Sitting of 8 June 1888

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Second Report—Army Estimates [No. 212]; Navy Estimates [No. 213].
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES) (Special Report).
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Local Government (England and Wales) [182] [First Night]—R.P.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government (No. 13)* [287].
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Bangor and Warrenpoint)* [225]; Local Government (No. 3)* [249]; Local Government (No. 4)* [250]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 6)* [251]; Local Government (Gas)* [252]; Tramways (No. 1)* [222], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  IMPERIAL AND COLONIAL DEFENCE— ADEN.
  MR. ERNEST BECKETThad the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that the new guns recently sent to Aden arrived without sights and pumps, and are, consequently, useless; and, whether he will take steps to rectify this omission, in consequence of which Aden is practically defenceless, as soon as possible?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I hope the House will allow me to answer this Question, as it is of great importance. Two 6-inch breech-loading guns were received at Aden without sights and other stores. Steps were taken to supply this deficiency, and the sights and pumps will be sent out forthwith. But I am strongly of opinion that the mistake ought not to have occurred. I hope, however, that no delay has been caused, as the guns and their mountings will take some time to set up.
  MR. LYELLasked, if the right hon. Gentleman could identify any person responsible for this Omission?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I must have Notice of that Question; I think I know where the mistake occurred.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPART- MENT)—ALLEGED DEFECTIVE GUNS.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the statement contained in an evening newspaper of Saturday, June 2, is correct—namely,
  "That two certainly, probably three, out of the four heavy guns of the Rodney, 69-ton B.R., are practically useless, and that one of the Warspite 24-ton guns is in the same condition;"
  and, if not correct, whether he can assure the House that these guns are perfectly sound and efficient and ready for active service whenever they may be called on?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The detailed Report on the examination of the Rodney's guns has not yet been received; the delay is due to the time occupied in obtaining impressions of the bore of guns of such magnitude. I regret, however, to have to confirm the report that the liners of two of the guns are cracked. As regards the Warspite's 9·2 inch gun that had its liner cracked, it will be replaced by another gun, to be issued this week.

  NORTH AMERICAN FISHERIES— RIGHTS OF FISHING ON THE COAST OF LABRADOR.
  MR. DE LISLEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Hudson's Bay Company claim the exclusive right to set fixed nets for the capture of salmon on certain points of the sea shore, and also in the tidal portions of sundry rivers on the coast of Labrador, thus interfering with the fishery rights of the settlers in those regions; and, whether, having regard to "Magna Charta" and the laws bearing on fishery rights, the Government will inquire into the validity of these claims on the part of the Hudson's Bay Company?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Her Majesty's Government are not informed as to the nature and extent of the fishery rights at present held or claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company on the coast of Labrador; but they are aware that the Company have for many years past carried on their operations at certain ports on the coast which have been reserved to them under the Order in Council by which they surrendered the greater part of their rights to the Crown, and that these operations have been of great advantage to the Indians in those regions, who, without the Company's help, would probably have been unable to live. No complaints have been made to her Majesty's Government from any quarter; and it does not appear desirable to institute an inquiry into matters which would probably come under the cognizance of the Colonial Courts, if it is desired to call in question the Company's rights.

  POOR LAW (METROPOLIS)—GUAR- DIANS OF POPLAR PARISH—CASE OF F. BURGE.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the President of the Local Government Board, if the Guardians of the poor of the parish of Poplar exceeded their duty in refusing Mr. Frank Burge, an inmate of the workhouse of that parish, three weeks' leave to provide a home for his family on being offered employment, thereby rendering him a permanent pauper, and making his family chargeable on the rates; and, whether, in the event of Mr. Burge again obtaining employment, the required leave will be allowed?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): Frank Burge has been a solicitor's clerk, and is now an inmate of the Poplar Workhouse, where he has been with his wife and children for about five years. In 1884, he was prosecuted for desertion, and sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment. During the earlier years of his stay in the workhouse the Guardians repeatedly allowed him to leave the workhouse without his wife and children; but the continual recurrence of these applications tended to interfere with the discipline of the workhouse, and leave was refused. Burge subsequently brought an action against four of the Guardians for maliciously refusing to allow him to leave the workhouse; but he was non-suited, and the Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the Divisional Court. He was allowed 14 days' leave of absence without his family in November last, but without any practical result. I am informed that if Burge can show that he has obtained employment, and that there is a reasonable prospect of his providing a home for his wife and children, the Guardians would, undoubtedly, assist him.

  THE NORTH SEA FISHERIES—SALE OF TOBACCO.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, taking into consideration the fact that since the vessels belonging to the Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen Society have sold tobacco duty free to the crews of fishing smacks in the North Sea, the "Copers," or floating grog shops, have greatly de-
  1526
  creased in number, he will arrange with the Custom House authorities that, in cases where a fishing vessel is obliged to return to port on account of stress of weather or for repairs, the unconsumed tobacco in the hands of the crew may be placed under seal while in port, in the same manner as in the case of a yacht returning from abroad with tobacco, wines, or spirits on board?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said, that the Board of Customs would give directions to the Custom House authorities, that in cases where a fishing vessel was obliged to return to port on account of stress of weather or for repairs, the unconsumed tobacco in the hands of the crew sold to them duty free by vessels belonging to the Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen should be placed under seal while in port.

  POST OFFICE—COUNTRY POSTMEN— TICKET BOOK FOR POSTAL ORDERS.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK(for Mr. AINSLIE) (Lancashire, N., Lonsdale) asked the Postmaster General, If, in view of recent cases of misappropriation of money by country postmen, he can arrange that such postmen shall carry a ticket book containing forms for obtaining postal orders of every kind, such book to be examined daily at the office where such orders are obtained?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that an arrangement of a nature similar to that proposed has been under my consideration for some time, and that I hope soon to be in a position to come to a decision.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— MESSRS. CECIL ROCHE AND HODDER, R.M.—SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What salaries and allowances are now paid to Messrs. Cecil Roche and Hodder, Resident Magistrates; what salaries and allowances were paid them as Sub-Commissioners under the Land Act, 1881; and, what are the average salaries and allowances of Sub-Commissioners and Resident Magistrates at present?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The emoluments of office of the Resident Magistrates named are in each case—salary, £425; commuted forage allowance, £100; allowance for postage, stationery, &c., £8; together with travelling expenses (including subsistence allowance), when incurred. As legal Assistant Commissioners they were each in receipt of salary at the rate of £1,000 a-year; together with travelling expenses (including subsistence allowance) when incurred. Salaries at the same rate and like travelling expenses are still paid to legal Assistant Commissioners. Lay Assistant Commissioners are paid £3 3s. for each day on which they are actually employed. They also are reimbursed the actual cost of locomotion. The average salary of Resident Magistrates, including the extra remuneration of Divisional Magistrates, is about £558 a-year; and the average allowances, including travelling, about £193 a-year.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether it was not a fact that the remuneration of Sub-Commissioners was payable by the day, and that they were liable to dismissal at a day's notice?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They are under the Land Commission, and I should not like to say anything as to the nature of their tenure of office; but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct.

  THE EXECUTIVE (IRELAND)—THE LORD LIEUTENANT—THE LORDS JUSTICES.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Would there be any objection to a Return showing how often, and for what periods, Lords Justices have been sworn in during the absence of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland during the past 10 years, distinguishing Viceroys who were Cabinet Ministers; or could he say how often Lords Justices have been sworn in during the present Viceroyalty?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he thought that no advantage could be gained from any such Return, and therefore he could not consent to it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how often the present Viceroy, the Marquess of Londonderry, has been absent from Ireland since his appointment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I have no information on that subject.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to give Notice that, on the first opportunity, I will call attention to the fact that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is never in Ireland, but always attending race meetings in England.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COM- MISSIONS IN WESTMEATH.
  MR. TUITEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now state the date in this month on which the Sub-Commission will hold its next sitting in Westmeath, and the names of the gentlemen who will constitute the Commission?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the Land Commissioners reported that they were unable as yet to furnish a reply.

  ADMIRALTY—PENSIONS—CASE OF JOHN M'CARTHY.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is aware that John M'Carthy, chief boatman in charge of the Coastguard Station at Portmuck, Islandmagee, County Antrim, who died suddenly on December 31 last, was entitled to £22 for good service money; whether M'Carthy, who had spent his life in the service and had received a medal for long service and good conduct, left his wife and child unprovided for; and, whether, considering the exemplary conduct of M'Carthy, and that he lived and died in the British Service, he will advise some provision to be made, by way of gratuity or otherwise, for his widow and only child, without causing the child to be removed from its mother?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The widow of John M'Carthy has been granted the good conduct gratuity of £20 due to her husband, together with £20 given for a former injury, also his pension up to January 31, 1888. M'Carthy had received a medal for long

  1529
  service and good conduct, and has left his family unprovided for. There was nothing special in M'Carthy's services, and there are no funds from which his widow can be given any further assistance. The widow has been invited to apply for the admission of her child to a school at the expense of Greenwich Hospital Funds, but no grant can be made for his education at home.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— REMOVAL OF PLACARDS AT ENNIS.
  MR. J. E. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an action was recently commenced against the police at Ennis by Mr. Dennis MacNamara, a local newsvendor, for stealing the publishing board and placard of United Ireland placed outside his shop; whether, by way of defence, the police paid a sum of money to meet their liability in the matter; and, whether, if this be so, instructions will now be issued to the police, in Clare and elsewhere, not to interfere in future with placards of newspapers outside newsvendors' shops?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Inspector General of Constabulary reports that an action for damages against certain members of the Constabulary at Ennis for carrying away a board exposed outside the licensed premises of Dennis MacNamara was instituted. Five shillings was lodged in Court by the solicitor for the constables to meet a liability which was denied, the amount being considered sufficient, should the jury give a verdict for the complainant. The solicitor for the constables recently received a notice that the case would not be proceeded with.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS—ADMISSION OF DYNAMITERS TO THIS HOUSE— MR. LAFONE, M.P.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the noble Lord the Member for Tavistock (Devon), If he would explain why the Select Committee, over which he presided, as to the Admission of Strangers, did not request an explanation from the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Lafone) of the statements made affecting him by Mr. Monro of Scotland Yard, or why no opportunity
  1530
  was given to the hon. Member to reply to the statements contained in Answers 782–789?
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTON: I believe that every member of the Committee, except the hon. and learned Member for West Ham (Mr. Forrest Fulton), was present when the statement referred to in the Question was made in answer to a question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), and neither that right hon. Gentleman nor anyone else suggested that it was desirable to take the course indicated in the Question addressed to me. There is, therefore, no foundation whatever for the suggestion made yesterday by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), that the majority of the Committee resisted such a proposal from political motives. I cannot answer for anyone but myself; but I did not think that there was any need to ask the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Lafone) for an explanation—[Cries of "Why not?" and Mr. SPEAKER: "Order, order!"]—as no imputation appeared to have been made or suggested. Perhaps, as the hon. and learned Gentleman who puts the Question to me was so particular the other night about the correct description of the constituencies of hon. Gentlemen, I may tell him that mine is not accurately described on the Paper.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I must apologize to the noble Viscount—I got it from Dod.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—RELIEF OF LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND).
  MR. BUCHANANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can now state in what way the money allocated to Scotland for relief of local taxation in the ensuing year will be distributed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Papers are being printed which will show hon. Members the exact particulars of the scheme by which we propose to distribute the amount in regard to which this Question is asked. I will give the main figures now; but I would ask the hon. Member

  1531
  to suspend his judgment on the whole scheme until he sees the Papers, with the explanations. Of the Probate Duty, which amounts to £156,000, £70,000 will be allowed to disturnpiked roads—the same amount as was allocated last year—and £86,000 for local and parochial assessments. Of the latter, £30,000 will go to the Highland and Island parishes, according to the scheme, the details of which hon. Members will gather from the published correspondence, which will be put before the House, and which has been carefully prepared by the Board of Supervision. If the Horse and Wheel Tax be applied to Scotland, there will be a further £74,000, of which £39,000 will go to parochial assessments, and the rest to roads.

  WAR OFFICE—H.R.H. THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF her MAJESTY'S FORCES.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for War, What change, if any, has been made in the military status of the Duke of Cambridge by the Letters Patent referred to in the following notice published in The London Gazette of November 29, 1887—
  "The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent passed under the Great Seal of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the 26th instant, to appoint His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, K.G., to be Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's Forces"?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): No practical change in His Royal Highness's military status results from the issue of Letters Patent constituting His Royal Highness Commander-in-Chief. His powers in regard to the Army and to the Secretary of State remain unaltered. It has been customary for the Sovereign, from time to to time, to mark his appreciation of the exceptional services of certain officers who have held the office of General Commanding-in-Chief by conferring upon them this dignity; and it will, I think, be generally conceded that His Royal Highness's services to the country fully deserve such a mark of the Sovereign's approbation.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, what he really wanted to know was, whether the intention of the issue of those Letters
  1532
  Patent was to confer on His Royal Highness a life tenure of his office?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have already explained that there is no real alteration in the military status of His Royal Highness.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Does he hold the office for life?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I say that there are no terms at all.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—MISTAKEN ARREST OF DR. O'BRIEN.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What explanation he can give of the unwarranted arrest in Clerkenwell Road of Dr. O'Brien, of 96, East India Road, Poplar, on Tuesday, May 21; and, why Dr. O'Brien was not allowed to prove his identity by application to his solicitor in Theobald's Road, and to other residents in the neighbourhood, instead of being taken to Scotland Yard?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The arrest of Dr. O'Brien was made by a police constable under a mistake as to his identity. He was taken to Scotland Yard because it is the Chief Inspector, and not an ordinary police constable, who could assume the responsibility of dealing with such a question of identity. Dr. O'Brien was only detained a few minutes in Scotland Yard.

  COAL MINES, &c., REGULATION ACT, 1887—THE AYRSHIRE COLLIERIES— THE SPECIAL RULES.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that the colliery proprietors in Ayrshire have refused to supply their workmen with copies of the proposed Special Rules; whether the printers who printed the Rules have been prohibited from selling a copy to any except the Masters' Association; whether the Mines Inspector for the West of Scotland has found it impossible to comply with a recommendation from the Home Office to the effect that he should supply the workmen with copies thereof; and, whether he will refuse to sanction the new Special Rules till such time as the workmen have been supplied with copies, and have had time to study the same?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received a complaint that there has been a difficulty in obtaining copies of the Special Rules. I cannot say what instructions have been given by the Mine Owners' Association to their printers. I have directed a letter to be written to the Association, urging that every facility should be given to the Miners' Union for the discussion of the Special Rules, and that for this purpose they should be supplied with copies of these Rules, if not gratuitously, then at cost price. The Mines Inspector for West Scotland has had no spare copies which he could supply to the miners. The law does not empower me to refuse sanction to Special Rules in order to compel delivery of copies to the workmen. In accordance with the Act, the Special Rules were duly posted for a fortnight at each colliery. Various objections were made by the miners, some of which I have adopted, and on some important points arbitration is now pending.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS—SPEECH OF THE CHIEF SECRETARY AT BATTERSEA.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the following extract from his Battersea speech on May 16 was correctly reported in The Times:—
  "Then Mr. Gladstone goes on to state another fable, which I may say has been disseminated broadcast over the land by his organs. It is that lads and poor men have been put in prison for selling copies of Irish newspapers in which there were reports of suppressed meetings; and he went on to ask how these lads and poor men could be expected to know that in their papers there were reports of these suppressed branches. That statement has been met over and over again; it has been absolutely and categorically contradicted on the authority of the Irish Government. There is not a fragment of truth in it. No lad and no poor man has been put in prison for selling copies of any Irish newspaper of which he did not know the contents. The whole is absolutely a fiction; it is a gross libel on the Government of Ireland; and if Mr. Gladstone knew that it was untrue when he stated it, he behaved as no responsible statesman in this country has behaved, and if he did not know it, he has failed to make himself acquainted with the most elementary facts of contemporary Irish history;"
  and, if he would grant a Return of the depositions made against newsagents and newspaper proprietors prosecuted
  1534
  under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, setting forth the charge in the summonses in the following cases, and the result of the prosecutions:— 20th November, Denis M'Namara, Ennis, newsagent; 29th November, John Breen, Killarney, newsagent; 29th November, J. D. Brosnan, Killarney, newsagent; 5th December, John Malony, Tralee, newsagent; 12th December, Thomas O'Rourke, Tralee, newsagent; 23rd December, Denis M'Namara, Ennis, newsagent;—December, Edward Harrington, Tralee, newspaper proprietor;—December, Timothy Harrington, Tralee, newspaper proprietor;—December, T. D. Sullivan, Dublin, newspaper proprietor; 2nd March, Patrick Ferriter, Dingle, newsagent; with the names of the Resident Magistrates who convicted?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The report, as now amended by the hon. and learned Member, is substantially accurate. But I fail to see any connection between the first and second half of the Question he has placed upon the Paper; nor is it possible that any light could be thrown on the statement I made at Battersea by the Return asked for by the hon. and learned Member. The allegation I was dealing with—contained in the speech made by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) and the Nonconformist Ministers—was to the following effect:—
  "Lads and poor men selling copies of newspapers in the streets are made responsible and put in prison because they contained reports of branches of the National League,…and those men were to ascertain for themselves, I suppose, whether in the particular places the League had been declared illegal by the Lord Lieutenant."—(The Times, May 10, 1888.)
  To this I replied in the strong, but not, I think, too strong, language quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Longford. Now, it cannot be contended that any of the newspaper proprietors, Members of Parliament, and others mentioned in the second part of the Question, come under the description of "poor men and boys selling copies of newspapers in the streets;" nor can it be alleged that they were ignorant of the illegality of the notices contained in the newspapers they were selling, since in every case the offence was committed

  1535
  with every circumstance indicating a deliberate intention to violate the law.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether there were any other persons amongst those convicted for selling newspapers who were not newspaper proprietors nor Members of Parliament, but who really were poor men?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, no; they did not come under the description of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian of poor men and boys selling newspapers in the streets. He begged pardon. He ought to say selling papers of the contents of which they were ignorant.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, was the right hon. Gentleman's point that these papers were sold in shops and not in the streets?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was afraid, if he had not made his point clear by the answer he had given, no further explanation could bring it home to the mind of the hon. and learned Member; but he ventured to say that the hon. and learned Member would be alone in his incapacity to understand it.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked, whether Mr. Ferriter, who was in gaol for three months, was not known to be a poor man, and also Mr. O'Rourke, of Tralee, and Mr. Breen, of Killarney, and Mr. Brosnan, of Killarney; and, whether Mr. Breen was not prosecuted on the second occasion for actually selling papers in the streets, having established a kind of sentry-box in the street in order to avoid selling them in his house?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the hon. Gentleman appeared not only to have misunderstood his (Mr. Balfour's) speech, but the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. The point was the allegation that these people selling newspapers in the streets, like the ordinary boy selling copies of The Pall Mall in the evening, were ignorant of the contents of those newspapers; but, as a matter of fact, not one of those who were convicted, whether they were poor or rich, was convicted of the illegality in ignorance.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, had it been proved whether they had that knowledge or not? He asked that the evidence against these men should be produced. Would the right hon. Gen-
  1536
  tleman oblige the public to rely on his statement alone, or would he produce the evidence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he did not think anything would be gained by producing the evidence in question. The statement he made was perfectly clear.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS—ADMISSION OF DYNAMITERS TO THIS HOUSE— EVIDENCE OF MR. MONRO, ASSIS- TANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will ask Mr. Monro, of Scotland Yard, for some explanation of his statement in reference to the charge that suspected strangers were introduced to the House on an order procured through the Speaker's Secretary by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Lafone), which that hon. Member contradicts; whether the order is in existence; and, what is the proof which exists for Mr. Monro's assertion?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The statements made by Mr. Monro were made, in the first instance, in answer to unexpected questions put to him by Members of the Committee, and without the opportunity of refreshing his memory with documents. He, therefore, spoke doubtfully in Answers 593 to 598, and 785 to 788; and was accordingly requested by the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) to put into the evidence, when sent to him for correction, the name of the person who signed the order of admission to the House. This addition to the evidence the hon. and learned Member will find in the last sentence of Answer 789, in these words—
  "Having since inspected the ticket, I find that it was not signed by Mr. Lafone, but by the Speaker's Secretary, and that it was stated to have been given to the visitor by Mr. Lafone. It was the visitor himself, when the ticket was taken from him by the police, and his admission thereby prevented, who stated that the ticket had been given to him by Mr. Lafone."
  The contradiction of the hon. Member for Bermondsey is conclusive against the truth of the statement of this visitor, which was quoted by Mr. Monro. The order is in existence.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is there any objection to produce the order?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I do not think I can produce the order.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Was the Speaker's Secretary asked by the Committee for the order?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Not so far as I am aware. The matter came out incidentally, and was treated by the noble Viscount (Viscount Ebrington)—the Chairman—as not requiring to be further inquired into. There is nothing whatever to identify those orders.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—ESTIMATE OF VALUE OF PUBLIC-HOUSE PROPERTY.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can lay upon the Table of the House any facts or statistics that would enable hon. Members to form an estimate of the value of public house property in this country; and, whether, if he is not at present in a position to do so, he will take such steps as may be necessary for the purpose?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I am obtaining a statement of the total gross annual value of publicans' licensed promises in the several Inland Revenue collections in England and Wales, which I shall be glad to lay upon the Table of the House when completed.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would procure and lay on the Table of the House a list of the Members of the House who were Directors or shareholders of Joint Stock Brewing Companies who owned these houses.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not consider it possible to obtain such a list; and, even if it were possible, he did not see that any public advantage would be gained by procuring it.
  MR. CONYBEAREinquired, whether it would not be possible to show by figures whether the market value of licensed houses was, on the average, more than three years' purchase?
  MR. RITCHIEconsidered the Question not at all germane to the statement he had made.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: With reference to this Question, I should like
  1538
  to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a Question. Rule 211 declares that no Member of this House shall be entitled to vote on any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and that the vote of any Member so interested shall be disallowed. May I ask, whether those interested in breweries will be allowed to vote on this matter,
  MR. SPEAKER: That is a point which is settled by the judgment of the House.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACTS—RE- PORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If he can inform the House how soon the Report of the Royal Commission on the Elementary Education Acts will be presented?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): It is hoped that the Royal Commission may complete its labours by the end of this month.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL— THE COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. HUNTERasked the Lord Advocate, How many of the Commissioners named in the Universities (Scotland) Bill have passed through the curriculum of arts in the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and St. Andrew's respectively; and, whether it is the fact that 11 out of the 12 nominated Commissioners are Tories or Liberal Unionists?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The hon. Member must excuse me for not making official inquiries into the private history of the education of gentlemen, and for not giving official opinions as to the political views of members of the Royal Commission, whose duties are in no way associated with Party politics.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think the Commission, of which Notice was given in the House of Lords last week, is one that properly represents the general opinion of Scotland?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is a Rule of the House that the mere

