shot that had not got a danger-signal up, which implied that no one should pass behind the ground? Something like 28,000,000 shots had been fired at Wimbledon without a single accident. No range in the Kingdom could be considered safe from the accidental discharge of a rifle which might go off in any direction; but at Wimbledon there was not a single accident from a stray bullet during the whole time. The butts at Richmond might or might not
  646
  be permanent; they would not be seen from the Park; but if they were permanent butts they might be covered with gorse or hid by planting. With regard to the trees, they were told that 75 must come down. But there were scarcely any trees of any value and only three very valuable which would have to come down. Some, too, might be transplanted, trees even of considerable size, out of the line of the ranges.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: Trees 8 feet round would have to come down—about 50 of them.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, his noble Friend (the Earl of Fife) who had just spoken on behalf of the villa holders—himself being one—and of the inhabitants of Richmond, had drawn a most touching picture of ruin to property, and of the agonized state in which they and those for whom he spoke would be kept by their rifle meeting. But, saddening as was the thought of his noble Friend, shaking and shivering in his villa——
  THE EARL OF FIFErose to explain. His noble Friend had referred to him more than once as a villa-owner. He admitted that he had villas in the neighbourhood, but it was not as a villa-owner that he opposed this scheme. He opposed it because he had been asked to do so by a body representing thousands of persons resident in the neighbourhood.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked, whether his noble Friend knew how far these shivering ladies and gentlemen whom he represented would be from the firing point? They would be two and a-quarter miles, and, that being so, he maintained they were perfectly safe ranges. Why, if that range was unsafe, every range almost in England was. [Lord HARRIS assented.] He was glad to see that his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War agreed with that. But was it unsafe? His Royal Highness had told them that Major Burton, the specialist he sent down to examine the proposed ranges, considered them of ample extent; but he was greatly mistaken if he did not also report upon them as being safe. And he would ask His Royal Highness if that was not so? He owned he should like to see Major Burton's Report. And, as regarded depriving the public of the enjoyment of Richmond Park, it must be remembered that it would only be

  647
  used for a portion of 12 days in the year, and that the portion of the Park so under fire was very little frequented. All that part near Pembroke Lodge and the "Star and Garter" would be as safe and available as it now was. And, by proper precautions being taken, there would be no danger to the public in the Park. He asked His Royal Highness to show him a safer place. If a better and safer place could be obtained, by all means let them have it. The matter really came to this—that if the National Rifle Association was to fulfil its purposes as originally intended, and was to be a great public institution, its annual rifle meeting must be held in the neighbourhood of London; and the Committee appointed to make inquiries could find no site near London so convenient as this site in Richmond Park. He himself went down to the Park prejudiced against the scheme; but after viewing the site he readily assented to it, because he believed that what was required could be done without any injury to the Park or any inconvenience to the public. His noble Friend the Chairman and the Council of the National Rifle Association had done their duty in trying to find the most convenient site, and the Volunteers had done their part in backing up their decision. The Vestries of St. Martin's and St. James's had petitioned in favour of the scheme. [Laughter.] It was all very well to laugh at Vestries, but they had constituents, and whatever the Vestry said might be taken as the general opinion of the inhabitants. Then there was a Petition signed by 60 Peers and a Petition signed by 100 Members of the House of Commons. And now he had only this more to say—that, believing as they did that rifle shooting was a great stimulus to Volunteering, and helped to maintain the permanence of the Force, they thought it essential to the national character of their Association that its meetings should be held near the Metropolis. It was for the public to judge; but he thought it should be borne in mind that the work the Volunteers had done for the last 28 years had rendered the enforcing of the ballot for the Militia unnecessary. Why, every Englishman was bound by the existing law of home military service—now annually suspended—to serve in the Militia for home defence; and if the Volunteer Force were to disappear, this law would have immediately to be
  648