  1539
  opinion of a Member on a particular subject is not the proper subject for a Question.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whether, as a matter of fact, any one of the nominated Commissioners has any practical acquaintance with one of the Universities—namely, St. Andrew's —which the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself represents?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I am not in a position to answer that Question. If the hon. Member will put it down upon the Paper I will inquire.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE AFFRAY AT MITCHELSTOWN IN SEPTEMBER LAST—THE OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITER'S NOTES.
  MR. W. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the notes taken by the official shorthand writer of the proceedings at the inquest on the bodies of the three men shot by the police at Mitchelstown on September 9, 1887?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): As the House knows, in answer to a Question put yesterday by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), I said. I would consider what, if any, information could be supplied on the subject. I am considering that question; and, until I have done so, I am unable to answer the Question of the hon. Gentleman.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPLICA- TION FOR FAIR RENTS, CO. ANTRIM.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state how many applications to fix fair rents in the County of Antrim were remaining unheard on the 1st instant; how many of these applications are from the Poor Law Union of Ballycastle; when a sitting was last held to hear applications from this Union; on what date, and in what town, the first sitting of a Sub-Commission will be held for the County of Antrim; and, whether he can give the names of the gentlemen who will constitute this Sub-Commission?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the Secretary to the Land Commission has stated that the report would be forwarded in a few days.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—THE BALLY- MENA BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a Resolution of the Board of Guardians at Ballymena, County Antrim, on the 2nd instant, expressing want of confidence in Colonel Studdert, the Local Government Board auditor, and requesting that another auditor should be sent down there instead; whether Colonel Studdert had publicly certified that the sureties of Relieving Officer Duffin were alive, and whether he had since written to the Board of Guardians on Saturday last to know if these sureties were alive; whether he can state if these sureties are dead or alive; and, if dead, the dates of their deaths, and also the date of the last certificate in which this auditor certified that they were living; whether the Guardians telegraphed to the Local Government Board on Saturday last, calling for a new auditor to be sent down to them; whether a new auditor will be sent there, and if he can give the name of the new auditor; and, whether Colonel Studdert is the same gentleman who audited last year, and for some years past, the accounts of the Belfast Town Council?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he was sorry he was not able to obtain a reply to the Question. He hoped to have it by Monday. Hon. Members would understand that he made every effort to obtain answers as soon as possible; but where the information depended upon the result of local inquiry there must be delay.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—SIGNALLING AT SEA—INTERNATIONAL CODE OF SIGNALS.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Board of Trade, When the Committee of Experts appointed by the Board of Trade to consider the whole question of signalling at sea are likely to make their Report;

  1541
  and, whether the scope of their inquiry will include the system of signalling in use in the home waters of the United States and other countries?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I am not in a position to say definitely when the International Code of Signals Committee is likely to make its Report; but it is proceeding with its labours with the greatest possible expedition. The Committee has been appointed to report upon the question of night signalling generally, and to bring the International Code Book up to date; and will, I have no doubt, inquire, if necessary, not only into systems of signalling referred to it by inventors and others, but also into systems that may actually be in force in the United States and other countries.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—IMPRISONMENT OF MRS. DAVIES FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has read the judgments delivered in the Queen's Bench Division in the case of Mrs. Davies, lately imprisoned for contempt of Court, in the course of which Mr. Justice Mathew said—
  "It is not deemed right for a Judge in a Criminal Court, compelled to sentence a prisoner, to direct that his imprisonment shall continue until some condition is complied with, and the prisoner is entitled, when he has undergone his punishment, to unconditional release. Further, we have the assistance of the opinion of the Legislature against indefinite imprisonment for contempt, an opinion expressed in Acts of Parliament, and Rules of Court made with Parliamentary sanction;"
  whether there are at present imprisoned in Irish gaols for indefinite terms five prisoners for contempt of Court—namely, Cornelius Brien, James Quigley, Thomas Moroney, Nicholas Grace, and Mary Brien; whether he is aware that, in the case of a prisoner named Thomas Moroney, his mind is giving way, and that in another case, that of Mary Brien, the prisoner is reported "aged and infirm;" and, whether, inasmuch as three out of the said five prisoners have already been imprisoned for more than 12 months (the term to which by "The Debtors Act, 1869," "even in a case of grievous delinquency
  1542
  the imprisonment is restricted"), he will consider the propriety of advising Her Majesty to exercise her Prerogative of Mercy, and direct the release of these prisoners?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Of course, the point is not one that comes within my official cognizance; but I find that the report of the case of Mrs. Davies does not contain the observations attributed to Mr. Justice Mathew. I am referring to The Times report, which is the only report I have seen. According to that report, Mrs. Davies, who had been imprisoned for one year and four months for contempt of Court in asserting her claim to certain property by taking forcible possession, was brought before the Court in custody with a view to her making an application for discharge. Inasmuch, however, as she gave no undertaking to obey the order of the Court, the Court decided that her imprisonment should continue. Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, in delivering the judgment of the Court, in which Mr. Justice Mathew concurred, is reported to have said—
  "It is not the Court which keeps her in custody. It is her own conduct in refusing to comply with the order of the Court. She has only to say she would not continue her molestations, and she may at once walk out of prison."
  With reference to the prisoners mentioned in the Question, I have no doubt that if they would take the course suggested by Lord Coleridge, the Judges by whom they were committed would act on the principles laid down by the Court of Queen's Bench. It is not a case for the exercise of Her Majesty's Prerogative of Mercy, but one in which the prisoners can obtain immediate discharge by purging their contempt. My information as to the condition of Thomas Moroney does not agree with that stated in the third paragraph of the Question.
  MR. CONYBEAREexplained that whilst the right hon. Gentleman was referring to a Judgment on the 30th of April last, his Question referred to another Judgment which was given by Mr. Justice Mathew only two or three days ago. He would not further proceed with the matter now, but would put another Question on Monday.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BALLINASLOE BOARD OF GUARDIANS COLONEL CALEB ROBERTSON.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Colonel Caleb Robertson who has been appointed paid Guardian in Ballinasloe, where the Local Government Board have dissolved the elected Guardians, is the ex-agent of the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland; whether this is the same gentleman recommended by the Local Government Board to the Royal Commission on Fairs and Markets as Assistant Commissioner for Ireland; whether the Royal Commission declined to act on this recommendation; and, who recommended Colonel Caleb Robertson to the Local Government Board?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The reply to the first paragraph is, I understand, in the affirmative. This gentleman is one of the two persons whose names were given by the Local Government Board to the Royal Commission on Fairs and Markets. Neither was appointed. He was, however, an Assistant Commissioner under the Duke of Richmond and Gordon's Commission, and was for a short time a Vice Guardian under the Local Government Board in another Union, and he is, in the opinion of the Board, in every way well fitted for the office for which he has been now selected.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether this was one of the gentlemen recommended by the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman)?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, it was quite clear the Local Government Board had been influenced only by the qualifications of this gentleman, because he had already filled with efficiency the same kind of office.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—AL- LEGED INSURANCE FRAUDS AT BELFAST.
  MR. M'CARTANasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, considering the disclosures made at the recent trials for assurance frauds at Belfast, and the danger to society involved
  1544
  in the practice of the illegal system of persons assuring the lives of others in whom they have no insurable interest, and without their consent, he will, for the prevention of crime, advise the Government to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to life assurances, by obliging Life Assurance Companies to register the names and addresses of assurers, and of the persons whose lives are assured, in a book to be kept for the purpose by the Clerk of Petty Sessions, or other local officer of the district in which the person assured resides, so that every inhabitant of a district may be able to ascertain whether or not his life has been assured by any other person?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)(who replied) said: I am afraid it will not be possible for the Government to bring in a Bill during the present Session to amend the law relating to life insurances in the manner indicated by the hon. Member. The subject is one, however, to which I will give my careful consideration.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL—LEGISLATION.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the great anxiety felt by the agricultural community in the question of the creation of an Agricultural Department, the long promised Bill for the creation of the same may be introduced without further delay?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am well aware of the anxiety which is felt in this House that this measure should be introduced as soon as possible. The Business before this House is already so great that the Government are considering whether it would not be possible to introduce the Agricultural Bill in the other house. The difficulty in the way of such a course of procedure is that the Bill deals with financial questions; but this difficulty might be outweighed by the advantage of letting the country know at once the lines on which the Government propose to deal with the question.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—TITHE RENTCHARGE BILLS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now state when the Tithe Rent-charge Bills will be proceeded with?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave a few nights ago—namely, that the Tithes Bills will be proceeded with in this House as soon as an opportunity offers.

  AUSTRALIA—NEW SOUTH WALES— CHINESE IMMIGRANTS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government were in a position to give any further information on the subject of Chinese immigration into Australia?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Conference of the Colonial Governments on this subject is to meet, as arranged, on the 12th instant; and Her Majesty's Government have communicated fully with the Colonial Governments on the points which appear to them specially deserving of consideration, with a view to the effective restriction of Chinese immigration in the manner most conducive to the general interests of the Australasian Colonies and the Empire at large. Until the Conference has deliberated Her Majesty's Government will necessarily not be in a position to make any further statement of policy.

  IRELAND—THE BANN, BARROW, AND SHANNON DRAINAGE BILLS—LEGIS- LATION.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he had any serious intention of proceeding with the Bills standing in his name for the drainage of the Bann, Barrow, and the Shannon; and, if so, was it his intention to make a statement when introducing the Bills, or to reserve them till the second reading? He begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman further, whether, in the event of the Bills being acceptable to the House,
  1546
  he would press them forward through all their stages, so that they might become law during the present Session?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am unable to understand what the hon. Gentleman means by "serious." He must be aware that the other day I got up to move the introduction of these Bills, and the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. HEALY) was of opinion—of which I do not complain—that a more convenient season might be chosen for doing so; and in deference to his wish, which I understood to be the wish of hon. Gentlemen sitting near him, I deferred introducing them on that occasion. I am anxious to do so on the first possible occasion, and I should like to make a statement which would not be unduly curtailed. I will consult my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury as to what day will be most convenient.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Bills were on the Paper for last night, and the right hon. Gentleman did not move them then, although the hon. and learned Member for North Longford did not oppose. I also asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of the Bills proving acceptable to the House, he would press them forward and pass them this Session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I presumed that the objection of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford would apply to last night the same as to Monday night, and I am bound to say I think there was a great deal in the objection. As to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman, of course I mean to ask the House to pass into law this and other proposals which I have the honour of laying before the House in regard to Ireland.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES —THE SCOTCH EDUCATION VOTES.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON (, &c.)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he could inform the House when he expected to reach the Scotch Education Estimates?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he was sorry to say it was not in his power to give an answer to the Question at present.

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

    COMMITTEE. [SECOND NIGHT.]
    [Progress 7th June]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    COMMITTEE. [SECOND NIGHT.]

      COUNTY COUNCILS.
      PART I.
      Clause 1 (Establishment of County Councils).
      MR GURDON, in rising to move, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 7, and elsewhere, to leave out the words "County Council," and insert, instead thereof, the words "Shire Court," said, this was a very small Amendment, and he hoped the Government would accept it. He trusted they would agree with him that the term "Shire Court" would be more familiar and certainly shorter than "County Councils." In the county which he had the honour to represent, the building in which they sat for the transaction of county business had always been called "Shire Court." The term "Court" was very well known. It was used in the case of the Quarter Session, the High Court of Parliament, and the High Court of Justice; and in many other instances the word "Board," such as Local Board and Board of Guardians, was employed. The word "Council" was not at all familiar to the rural mind, and, therefore, he considered that the name of "Shire Court" or "Board," as it might seem best to hon. Members, would be more appropriate for the new Bodies to be constituted under the Bill. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, and elsewhere, to leave out "County Council" and insert "Shire Court."—(Mr. Gurdon.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'County Council' stand part of the Clause."
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the
      1548
      Government were of opinion that the term "County Council" was more appropriate to the functions which would devolve upon the Council than the term suggested by the hon. Gentleman. As far as the word "Court" went, it seemed rather to imply a Body having judicial magisterial functions; and the word "Council" was, therefore, much more appropriate. It was a well-known word, and was used throughout the country in connection with Town Councils. "County" was more familiar to the general public than "Shire," and, on the whole, the Government were disposed to recommend the Committee to adhere to the designation contained in the Bill.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      MR. CONYBEARE, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "Council," and insert "Assembly," said, he proposed to take the same course in regard to the rest of the Bill where the word "Council" was used. He hoped the Government would not think that, in moving this Amendment, he was at all desirous to obstruct the progress of the Bill. He was as anxious as the Government, or anyone else in the Committee, to see this new form of Local Government established in such a way as to secure the fullest respect of all those for whose benefit it was intended to be established. It appeared to him that by the Amendment he suggested that object was more likely to be effected than by retaining the word "Council," which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had expressed his preference for. He did not think the same objection applied to this Amendment as to the last. He proposed to substitute the word "Assembly" for "Council." It was quite true that the word "Assembly" would convey an idea of the exercise of different functions from those now exercised by Municipal Bodies called "Councils;" but the County Boards were to have enlarged functions, and he thought they ought to have a different name from that enjoyed by other Courts and Councils. With respect to the term "Council," he would respectfully suggest that, if they took that name for the supreme Body in the county, they would not give to it that kind of superiority over other Bodies which it ought to

      1549
      enjoy, seeing that it was likely to be a Court of Appeal from the lesser Bodies in the county. At the same time, they would run a risk of of mixing up a number of different Bodies, seeing that there would exist Councils performing very different functions in the same county. There were already Town Councils, and, under the present Bill, there would be District Councils, and probably other Councils. On that ground, it appeared to him desirable to substitute the larger and more dignified name of "Assembly" for what was intended to be a more dignified and far more important Body than a Town Council. The Body about to be constituted would probably include high dignitaries of the Church, Members of Parliament, and others, and would be far more dignified in its general character than even Town Councils. However admirably they did their work, the members of a Town Council were much lesser luminaries than this County Assembly was intended to be. That was the main reason why he suggested that the term "Assembly" should be substituted, because he desired to make the new Body as authoritative as possible for the purpose of securing, in the work they had to perform, the respect of the whole county. Another reason was, that it was a well-established rule in that House, and in most Assemblies called Deliberative or Legislative Bodies not to address Members in the House by their names. That course had been found extremely inconvenient in practice, and it might be said that the turmoil and unseemly conduct which frequently occurred in Vestry meetings, and meetings of Boards of Guardians, arose from the fact that the members of such Bodies were addressed as Mr. So-and-So. In the new County Councils the persons returned would be members representing a distinct division of the county. In large counties, for example, such as Cornwall and Devonshire, the members returned would represent a particular district as distinctly as they now did in the House of Commons. It, therefore, seemed to him convenient, if possible, to refer to a member as member for a certain division of a county, rather than by name. That appeared to him not to be an immaterial consideration in discussing the Amendment. He might point out that they had a
      1550
      precedent for it in connection with the Legislative Assemblies in the Colonies, and he did not see why it should not be used to distinguish gentlemen who would belong to the new Deliberative Bodies in our counties. It would be far better to add to the end of the name of a gentleman who represented a particular district, M.C.A., and would be much preferable to M.C.C., when considering that it was very well known what those letters were generally supposed to imply. He, therefore, humbly submitted that, on all those grounds, it would be much better, in starting the new Deliberative Assembly, to give it a title which would distinguish it from other and lesser Bodies, which would confer upon it a higher position, and add to the dignity of the debates which would take place. He begged, therefore, to move the substitution of the word "Assembly" for "Council."
      Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, to leave out the word "Council," and insert, instead thereof, the word "Assembly."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'Council' stand part of the Clause."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he differed altogether from the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment. The hon. Member said that if they were to put the letters M.C.C. after the name of the member of the County Council, the position might be misunderstand; but if they began to talk about County Assemblies, he was afraid that also would be liable to be misunderstood, and it might possibly suggest an entertainment, and the officers of the Council might be confounded with assembly rooms. The Government could not accept the Amendment.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he had not had any desire to divide the Committee, therefore he would proceed to the next Amendment which stood in his name—namely, in line 9, after the second "the," to insert "legislative." He proposed to introduce the word "legislative," so that the Council might be entrusted with the management of the administrative, legislative, and financial business of the county. It had always been understood that when these County Councils were established, they were in-

      1551
      tended to relieve the House of Commons of a great deal of the Private Bill legislation which at present hampered their proceedings to such a great extent, and not merely Private Bill legislation, but Public Bill legislation, because there were a considerable number of projects they were asked to discuss which merely referred to Parochial or Vestry matters. It appeared to him that that principle of relieving the House of Commons of a certain amount of its local business should be recognized in a Bill establishing so wide and fundamental a system of Local Government as that which was now before the Committee. He did not propose to give an independent power of legislation to the County Council; but he would remind the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman, further on in his Bill, had made provision for handing over to the County Councils what was distinctly legislative business in connection with Provisional Order Bills, and so on. [Mr. RITCHIE dissented.] It certainly seemed to him that some of the clauses which would be brought on later referred to legislative matters which it was proposed to hand over to the Councils. He thought it would be better, at the outset, to make it clear whether these Councils were to have such powers or not. His own opinion was that the wider the powers conferred on these County Councils the better, and, therefore, he would move the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after the second "the," insert the word "legislative."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'legislative' be there inserted."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was not proposed by any clause of the Bill to confer any powers of a legislative character upon the County Council. Provisional Orders would be made by the County Councils in the same way as they were now made by the Local Government Board, but the Local Government Board was not a legislative machine. Neither would the County Council be a legislative machine. All legislative business would have to be conducted in the House of Commons. That was his answer to the particular point which had been raised by the hon. Gentleman—namely, that it was not proposed in
      1552
      any part of the Bill to confer legislative powers on the County Councils, and, therefore, the Government could not assent to the Amendment.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he should like to know what could be understood by what had been said as to the necessity of relieving the House of Commons of a great deal of its Business? It had been complained, over and over again, that Private Bill legislation wasted a good deal of the time of the House, and it was admitted by all Parties that the House of Commons should be relieved from it. It certainly seemed to him that if every Provisional Order or Order in Council was to be deliberated upon and passed by a County Council before it came before the House of Commons, it would simply add to the work they would have to do in that House. It was upon that ground that he submitted the Amendment, and it certainly would appear that the Amendment he proposed assumed a greater amount of importance than he had imagined at the outset, and, if he received any support at all, he should go to a Division upon it.
      Question put, and negatived.
      MR. CONYBEARE, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "Chairman," and insert "President," said his object was to make the head of a County Council its President, instead of Chairman; but he scarcely expected that it would be of any use endeavouring to influence the mind of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman had already adopted an attitude of non possumus, and there was no good in indulging in any expectation in regard to his accepting the present Amendment. He was bound, however, to say to hon. Members who suggested that these were matters of very little importance, and who asked him what there was in a name, that there was a very great deal in a name in these cases. It would add an appearance of great dignity to the Assembly they were proposing to establish, and would have a marked effect upon the proceedings of that Body, and would tend to the orderly conduct of business and the general good of the county. As he had proposed former Amendments with that view, he now proposed this Amendment to substitute

      1553
      the word "President" in place of that of "Chairman." In the case of a Town Council, they made use of a word which was certainly better than Chairman. They had a Mayor, and as the President in this instance was to enjoy considerable prerogatives in connection with the County Councils, he thought it desirable that the title conferred upon him should be consistent with the dignity and importance of the position. He, therefore, proposed, that the word "President" should be substituted. He thought it was desirable that the head of the County Council should be looked upon as being placed in a somewhat different category from the Chairman of a mere Local Board. He certainly thought the Amendments he suggested deserved more consideration than had been given to them.
      Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, leave out the word "Chairman," and insert instead thereof the word "President."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
      Question, "That the word 'Chairman' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, the next Amendment, which stood in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for the Barkston Ash Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Colonel Gunter), and which provided that—
      "The meetings of the Council shall be held in such buildings, rooms, or premises, either within or without the county, as the Council shall from time to time, or at any time, provide,"
      ought to be brought up as a separate clause, and not proposed as an addition to Clause 1.
      SIR HENRY JAMES, in moving to add at the end of the clause the following Proviso:—
      "Provided, that every borough containing at the time of the passing of this Act fifty thousand inhabitants (which are the boroughs named in the Fourth Schedule to this Act) shall, for the purposes of this Act, and subject to its provisions, be a county of itself,"
      said, he thought it better simply to move formally an Amendment which stood in his name, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill wished to make a statement in regard to the matter. Perhaps the Committee would allow him (Sir Henry James) to state his views after he had heard the
      1554
      statement of the right hon. Gentleman.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 1, at end, add—"Provided, that every borough containing at the time of the passing of this Act fifty thousand inhabitants (which are the boroughs named in the Fourth Schedule to this Act) shall, for the purposes of this Act, and subject to its provisions, be a county of itself."—(Sir Henry James.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that as the Bill was originally introduced, the Committee would be aware that the limit which the Government thought proper to treat as a county in itself was a borough with a population of 150,000. He did not wish to disguise from the Committee that his own feeling was that it would, on the whole, have been better that the towns which were to be taken out of the counties, and to be created practically into counties themselves, should be only the largest and most important boroughs in the Kingdom. But, notwithstanding the belief on his part that the Bill, if it had been allowed to remain as it stood, would have been in many ways better than any other provision that could have been made, the Government had felt themselves unable to adhere to the limit originally fixed. Of course, there had been a very natural and, in many respects, a most laudable desire on the part of boroughs below 150,000 inhabitants to participate in the advantages proposed to be given to boroughs with over 150,000 inhabitants, and, therefore, the original figure had been reduced to 100,000. Still further pressure had been brought to bear on the Government to include boroughs even below 100,000 inhabitants, with the result that they had come to the conclusion to assent to the principle of this Amendment. The arguments which had been made use of were arguments which they had felt to be very strong indeed, and the announcement he had to make to-day was that, although the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) would probably, after the explanation he had given, not think it right to press his Amendment, because this would not be the place for any Amendment of the kind, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would undoubtedly expect from the Government some expression of opinion in regard to the decision they

      1555
      had arrived at, and what arrangements they proposed to make in the Bill, and what the boroughs were which would be included in the fourth schedule. As he had said, the Government had come to the conclusion upon the whole to accept the proposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. They proposed, therefore, that when they came to that part of the Bill which dealt with this question, to make provision that all boroughs which had 50,000 inhabitants in 1881, and which desired to come into the schedule, should be admitted into that schedule. With regard to the boroughs which could give satisfactory proof that they had now 50,000 inhabitants the Government had decided that they also should be included in the schedule. As to this latter class, however, they had not, at this moment, any reliable information. The only statistical information they had on the subject of population were the Registrar General's Returns, and they had been made up by taking as the increase since 1881, the same rate of increase as occurred between the Census of 1871 and 1881. Of course, this had been simply a work of calculation, and in many respects the figures might be fallacious. There might be boroughs which had had their area increased since 1881, and others which had not. The result of the decision of the Government was that all boroughs which desired to be admitted into the schedule which had a population of 50,000 in 1881 should be admitted, and all such boroughs as could satisfy the Government that their population had increased to that figure since 1881. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware, there existed a means of finding that out by ascertaining how many additional houses had been built since the last Census, and that the Government would be prepared to accept as sufficient proof. Now that they had gone down so far in population as 50,000, there arose certain considerations with reference to the admission of other boroughs which had not so large a population as 50,000, and yet had their peculiar claims for consideration. He was speaking now of certain counties of cities. When the Bill was originally drafted, it was found impossible to take the claims of these cities into consideration, however great and substantial they were, and, therefore, boroughs and
      1556
      cities which formed counties—some of which had a population as low as 30,000—were not included. But now that it was proposed to come down as low as 50,000 inhabitants, the Committee would see that the condition of things had altered, and while the Government would have been justified in refusing to recognize the position taken up in regard to these cities of counties, they were no longer prepared to insist on their exclusion. Therefore they were prepared, in addition to the boroughs he had spoken of, to admit these cities of counties, which from their antiquity, their associations, and ancient usage gave them a very strong claim to be included in the schedule. That claim was more accentuated by the fact that these boroughs had never been within the jurisdiction of the county at all. The population of three or four of these cities was exceedingly small, and he did not propose to deal with them in this way. But in reference to the cities whose names he would read, it was proposed to include them in the fourth schedule—namely, Warwick—which, of course, had a population of more than 50,000, and might be left out of the question—Exeter, Lincoln, Chester, Gloucester, Worcester, and Canterbury. The population of Canterbury was considerably below that of Worcester, but they felt that if Canterbury did desire to come in, the historical claims of that City, notwithstanding the smallness of its population, would probably be recognized by the Committee. Therefore, if Canterbury desired to come in, it would be admitted. He hoped the Committee would understand that they did not propose to force any of these boroughs or cities to go out of the counties. It was quite optional with them, and perhaps they would take some other means of letting the Government know whether they desired to be included in the schedule or not, because, as they did not propose to force any of these boroughs or cities to take up this particular position, so also they were prepared to provide means in the Bill by which at any time in all these boroughs or cities, if they thought it more advantageous to their own interests, they could become part of the county to which they belonged. There was another consideration which they were bound to regard now that the number of

      1557
      boroughs included in Schedule 4 had been so greatly increased. A large and very influential deputation from Lancashire waited upon him at the Office of the Local Government Board a few days ago, to represent to the Government that the counties in which these boroughs were situated might be placed at a very great financial disadvantage if the boroughs were taken out of the counties and placed in an independent position by being put in the fourth schedule. He was bound to say that the representations made to him at that time seemed to him to have great force and weight, and that it was impossible for the Government to ignore them. He did not believe that any of these boroughs desired that the counties from which they were taken should suffer financially from the severance. He had always, when representations were made to him on behalf of the boroughs, said to the deputations who placed the cases before him, that in any event they would take special care that the county finances were not adversely affected, as far as the existing contributions were concerned, by such boroughs being taken out of the counties. In no single case had there been the smallest objection on behalf of these towns to an arrangement whereby those contributions should be maintained as at present. But the circumstances of the various boroughs were so different, that it was absolutely impossible for the Government to lay down a hard and fast rule by which each case should be settled. They, therefore, resolved to prepare a large clause of an equitable character providing for the establishment of a Commission, to which all these cases might be referred in the absence of agreement between the boroughs and counties affected; and such a Commission should have power to decide each case upon equitable grounds. Of course, the Commission was said to consist of a system of arbitration. The Government had felt it of extreme importance that whatever machinery they established, it should be as little costly as possible, and hon. Gentlemen would be aware that in resorting to arbitration heavy costs were sometimes incurred. It was, therefore, thought better to set up a small Commission, whose names would inspire confidence all over the country. By that means a tribunal would be provided which would settle all these matters in a
      1558
      fair and satisfactory manner, with the least possible amount of expense. Those were the proposals the Government had to make. He hoped in a few days to be able to lay on the Table of the House the clause or clauses by which this object was to be effected, so that Members who were interested should have the fullest opportunity of studying the provision proposed to be made, and of seeing whether it met with the justice and the necessities of the case. Under these circumstances, and as the Government undertook at the proper time, and in the proper place, to insert the names of the boroughs that were to be included in the fourth schedule, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to withdraw the Amendment.
      SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he thought the Committee had heard with satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Speaking on behalf of the boroughs affected by the Amendment, he gratefully accepted the announcement which had just been made. The extension of the principle was not, he was sure, one that would be objected to or complained of by the larger boroughs. A great boon had been conceded, and if it were extended to other towns and cities it was not a matter of which they could make any complaint. There were one or two observations he desired to make upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the Amendment should not now be inserted in the Bill. He knew the great practical difficulty the responsible Minister in charge of a Bill felt in accepting an Amendment under these circumstances, but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment for the time, in order that there might be a record of it, because it would afford great satisfaction to the boroughs affected. Therefore, unless the right hon. Gentleman's objections were insuperable, he would ask him to permit the Amendment to be passed on the full understanding that the drafting of the Bill would be made complete on the Report. In that case, if any change was to be made in the Bill in order to carry out the views of the right hon. Gentleman, he would undertake that the Amendment should be removed from the special position it would occupy, so that he might assist the Government in confirming their

      1559
      alterations and embodying them in the Bill in such form and plan as the right hon. Gentleman might think convenient, so far as it carried out in its entirety what had now been accepted by the Government. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, if he possibly could, to accept the Amendment in order that it might be inserted in the Bill now, and when they came to the Report it could be withdrawn or modified in the most convenient form the Government could suggest. With regard to the time from which the population was to be calculated there were some boroughs about which great care would be required. He would not speak about his own constituency, which had no great interest in the matter, but he knew there were others, such as Wigan and Reading, which would require to be carefully considered. He thought it would be sufficient if any reasonable proof were given that the boroughs desiring to be scheduled had reached the limit of 50,000. That, he thought, would be a proper solution of the question. There was only one other matter, and that was the important subject of the terms on which the boroughs were to be converted into counties. That question was raised by the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the Clitheroe Division of Lancashire (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth). His (Sir Henry James's) own constituency would be perfectly willing to bear the burdens they had already borne, and they were willing to pay to the county fund the contribution they had already made, accepting as their reward the benefit of being erected into a county themselves. They had no wish to make any pecuniary benefit out of the transaction, and he was sure the House would see that it would be for the benefit of the boroughs that were to be included in the fourth schedule to continue in many instances to make this contribution. Take, for instance, the case of lunatic asylums already existing. The boroughs would not want to erect new ones. He would not, however, enter into details at that moment, he would only say that, as far as he had gathered the opinion of the Representatives of the boroughs which were to be inserted in the fourth schedule, they were ready to accept the responsibility of paying, as they had hitherto paid, and contributing, as they had hitherto contributed, to the county
      1560
      funds. As to the best means of arriving at that contribution, he should desire to see the clause before expressing any opinion, and probably the Government would explain what their views were when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Clitheroe was reached.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he only rose to support the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James). He, like his right hon. and learned Friend, represented a town which was extremely interested in the question. The Town of Derby was nearly within the limit of 100,000 inhabitants, but until recently it had been excluded from the fourth schedule of the Bill. He agreed with his right hon. and learned Friend that it was very important, unless some reason could be stated, that the Amendment should be, at least for the present, accepted and introduced into the Bill. It would give security, and remove the uneasiness and anxiety which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill knew to exist in a great many of the boroughs of the country, and would smooth the passage of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had given an assurance of the intention of the Government to accept the Amendment, and he thought the chariot wheels of the right hon. Gentleman would run easier in consequence. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the suggestion which had been thrown out. There was one other, and a very important point, and that was the question of the contribution of the boroughs to the county fund. There, again, he entirely agreed with his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury. He did not understand that any of the boroughs desired to cease to contribute what they contributed already, or in the degree they contributed now. Where a borough contributed now, it ought to continue to contribute, but where there was a borough which had made its own lunatic asylum, it ought not to be called upon to contribute to the cost of maintaining a county asylum. Then, again, there was the question of main roads. If a borough did not now contribute to the maintenance of main roads, he thought it ought not to be called upon so to contribute hereafter. That he considered to be the view of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill,

      1561
      because he took down the right hon. Gentleman's words—namely, that care would be taken that the county should not be affected so far as existing contributions were concerned. He desired now to emphasize those words. What he understood was that the boroughs were to contribute on the scale of their existing contributions, and that their payments were to be measured by the existing contributions, and that no fresh liabilities were to arise in consequence of any of the provisions of the Bill. That being so, he did not see any objection to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and there was certainly no reason to complain of it. Of course, the particular machinery to carry it out they could not discuss until they had the right hon. Gentleman's proposals before them. If the right hon. Gentleman would incorporate this Amendment for the present, at least, in his Bill, with a clear understanding that the boroughs concerned were only to make existing contributions, he thought they would be satisfied with the concession the right hon. Gentleman had made.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not insist on the Amendment being inserted in the Bill in this place. He was informed that it would be extremely inconvenient for the Amendment to be put in here, and there was a further answer to the proposal now made. The same argument used by the right hon. Gentleman just now might be made with regard to any other Amendments in a large measure like this, and if they put in an Amendment wherever an hon. Member wished to insert it, merely because they desired to assent to the principles raised, the measure would present a ghastly appearance before it got out of Committee. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry James) would be satisfied with the assurance he had given him, that care would be taken to give full effect to the proposal in the proper place. In regard to what the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had said, he had accurately interpreted the views which he (Mr. Ritchie) had endeavoured to place before the Committee. With reference to the main roads, reference had been made to him to get the law amended, and to bring in for contribution, for main road purposes,
      1562
      Quarter Sessions boroughs which had not contributed for years past. What he had always said in respect of representations of that kind was that they must take the law as they found it, and that they could not attempt in a Bill of this kind to remedy any grievance a county thought it might suffer in consequence of the non-contribution of any of the boroughs within its area. They must leave that to future legislation, and if there was a grievance it might be removed by a special Bill; but they could not attempt to bring within this Bill, in regard to contributions for main roads, boroughs which did not contribute to them at the present time. So far, he was speaking of boroughs which were treated as boroughs themselves. Of course it might be argued against his proposition that it was proposed by the Government that Quarter Sessions boroughs which remained within a county, and which were not at present assessable for main roads, were to be made assessable. That was perfectly true; but the position of things was different in the case of boroughs which remained in the county to what it was in the case of boroughs which were taken out of the county altogether. The Government recognized that they could not ask the Quarter Sessions boroughs in a county to contribute to main roads without some corresponding obligation on the part of the county. They, therefore, proposed that the county should have the obligation cast upon it of making the main roads, or of supplying the borough with funds for making the main roads within its boundaries. He might point out, also, that the liability to contribution for main roads would be very small, because the amount of the transferred licence duties for that special purpose would be as large as the whole cost of the main roads at the present time throughout the county. Consequently, he should be much astonished if it were found necessary to make a main road rate at all; and, even if it were necessary to make one it would be a very small one. In his opinion no hardships would be inflicted upon anyone from the making of any new main road. That, of course, would be different with reference to the boroughs which were taken out of the county for all administrative purposes. It would be impossible for them to lay

      1563
      on a county the obligation of maintaining main roads outside the area of that county. He hoped that after the assurance he had given on the part of the Government, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury would not think it necessary to press his Amendment.
      MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he hoped he might be allowed to say a few words in reference to the borough which he had the honour to represent. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for the concession he had made in accepting the principle of the Amendment, and he would not add a single word in the nature of a general argument. He desired, however, to express the satisfaction which he, and those he represented, felt that they were not to be tied down to the Census of 1881. The Census of 1881 was now for many purposes an obsolete and spent Census. They were now fast approaching a new Census in 1891, and anything of a permanent character based on the condition of affairs which existed when the Census of 1881 was taken would very soon become an anachronism. He should like to say one word in reference to the borough of Reading, to which reference had been made. He had had the honour of serving on the Committee which investigated the question of extending the boundaries of the borough; and he desired to take that opportunity of saying that the part of the population then added to the borough of Reading was entirely part and parcel of the borough. Therefore, the claim of Reading to have the advantage of the increased population which had been added to the Bill was indisputable, and justice would not be done unless the right of Reading to be included in the fourth schedule was fully recognized. So far as his own constituency were concerned, they were quite ready, without any reservation, to bear their fair share of the county burdens. That which they wished for was the autonomy which they would gain by the concession of the Government. With that autonomy they were entirely content, and were quite ready and willing to make their full contribution to the county funds.
      SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that before his right hon. and learned
      1564
      Friend the Member for Bury replied to the appeal which had been made to him by the President of the Local Government Board, not to persist in the Motion he had made at this stage of the Bill, but to be content to have the principle recognized in some later clause, he should like to say a few words on the Amendment generally, and the mode in which it would affect the county he had the honour to represent. He thought he was justified in thus early bringing to the notice of the Committee the case of Lancashire, because special reference had been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the deputation which waited upon him the other day and placed before him views of great force and weight. He wished to show the right hon. Gentleman how necessary it was, if any Amendment like this were introduced, to make an adequate re-adjustment of burdens between the counties and boroughs. The Amendment was one which affected the County of Lancashire in an exceptional degree. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would allow him to point out what would be the effect on that county if the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury were adopted. He might say at once, on behalf of those who were now charged with the county administration, that they did not desire to offer opposition to the Motion of his right hon. and learned Friend. All they said was this—and he spoke also for many of the boroughs and for the Lancashire Local Boards—that if that Motion were adopted it would be necessary to go further, as had in fact been admitted by the President of the Local Government Board, and to introduce Amendments securing that justice should be done as between the counties and the boroughs. Before he pointed out to the Committee what he thought were the matters which ought to be taken into consideration in order to do justice, he would first explain to the Committee how the Amendment would operate. As the Bill originally stood only two boroughs in Lancashire—namely, Manchester and Liverpool—would have had the power and position of a county. If, however, the Committee adopted the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury, there would be admitted also at least nine, and probably 11, other

      1565
      boroughs, making 13 county boroughs within the County of Lancaster. It had been doubted whether the borough of Wigan had grown to a population of 50,000 since the last Census, but, after the speech of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. F. S. Powell) there could be little doubt that that borough would be able to make out a case. He did not know what course his hon. Friend the Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine) proposed to take, but no doubt a similar claim would be made on behalf of that borough. Altogether, there would thus be 12 or 13 county boroughs within the County of Lancaster. But that was not all. These county boroughs contained rather more than one-half of the population and rather more than one-half of the rateable value of the whole county. Therefore, he asked the Committee to take into consideration the very serious nature of the proposal now made. He did not ask them to go against the principle of the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend, but he asked them in discussing the Bill to remember that the towns in the County of Lancaster which it was proposed to remove from the county constituted more than one-half of its population and rateable value. This fact applied not only to the County of Lancaster, but in a less degree to other counties. His belief was that, if the Bill stood as it did now, the county boroughs would be the recipients of a very large portion of the Probate Duty grant and of the local taxation duties and transferred duties which the Government had promised to apply to the reduction of the county burdens. They believed that within the boroughs a large revenue would be raised which would not really arise from their poulation, and some part of such revenue ought to be made available towards lightening the rates of the county. He would only instance the City of Manchester, which was something like the City of London, in having a huge day population drawn from surrounding districts. Under this Bill Manchester would receive large sums really arising from the taxation of the wants of the county. A fair proportion of these should surely be devoted towards the relief of the county rates. He maintained that there were many circumstances connected with a revenue of this kind which required that it ought not to go wholly into the pockets of the cities for the relief
      1566
      of their rates alone, but should be made available for the general relief of the rates of the county. All those subjects ought to be considered by a proper tribunal so that justice might be done, some equitable arrangement being made between the county and the boroughs. The proposal with regard to the Probate Duty would also work very much in favour of the boroughs, since it was to be allocated upon the basis of the amount of indoor pauperism, and indoor pauperism was far greater in the boroughs than in the rest of the county. He was afraid that the effect of carrying out the present proposals would be to allocate to the boroughs a larger portion of the Probate Duty than they would be fairly entitled to. All that he asked on behalf of those he represented was that justice should be clone both to the counties and boroughs. Perhaps he might be allowed to say a word about the Van and Wheel Tax in connection with this subject. The bulk of this tax would be levied in the county boroughs, and not in the counties. Consequently, as the Bill now stood, the county boroughs would enjoy nearly all the benefit of the tax. This would be most unjust. In reply to the deputation the other day, the right hon. Gentleman had explained that he would alter the Bill and carry the proceeds of this tax to a common fund for the benefit of the whole county. But he should like him to go somewhat further, and explain how he proposed to distribute the money from this fund to the different parts of the county. It would not, he thought, be fair to distribute the proceeds of the Wheel and Van Tax according to the rateable value, because the mileage of main roads in the county was enormously larger than in the county boroughs of Lancashire, whereas the rateable value of the county boroughs would be rather greater than that of the rest of the county. There were in that county 564 miles of main roads, against only 38 miles in the county boroughs. If the tax were distributed according to rateable value, county boroughs would get rather more than one-half, whereas the proportion of the main roads to be maintained by the counties was 564 miles as against 38. He admitted that the expense of repairing a main road in a town was larger than in the country; but if the main roads in the boroughs cost twice and a-half as much to repair as

      1567
      the main roads in the county, still there was an enormous disparity between the total cost of maintaining the county main roads and the borough main roads. The former at £120 a mile would cost nearly £68,000: the latter at £300 a mile £11,400. He would suggest that the basis of distribution of the proceeds of the Wheel and Van Tax should be, not rateable value, but mileage of main roads, with some allowance for the larger cost of roads within a great town. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board told the Committee that he would propose that there should be an equitable Commission, with power to decide all questions between the counties and the boroughs. He trusted that, as the right hon. Gentleman had intimated, that Commission would be constituted of men who would command general confidence; but he should like to have some further information as to the questions that were to be referred to that Commission, and the directions that were to be given to that Commission, to guide them in carrying out their instructions. He certainly should like to have that information in detail before hastily giving an approval to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not expect him to say, on behalf of the County of Lancaster, that that proposal satisfied that county until they knew how far it went. He had no desire to detain the Committee at the present moment by going into the question of main roads. Perhaps the Committee would allow him, on a later stage of the Bill, to go more fully into that matter; but he should like to point out that, as the right hon. Gentleman had admitted even in the present Bill, the Government went behind past legislation, and did interfere with the existing contributions. As the Bill stood, without the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury, the Quarter Sessions boroughs in Lancashire of less than 150,000 inhabitants would have been made to pay their share of the charge for main roads, notwithstanding that they had been exempt under the Highways and Locomotives Act of 1878. That exemption would have been done away with as far as Quarter Sessions boroughs were concerned which did not become
      1568
      county boroughs. But what was the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman now? He had decided that the Quarter Sessions boroughs should in future contribute to the main roads on the principle that it has been unjust to relieve them from the contributions in 1878. Undoubtedly it was an injustice that a road so greatly used by the boroughs as the road between Oldham and Manchester should be paid for and maintained by the county. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had recognized the injustice; but now that he proposed to convert the Quarter Sessions boroughs into county boroughs, he ignored the injustice, and revived their unjust exemption from all charge for county main roads. He should have, at a later stage of the Bill, to press strongly the fact that the Act of 1878 had not worked justly. It was recent legislation in the nature of an experiment, and as it had not been found to work well, it was only right that Parliament, in dealing with the question of main roads, should do justice between the counties and boroughs. As the Bill was drafted, it pointed out the way in which justice might be done, and all he claimed was that the Government should do the same justice between the boroughs and counties as they had proposed in the case of Quarter Sessions boroughs. He would not, however, raise that question now; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give full information, and as soon as possible, as to the exact subjects proposed to be referred to the Commission, and the nature of the directions given to the Commission; and he also hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state how soon his Amendments would appear in print on the Paper, so that hon. Members might have full time for considering them in all their bearings, and especially in the light of the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury. In the meantime he would reserve all further comments until he came to move the Amendment which appeared in his name on the Paper. He should persevere with that Amendment if he found it necessary to do so; but it was for the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and his right hon. and learned Friend the member for Bury to decide