  put in force, and in less than three months Sir John Whittaker Ellis and his constituents would be doing "goose stop." They had never asked for anything before—[Laughter, in which the Earl of Kimberley joined]. What had they ever asked for? Only for what was necessary for their efficiency. They really treated the Volunteers as if it was a favour to allow them to serve, whereas they were doing the nation a favour by so serving. This was the first time the Volunteers had come forward and asked for something they believed to be essential to the original constitution of their Association, and he could not help thinking it would have been a graceful act on the part of the Government and the public if they were to concede the request of the National Rifle Association.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he believed that this proposal would be injurious to the Volunteers, and that if the National Rifle Association were to die to-morrow it would make no difference in the shooting of the Volunteers. No doubt, the Association gave a start to rifle shooting which everyone must value highly, and they deserved great credit for that movement; but that spirit had spread throughout the country, and if the Association said that if they died out rifle shooting would die out, he contended that that was utterly and entirely a mistake. He could not help thinking that the National Rifle Association had not been fair in their arguments in this matter. They had used the name of the illustrious Duke in a way which made him extremely angry. They ought rather to have expressed their gratitude to him for being allowed to use Wimbledon for 28 years. He should like to have a plébiscite taken of the Volunteers with regard to Richmond Park. He believed the Volunteers valued the shooting at Wimbledon very little, except, perhaps, a very small minority, who merely looked to the "pot-hunting." He trusted the Association would look about for some permanent place where they would be able really to assist the Volunteers in their shooting, and where they could continue to be of value to the nation in the future as they had been in the past.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I am unable at the present moment to give any answer to my noble

  649
  Friend on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, for this question is still under careful inquiry. But I rise to enter my protest upon one or two matters. I cannot help thinking that the tone of my noble Friends who represent the National Rifle Association is somewhat unfair to the public. They appear to think that the position in which they are placed is the result, if not of actual hostility, at any rate of want of appreciation of the services they have rendered. I am sure that there is no such want of appreciation of their services. I admit that they have rendered great services, and all of us take an interest in their welfare. Whether they can be admitted to Richmond Park or not, the fact that they have been driven from Wimbledon, and so far removed from the Metropolis, is not the result of any want of appreciation or of hostility, but of the necessary action of causes constantly going on. The country is becoming more crowded. Above all things, the Metropolis is becoming more crowded, and side by side with this is the counter movement that the range of these weapons of precision is increasing every 10 or 20 years. This is not the result of any feeling against the Volunteers, but of the action of natural causes. Grounds which some years ago were perfectly suitable for use as rifle ranges, have, by reason of the increase of population and of the increase of the range of weapons, necessarily become unsafe for such purposes. Whatever decision is arrived at in this particular matter, it is inevitable that rifle ranges must be driven further away from the centres of population. It is impossible to resist this tendency. Only last night we were discussing a somewhat similar point with regard to a range near Portsmouth upon which shooting has gone on for 50 years without objection, as long as the Solent was not so crowded with navigation, the fisheries were not so frequented, and the range of the rifle not so extensive. But now complaints have arisen with regard to that range, and there has been an accident. This is an illustration of the process that is going on. I hope that the speech of the illustrious Duke will be a valuable warning to the Volunteers throughout the country in regard to this matter, so that they may make their arrangements accordingly. The only other point on which I desire to
  650
  say a word is as to the responsibility in this case. I wish it to be distinctly understood that the responsibility of arriving at and pronouncing a decision on this matter as to Richmond Park rests with us. Her Majesty's name has, I think most improperly, been introduced. Her Majesty, as is her wont, has expressed her willingness to sacrifice any personal rights of her own for the benefit of the Volunteers. As far as her own rights are concerned, she has expressed her willingness to forego them; but, of course, Her Majesty's decision must be made subject to the advice of her responsible Advisers, who must have regard to the general interest of the public. In the same way, with regard to the illustrious Duke—he had not to decide whether the National Rifle Association could use a portion of Richmond Park—he has given us his opinion, which, owing to his military and local knowledge, we consider of the greatest value; but the decision does not rest with him. The responsibility rests with us and us alone, and it is