      1569
      whether the whole of this subject should be discussed now on the 1st clause, or deferred until a later stage.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that, as one of the deputation who waited upon his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board with regard to the exemption of these boroughs, he would venture to make an appeal to the right hon. and learned Member for Bury not to press his Amendment on two grounds —first, that they had received a large and substantial concession from his right hon. Friend; and, secondly, that it would be rather hard for the Borough Representatives to press the Government to accept the Amendment at this particular moment, instead of waiting until the Government were prepared to say exactly what they proposed to do. It might be that the provision to be hereafter inserted in the Bill would differ materially from the Amendment which the right hon. and learned Member for Bury had on the Paper; because he understood the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to say that he anticipated that a good many of these boroughs would not avail themselves of the opportunity to come under the Fourth Schedule of the Bill. Consequently, the clause which was intended to be introduced would be permissive and not compulsory. In the next place, the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no reference to the boroughs which were already counties in themselves, one of which he had the honour to represent, and on behalf of that city he tendered his thanks to his right hon. Friend for the concession he had made; and, under all the circumstances, he hoped the right hon. and learned Member for Bury would yield to the appeal of the Government and not press the Amendment.
      MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, there was only one question which he desired to put to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and that was what means he proposed to take, in the event of the Amendment being withdrawn, to ascertain what the desire of a borough was, and how it was to be expressed? In regard to the borough which he represented, would the placing of an Amendment upon the Paper be regarded
      1570
      as a sufficient expression of a desire on the part of that borough, or what form of desire would the Government wish to have? On behalf of Northampton he would add his thanks to the Government for the concession they had made.
      MR. BARTLEYasked how the Amendment, if carried, would affect the Metropolitan boroughs? Nearly every one of them contained more than 50,000 inhabitants, so that every borough in London would become a county in itself.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, as he had had the honour of being the first to bring this subject before the House, he also should like to express his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for having conceded the just claims of the existing municipal boroughs. The Main Question now before the Committee was whether the Amendment should be inserted in the Bill, or whether it should be withdrawn. There were, no doubt, a number of Amendments, to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, which, if adopted, might disfigure the Bill, and which related to another great question that was subsequently to be discussed in the Committee. But this was one of the most vital questions in the Bill—namely, the area and extent to which counties and borough's were or were not to be subject to the jurisdiction of the County Councils. It was quite evident, from the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Clitheroe Division of Lancashire (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) that he was not disposed to accept the decision at which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had arrived, but that he reserved to himself his approval or disapproval of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) as to whether certain provisions ought to be made or not for carrying out what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board desired to secure—namely, the preservation of existing contributions to the counties, and an entire reform in the relations between the boroughs and counties. The right hon. Member for Clitheroe raised the question of Lancashire, and told them that the large boroughs of that county—such as Manchester, Liverpool, Wigan, Bolton, Blackburn, and so on—had only

      1571
      38 miles of main read between them, whereas the county had between 500 and 600 miles. But these towns had many hundreds of miles of streets; and Piccadilly Street and Market Street of Manchester, and Bold Street of Liverpool, were just as much main roads as anything in the county.
      SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he wished to put that point right. Did his right hon. Friend forget that country parishes had to bear a heavy rate—often a 1s. rate—for highways—in addition to the rate for main roads?
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, it must not be forgotten that the borough ratepayers were bearing heavy burdens in the shape of local taxation, and were expecting relief from the Bill as well as the county ratepayers. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Clitheroe asked that the Wheel and Van Tax should be apportioned on some principle which would give to the county the whole of the advantage. He would not deny that heavy burdens were imposed on the counties, but there were equally heavy burdens upon the boroughs. What he understood the proposal of the Government to be was that boroughs with 50,000 inhabitants were to be taken out of the county administration and finance before the Schedules of the Bill were finally settled, except to the extent of the conditions which they were now subject to county administration and finance. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said he was going to appoint a strong Commission to adjust this question; but he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) was at a loss to understand what adjustment was necessary, nor could he understand that that Commission was to apply to boroughs already included in the Fourth Schedule, because in the Fourth Schedule it was provided that such towns as Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, &c., which were to be dealt with as separate counties, should not contribute to the county fund, except under contract or agreement, and, in default of agreement, on terms to be fixed by arbitration. The 7th sub-section of Clause 30 was as follows:—
      "After the appointed day a borough named in the said schedule shall not, save as provided by this Act, contribute to the county
      1572
      fund of any other county otherwise than under any contract (whether a contract respecting a lunatic asylum or otherwise), but where any such borough has heretofore contributed to the county rate of a county otherwise than under any such contract, the council of the borough shall redeem the liability to that contribution on such terms as may be agreed upon with the council of the county, either by a capital payment or by an annuity, or by a transfer of debts and liabilities or otherwise, and, in default of agreement, on such terms as may be fixed by arbitration."
      Sub-section 8 said—
      "Until such redemption comes into operation the council of the borough shall pay out of the borough fund to the council of the said county the average annual amount contributed by the borough to the county rate during the three years next before the appointed day, and such sum shall be carried to the general county account of the county fund."
      This was not a difficult question to settle, because the officials of the Local Government Board knew that the County Authorities throughout England had a custom of sending in an account to each Quarter Sessions borough which were outside the county jurisdiction, showing its proportion of what was called the county expenditure to which it was bound to contribute. That county contribution was assessed, not as a county rate, but under the poor rate or borough fund, and was paid accordingly. He, therefore, did not see what adjustment was necessary except in the case of the Wheel and Van Tax. If Parliament was of opinion that there should be some appropriation of the Wheel, Van, and Horse Tax in respect of main roads, the provision to be made for the contribution ought to be put into an Act of Parliament, and not left to any Commission to settle. The same principle would apply whether the county was Lancashire, Cheshire, or Dorsetshire, and provision should be made for it without introducing any new machinery or jurisdiction. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Clitheroe desired to do something which the Government did not contemplate, and which he hoped the Commission would not sanction. The boroughs did not want to be exempted from one single penny they paid to-day of the county expenditure; but they did object to have a single additional shilling of county taxation placed on their shoulders. They wanted to have their fair share of the relief of local taxation. He asked that the point should be now

      1573
      decided, so that they might know what boroughs were to be in the Schedule, and what boroughs were to be out of it, so that no one Hereafter could raise the question, and be met with a reminder by the Chairman that the question had already been disposed of.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, that before the discussion went further it was necessary that he should point out that the orderly despatch of all Business was intimately connected with the orderly presentation of Amendments. It was admitted that the Amendment under discussion had not been presented in the best place, and that it was not in the place in which it would ultimately have to come. It was held that it ought to be discussed, but it seemed to him that the proper place for the discussion of it would be when Clause 30 was reached, which dealt with boroughs that were to be considered counties in themselves. The Government would place down the Amendments they intended to propose in that clause, and the Committee would then be able to proceed regularly with the discussion.
      SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that upon the point of Order he was quite sensible that this section was not the best for drafting purposes in connection with the question he had raised; but he had thought it would be convenient for the Committee to know exactly the course that would be taken when they reached Clause 30. No doubt, Clause 30 would be a better place for bringing on the Amendment, and he would be willing to withdraw it at this stage upon the explicit understanding that it was the intention of the Government to allow this Amendment, in some form, to be part of the Bill If that was perfectly and clearly understood, he did not care to press the Amendment at this stage; but if it was not understood, he would have to ask for a decision upon the question now, for this reason—that if it were defeated many hon. Members would take up a position in regard to some of the clauses of the Bill which they would not otherwise adopt. He had not the slightest objection to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, on the understanding that the Amendment was accepted in principle, that it was only objected to in regard to the place in which it was pro-
      1574
      posed to insert it, and that it would be fairly carried out at the proper time and place.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought he had, in the most explicit terms he could possibly use, given the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he had asked for. He would say again that the Government accepted the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and that they would use every effort in their power to insure that the Amendment should be inserted in the Bill when the proper time came.
      MR. GULLYsaid, he had an Amendment to reduce the limit of population to 25,000. He could not help feeling that there was a great gulf between the present clause and Clause 30, and it was impossible to say when the debate on the new Amendment would come on. He should prefer the discussion upon his Amendment to take place at once; but, as he had no desire to take what might appear to be an unreasonable course, he was willing to assent to the suggestion that had been made.
      MR. WOODALLsaid, the Committee must be very sensible of the conciliatory spirit shown by the right hon. Gentleman in making this concession; but he felt that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman did not by any means satisfy those important boroughs having a population of less than 50,000, and which were larger than those he had specially exempted. With regard to his own constituency, one of the municipal boroughs included would profit by the concession of the right hon. Gentleman, while another borough below the figure mentioned would be left without any such advantage. He did not wish to go into the question now, because he hoped the case of the pottery towns would be dealt with in a manner special to their peculiar circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman must dismiss the illusion that it was possible to treat as a whole a population both urban and rural; and, whether they liked it or not, there would be drawn a distinction between urban and rural interests, more and more, as the discussion on the Bill proceeded.
      MR. T. FRYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the small boroughs, considering the amount of taxation they would have to

      1575
      pay, the option of saying for themselves whether they would be included in the County Councils or not. He believed there were 25 Parliamentary boroughs of 25,000 inhabitants, and it seemed to him very hard that they were not to be allowed to have this, when Canterbury, with a population of only 17,000, was to have the privilege. The amount of licence duty which his (Mr. Fry's) borough paid could not be less than £6,000 a-year, independently of Probate Duty. He supposed that the whole of that amount would be paid to the County Council, and that the borough would receive back only a very small portion of the money that would go to the County Council. He would like to hear that the right hon. Gentleman could reconsider this question, so as to give, if possible, the boroughs in question an opportunity of saying that they would be included in the County Council area.
      SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, it was very hard that cities which were also counties, and which had had the control of their own affairs, and had held their own Quarter Sessions for the last 300 years and upwards, should be disfranchised. There were some boroughs which had done this for 800 years; their Charters had been handed down from generation to generation; they had their own police, and had managed their affairs properly. The whole principle of the Bill, as represented by the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite generally, was that nothing should be taken away from cities which had certain privileges, and they thought it very hard that under the Bill there was a probability of their being deprived of their ancient rights and Charters. He was bound to say that in some cases—the city which he had the honour to represent, for instance—this was almost a sentimental feeling; because, although they found that under the Bill they would be receiving some relief from their present burden of taxation, they would rather waive that advantage. They said they would prefer to retain their ancient status, with their own government, the Quarter Sessions and Coroners, and that they would maintain their main roads at their own expense, and, in fact, be no burden at all on the country, rather than be disestablished. He earnestly hoped that that great hardship would not be in-
      1576
      flicted on cities that had conducted their own affairs from the time of the Conquest, especially as the principle of the Bill, as stated by the Government, had been that they would not take away any privileges from boroughs which desired to retain them. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if this question were not brought on then, whether a further opportunity would be given of discussing the question?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) would come forward for discussion when Clause 30 was reached, and then, if the hon. Baronet wished to move an Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, he could do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Gully) suggested that the Government should go below the limit proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he (Mr. Ritchie) could not hold out any hope that the limit would be reduced; they felt they had reached a limit beyond which it was impossible to go. He hoped the hon. Gentleman (Sir John Swinburne) would not imagine that there was the smallest idea on the part of the Government to take away their rights and privileges from boroughs under the limit in respect of population. There were in the Bill some proposals which, he believed, would be generally acceptable to the boroughs, with reference to the transfers; but matters of that kind they would be quite ready to consider when they came to a later portion of the Bill. The hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) had asked how London would be affected by this proposal to reduce the limit of population. Of course, this would not affect London at all. As his hon. Friend would know, the Bill dealt with municipal boroughs; whereas the boroughs of which he spoke were Parliamentary boroughs. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) asked how boroughs which desired to be included in the Schedule were to make their population known? All boroughs of 50,000 inhabitants in 1881 were to be included, unless the Government received intimation of their wish to the contrary, and they would, no doubt, receive, from those who desired to be included, specific information on the subject of population. He would not go further into the criticism of the

      1577
      Amendments on this subject, because, as the Chairman had pointed out, some of them were not in Order, and would be more properly considered when a later part of the Bill was reached.
      SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he did not think the Chairman had ruled that this Amendment and the debate upon it were out of Order, but that the proposal would be be better moved at a later part of the Bill. He did not rise for the purpose of going further into this matter, as he intended to reserve his remarks until that part of the Bill was reached. The Committee greatly desired the further information on various subjects promised by the right hon. Gentleman, particularly the statistics of taxes which were to be transferred to the new County Authorities. He imagined that the information given would discriminate between the amount that would be raised in a county and that raised in the various boroughs. Hon. Members would be glad to know when those Returns would be laid on the Table, because some of them were of vital importance to the clauses to be discussed. And, again, when might they hope to see on the Paper the Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded? It was absolutely necessary, as he had said, that it should be for a time in the hands of hon. Members for consideration, so that its scope might be fully understood; and, therefore, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure the Committee that the Amendment would be shortly in their hands.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had already stated, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), that the information which the right hon. Gentleman asked for with regard to the transfers of taxes would be in the possession of the House in about a fortnight. Nearly the whole of the information had been got in, and he trusted that within a week it would be with the printer and presented to the House at the time mentioned. He also hoped, at the same time, to be able to put on the Table of the House the proposal with regard to the number of County Councillors. The Amendments, he hoped, would be on the Paper in a week.
      MR. ROWNTREEasked, whether it was part of the un-
      1578
      derstanding that the excepted towns should be liable, practically, for their own contributions?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, the understanding was that, so far as the existing contributions were concerned, the excepted boroughs, in conjunction with the counties from which they were taken, should not suffer financially—that whatever adjustment was made should be upon the existing contribution of those boroughs.
      SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked, if that meant that the boroughs he had referred to were to retain their Quarter Sessions and Coroner? He spoke personally for the borough of Lichfield, which had its own Council and had managed its own affairs for 500 years.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Government did not intend to interfere with the Quarter Sessions in any borough; but he suspected that under the operation of the Bill the Coroner would be interfered with.
      MR. ROWNTREEsaid, he was afraid the small boroughs would be prejudiced in respect of the amount of contribution under the arrangement arrived at that afternoon. He hoped the Government would take care that that did not occur.
      VISCOUNT EBRINGTONasked if the Government were going to make any proposal as to the division of large counties, for he thought there were boroughs of 50,000 inhabitants whose acceptance of the offer now made would be influenced by that consideration. He believed there were boroughs in a certain county which would, undoubtedly, desire to become counties of themselves if the county was not divided; but if it were divided, and they were made the centre of a portion of it, the case might be different.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not know to what county the noble Lord referred; but there were certain counties whose position the Government were now considering, and which, either by long usage or by Statute, had been divided into two divisions; but they did not propose to take any steps to create any conditions of the kind where they did not already exist. Whether provision might not be made, however, for allowing a County Council, with certain consents, to divide a county, if it seemed convenient, was a matter, of course, open to consideration.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he understood that only the municipal boroughs throughout the county were to be considered—not the Parliamentary boroughs. If that was so, it would be a considerable disadvantage in cases where municipal and Parliamentary boroughs practically constituted one town; and he could not help thinking that the anxiety displayed by the boroughs to be quit of the benefits supposed to be conferred by this Bill showed how far they estimated its value. Their attitude towards it appeared to be well expressed by the line—Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
      MR. SLAGGasked, if in this matter the Government would proceed collectively or individually with the boroughs?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he imagined that the case of each of the boroughs should be considered by itself. In answer to the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare), he was bound to say the boroughs the Government referred to were not Parliamentary boroughs. With regard to another question that was asked, the Government was assuming that all boroughs of 50,000 inhabitants would desire to come into the arrangement, unless they heard from them to the contrary.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, as general statements were so likely afterwards to be misunderstood, he would like a little further information. His right hon. Friend had failed to tell the Committee what he intended to do with the contributions which the Government were going to make in aid of the local rates. His right hon. Friend had stated that where a borough was taken out of the county, the same contributions as were now made to the county rates would be continued; but the point he referred to was most important. It was, how much of the taxes proposed to be transferred would come to the rural parts of the counties, as they did not feel inclined to lose their chance of getting a fair share of the contribution?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the new local taxation, such as the Horse and Wheel Taxes, under the Bill as now framed, would be collected in the excepted boroughs for the use of the boroughs themselves; but the Government did not think that an equitable
      1580
      arrangement under the present circumstances, and they proposed that, whether a borough remained in or was taken out of the county, the whole sum should go into one common purse and be distributed through the county, including the boroughs, according to rateable value, With reference to the transferred licence duties, they would be collected within the area of the borough, and the county would collect its own contribution within its own area. Whether the county would or would not be placed at a disadvantage in consequence of this was a matter, no doubt, for consideration.
      MR. STANSFELDasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee the statistics of the numbers of Councillors before they came to the discussion of the sub-section dealing with that subject?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was inclined to hope that the Committee would discuss the question, even if they could not get the figures before the sub-section was reached; because it was obvious that the number of Councillors would be governed by the principle of the subsection. He desired to say distinctly that, as far as the Government were concerned, their wish was, as far as possible, to consult the views and wishes of hon. Gentlemen who might become Councillors of Counties, and when the Return was laid before the House he should take care that full opportunity for criticism was given to those interested in the matter.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, he did not see how they could discuss the figures when they had passed the 2nd sub-section; nor how they could discuss the clause until they had the figures.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was, of course, desirable that the Committee should be in possession of the information in question as soon as possible; and in view of the discussion he would promise to press forward the Papers, so that they might be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days; or if it were considered desirable, he would undertake, when the clause was reached, to deal with the subject in a Schedule.
      MR. T. FRYsaid, he thought they had a right to ask that if the counties were not to suffer by the withdrawal of the boroughs from the counties, the smaller boroughs should not suffer by being included in counties.
      MR. FIRTHsaid, he hoped that in drafting the clause it would be made clear that it did not apply to the Metropolis. The City of London was a municipal borough, of more than 50,000 inhabitants, and he apprehended that it was not intended to start a new county in the midst of London.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, the County of London was, of course, totally different from others, and the Government were not prepared to accept any proposal by which London would be split up. With regard to small boroughs which remained in the counties, the Government must treat them with reference to finance as a portion of the county. It was impossible to do otherwise. He did not think, however, that boroughs interested would suffer. The transferred licence duties were to be given in lieu of the grant now given to the counties, and in paying them over to a common purse the small boroughs would not be prejudiced. They would only be paying to a Local Body for the benefit of the whole instead of to the Government.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked, whether the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to a common purse were to apply to the boroughs mentioned in the schedule—Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and others?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that was the case.
      MR. ROWNTREEsaid, it seemed to him that in this arrangement the small towns were to be made the scapegoats; and, if so, he submitted that this was a most unfortunate misunderstanding to arise at the outset of the discussion on the Bill. It appeared that the smaller boroughs were not to have the weight which it was supposed would attach to them.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, the hon. Gentleman had quite misunderstood the position of the small boroughs. The county would be bound to perform, and pay for all duties which it now performed in the boroughs; and the boroughs, moreover, would get a contribution from the county for indoor pauperism and police, while any surplus which remained in the county purse at the end of the financial year, after all charges were met, would be divided amongst all Local Bodies in the county, boroughs included, according to their rateable value.
      SIR RICHARD PAGETsaid, it was impossible for hon.
      1582
      Members to pledge themselves to any particular arrangements without they were in a position to judge from figures what the result would be; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would, therefore, take steps to expedite the Returns that would be necessary in this case. He asked whether he was right in supposing, as was originally the proposition in the Bill, that the whole of the statutory payments would continue to be made as hitherto in respect of police and other matters that were now the subject of subvention?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the whole of the revenue obtained by counties, whether by means of licence duties, Probate Duty, or anything else, would be charged with the existing statutory payments, and also with 4d. for every indoor pauper; and if there were a surplus, it would be divided, as he had pointed out, amongst the various Local Bodies in the county, according to their several rateable values.
      SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYasked, whether the statutory payments would include the present contribution to the main roads? There were practically no main roads at all in the district of Lancashire which he represented; and of the sum paid for main roads since the Act of 1878 about one-third had been paid by townships who themselves derived no benefit whatever, having no main roads. They did not ask to be put in a better position than at present; but they did ask that their position might not be made worse than it was, and, unless they secured the same contribution as hitherto from Imperial resources, he apprehended that the gross injustice of which he complained would be aggravated.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, the existing contribution of the Government towards the main roads amounted to £250,000, which represented one-fourth of the total cost in counties. That contribution would cease; but, in lieu of it, the licence duties to be transferred to the counties, together with the proposed Horse and Wheel Tax, would, it was estimated, yield considerably more than the amount now contributed—namely, about £1,000,000, or the whole cost of the main roads throughout the Kingdom.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 2 (Composition and election of council and position of chairman).
      MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid, in rising to move the next Amendment, which was in his name, he might refer to a remarkable article in The Nineteenth Century, in which Lord Thring pointed out that no fewer than 22 sections of the Municipal Corporations Act were embodied in this clause. The words which he proposed to omit were as follows:—
      "The council of a county and the members thereof shall be constituted and elected, and conduct their proceedings in like manner, and be in the like position in all respects, as the council of a borough divided into wards, subject, nevertheless, to the provisions of this Act,"
      and so forth. If hon. Members would look at the clause, they would see that it would read quite as well if the subsection were left out. The 1st sub-section incorporated a number of sections of the Municipal Corporations Act, and it would be, therefore, necessary that the Act should be referred to, in order to understand the sub-section, because, as had been pointed out, 22 sections of that Act were embodied in the clause. His idea, and that of his hon. Friends, of a Local Government Bill was that it should be a self-sufficing and self-contained code in all matters relating to Local Government; and, when they found it was necessary to the understanding of the measure to refer to an Act containing so many legal niceties, they could not but feel that the clause was constructed upon a wrong principle. As an illustration of the object of the Amendment, he pointed out that the Act to which reference was made disabled clergymen of the Established Church and ministers of religion from being elected as Councillors; but there was nothing whatever said about this in the Bill before the Committee. The Government would, no doubt, accept the Amendment proposed to deal with that matter; but it would have been much better if they had distinctly stated in the clause who might be elected and who would be the selected Councillors than to have referred Members to a most complicated section of another Bill. To expect the clause to be passed on a mere reference to another Bill was something like asking them to "buy a pig in a poke;" and on that ground, as well as
      1584
      upon the ground that it would prevent waste of time, he begged to move that the sub-section he had cited be omitted.
      Amendment proposed, in page 1, leave out Sub-section (1).—(Mr. F. S. Stevenson.)
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, there was no doubt that everything which fell from Lord Thring was deserving of attention, and he should have been very glad to incorporate in the Bill the provisions of all the various Acts with which it dealt, if he had found it possible to do so. He very much sympathized with the desire of the hon. Gentleman to have the provisions of the Act referred to by him set forth; but, as a matter of fact, had they attempted to incorporate in the Bill the provisions of the various Acts with which the Bill dealt, it would have been of unmanageable bulk; and, with reference to the Municipal Corporations Act, the Government had less difficulty than in other cases, because the Act was practically thoroughly well understood by all those who had made themselves familiar with Local Acts and the course of local life for years past. The Act in question was before the House in 1882, and he undertook to say that its leading principles were thoroughly well understood. The argument of the hon. Gentleman cut both ways, because it was within a very few days of the Bill appearing in print that the Government was assailed from many sides by hon. Gentlemen who did not desire this disability. He was satisfied that if they had time to deal with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Bill would have been totally unmanageable, and one which they could not have hoped to carry through the House. He hoped the Committee would, under the circumstances, approve of the course the Government had adopted, a course which, in their opinion, was the most convenient.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, he did not wish to offer any opposition to the fiat of the right hon. Gentleman, but it was not unfitting that they should upon this occasion utter some protest against this characteristic of modern drafting. The modern method of drafting had grown up certainly within his memory. Possibly it had grown up in

      1585
      consequence of Parliamentary exigencies, from the multiplication of debates, and from the impossibility of passing measures drafted and framed in the old customary and clear way. That was the reason for what the right hon. Gentleman had done, but he (Mr. Stansfeld) was bound to say that he had not yet met a Bill or an Act which seemed so remarkable in this respect as the Bill for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible to the House. There, again, the reason was patent. In the first place, the Bill had been drafted in this manner on account of the immense complexity of the subject; and, secondly, on account of the desire—a very justifiable desire—on the right hon. Gentleman's part to put the measure forward in such a form that it would be possible to pass it within a Session of Parliament. Although he hoped the attention of the Parliamentary Draftsmen's Department ment would be drawn to the advisability of not proceeding further in the direction of this style of drafting, he did not see that they could, if they wished to pass the Bill, object to accept the difficulties of the situation and make the best of them. It was extremely true of this Bill that it was very difficult to understand; it was difficult even for men familiar with the subject and with the interpretation of Statutes; it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, for men who were familiar with the subject but not with the law to understand the provisions of the Bill with any reliable accuracy. Therefore, with regard to the difficulties of understanding, on which they were all agreed, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to be patient as they proceeded with the Bill in respect to the queries he might find addressed to him, and to give them explanations which they really could not always work out for themselves. He was sure the Committee would readily accept the explanations given by a Minister on his own responsibility. They would frequently want explanations in this case, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not imagine that hon. Gentlemen wished to delay the passing of the Bill if they called for explanations.
      MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, it appeared to him that there was strong reason in justification of the Government for the method they had adopted in drawing up this Bill. He understood
      1586
      from his right hon. Friend that one of the objects of the Bill was to apply to the government of the counties the same method which was now applied to the government of towns—that the District Council should be similar to the Town Council. As the Bill was drawn there was entire identity between District Councils and Town Councils, except so far as the Committee chose to make exceptions. If the Bill had contained a series of clauses and provisions taken, word for word, from the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, every word of those clauses would have been open to controversy, and they would have come out of the deliberations of the Committee with identity, to a certain extent, between District Councils and Town Councils, but, at the same time, with an identity of a bewildering and perplexing description, because subject to so many exceptions. He thought that reason was an entire justification for the policy of the Government. If the Committee would permit him he would give one illustration—a remarkable one—of the result of endeavouring to embody in a Statute the whole of the law contained in other Statutes. There had been before the House for a number of years a Consolidating Bill with reference to the management of towns in Scotland. That Bill had been introduced year after year by successive Governments, and year after year it had failed to pass. The Bill of the present year had been referred to a Select Committee on which he had the honour to serve. The progress made with the Bill was most slow, and by the proceedings in the Committee upstairs he was convinced of the entire impossibility of passing the Bill this Session unless it were drawn on the lines of reference.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Ashburton Division of Devon (Mr. Seale-Hayne). It is perfectly in Order, but it is proposed at a most inconvenient place. It is clear it would be best proposed when we reach the 2nd sub-section, and I will call upon the hon. Gentleman to move it then.
      MR. CONYBEAREthought that perhaps before saying anything as to his reason for

      1587
      proposing the Amendment which stood in his name it would be well to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to explain exactly the purport of the words "and to be in a like position in all respects." He confessed he found difficulty in understanding how these newly constituted Councils could be in a like position in all respects to Town Councils. At any rate, one argument he would like to put before the Committee as to the reason why he put this Amendment down was, that he, in common with other hon. Members, had a strong objection to the aldermanic principle which it was proposed to introduce. It seemed to him that in view of the Amendments which came later with respect to Aldermen or selected Councillors it would be desirable to get rid of these words in this particular clause. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain what will be the exact result of the words he (Mr. Conybeare) had mentioned.
      Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, leave out from the word "and" to "respects."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      Mr. RITCHIEsaid, he had been as puzzled to understand the meaning of this Amendment as the hon. Gentleman had been to understand the words he desired to omit. He could not quite gather why the hon. Gentleman proposed to omit these words. The only object they had in putting in these words was to make a general distinction which should show that these Councils should be framed as far as possible upon the lines of the Bodies framed under the Municipal Corporations Act. Of course, when they came to the Definition Clause it would be quite open to the hon. Gentleman to move any exceptions he desired to make in the constitution of the new Councils as compared with the old.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he was satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. SEALE-HAYNEsaid, that the object of the Amendment he had put down was to
      1588
      remove the disabilities which prevented clergymen and ministers of religion from exercising the functions of County Councillors.
      MR. CHAPLINrose to a point of Order. He had an Amendment on the Paper which was precisely to the same effect. It was a matter of perfect indifference which Amendment was moved first; but what he desired to ask was, whether the effect of the Chairman's ruling in this case would not be that, if any hon. Gentleman wished to get precedence for a particular Amendment, he would have nothing to do but to place it on the Paper in the wrong place in order to be called upon first, although, at the same time, another Member might have put down an Amendment in the right place?
      THE CHAIRMAN: I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seale-Hayne) had put down his Amendment first. Undoubtedly, if the hon. Gentleman put the Amendment upon the Paper after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) had placed his there, he ought not to move it.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was certainly under the impression that his Amendment appeared upon the Paper first.
      MR. SEALE-HAYNEsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that his Amendment appeared on the Paper at least two or three days before the right hon. Gentleman's appeared. The object of the Amendment was, as he had said, to remove the disabilities which would prevent clergymen and ministers of religion from exercising the duties of County Councillors. From a Liberal point of view, he held, of course, that it was inexpedient that any class of men should be restricted in their civil rights and privileges. As a matter of fact, clergymen and ministers of religion were able at the present time to exercise functions in Courts of Quarter Sessions and upon various Local Boards—upon those public Bodies whose functions were going to be handed over to the new County Councils. Therefore, without labouring the point, he saw no reason whatever why this disability should exist, why clergymen and ministers of religion should not be able to be elected both to the County Councils and to the District Councils.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 1, line 13, after "constituted," insert "except that clerks in holy orders and ministers of religion shall not be disqualified for being elected and being councillors."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that, as he had already intimated, the Government were prepared to accept this proposal, but he was still of opinion that it would be most convenient for the Amendment to appear in the place where his right hon. Friend the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had proposed to insert it. Of course, it was for the Committee and the Chairman to say whether or not that should be so. It was clearly the opinion of the Government and of the draftsmen that the Amendment ought to be inserted where his right hon. Friend proposed. It would certainly be more convenient that it should appear there, and therefore he hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seale-Hayne) would withdraw the Amendment now, and allow it to be inserted in what was undoubtedly a much better place.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, that in addition to that, this was an enfranchising Amendment, and there was another standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse). It was immaterial which Amendment was taken first, but he thought that Amendments of this class ought to be taken before other Amendments.
      MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he thought that the words removing disqualification ought to be like to those which enacted it. The words used in the Act of 1882 were, "is in holy orders or is a regular minister of a Dissenting congregation." He thought that it would be much more convenient if they followed those words. The words as they stood were open to question, as to whether a clerk in holy orders was a minister of religion or not—he hoped they generally were. He suggested to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seale-Hayne) that they should follow the exact language of the Act of 1882, and thus use the words, "is in holy orders, or is a regular minister of a Dissenting congregation."
      MR. PICTONsaid, he hoped the wording of the Amendment
      1590
      as now moved would be allowed to stand, for he thought it was a distinct improvement upon the wording of the former Act. He did not like the description "Dissenting minister," and the feeling of the public was gradually beginning to realize that it was a somewhat offensive definition. Therefore he thought it should be dropped in all Acts of Parliament if the meaning could be made clear in so doing.
      MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he ventured to point out that unless they used the disqualifying words "minister of a Dissenting congregation," it might be a matter for a Court to determine whether the qualifying words, "minister of religion," did deal with the disqualification. He considered there was great force in what had been urged by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell.) If they wanted to get rid of a disqualification, they ought to get rid of the express words of disqualification.
      MR. WADDYsaid, he hoped that the words of the first of these two forms would be adopted. He did not belong to the Church of England, nor was he a Dissenter. The members of the Church in which he was born, and in which he hoped to die, did not recognize that they were members of the Church of England or Dissenters—they were Wesleyan Methodists. They did not desire to be called Dissenters, not from any motives of contempt for those who were Dissenters, but simply as representing the historical fact that they had not dissented. Their ministers were not ministers of a congregation—they were ministers of religion, which was a totally different thing.
      MR. BRUNNERsaid, that to meet the objection of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell), he begged to move that the word "other," be inserted before the word "minister."
      Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert, after "and," the word "other."—(Mr. Brunner.)
      Question, "That the word 'other' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Amendment, as amended, proposed,
      In page 1, line 13, after "constituted," insert "except that clerks in holy orders and other ministers of religion shall not be disqualified for being elected and being councillors."
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      MR. HOBLIOTTSEsaid, that in the Municipal Corporations Act no person was qualified to be a Councillor who was not qualified to vote. He had on a former occasion pointed out to the House the great advantage of extending the privilege of sitting on these Local Bodies to every person who had a substantial stake within the county. Of course, there was room for considerable difference of opinion as to whether the franchise should be altered to include certain classes, but he did not think there would be room for much difference of opinion as to the advisability of admitting to this qualification to sit upon the County Council all those who were qualified by having a substantial stake within the county. The Amendment which appeared in his name was to insert the words—
      "A person shall be qualified to be a councillor who, though not qualified in manner provided by the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' as applied by this Act, is registered as a Parliamentary voter for the county or division of the county, or any borough therein."
      But he proposed to alter that Amendment so that it would read—
      "A person shall be qualified to be a councillor who, though not qualified in manner provided by the 'Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' as applied by this Act, is registered as a Parliamentary voter for the county or division of the county in respect to the ownership of property of whatever tenure."
      He himself preferred the words on the Paper, but he understood the Government were only willing to assent to an alteration of their Bill to the extent of owners on the list of Parliamentary voters. The difference was extremely small; there would only be in the other case a few lodgers and a few service franchise voters, and, therefore, he did not see that the alteration was a very material one. With the view of saving time and promoting discussion, he proposed to move the Amendment in the amended form. He left out the words "or any borough therein" for the reason that there were no ownership voters on the borough register, but only on the county register.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 1, line 18, alter the last Amendment, to insert the words "a person shall be qualified
      1592
      to be a councillor who, though not qualified in manner provided by the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' as applied by this Act, is registered as a Parliamentary voter for the county or division of the county in respect of the ownership of property of whatsoever tenure."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that this Amendment practically created a new register altogether. What he was anxious to ask the Government was, whether they were prepared to extend the qualification to faggot voters who had no interest in the County Council, who were not assessed to any rates the County Council administered, and who might simply hold 40 s. freehold interests which would create votes?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman would see there was a great difference between giving the franchise to those who were qualified in this way and allowing them to be elected. Clearly it would be an extraordinary hardship if a person, who, perhaps, owned a very large estate in the county, but who did not reside, and was not rated there, was unable to be elected as a Councillor. Surely there was no one more fitted to be elected, if the electors chose to elect him, than a gentleman who owned property in the county.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Such a man would come in under Sub-section 3.
      MR. RITCHIE: No; he would not come in at all.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, that this was a very doubtful proposal. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think it perfectly reasonable and rational to form a register excluding the owners of property in counties who were not inhabitants. When it came to the question of election as Councillors the right hon. Gentleman thought it a great hardship that men of that kind should be excluded. He (Mr. Stansfeld) was not in favour of the exclusion principle at all; but, having adopted one line in regard to electors, he did not think they should desert it when they came to deal with persons who were to be elected. He thought there was considerable force in what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr.

      1593
      Henry H. Fowler) had said, that to a large extent they would by this Amendment single out for exceptional favour owners of freeholds who had hardly any practical interest in the county itself. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board might, of course, if he liked, proceed on the ground that, having chosen the electors, those electors should be perfectly free to choose whom they liked to represent them; but why did they limit the thing at all? They only proposed to adopt that principle as far as the owners of property in counties were concerned. He (Mr. Stansfeld) was certainly disposed to vote against the Amendment.
      MR. A. E. GATHORNE-HARDYsaid, he wished to point out that in almost every constituency Members of Parliament were elected who formed no portion of the constituency for which they sat as Representatives, and he could not see why there should be any disqualification to be elected because there was not this particular qualification which was suggested here. For his part, he rather agreed with the right hon. Gentleman—he would go even farther than the Amendment, and be prepared to vote for removing altogether any disqualification to the election of any person. He held that the right persons to decide as to their representative were the constituents, and that, when they had set up a constituency, they might fairly trust it to elect those who would reasonably satisfy it. It might be said, no doubt, that there would be a certain number of persons elected possibly who had no interest in the particular county for which they might be elected, but that he could not credit. He could not think that to keep up a qualification, or such a qualification as existed in this Bill already, would in reality exclude anybody whom it was in the slightest degree desirable to exclude. He should vote for the Amendment as it stood, but he should certainly be prepared to vote for a very much larger Amendment.
      MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, that there was only one logical conclusion to be drawn from the Amendment, and that was that all disqualifications should be removed. He could not understand the argument of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, when he inferred that certain persons
      1594
      would not be qualified to stand. If what he meant was that he only wanted persons to have the right to sit as Councillors who had no direct rated qualification, simply because they were owners of property, instead of widening, as he professed to do, the scope from which persons could be selected as County Councillors, he wanted to give privileges to the wealthy classes of the community. There was no force whatever in the argument that an owner of property, as put by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, should be allowed to sit on the County Council simply because he was an owner of property and did not contribute to the rates. If the supporters of this Amendment wanted the Amendment to go unchallenged, they must go as far as to provide that the lodgers of London, as well as ground landlords, should have the right to sit as County Councillors if they obtained the confidence of their fellow-men.
      MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, he rose to say how entirely he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) in respect to this Amendment. The fact was that this was the old question as to whether property or persons should be represented. He regarded the Amendment as one of the most dangerous character. There was only one logical conclusion in this matter, and that was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Finsbury (Mr. J. Rowlands)—namely, that they must abolish all disqualifications. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) was prepared to go to that extent, they, of course, would agree with him. If he was not, the Amendment was one which ought not to be supported.
      MR. ASQUITHsaid, he heartily agreed with the very sound democratic sentiments he heard expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for the East Grinstead Division of Sussex (Mr. A. E. Gathorne-Hardy), and he was going to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of showing in a practical way that he stood by his opinion. He proposed to amend the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) by leaving out the word "who" in the first line of the Amendment, and

      1595
      by leaving out all the words which followed the word "Act" in the third line of the Amendment. The result of that would be that the Amendment would read as follows:—
      "A person shall be qualified to be a Councillor, though not qualified in manner provided by 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' as applied by this Act."
      The effect of that Amendment of the proposed Amendment would be to raise definitely the issue the hon. Member (Mr. A. E. Gathorne-Hardy) had so fairly stated, and to determine whether there should be any restriction of any sort or kind.
      Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the word "who."—(Mr. Asquith.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'who' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was quite true that, so far as Members of that House were concerned, there was no qualification whatever for a Representative, and he thought rightly so, but it was a different thing with respect to County Councils. He must say, speaking for himself, that it was very desirable that those who represented a county should have some kind of stake in the county. It had been said that these gentlemen might not be ratepayers; but he would like to know what man was more interested in the question of rating in a county than an owner of property in the county? He could not conceive anyone more fitted to represent the ratepayers in a County Council than an owner of property, who, perhaps, was as much as anyone affected by extravagance in rating.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 247; Noes 210: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 131.)
      Question again proposed.
      SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENsaid, that before the Amendment was put to the Committee, he should like to propose another Amendment to it. It had just been decided that there must be a qualification. He was opposed to a property qualification. In these circumstances he thought it would be an advantage
      1596
      if, after the word "Act," they were to add the words "is resident in the county area." That would give to them not a property qualification at all, but would simply determine that the person to be elected should reside in the area for which he was elected as representative. He begged to move to omit from the Amendment the words—
      "Is registered as a Parliamentary voter for the county or a division of the county in respect to the ownership of property of whatsoever tenure;"
      and to insert, in lieu thereof, "is resident in the county area."
      Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words after the word "registered," in order to insert the words "is resident in the county area."—(Sir William Plowden.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
      MR. PICTONsaid, he thought that if these words were added the Amendment suggested was not necessary at all, because if a landowner was resident in the county he was qualified as a ratepayer. But he objected to giving the landowner any special privileges whatever. It did not matter how this Amendment might be changed or altered in its language, so long as its substance remained the same he should protest and vote against it.
      SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENsaid, that there was no landowner recognized at all in this clause; the hon. Member was under a mistake.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.)said, that a man might not be eligible, but, at the same time, be eminently qualified to represent his fellow citizens. It seemed to him that this was an extremely democratic Amendment, and, therefore, he hoped his hon. Friends would not divide against it.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, he certainly should oppose the original Amendment, and even divide against it. They could accept the principle that there should not be any clog imposed on the choice of Councillors, as in the elections for that House; but the Amendment was a distinct declaration in favour of a property qualification. They, on the Opposition Benches, were opposed to any such distinction being made, and they would divide against the Amendment.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 236; Noes 193: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 132.)
      Question again proposed.
      MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the words "or any borough therein," which appeared in the Amendment upon the Paper, had been struck out, and in their place the words "in respect to the ownership of property of whatever tenure" had been inserted. They had refused to qualify lodgers who were resident within the county, and it was now proposed to qualify owners of property not resident in the county. That was a property qualification which he could not assent to, and, therefore, he should vote against the Amendment.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he begged to move the omission of the words "in respect to the ownership of property of whatsoever tenure."
      THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee has already decided that those words shall stand part of the Amendment.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that there seemed to be some mistake about this matter. The Government apparently proposed to endow absentee landlords with the special prerogative to come down and swamp the residents of a particular county. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes; or, at any rate, to oust those residents who happened to be lodgers. It seemed to him that that was altogether unfair, and he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway (Mr. Stansfeld) proposed to push this matter to a Division.
      MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he desired to ask the Members of the Government how far they considered themselves consistent in pushing this Amendment? It would be remembered that, in respect to the Electors' Bill, he made a proposition, which was negatived in the House, to the effect that the Parliamentary Register should practically be the register of voters under this Bill; and now the Government were about to extend to one section of those persons, whom they refused to admit to be voters, the privilege of acting as representatives. He certainly thought the Government were landing themselves in an exceedingly illogical position. He should
      1598
      oppose this Amendment on account of the property qualification, not because it gave special privileges, but because through it the Government were going dead against what they resolved on the Amendment which he proposed.
      VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that it was no fault of some of them that owners of property were not electors under the Bill passed earlier in the Session. When the Voters Bill was under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) announced that he would concede the very point they were now discussing—namely, that the owners, though not electors, should be allowed to act as members of the Councils. He gathered from the way in which hon. Gentlemen discussed the particular question now before the Committee that they could not have been in the House during the greater part of the discussion upon the Voters Bill, or else they would have remembered what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board promised to concede.
      MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, that the Amendment he proposed would have admitted lodgers to this franchise. He certainly thought that the new form of this Amendment went even more dead against the position the Government assumed in respect to his Amendment than the form which appeared on the Paper.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the hon. Gentleman seemed to think there was something illogical in allowing persons to be elected who were not voters. There was nothing at all illogical in it. The hon. Gentleman was aware that men were returned to that House for constituencies in which they could not vote.
      MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that they were in this Bill proceeding on the basis of the municipal franchise.
      MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, it would be in the recollection of the Committee that when his hon. Friend the Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart) moved his Amendment providing that lodgers should have the right of the franchise, the right hon. Gentleman told them that he did not wish to deviate at all from the principle

      1599
      laid down in the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. What were they doing now? They were certainly deviating from the Municipal Corporations Act, and what the Opposition were asking the Government to do was to be consistent with the position they assumed upon the Voters Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not for one moment attempt to answer their arguments; he did not attempt to deny that there was equity in the proposition put forward in favour of lodgers in large towns. His only argument was that he wished the Bill to be based on the Municipal Corporations Act. They only asked him to remain true to the position he then took up.
      MR. J. S. GATHORNE-HARDYsaid, he remembered very well the day on which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) gave a pledge upon this subject. He (Mr. J. S. Gathorne-Hardy) had that day received a deputation of gentlemen, in the main landowners, upon this subject. In reply to them he said they were going on the franchise of the Municipal Corporations Act. But with regard to the qualification to be elected, it was perfectly ridiculous to suppose that a man owning large property in a county should be incapable of being elected, if the ratepayers chose to elect him, because he did not happen to be a ratepayer. At the time the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself that an Amendment of this kind should be carried it was received with cheers from all parts of the House, and if hon. Gentlemen had only remembered the cheers given then they would not have adopted the course they had taken in regard to this Amendment.
      MR. JAMES STUARTasked to be allowed to recall the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) to the Act of 1880. The object of that Act was to abolish the property qualification for members of Municipal Corporations and local Municipal Bodies. The right hon. Gentleman was departing distinctly and clearly in a large measure from that principle.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon; there was no question of property qualification at all. The only claim they put forward for owners of property being capable of being elected was that they would have
      1600
      a little interest in the welfare of the county, and, therefore, ought to be eligible for election. There was no qualification at all.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he hoped he would be in Order in moving to insert after the word "tenure," the words "or is a lodger, or in respect of any service holding."
      Amendment proposed, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words "or is a lodger, or in respect of any service holding."—(Sir George Campbell.)
      Question put, "That those words be there added."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 187; Noes 257: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 133.)
      MR. RITCHIErose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
      MR. CONYBEARE: I rise to Order, Mr. Courtney. It is now 10 minutes to 7 o'clock, the hour at which, by our Rules, the debate stands adjourned.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman was informed two nights ago that the Question can be moved on the suspension of Business.
      Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
      Question put,
      "That the words 'A person shall be qualified to be a councillor who, though not qualified in manner provided by "The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882," as applied by this Act, is registered as a Parliamentary voter for the county or a division of the county in respect of the ownership of property of whatsoever tenure,' be there inserted."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 249; Noes 171: Majority 78.—(Div. List, No. 134.)
      It being after Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress at Nine of the clock.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
      It being after Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
      The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