against us that any blame must be directed. The determination of this matter turns on very solid considerations. Sentiment is altogether out of the question. I do not think that we ought to decide in favour of the Rifle Association in order that the Volunteers may enjoy the advantages of singing and the preaching of the Bishop of Peterborough, or in order that they may secure that day's outing which the noble Lord says is their right. On the other hand, I am not much moved by the destruction of 70 trees. If it is necessary that 70 trees should be sacrificed for a public object the trees must go. But what I am moved by is the consideration whether Her Majesty's subjects would be safe if this arrangement were adopted. Will they be safe in going from one place to another whore they have a right to go? Will they be safe upon adjoining private property, and in all other parts of the Park to which they have a right to penetrate? Whatever the inconvenience may be to the National Rifle Association, Her Majesty's subjects cannot be exposed to real and substantial danger. My noble Friend spoke with enthusiasm of the heroism of a certain laundryman who pursued his avocation at Wimbledon in the line of fire, and in spite of the constant rain of bullets. He is a

  651
  worthy son of the race from which he springs, but the noble Lord cannot expect all Her Majesty's subjects to have the heroism of that man. My own belief is that the majority of them prefer that the part of Richmond Park to which they have admission should be free from the inconvenience of rifle bullets whistling over their heads. The noble Lord, with great love of his art, said that the public might with absolute safety place themselves in front of a rifle held by any person under the guidance of the National Rifle Association; but something must be allowed for the nerves of Her Majesty's subjects; and if rifles are pointed in their direction and they are in the range of those rifles they will not have that absolute certainty which the noble Lord enjoys. However, I am not attempting to give an answer to my noble Friend. I am not now authorized to speak on the subject. We will give it the best attention in our power, and we shall be guided by no sentimental considerations. We shall recognize fully the high services rendered in the past by the National Rifle Association, and we shall do our utmost to extend to it all facilities that are consistent with the right and safety of Her Majesty's subjects.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he fully agreed with the remarks that had fallen from the noble Marquess—even as to the detail of 70 trees. It was only right to point out that the objection which came from some of his friends as to the use of Richmond Park for the purpose of the National Rifle Association meeting was not because of any feeling against the Association or the Volunteers, but because they thought the use of the Park for such a purpose would be fraught with danger to the public.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—COURSE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLEasked whether the noble Marquess could give the House any information as to the course of Public Business?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, it was always dangerous to prophesy, but he understood there was a probability of the Local Government Bill passing through the House of Com-
  652
  mons that night. In that event the Government would rely upon the devotion of some of their followers remaining, in order that the Bill might be read a first time in their Lordships' House that night. His impression was that there was a general agreement in their Lordships' House as to the principle of the Bill, though all their Lordships did not agree with some of the details. It was, therefore, desirable that the measure should be considered in a full House, and he proposed to take the second reading on Tuesday. The Committee stage, however, would not be taken until the following Monday.

  DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES AT THE ALEXANDRA PALACE.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether the attention of the Home Office has been directed to an announcement in the papers that a Professor Baldwin will, at the Alexandra Palace, on Saturday next, jump out of a balloom 1,000 feet above the ground; whether it is believed that the announcement is genuine; and, if so, whether measures will be taken to prevent so dangerous and demoralizing an exhibition?
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Earl BROWNLOW)said, the attention of the Home Secretary had been called to the subject, and he had requested the police to make inquiries. The police had been asked, if it were true, to warn the persons responsible of the serious consequences which might ensue if the feat were attended with fatal result. There was no legislation to prevent an adult indulging in foolish or dangerous feats. There had been cases where foolish feats had been prevented, such as the case of Blondin, who was going to wheel a child in a perambulator—in a barrow he meant—along a rope a great height above the ground.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next.—(The Lord Balfour.) (No. 238.)
  House adjourned at One o'clock A.M., to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.