      WAYS AND MEANS—COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

      UNCOVENANTED CIVIL SERVICE OF INDIA.—RESOLUTION.
      MR. KINGsaid, the Motion which he had the honour to bring before the House was new to hon. Members, and, perhaps, somewhat unattractive in its matter. He regretted to have to trouble the House with so technical a subject. He should have much preferred, if he could, to have settled this case in conference with the Secretary of State for India, or with his right hon. Friend who represented him on the Treasury Bench; because it was one which he thought the House would have desired to see settled by the Department concerned. Memorial after Memorial, Petition after Petition had gone to the India Office, and despatches had been sent from the Government of India on the subject; but all the remonstrances of the Service had been met with a blank denial. Not even had a Select Committee been granted to consider the grievances complained of. Had that been granted, he should not now have raised the question before the House of Commons—the highest Court of Appeal. The cry was the cry of the whole Service. It was not the case of an individual, or the claims of a few disappointed men who had combined to bring a fancied grievance before the House; he spoke in this matter for the whole Service, from the highest to the lowest, and in it no dissentient voice was; lifted up against the Motion which he rose to move. No less than 28 meetings had been held in India in connection with these grievances since October, 1886. At Lahore, Calcutta, Delhi, Lucknow, Darjeeling—at every principal town in India the voice of the Uncovenanted Servants had been raised against the grievances and gross injustice under which they suffered. Discontent like that must, he thought, command the attention of the House of Commons. In this case, they had a whole Service asking for justice, and he doubted that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India could produce any single name of
      1602
      distinction which did not support the Motion of which he had given Notice; nor, if he could, did he think it would be kind of his hon. Friend to name him; and it was not to be supposed that the distinguished men who had allowed their names to be associated with the agitation would have done so had there been no true grievance at its foundation. He had had some experience in dealing with employés, and he had long believed that an efficient Service was always a contented Service, and that you could not have contentment without just treatment. It was a poor, mean, and short-sighted policy not to meet those grievances, and to trust to the omnipotence of Government to stifle such an agitation as this at the outset. The agitation was sure to break out again sooner or later; and the agitation of which he was that evening spokesman, having simmered for the last 10 years, had at last broken out. He believed his hon. Friend would say that he (Mr. King) would not take up any agitation in that House which was not an honest one, and he warned him that either he or his Successors would have to give way on this subject—they could not face a whole Service in mutiny. There were two conditions necessary to the attainment of a contented and efficient Service—first, satisfaction with the present conditions of service; and, secondly, a mind at ease about the future. Unless those two conditions were fulfilled, you could not have a contented Service. The cheapest Service was not the most efficient; but he undertook to say that a contented Service was always the cheapest. The grievances complained of in this instance had again and again been put forward, and they had again and again been rejected; and why, he could not for a moment form an idea. In matters of the kind, one could never tell who were the persons to be reproached. There was a figure-head in the shape of the Secretary of State, and there was the Under Secretary of State; but he was not sure that it would not be found that the people who had the real power and pulled the strings in all matters relating to the Department, were the 15 irresponsible elderly Gentlemen receiving £1,200 each, who formed what was called the Council of

      1603
      India, and he hoped it would not be many years before the House came to his opinion that the Council was an anachronism in these days of telegraphic and railway communication. He thought that to retain the 15 Gentlemen in question, however distinguished and eminent their past may have been, was what might be described as "the survival of the unfittest;" and although he had a respect for them in their private capacity, he thought their painless extinction was much to be desired, and he should rejoice if he could see his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India released from this degrading servitude. However able the Minister of State might be, he must always act under the Council, and he (Mr. King) was certain that abolition of the Council would not only facilitate business, but, what was of more consequence to the revenues of India, effect a large saving. With regard to the remedy for the grievance now brought forward, he feared his hon. Friend was unable to grant his request; there was a repellant manner about him, and he (Mr. King) felt that when he replied, that his voice would be that of the Member for Chatham but his hands the hands of the India Council. The European branch of the Uncovenanted Service was one which possessed strong claims upon the kindly consideration and sympathy of the House. If not the most eminent, they were not the least useful in the Departments of our Indian Administration; if not so eminent as the Covenanted Service, they were the backbone of the Administration, and had been the chief instruments of civilization in our Indian Empire. The history of the Uncovenanted Service was curious and interesting. The first Uncovenanted Servants in India were the peons, who swept the offices, and the junior clerks, who totted up the figures and kept the accounts for the East India Company. From those lowly beginnings the Service had enlarged its scope and increased its functions, until it comprised many thousands of officials who had assisted in the social, moral, and material progress of India; while in the highest branches it had furnished Commissioners, Judges, and Collectors. Its members in the European branch were men of high ability and
      1604
      superior education; to it had been entrusted almost entirely the great work of University Education in the East; in its ranks were some of the most eminent Judges; and to it had been entrusted the great public works of India—the system of irrigation, the construction of railways, the extension of telegraphs, scientific forestry, the promotion of learning and agriculture; the survey of India, as well as the work of the Customs and Excise. That was not a small list of occupations in which the humble and lowly Uncovenanted servant had been engaged. To meet the demands of advancing Western civilization, the number of the members of the Uncovenanted Service had been largely increased, so that the history of that Service had been the history of civilization in the East. These men carried on their shoulders a large portion of the burden of our Indian Administration; they were treated as inferiors by their more favoured brethren; they had no representation, although their numbers were twice as great as the other branch of the Service; they had had no representation since the days of Warren Hastings, either on the Legislative Council of India or on the Council at Whitehall; they had no means of making their influence felt in Calcutta, Simla, or in London; individual Petitions only were received, and the rules of the Service absolutely prohibited the members from combining together to send Petitions or Memorials to the Viceroy or the Secretary of State—Divide et impera was the rule of the Indian Service, and that was why he was occupying the time of the House in representing the grievances of those active servants of the State, whose only hope of redress lay in the omnipotence of Parliament. He said that it would be merely a waste of time to refer to the Report of the Public Service Commission, which it was explained was "not to discuss the general question of the present official system of the Uncovenanted Service, or any grievance of that Service as at present constituted," and which did not throw the slightest light on the matter. The Uncovenanted Civil Servant served for 30 years with only 2 years' furlough. He (Mr. King) did not want to find any fault with the rules of Service or draw any unneces-

      1605
      sary comparisons. The Covenanted Service had done noble and great work, and he would be the last to say that any of their privileges should be curtailed or any of their existing rights taken from them. But the House should understand the difference between the two Services. The Covenanted Servant had six years' furlough out of 25 years service; so that after 21 years' service in India he was qualified for a pension of £500 a-year. He contended that leave was absolutely necessary for the health and efficiency of the Service; at least, he did not understand on what other ground it was granted to the Service. It had been alleged that the Government gained by leave being taken. He could not go into that intricate calculation, because, unless he had the records of the India Office at his disposal, he could not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion; and he should be forgiven for not doing so, for the Code was of so labyrinthine a character that he did not profess to understand it. As he had said, he had done his best to get to the bottom of it, and he believed he did understand it as well as any other man in the House, even as well as the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst). He really thought this was a matter with regard to which the hon. Gentleman should, even at the last moment, relent. It was a matter which should be referred to a small Select Committee of the House. He (Mr. King) had no wish to take up the time of the House on the intricate and technical questions which were involved, and he should, therefore, be delighted if the hon. Gentleman would signify his assent to the proposition he made. If the hon. Gentleman would intimate his willingness to appoint a small Committee, he (Mr. King) would not deal further with the subject, and he was sure that the House would not occupy much time in debating the matter. No one, he thought, could properly investigate the question without coming to the conclusion which he desired the Government to arrive at, and which he trusted the House would come to that night. Perhaps that was the very reason why the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India was reluctant to grant a Select Committee. He (Mr.
      1606
      King) had that day seen a telegram sent to this country through Reuter's agency, an agency which was not usually inaccurate in regard to its foreign communications. That telegram, dated Simla, June 7, said—
      "It is understood that the Government of India has no objection to a Select Committee being appointed to inquire into the grievances of the members of the Uncovenanted Civil Service."
      He (Mr. King) did not know how long it might take for information to travel from Simla to London. Probably, the old system was still adhered to, that of relying on the Post; but, certainly, if the Government of India had no objection to this investigation, he hardly thought the voice of 15 irresponsible Gentlemen sitting at Whitehall should outweigh that of the Uncovenanted Civil Servants and their employers the Indian Government. Why should he have to come down here year after year, and take up the valuable time of the House which could be very much better employed than in listening to his remarks upon this subject, in order to plead for this inquiry, to which the Indian Government had no objection? The Service asked, in the first place, for an increased furlough. One of its great grievances was, that only two years' furlough out of 30 years of service was allowed. They asked for something more than that, and in the next place they asked for some of this furlough to count as service. In the third place, they asked that the service might commence at the ago of 21; and in the fourth place, they asked that initial employment should count. There were two obvious arguments which must have occurred to everyone in reply to these demands, so obvious that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India, who was a practised and past master in the art of debating, probably would not fall back upon them, and he (Mr. King) only alluded to them in passing. The two obvious arguments were these. First of all, it might be said that good men could be got, without increasing the furlough, and without making those other alterations in the position of the Civil Servants to which he had just referred. He (Mr. King), however, hardly thought the Indian Government would feel inclined to use that class of argument, in the face of the names he

      1607
      had quoted. Another argument which could be used was this—"You have made your bed, and, therefore, you must lie on it," and that argument he (Mr. King) looked upon as a very strong one. He could understand an argument founded upon the sacredness of a contract, the Government saying to the Uncovenanted Civil Servants—"You have made your contract with your eyes open, and, therefore, you must abide by it." But the Government had cut the ground from under their own feet so far as that argument was concerned by conceding to a large number of men the privileges asked for. The Government of India had repeatedly recommended this concession. They had done so in 1865, and again in 1868. He wanted the House to distinctly understand the request he made. What they asked was this, that those holding positions in the Uncovenanted Civil Service should have the same advantages extended to them that were enjoyed by Covenanted Officers occupying similar positions. At this moment they had anachronisms and anomalies existing, juniors enjoying privileges of leave, etc., which were denied to the heads of their Departments. He would give an instance of this; a Superintendent, the head of the Engineering Department of the Eastern Bengal State Railway, had four or five juniors who had greater privileges in the matter of leave than himself. In that way, the heads of Departments in some cases were treated as being in an inferior position to their juniors. He did not wish to take up the time of the House by going minutely into the mysteries of the Schedules A and B; but he should like to point out that the real distinction was, that certain of these gentlemen were appointed by the Secretary of State for India, and the Secretary of State's men, provided they occupied certain positions, were given six years' furlough, four of which counted for pension, whilst the other servants, those in the Uncovenanted branch, were denied those privileges. Well, the effect of that was to create a great amount of annoyance in the Service. There were a great number of people who considered that a serious hardship, and why it should be allowed to exist he (Mr. King) had never been able to
      1608
      discover. What discipline could they hope to maintain in a Service when the head of a Department was branded as inferior through having an inferior leave to that which was enjoyed by some of his juniors? What influence was brought to bear upon the Indian Office he did not know, but a sudden fit of generosity scorned to have come over them at one time, for suddenly, in 1876, every gentleman drawing 500 rupees a month—that was to say, 6,000 rupees a-year—was admitted to the benefits of the rules under Schedule A, whether appointed by the Secretary of State for India or by the Viceroy. But that fit of generosity as suddenly ceased. A number of gentlemen were then admitted to these privileges, but though hundreds since then had obtained positions exactly similar, drawing 500 rupees a-month on their appointment, they were kept under the inferior conditions. Hundreds had become entitled to enjoy those privileges formerly extended to all under Schedule A; but for some mysterious reason none of them were admitted to those privileges, and the House could hardly wonder that those gentlemen considered themselves to be treated somewhat unfairly, and failed to understand the grounds of their exclusion, for which no reason was assigned. Now, he should like to go a little further, and point out that this treatment of the Uncovenanted Civil Servants was distinctly contrary to the recommendations made by the Government of India in the year 1870. He was sorry to be obliged to detain the House by reading the financial despatch of the Secretary of State, dated the 4th of October, 1870, in which it was advised that the privileges granted to Civil Servants in England should be extended to the Uncovenanted Civil Servants of India. It was as follows:—
      "It being then established that many important offices cannot ordinarily be filled either by Natives of India, or by officers of the Covenanted Civil Service, or the Staff Corps, it is obviously most important that suitable rules for leave of absence to the officers who must fill them should be passed. Not only have the officers themselves a strong claim to liberal treatment in this respect, but it is most important in the interest of the Public Service to facilitate by every legitimate concession, periodical visits to Europe or America by every Native of those continents in our Service, Uncovenanted as well as Covenanted.
      We cannot suppose that it was your Grace's intention, primâ facie, to exclude from the benefit

      1609
      of the more liberal rules to which you have assented, the many meritorious Uncovenanted officers who are now in our Service;.… at least, we can conceive of no ground upon which we could make any distinction between two gentlemen not Natives of India, of equal rank, or holding the same office, in our Service..…We desire strongly to recommend that, whatever may be decided for the future, every officer now in our Service in any of the appointments mentioned in the list (Schedule A, Civil Leave Code) attached to our draft rules, may be admitted to the benefits of the more liberal rules which have now been approved by Her Majesty's Government."
      "And for the future we would submit for the consideration of her Majesty's Government, that we shall be placed in an unfair position if the fact of an officer being appointed in India shall, ipso facto, place him in an unfavourable position as compared with officers not more than his equals, and perhaps his inferiors, only because they have been appointed in England."
      Further on, in the same despatch, the following occurred:—
      "The financial gain, therefore, of treating the Uncovenanted Service less liberally in this respect than the rest of our officers would not in any way compensate for the sense of wrong caused by making an invidious distinction between officers doing perhaps the same duty, and, at any rate, receiving the same salaries, merely because they belong to different classes."
      That was the opinion of the Government of India, and that was the recommendation they made to the 15 gentlemen sitting at Whitehall. He asked the House to put an end to the present unjust and anomalous state of things under which people in the same position and serving on the same basis were treated differently. He urged the House to put all the Civil Servants on the same footing, as the present condition of things was altogether lamentable. By following his suggestion in that particular, they would be fulfilling., at any rate, the first two or three conditions necessary to render the Civil Servants contented, and, therefore, necessary to maintain the efficient Service. He would not go into the Report of the Public Service Commission—he did not know whether the Government intended to act on it or not; but, whatever they proposed to do, he did not think it could affect the case of his friends; because it was expressly pointed out that they ought to be separated from the operation of any new rule. The gentlemen for whom he pleaded were in the Service that day. They existed under the rules of that day, and it was these rules he was ask-
      1610
      ing the House to recommend should be amended, or, at all events, should be inquired into by a Select Committee of the House. But whatever was done, he trusted that it would not be a sham remedy which would be put forward. He trusted they would not attempt to redress these grievances in the usual way, giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The Government the other day introduced a system of graduated pensions. It used to be the rule that, after 15 years' service, a man got one-third of his pay as a pension; but now he only got fifteen-sixtieths; but he had not heard that any one had taken advantage of that precious regulalation. These grievances affected about two-thirds of the Service. Even a cursory glance at the facts of the case would show hon. Members that from the highest to the lowest of these Uncovenanted Servants all were affected. The House would see that this bore upon his second position—namely, that a man to be an efficient servant should have his mind at ease as to his future. He need not point out that, after all, a pension was merely deferred pay, and he might draw an elaborate argument as to the right of a man to have his pension paid, at any-rate, at the rate of exchange prevailing in the country in which it had accrued; and he hoped, by a very short historical retrospect, to be able to make an unanswerable case for the reconsideration of this question. He made no claim whatever on the ground of law. If the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India had been consulting his lawyers, and had been drawing up an elaborate legal answer to him (Mr. King), he would make the hon. Gentleman a present of that argument. He (Mr. King) gave away the whole case. He made no claim whatever on the ground of law, admitting that, legally, the position of the Government was unassailable. So was the position of Shylock. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India was going to demand his pound of flesh in the same spirit as Shylock—the spirit that guided every Jew money lender. ["Oh, oh!"] He trusted the House would pardon him if, feeling somewhat strongly upon this subject, he desired to make the House feel it in the same way. His object was to put the matter as

      1611
      clearly as he saw it himself. He wished the House to listen to Rule 2 of the Civil Pension Code. It ran as follows:—
      "The The Government reserves to itself the rights of changing the Rules of the Code from time to time, at its discretion, and of interpreting their meaning. An officer's claim to pension is good by the Rules in force at the time when he resigns, or is discharged from the service of the Government; he is not entitled to concessions withdrawn before or made after his requisition or discharge."
      He did not see, with a Rule like this Rule 2 of the Civil Pension Code, any case could ever arise against the Government of the day. It would be simply impossible to go into Court, whatever the regulations might be; but he wished to try to argue the matter upon higher grounds. He wished to see and to ask the House to consider what the obvious intentions of the contracting parties were at the time they entered into their contract. He wished the House to assume in this matter the attitude which would be taken by any two honourable men, meeting 30 years after service, to revise a contract made 30 or 40 years before. He thought the House would admit that that was a fair and equitable way of putting it. No doubt, if the Government insisted upon their pound of flesh and refused to yield to his persuasion, he could not sustain his case against them as a matter of right; but he did maintain that the obvious intention of the parties at the time they made the contract was a very material factor. Up to 1855, up to the 19th May of that year, the Uncovenanted Servants always received half-pay or one-third pay as pension, and this often amounted, the House would be surprised to learn, to as much as £1,200 per annum. But the Uncovenanted Service had been growing, and the Court of Directors of the old East India Company met at the beginning of 1855 to consider what was a fair scale of pensions to establish for future use. They spent considerable time upon the subject, and they went to great pains to investigate it, and they came to the conclusion that a fair maximum pension was, as they expressed it, £500, or 5,000 rupees, per annum, and the other pensions £400, or 4,000 rupees, and £200, or 2,000 rupees. The Despatch of the 28th February, 1855, he would read, as it
      1612
      was rather interesting from the wording of it. They wrote—
      "We concur in thinking the present Rule to be defective, and we desire that a clause be introduced providing (as respects persons hereafter appointed to the Service) that in no case shall a larger pension than £400 per annum be granted to Uncovenanted Servants receiving salaries of Rs. 700 to Rs. 1,000 a-month, nor a larger pension than £500 per annum to Uncovenanted Servants receiving salaries above that amount, whether that retirement be from ill-health (after either 20 or 30 years' service) or without a medical certificate after 35 years' service, under the authority conveyed in our despatch of 5th May, 1854, No. 18."
      The House would notice that in the case of the pension of £500 to Uncovenanted Servants, the sum was absolutely set forth in sterling. Well, in accordance with these Orders, the Government of India published a Resolution, under date the 19th May, 1855, by which officers of the Public Works Department were admitted to the benefit of the Pension Rules, and it was added that—
      "In no case (as respects persons hereafter appointed to the Uncovenanted Service) shall a larger pension than £100 or Rs. 4,000 per annum be granted to Uncovenanted Servants receiving salaries of Rs. 750 to Rs. 1,000 a-month, nor a larger pension than £500 or Rs. 5,000 per annum to Uncovenanted Servants receiving salaries above that amount, whether the retirement be from ill-health (after either 20 or 30 years' service), or without a medical certificate after 35 years' service."
      He pointed this out to the House in order to show that the words pounds and rupees, in their proportionate values, were absolutely interchangeable. As time went on, the Uncovenanted Servants wished to have their pensions paid in this country, and undoubtedly that was the transaction upon which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State would chiefly rely. The Uncovenanted Servants applied to the Secretary of State to allow them to have their pensions paid in sterling. They were told by the Secretary of State that hitherto the pensions had been paid in India, and in that statement the Setary of State was quite correct. They had only been paid in rupees up to that time. The despatch entered into particulars, and went on to say—
      "The rate of exchange is an important consideration in regard to payment in England. Her Majesty's Government will not now fix any permanent rate for the purpose, but as a rate of exchange, based on the intrinsic value of the

      1613
      rupee and the market price of bills, is annually fixed in communication with the Lords of the Treasury for the adjustment of transactions between the British and Indian Exchequers, which rate is applied to family remittances of officers serving in India, the same rate appears to be equitable for the payment in England of the pensions of Uncovenanted Servants, and is therefore to be adopted."
      Now, he wished the House to see what was in the official mind at that time. The rupee in 1861 and 1862 had been up to 2s. 2d. and 2s. 3d., and in the official mind it was evident that it was thought it might go up to 2s. 4d. or 2s. 6d.; but he would undertake to say that not a single man connected with India or with this country at at that time ever expected the rupee to descend to as low a rate as 1s. 4d. It had, however, descended to 1s. 4d.; indeed, it had gone below that the other day, and when the House saw that the difference between 2s. and ls. 4d. in the value of the rupee was a difference of 30 per cent of the incomes of those living in this country and drawing pensions from the Indian Government, it would be admitted that this was really a serious matter; 1s. 4d. was the official rate—that was to say, the rate fixed for family remittances and other transactions for the coming year by the Treasury. That was what was officially considered to be an equitable rate; but, to his mind, the equitable rate was 2s., because the Court of Directors had said that the maximum pension should be £500 or Rs. 5,000. If the higher rate had been fixed, the transaction would have been equitable, but the low rate of 1s. 4d. was not equitable. For 10 years from 1864 the rate of exchange on the rupee did not vary a penny, but from 1874 to 1888 there had been a steady downward progress, year in and year out, and at the end of the year the rupee had almost invariably fallen lower than at the beginning of the year, and he was sorry to say he could see no prospect of any end coming to that process. What had been the result of this fall in value of the rupee, so far as the Uncovenanted Civil Servants were concerned? Why, the maximum Civil Service pension, which the Court of Directors of the old Company had fixed at £500, had fallen down to no more than £320. These Directors had spoken of £500. They were English gentlemen sitting in Leadenhall Street, and speaking
      1614
      of the currency of this country, and giving expression to everyday ideas with regard to that currency. When people spoke of a sum of money in this country, they did not speak of rupees, but of pounds; and in that way the Court of Directors had stated that they considered an equitable maximum pension to be £500 a-year. Well, did his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India mean to argue that £320 a-year was an adequate maximum pension for 35 years' work in a tropical climate in the highest official position? Would he maintain that view if the rupee went down to 1s. Would he still, in order to be logical, exact his pound of flesh? That was the point to which the hon. Gentleman must devote his attention. He (Mr. King) was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were not, as a rule, very favourable to pensions, and certainly not to increasing them, would not answer the question in the same way as his hon. Friend. It was a common thing for the people who had not studied this question to say that the fall in the rate of exchange was due to the depreciation in the value of silver. That was a very easy way of getting out of the difficulty. This was one of those cases where people desired to give a reason for taking a certain course, and gave a reason without exactly knowing what it was, simply to get rid of the difficulty. Now he, for one, did not believe that the fall in the value of the rupee was due to the fall in the value of silver. To a certain extent, no doubt, it was; but he contended that the great, the extreme fall in the value of the rupee was due to the direct action of the Government. It was due to the increase of Home Charges. There was no one acquainted with the theory of foreign exchanges—the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the greatest authority on the subject, and he (Mr. King) believed the right hon. Gentleman would bear him out in this—that there was no one acquainted with the theory of foreign exchanges who would contend for one moment that the exchange would not fall when the amount of bills offered for sale was largely in excess of the demand, and the result of increasing year by year the Home Charges was to bring that state of things about—namely, to cause a larger and

      1615
      larger number of bills to be thrown upon the market. He was not going to detain the House with a lecture on foreign exchanges at that hour of the evening, because the fall did not affect his argument; but he trusted the House would believe that he knew something upon the subject, seeing that it lay in the direction of his own business. He maintained, therefore, that one large cause of the decrease in value of the rupee was the development of Home Charges. What was the position of the Government in the matter? He took it that their position was to be compared in some degree to that of the landlord in regard to the agricultural tenant. Did the House not think that if a landlord was called upon, because there had been a fall in the value of produce, to make a reduction in rent, that the Government should also be called upon to make some reduction in the loss which the Civil Service pensioner suffered on account of the depreciation of the rupee? So far as the Government themselves were concerned, even if they did suffer from the fall in the rate of exchange directly, there was no doubt that indirectly they gained very considerably. It had brought about a bonus on the export trade, which had increased the wealth of India and its taxpaying power; and that being so, it did seem to him that the Government, in a case like this, ought properly to be called upon to jump into the breach. He imagined, if the proposal he put forward were adopted, there would be no reason for taking the extreme view that fresh taxation would be required. Only a little economy would be necessary. The total amount required, as shown in the answer given by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India, in reply to a Question put to him a year ago, was about £20,000 per annum. Now, the abolition of the India Council would supply that. Perhaps the House was unaware that India was rich enough to spend two lachs of rupees extra last year on the Viceregal tour, over and above the amount allowed. Those acquainted with Indian affairs would know something about the annual migration of the Indian Government to Simla; they would know something about the new palace, which had cost something like 13 lachs, or£113,000; and he believed that at that moment the
      1616
      Secretary of State for India had his mind very much troubled with the question of the erection of a new Town Hall at Simla, which was to cost four lachs of rupees. Under such circumstances, he thought his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India would not be able to take refuge under the plea of poverty, and he did not think that it would break the back of the Indian Government to carry out his (Mr. King's) proposals. He thought if the Indian Government had come down to its £20,000, it had better shut up shop altogether. The Indian Government were not the only people who would have to deal with this fall in exchange. There were other employers of labour besides the Government who had to deal with it, and it would, perhaps, be worth while to consider what they had done. He might, perhaps, be allowed to say what he himself had done with his European employés similarly situated with those of the Government. He had—not since he started this agitation in the House, but when the fall in exchange first manifested itself—when his employés came home, which they were allowed to do once in five years, he had allowed them a free passage and half-pay. They submitted to him that they could not live comfortably or enjoy themselves when they had come home on their half-pay at the prevailing rate of exchange, and as a result he had fixed the exchange at 2s. the rupee. Why on earth could not the Indian Governmant do the same? He did not do it out of plailanthrophy; he did it as much in his own interest as in that of his employés, and because he wished his people to be well treated. Then this argument was put forward—it was true that the maximum pension had fallen, through the fall in the rate of exchange, from £500 to £300, but that £300 a-year now was equal to £500 in 1874; but that was a plutocrat's argument entirely, and was a thoroughly ridiculous one in the face of the charges which had to be met for rent, servants, schooling, insurance, and so on; and even if there was anything in that contention, it did not touch his argument that when these people contracted to enter the Service, they contracted that they should get for their maximum pension £500 per annum. The amount fixed upon as equitable was £500, and

      1617
      not £300. He believed lawyers said that the making of a contract was when the intentions of the two parties met, and although he was not a lawyer he could very well understand that that must be so. When the minds of two parties came together to one identical point, then the contract was made, and as the House had seen, in this case, the contract was for a maximum pension of £500 and not £300. There was one argument which had been used which he did not wish to lay undue stress upon, and he did not wish to ascribe to it the virtue of imposing any legal obligation upon the Government, but he quoted it as illustrating his argument as to what the intention of the parties was when they entered into the contract. He wanted to ask the House, as a body of fair straightforward Englishmen, what they, as young men going out to India to take service, would have thought of such a statement as that to which he was about to draw attention. A young man, when asked to go out to take service there, was asked to do it under the big book of the Codes of the Financial Department. No young man would read that book through, but he would gather the gist of it and accept service accordingly. The following note, by some officious clerk, but one who evidently had in his mind what was intended by the authorities on the subject of the pensions, was printed in the Official Pension Code:—
      "Whenever in the following Resolution a pension is stated in sterling, the equivalent in rupees is meant, at 2s. the rupee, which had been at that time, for several years, the fixed rate of exchange for the adjustment of financial transactions between the Imperial and Indian Governments."
      Then let them turn to the Cooper's Hill Prospectus. It was there stated in one part, in speaking of the office of Assistant Engineer, second grade—
      "The salary of which grade is Rs. 4,200 (about £420) per annum, and the remaining one-tenth as Assistant Engineer; third grade, the salary of which grade is Rs. 3,000 (about £300) per annum."
      and further on, in a note to a paragraph on the various ranks of the Department of Engineers and their salaries, it was declared—
      "Ten rupees are nearly equivalent in value to one pound sterling."
      Further on, again, it was stated that
      1618
      after a service of 25 years a pension was to be allowed—
      "Not exceeding one-half of the officer's average emoluments; and also not exceeding Rs. 5,000 a-year, or, if his average emoluments do not exceed Rs. 12,000 a-year, Rs. 4,000 a-year."
      He would ask the House, whether, if they had had a prospect offered to them of going out to India on these terms, they would not have imagined that at the end of their service, seeing that 10 rupees was said to be equal to £1, they would have been in receipt of a pension of £500 a-year as the equivavalent of 5,000 rupees. It would be found the pensions, as opposed to pay and allowances, was always stated in sterling in the Code until this question as to the rate of exchange arose, when it was thought that inconvenience might arise from the old method and the system was changed. As an illustration of the way in which the Indian Government dealt with this question, he thought that hon. Members would remember the Question he had put in the House on the subject of Colonels' allowances. There were certain Colonels in the Service who, at a certain time, had attained to a salary of £1,100 a-year. Well, 12 of these gentlemen out of 420 had elected to live in India; and a very excellent thing for India it was, and it should be the policy of that country to encourage people who had lived there the best part of their lives to take up their permanent abode there. Well, they found that while taking the rupee at the lowest rate in this country, the Government took it at the highest rate going in India, thus mulcting the 12 gentlemen to whom he had referred of one-third of their incomes, the rupee being valued at 2s. 0½d. The depreciation of silver, he believed, had led to a great deal of correspondence between the Government Departments at home and in India and English Shipping Companies doing business with the East. Certain seamen had been in the habit of signing contracts to the effect that if paid in India they should be paid in rupees, and that the rupee should be taken as equivalent to 2s. The result of that was that sailors discharged in Bombay, for instance, received very much less than they would have done if discharged in England. Lord Lytton, Lord Ripon and Lord Dufferin had successively protested

      1619
      against the custom, and had urged that legislation should be undertaken in England, where the agreements were made, to make void the stipulations complained of, and though it was thought, in the year 1882, that the difficulty could be got over by thoroughly explaining the state of the case, before signing articles, as late as October last the Indian Government wrote to Lord Cross asking if nothing could be done
      "In the matter of payment of seamen's wages in India, at a rate of exchange which really deprived them of a quarter of the amount which they believed they had earned?"
      The Government document from which he was quoting went on to say—
      "We cannot but consider it objectionable that our officers should be compelled to assist at and sanction, as part of their official duties, the execution of agreements which involve such injustice."
      He (Mr. King) declared that the views he expressed with regard to pensions were views supported, years and years ago, by some of the greatest authorities in India. Lord Lawrence's Government were in favour of increasing the amount of the pensions. Sir Stafford Northcote, when Secretary of State for India, said on the 2nd July, 1868, in a Despatch to the Governor General in Council—
      "As regards any advance in the rates of pay or of pension, I must leave it to your Government to submit to me any proposals which, after full consideration of the relative clauses of this and other branches of the Service, you may think fit to adopt. I shall be prepared to entertain them in a liberal spirit."
      The Government of India, in reply, wrote that they thought a new graduated scale should be introduced for regulating the pensions of her Majesty's Uncovenanted Civil Servants in India. They said that the Furlough Committee, whose Report they annexed to their despatch, proposed to limit the pensions of the Indian Service to 30–60ths of the salary, and also to fix an absolute limit of £600 per annum for the full pension, and proportionately lesser sums for pensions granted under medical certificate before the completion of 30 years' service. They said, further on—
      "Moreover, £600 is the maximum pension granted to Covenanted Civil Servants, and we may remark that in the case of Uncovenanted Service, this maximum will only be attained in exceptional cases."
      The suggestion which was made by the
      1620
      Government of India was disregarded. He (Mr. King) urged the House to consider the tendency the system of paying low pensions had to block promotion. If men had no inducement to retire, and dare not face the risks of retiring, they would hang on to the Service long after the period had passed at which they were fit for effective service. If the House would think of the effect on other members of the Service of such a block in promotion, they would see other reasons for dealing with the matter more liberally than the India Office saw at present. He trusted the Government would answer the question as to whether they were going to deal with this matter of pensions in any way. He would ask the House whether it was not clear, from what he had said, that it was cruel to apply this official Rule as to exchange to Indian Civil servants who resided in this country, men who, after 35 years of hard work in India—in a tropical climate—retired at a pension which would certainly not be excessive in amount, even if it were calculated at 2s. to the rupee? Those men saw, year after year, their incomes dwindling away—incomes of £500 becoming £320, incomes of £400 becoming £250, and incomes of £200 becoming £133. Why, a man, under such circumstances, must live in absolute torture—he could imagine no torture equal to that of the man watching the diminishing rate of exchange under such circumstances. He had read, and many in that House remembered the story, of the prisoner who, day by day, saw his cell becoming less as first one window and then another disappeared. He could imagine that somewhat similar feelings to those experienced by this man were experienced by those unfortunate pensioners as they saw one penny after one penny fall off the rate. He thought the House could hardly have any idea of what this fall in exchange meant. They could hardly imagine how terrible was the uncertainty to any man in such a position who, at the close of his life, desired to settle his little scheme of existence. How was he to know that that which was sufficient for this year would be sufficient for the next? How was he to guess what his next year's income would be? One luxury after another—nay, almost one necessary after another—had to be cut

      1621
      off, and one economy after another had to be practised. A constant struggle had to be made in order to keep up the insurance premiums by which those poor pensioners hoped to keep their families from penury. He had himself seen the sacrifices those people had to make to keep alive their insurance. He had seen them with tears in their eyes looking up here and there the few pounds necessary to save their policies. With such painful scenes coming under his notice the House would not be surprised if he asked himself whether such treatment was creditable on the part of a civilized Government? Then, who had made these arrangements which pressed so hardly upon those old officers?—too old to protect themselves; whose days for energetic struggle for existence had gone by; who had earned, if anybody had done so, by long years of toil a short period of rest before they passed away? The men who made these regulations were living in luxury, hedged in and protected from similar experiences by the rules they themselves had made. He asked the House to remember that it was in their service that these Civil Service pensioners had been worn out in body and in brain. Thirty-five years' work in India was not to be done without such terrible outpouring of strength that few of these men were capable of coming home and beginning life afresh in some new avocation, so as to add to their small incomes. The House would forgive him if he spoke strongly, because he felt strongly. He had himself seen the protracted agony of this struggle; he had sat by the deathbed of the hopes of some of these men; and from the hardness of official and technical rules, and from the rigidity of legal phrases, he appealed to the House—he appealed to the sense of justice of every Member of it. He knew the hon. Member the Under Secretary of State for India would state his case with a clearness and in a style with which he (Mr. King) felt himself unworthy to compete. He knew he could not compete with the hon. Gentleman in dialectics and in argument. He (Mr. King), who was "no orator as Brutus was," could but state his case. He had tried to do it to the best of his ability—to put it plainly before the House—and if the hon. Gentleman did demonstrate, however clearly and de-
      1622
      cisively and logically, that the Government of India were within the four corners of their contract and within the letter of their bond, it was no more than he himself had told them. He had told them that his hon. Friend was entitled to his pound of flesh; but he believed that he would not make his appeal in vain, and that a result satisfactory to those aged servants of the State would yet be won from the kind and generous instincts of the House of Commons.
      Amendment proposed,
      To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is inequitable and anomalous that privileges as regards leave and retirement should be refused to some classes of Officers in the Uncovenanted Civil Service of India which are enjoyed by others in similar circumstances; and that, in view of the heavy fall in the value of the rupee, the payment of pensions of retired European Uncovenanted Officers in England at the official rate of exchange is no longer equitable,"—(Mr. King,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      COLONEL HILLsaid, he had the honour to rise generally to support the Motion which his hon. Friend the Member for Central Hull (Mr. King) had laid before the House. The hon. Member had stated his case with much clearness, with much detail, and with much eloquence. Therefore, he (Colonel Hill) felt it would be becoming in him to offer as few observations as he could, and not to detain the House a moment more than was necessary on the matter. He proposed to confine the few observations he did offer to the question of the payment of pensions to the Civil Engineers in the Indian Service. There were two classes of Engineers. There was the first class, called the "Stanley," established in 1859, and who did most of the work until Cooper's Hill College was instituted in 1871. He had ventured to bring the case of the payment of the pensions of these Engineers before the House last Session on the Indian Estimates, and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India was good enough to offer his compassion, but did not propose to give any direct relief to the grievances which he (Colonel Hill) had put before him. No doubt, the compassion of so distinguished and so kind-hearted a man

      1623
      as the Secretary of State was very valuable and very consoling, but it did not help the unfortunate Engineers of India to pay their bakers or their landlords or their schoolmasters, and he (Colonel Hill) did hope that, after this discussion, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State would be able to see his way to offering something more than mere compassion. But he (Colonel Hill) did not appeal to the House for its compassion at all. He ventured to base his appeal to them on their sense of justice, and that alone. He did not think this honourable House would be deaf to the appeal made to that sense of justice, and he believed they would feel that it was not consonant with the honour of this great country to take advantage of a mere dry legal position to effect an economy which their neighbours in France would designate, very properly, an économie de bouts de chandelles. He must say he did not think it would be to the interests of the country to do so. He held in his hand a document 20 years old, brought to his notice by one of the Stanley Engineers, entitled Rules for the Information of Candidates Employed under the Engineer's Establishment. It was upon that document that that gentleman, and many other gentlemen, made up their minds whether they would or would not accept service under the Government of India. His (Colonel Hill's) contention was that this document led the candidates to understand that one of the conditions under which they undertook the service was that at the end of 30 years, if their conduct was satisfactory and their service meritorious, they would receive pensions of £500 a-year. To convey that belief was the intention, and he was borne out in saying that by the fact that the figures were given as Rs. 1,300 or £130, Rs. 2,000 or £200, Rs. 4,000 or £400. He had also an official document, presented by an official Department in India, to which some allusion had been made. He referred to Despatch No. 205, p. 8, sections 13, 14, 16 and 20, where pensions were alluded to in pounds sterling. Again, in the orders of the Government, in Despatch 135, of the 1st July, 1870, paragraphs 2, 3 and 8, pensions were mentioned in pounds sterling, as also in paragraph 12, sections 1 and 3. He would not trouble the House with reading these extracts; but he would
      1624
      say this, that no fair-minded man could possibly read these documents without coming to the conclusion that it was fairly given to these gentlemen to understand that they were to have a maximum pension on retirement of £500 a-year, and that the intention of giving them that pension was always in the mind of the Government. That paragraph, or rather note, which an officious clerk was supposed to have introduced, had been alluded to. That note was deserving of the attention of the House, as it clearly showed that in the mind of the Government, when the original arrangement was made, 10 rupees were to equal one pound sterling. In the Uncovenanted Service there were many individuals who were Natives, and that would probably account for the fact that rupees were mentioned; otherwise in the whole transaction, the payment might only have been recognized in pounds sterling. It had been said that both Natives and Europeans were to be placed on the same footing and treated in the same way. That, he ventured to think, was a very proper thing to do originally, but it was not so now. The rupee in India, as he was informed, retained the same purchasing power that it used to have, and therefore the Natives received their pensions exactly as they had been led to believe they would receive them. The European, however, had to put up with a depreciated rupee. Well, the present rate of Exchange on Government transactions was ls. 5d. on the rupee. It was only fixed for six months, instead of twelve—for the reason, presumably, that the Government anticipated a further depreciation—and, at that rate, pensions of £500 only amounted to £334. Could it, he asked, be to the public interest to have an important class of public servants smarting under what the House must feel to be, at all events, a great disappointment to them? How was it possible, how could anyone expect that the State would receive the best services of these men when they conceived themselves to be suffering a grievance? He felt quite sure that these servants, if they did not get some redress, would feel themselves forced, in justice to themselves and their families, to seek for opportunities to abandon the Indian Public Service in order to find some other form of service to provide them with

      1625
      the means of living in decency and comfort. The services of the Civil Engineers had often been acknowledged. It could not be gainsaid that these men had performed their duties well. Now, he argued, as had been argued before, that pension was simply deferred pay. The House would be perfectly well aware that if they advertised for the services of a gentleman and proposed to give him a pension at the end of a given number of years' service, the salary would be fixed at a lower figure than it would if they left the man to make provision for the future himself. It appeared to him (Colonel Hill) utterly indefensible that the Government should take advantage of the unfortunate depressed state of the rupee, and give these Uncovenanted Servants their pensions the lowest possible. The very least that common justice and fairness demanded was that an average should be struck. But the Civil Engineers were no longer designated Uncovenanted Servants. In a despatch, dated March, 1883, it was ordered that the title should no longer be used in respect to these men. If they were not Uncovenanted Servants, they must be Covenanted Servants, and, like them, should be paid in sterling. It must be extremely galling to these public servants to find themselves working alongside men not in a superior position—their brethren of the Royal Engineers—who received their pensions in sterling, while they were compelled to take their pensions in a depreciated currency. He trusted the House would accede to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Central Hull (Mr. King), and that justice might be done to a very deserving class of public servants, with whom the House must sympathize. He trusted the House would feel that in doing justice to these servants they were doing justice to themselves and their country; he heartily endorsed the remark of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Hull, that they could not have good and faithful servants unless they treated them in a fair and equitable way.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)said, he thought that the Uncovenanted Servants were to be congratulated upon having secured so eloquent an advocate of their cause as the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. King).
      1626
      It was impossible that their case could have been put more forcibly and clearly, and there was no need for the hon. Member to say—"I am no orator, as Brutus is." He agreed with every word of praise that had been said of the Uncovenanted Services, and if it was his painful duty, as the Representative of the Indian taxpayers, to oppose this Motion, he hoped the hon. Member would not think it was from any want of sympathy for the trouble of his clients. In one respect the hon. Member was mistaken. This question had received the anxious consideration of the Secretary of State and himself, and of those fossil Indians, as the hon. Member called them, the Members of the Council. He must remind the House that there were two sides to this question. The hon. Member had spoken as if the Uncovenanted Civil Service consisted exclusively of Europeans, whereas the bulk of them were Natives. And although the Europeans among them found many advocates in that House, the Natives were in a very different position, and it was his duty to represent their interests and feelings. In one Department, for example—the executive and judicial—there were 139 Europeans only, and 2,449 Natives. The Natives viewed the matter in a very different light from the hon. Member. Many of them thought that they ought to have the whole, or nearly the whole, of the highest places in the Uncovenanted Service to themselves, and made it a grievance that any difference at all should exist between themselves and Europeans. They thought it unfair that Europeans should receive more pay for the same work. He gave this as an exaggerated view on the side opposed to that of the hon. Member the Government of India rightly considered that it was now, and would be for many years, the highest interest of India that in all Departments of the Public Service, and especially in the higher grades, there should be a strong leaven of Europeans, and the Government was desirous of maintaining the existing advantages to the European servants, so as to make the Service attractive. But he warned his hon. Friend and the House that at any time unduly to extend the privileges of the European servants might give rise to such action as might cause the distinction between

      1627
      Europeans and Natives to be swept away. The House ought to remember the great distinction between the Covenanted and Uncovenanted branches. The former was an Imperial service, open by competitive examination to all the Queen's subjects, British, Indian, and Colonial. The Uncovenanted branch was recruited mainly in India, by a great variety of means. Some were appointed by competition of a less stringent kind than the examination for the Covenanted Service; some by pure nomination on the part of the Secretary of State, the Government of India, or the local governments; and others, again, were trained in some such institution as Cooper's Hill, or went straight from school. If those gentlemen preferred the wider and easier gate of the Uncovenanted Service to the narrower and more difficult entrance by the Covenanted Service to the Indian Public Service, they had no right to complain that they were treated upon different terms from those who were Covenanted Servants. The hon. Member had referred to the Report of the Public Service Commission, which had been appointed in consequence of the strong expression of feeling on the part of the Natives of India that they were entitled to a larger share in the government of their country. The Public Service Commission was a body consisting not only of Covenanted Servants, but of Uncovenanted Servants, independent persons, and Natives, so that it was a thoroughly representative body, in which the Natives of India and the people of this country had every confidence. The Commission sat in India, and it had heard a vast amount of evidence, and its Report was now under the consideration of the Indian Government. It would, therefore, be unbecoming of him to express any opinion upon that Report until the views of the Government of India with regard to it had been received. But one of the main proposals of that Report was to organize in India a provincial service for the different Presidencies in which Europeans and Natives were to be employed upon identical conditions. In these circumstances it would be very rash on his part were he to express any opinion as to whether it was desirable or not to place the Uncovenanted Servants upon the same footing as the Covenanted Servants. Having said so
      1628
      much on the question in a preliminary and a general sense, he would now proceed to address himself to the two particular points which the hon. Member had brought before the House—namely, those which related to the pension rules and to the payment of the pensions in rupees instead of in pounds sterling. Up to 1872 all the servants of the Indian Government who did not belong to the Covenanted Civil Service were treated very unfavourably by the rules, on the ground that, instead of being recruited in England, they were recruited in India, and were, therefore, not exposed to the penalties of exile from home. But in 1872 new rules were made, under which those who had entered the Service before that date were more favourably treated. The hon. Member had said that there were anomalies in the Service. No doubt there were, because there were anomalies in the treatment of officials in the Public Service of every civilized nation. He fully admitted that the Public Works and Telegraph Departments in India had been treated with exceptional favour; but he was afraid that the result of any agitation founded upon that fact would be to inaugurate a system rather of levelling down than of levelling up. No doubt the strong point which had been made by the hon. Member was that which related to the question of pensions. With regard to that point, he should like to remind the House that in 1822 even the Covenanted Civil Service had no pensions. But from that date 4 per cent of the salary of every Covenanted Civil Servant was deducted to form a pension fund, and a similar sum was added by the East India Company to that fund. Therefore, the Covenanted Civil Servants contributed towards their own pensions, which the Uncovenanted Service did not. As to the payment of the pensions in rupees instead of in pounds sterling, the hon. Member for Hull admitted that his clients had no legal claim to be paid in sterling instead of in rupees. That was undisputed; and he would ask what business had a Government which represented the poor people of India to make, out of sheer generosity, to one section of its servants, a present of this concession to which those servants did not even profess to have a legal claim? Before 1862 the pension of the Uncovenanted Servants could be drawn only in India? and they

      1629
      had to employ an agent in India to draw it and remit it to this country. At that time a pound sterling and 10 rupees were convertible terms. But in 1862 new pension rules were made, and one of them, rule 18, was this—
      "An officer shall on retirement have the option of drawing his pension either in India or from the home Treasury. The payments in England will be made at the rate of exchange which is annually fixed in communication with the Lords of the Treasury for the adjustment of transactions between the British and Indian Exchequers."
      In 1871 there was the first fall in exchange, and then the recipients of pensions at home were paid on a lower scale. A question was raised on the subject, and on the 10th of August, 1871, the Duke of Argyll wrote the following dispatch:—
      "Letters having been received from persons drawing pensions in this country under the Uncovenanted Service Pension Rules complaining of the recent reduction in the rate of exchange at which such pensions are paid, I have to point out that, prior to the rules of 1863–4, pensions granted to uncovenanted servants were only payable in India, and that, although by section 18 of those rules an option is given of drawing the pension either in India or at the home Treasury, it is at the same time provided that the payments in England will be made at the rate of exchange annually fixed for the adjustment of transactions between the British and Indian Exchequers."
      The Civil Pension Code of 1872 said—
      "A pension is payable at any Treasury in India or at the home Treasury in London. Payments at the home Treasury are made quarterly at the rate of exchange which is annually fixed for the adjustment of transactions between the British and Indian Exchequers."
      Could anything, then, be more plain than that if the pensions were to be paid in England it was distinctly laid down that they should be paid at that rate of exchange? He hoped he had established to the satisfaction of the House that the right to draw pensions in England was a concession, and that they were to be drawn at the rate of exchange fixed for the adjustment of transactions between the two Treasuries. The Government of India argued that the pension bore a proportion to the pay, and that in India that proportion was higher than in almost any other country in the world. It was almost one-half, and if you turned those pensions into sterling money at the rate of 10 rupees to the pound sterling you made them more than one-half and enhanced them out of all proportion to the pay. Another argument
      1630
      was, that in recent times several branches of the service, engineer officers and others, had had enhanced pensions granted them because of the fall in the exchange. If those officers were to obtain a larger number of rupees was it reasonable that they should demand that this increased number should be paid at more than the annual rate of exchange? He hoped the House would remember, before assenting to a Resolution like this, that we could not stop at the paltry £20,000 to which the hon. Gentleman referred. You could not restrict a privilege of this kind to the officers resident in England; you must extend it to the officers in India; and where you paid now 620,000 tens of rupees, if the proposal of the hon. Member was carried into effect, that sum would be enhanced by 100,000 or 150,000 tens of rupees. The hon. Member said that low pensions prevented officers from retiring; but to enhance pensions was to offer to these officers direct temptation to retire earlier, and thus the non-effective charge would be swelled by earlier retirements and more numerous pensions. Moreover, officers in active service as well as those who had retired were suffering from the fall in exchange. There was not an officer who was not more or less crippled in his needs owing to that particular cause, and if the House once yielded to the compassion which the hon. Member for Hull had so eloquently put forward, how could they restrict it to the case of pensioners who had retired and refuse it to those still in actual service? And, not only the Uncovenanted Civil Servants but the Government of India itself and the impoverished people of India had suffered by the fall in the rupee, and, in consequence, the Salt Tax had had to be increased. How inconsistent it would be for the House at the beginning of the Session to be lamenting because the Government of India had to extract more money from the pockets of the poverty-stricken Indian taxpayers, and then, when the Session was well advanced, to pass a Resolution which would saddle them on behalf of the retired Uncovenanted Civil Servants with further taxation still? He observed many hon. Gentlemen present who had distinguished themselves by their criticism of English pensions, and who would not suffer anything more in the shape of pensions than the State was

      1631
      under obligation to pay. Would they be so inconsistent as to vote for a Resolution which confessedly asked the House to pay something which the State was under no obligation whatever to pay, and to pay these additional sums of money merely in the name of compassion? He sympathized as much as the hon. Member for Hull with the people who found themselves in the position of not having the income to which they had been accustomed; but the House must remember that they were dealing not with their own money but as trustees of money contributed by the poor people of India, and, however much they might sympathize with a deserving and estimable class of men, Parliament ought not to cast upon the people of India burdens which they could not justly be called upon to pay.
      MR. MACNEILLsaid, he warmly supported the Resolution. The question was not one that could be touched by the mere broad principles of political economy. Nor did he understand the analogy sought to be drawn by the Under Secretary between English and Indian pensions. English pensions were overpaid, Indian pensions were underpaid. English pensions were granted for nothing, Indian pensions represented underpaid work done by men who, at the end of 40 years' were relegated to genteel starvation for promoting the service of the Empire at the expense of health, absence from home, and all the embarrassments which prolonged residence in a dreadful climate involved. He denied that the effect of acceding to the Resolution would be to draw a distinction between European and Native servants, else he would vote against it; and urged that, although there might not be a legal contract in the matter, there was what was equally binding—an honourable understanding. In referring to the anomalies which existed in the treatment of Europeans appointed in this country and those appointed in India, he showed that a person appointed in India by the patronage of the Governor General did not obtain a furlough for 10 years, getting then one year; while the person appointed in England by the patronage of the India Office, received two years' furlough out of eight years. Besides, all the privileges asked for the Uncovonanted Service were, in point of fact,
      1632
      enjoyed by some members of that service—such, for instance, as the Telegraph and Public Works Department. Why should such an invidious distinction be made? The existence of these distinctions in treatment gave rise to heartburnings which were prejudicial to the interests of the Service.
      MR. E. B. HOAREsaid, he listened, and he believed the House listened with very great interest to the very able speech in which his hon. Friend the Member for Central Hull (Mr. King) pleaded the cause of his clients, the members of the Uncovenanted Service. He also listened with very great interest to the very able speech in which the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) pleaded the cause of his clients—the taxpayers of India; and if the House was at all reduced to the same frame of mind as himself, they would agree with him that the House of Commons was a tribunal perfectly incompetent to judge between the two. It was utterly impossible in his opinion for the House to say which of the two hon. Members was right. The hon. Member for Central Hull had made out a very strong case. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State had stood upon the legal rights. The legal rights no one disputed; but were they to be taken as the sole test in this matter? It seemed very hard to the Uncovenanted Servants to say that the legal rights should be the test. There was very little doubt that the Uncovenanted Servants entered into a contract which they believed, and which their employers believed, meant a pension of £500 a-year. Whether that was the case or not, he felt he had very inaccurate data to rely upon. He, therefore, most earnestly begged the hon. Gentleman who represented the Government of India to grant what he was sure would satisfy his hon. Friend the Member for Central Hull, some inquiry into the matter. All that was desired was that justice should be done. The hon. Gentleman who Moved the Resolution did not desire to impose an additional burden of £20,000 or of £1,000 needlessly upon the taxpayers of India, neither did he desire that a body of deserving servants of the public should end their days grumbling and dissatisfied. Let the matter be cleared up once for all, and let everybody be satisfied. If hon.

      1633
      Members of the House felt that their wisdom was equal to settling the matter straight off, they must feel themselves very much wiser than he felt himself to be. He was satisfied there was a case for inquiry; but that that House ought not to try by off-hand action to settle the rates of pension for those servants. He very strongly urged the Government to grant an inquiry, in whatever form they might think best, which would satisfy the hon. Member for Central Hull and, he was sure, the House.
      MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, that the hon. Member for Central Hull (Mr. King), in support of his case, went upon the unprecedented discontent and alarm which he said pervaded the Uncovenanted. Service of India. He (Mr. Pickersgill) admitted both the discontent and the alarm, but he hoped the House would not believe that they were due solely to the grievances which the hon. Member put before them that night with such expressive eloquence. There was another cause for that discontent and alarm. During recent years we had adopted the policy of calling upon the Natives of India to fill Offices in the State from which they had previously been excluded, and the Uncovenanted Service, which acted as a sort of buffer between the Covenanted Service and the Native Indian officials, was the first to feel the pressure of the new competition, and hence the discontent which, he believed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. King), was unprecedented. The hon. Member was not quite unaware that there was a good deal in what he had just said. It was, he found, about a year ago that the hon. Gentleman asked the Under Secretary of State for India, whether his attention had been called to the expression of alarm in the Indian Press and amongst the Anglo-Indian community, at the course being pursued by the Government of India, owing to which very important changes were contemplated in the organization and conditions of Service, especially in the direction of a large admission of Natives to the important positions of the Service. In that Question he could not perceive any sympathy on the part of the hon. Member with the new policy on which we had embarked. He (Mr. Pickersgill) rejoiced that we had begun to allow the Natives of India to take more important posi-
      1634
      tions in the Service of their own country, and he hoped that the new policy would be steadily and vigorously and rapidly pursued. As an old Civil Servant, he (Mr. Pickersgill) should not be without sympathy for the grievances of the class of which, for a good many years, he was a Member. He assured the hon. Gentleman (Mr. King) that he sympathized to a large extent with those grievances which he very eloquently put before the House a little while ago; but, although he sympathized with the Civil Servants, he had, he felt, another duty to perform. As Members of the House of Commons they all had to guard with peculiar jealousy the interests of that large Indian population which was not directly represented in the House. Personally, he was very anxious to hold the balance even between the Civil Servants on the one hand and the poor taxpayers on the other hand. Their symyathy had been invited for the Civil Servants. But why should they not, with at least equal reason, bestow their pity upon the taxpayers of India? As regarded the Uncovenanted Servants, they had got, at all events, what they bargained for; he believed that that was admitted even by their own advocates. But they had got something more than they bargained for; because he found that only last year a very considerable concession was made to members belonging to this body. He found that up to last year, members of the Uncovenanted Service, leaving that Service after from 10 to 15 years' service, were entitled only to a gratuity. Since last year, the Government had made a concession, and Uncovenanted Servants were now, under the same circumstances, entitled to receive pensions of one-sixth to one-fourth of the salaries they were receiving at the time of leaving. That, he thought, was not an inconsiderable concession, and he mentioned it to show that the Government were not indisposed to listen in no unfriendly spirit to the grievances of the Uncovenanted Servants.
      MR. KINGsaid, he was sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he was bound to point out that that concession was only extended to the Telegraph and Public Works Departments.
      MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, that, at all events, the servants in those Departments were portions of the Uncovenanted Service of India, and the grant-

      1635
      ing of the concession supported the argument that a portion of the Uncovenanted Servants of the Crown had received more than they bargained for. Now, hon. Members upon the Opposition Benches frequently complained of the vast expenditure involved in the administration of our Indian Empire. There was scarcely a writer of authority upon Indian finance who had not pointed with grave distrust and alarm to the enormous cost of the Non-Effective Service of India in particular—a cost which is drawn from India, and which was spent in England. The late Mr. Henry Fawcett, the best friend that India ever had in the House of Commons, said, that taking the figures of the actual expenditure in 1876–7, the latest year for which the figures were available, it appeared that no less an amount than £2,800,000 of the Revenues of India had annually been paid in England in pensions, and he added—
      "The real significance of that drain upon the resources of the country will be understood when it is remembered that the entire net or available revenue is not more than £38,000,000."
      Well, 10 years had elapsed since those words were used by Mr. Fawcett, and he (Mr. Pickersgill) had lately been going through the home accounts of the Indian Government, in order to ascertain how we stood now, taking the figures parallel to those quoted in 1879 by Mr. Fawcett. Mr. Fawcett said that in 1879 £2,800,000 drawn from India was paid in England for the purpose of pension allowances, but the sum was now £3,787,124—that was to say, in the course of 10 years the amount of Indian Revenue paid in England had been increased by something very nearly approaching to £1,000,000 sterling. Well, under these circumstances, he hoped the House would not hastily take a step which would have the effect of increasing the burden upon the Indian people. In the course of this very week, when it was proposed that this House should interfere with the Government of India, the objection was raised—which, he confessed, he thought in that case frivolous—that we were about to interfere by applying a principle which was independent of local considerations, or to institute a change which was not of local application. But here, that night, they had a very different case
      1636
      before them—a very intricate and a very difficult case, and he sincerely hoped that the House would not, upon an ex parte statement, or, at the best, upon any insufficient information, take a step which would add to the burdens of the already heavily taxed people of India.
      SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, he rose with pleasure to support the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Mr. King), and to add his voice to that of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Hoare), in asking the Government to grant them at least a Committee to inquire into this undoubted case of hardship. He supported his hon. Friend's Motion with all the more pleasure, because the hon. Gentleman had declared so clearly that the Motion was intended as no disparagement in any way to those other glorious Services of India—the Covenanted Service and the Military Service—which had done so much for the traditions of the British name in India. But they did, in this Motion, protest against what was merely the survival of the ancient privileges of the Covenanted bureaucracy in India, in so far as they pressed heavily on the Uncovenanted Body. They wished to see an end put to these privileges only in so far as they pressed heavily on the Uncovenanted Body. At that late hour of the evening (11-50 p.m.) he would content himself with dealing with one or two of the points which were raised by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst). That hon. Gentleman called the attention of the House to the fact—or what he said was the fact—that the Natives of India were desirous of, and were capable of, filling many of the appointments now held by English Uncovenanted Servants. Well, to that he would answer at once, that so far as they were able and were qualified to hold those appointments, and were willing to do so, the Government was bound to admit them. Therefore, the Motion of his hon. Friend did not touch that point at all. And, in addition to that, he might say that so far as the pensions of the Native Members of the Uncovenanted Service were concerned, being paid in India, they were at the rate which the Natives had been led to expect, and the same statement, of course,

      1637
      applied to European officers who elected to reside in India after the expiration of their period of service. These officers got their rupees—and the House was perfectly well aware that in India the rupee had not lost its purchasing power. That was the whole point at issue—that the rupee in India had retained its old purchasing power; but that when it was sent home, it had lost it to the extent of something like 30 per cent or more. Further, with regard to the objection of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India, that the Natives might receive these appointments, he would call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the definition that the Government of India itself had laid down as to Uncovenanted appointments now specially referred to. In a despatch which had already been quoted in this debate—the despatch of 4th October, 1870—the Government of India thus described the Service of which they were speaking—
      "It has been established that many important offices cannot ordinarily be filled either by Natives of India or by the officers of the Civil Service or by the Staff Corps."
      That was the Service of which he was speaking. These appointments could not be filled, as the Government of India told them, by the Natives of India. These Uncovenanted Civil Servants were men holding offices of a nature that could not ordinarily be filled even by Covenanted civilians. If these offices the House were dealing with could have been filled by Covenanted civilians, the difficulty would not have arisen. Take only two Departments out of the number mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—take the Department of Public Works, the Engineers—or take the State Professors in the Government Colleges connected with the Education Department there. Surely, they could not send a Covenanted civilian, who had simply passed a competitive examination here on the general results of a liberal education, to build bridges or set up barracks, nor could they be expected, able as they were, to enter the Public Service to lecture to undergraduates of the Calcutta University on the lunar theory or other high subjects of learning. These, he ventured to state, were typical of the services of those for whom they were pleading that evening. These gentlemen were specialists. They fulfilled special duties which could not be fulfilled
      1638
      by any other class of public servants. That was the answer to what he might call the academic objection of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India, when he told them that the Covenanted civilians had their privileges, because they had passed a very difficult examination, whereas these Untovenanted Servants of whom he spoke had not passed this examination. Of course, these Uncovenanted Servants passed no examination; and why? Because examination would be no test whatever of the particular qualifications required in these Uncovenanted Servants. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary would take his (Sir Roper Lethbridge's) word for it that he knew the Education Department of Bengal thoroughly, and that he could say that there were 38 officers of that Department, of whom no less than 20 were first-class graduates of either Oxford or Dublin, or wranglers of Cambridge. Five of those gentlemen in the Calcutta University alone were Fellows of the Colleges of Cambridge. Take the Professors of Mathematics in the Calcutta University. There was, first, Professor Clarke, who was third wrangler at Cambridge in the very year preceding that in which the Under Secretary of State for India took the same distinguished academical position. Then there was the Professor of Literature in that University, Mr. Dawnay, who was a senior classic and Fellow of Trinity College in the same year as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan). These, then, were the men—these were the specialists. He now passed to another objection raised by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary. He had told them that the pension of the Covenanted Civil Service was very much larger than the highest pension awarded to the Uncovenanted Servants, because a portion of the money annually paid to them in gold had been contributed by them as deductions from their pay; but surely all pensions were of the nature of deductions from pay, and these deductions were simply deferred pay. Large deductions were made in the case of the Covenanted civilians; but large additions had been made to the pay in the first instance, so that the deductions made to increase the pensions could well be borne. The remedies for the

      1639
      grievances which had been so eloquently expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Hull were not far to seek, and he felt sure that if a small Committee composed of impartial Members of the House were to inquire into the subject they would readily find the remedies. The first step which then should be taken, as had been frequently stated, should be to provide that there should always be on the Viceroy's Council at Simla, a representative of the Uncovenanted Civil Service. There were at present there, representatives not only of the aggregate Covenanted Civil Service, but of almost every local branch of it. If the Madras Covenanted Civil Service was not represented, it was because it did not think that it should be, or did not care to be, and so with all the other branches; and when they had this great and important Uncovenanted Civil Service absolutely unrepresented, it was idle to expect from the Secretary of State or the Under Secretary adequate treatment for it. He did trust that Her Majesty's Government would make some concession to the eloquent demands of his hon. Friend the Member for Central Hull. He could assure them that the greatest dissatisfaction had already arisen in India on account of the meagre results which had flowed from the Public Service Commission, of which the Under Secretary had spoken to-night. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) confessed that, for himself, he expected no very great results from that Commission, for on it there were an enormous preponderance of officials representing the Covenanted. Service, whilst there was hardly a single member on it representing the Uncovenanted Service. The greatest discontent existed in the Service—a fact which in any but an extremely loyal service would be a most serious matter. He asked for no generous treatment for the Uncovenanted Civil Servants in India, but simply asked that their claims might be dealt with in a spirit of justice and equity.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he thought it would be discourteous to several hon. Members who had asked questions of the Government since the reply of the Under Secretary of State for India, if some response were not made from that
      1640
      Bench; but after the long discussion which had taken place, he could assure the House that he would not trespass on its attention for more than a few minutes. He thought that the main question which had been brought before the House that evening was this—whether the fall in the rupee entitled the members of the Uncovenanted Service to be paid their pensions in sterling, instead of in Indian currency. That was a subject upon which the arguments on both sides had been so clearly stated, that no inquiry before a Select Committee could throw further light upon it. It was a question in which there were two conflicting considerations—one was sympathy with the Uncovenanted Civil Servants who had suffered grievously through the fall in the rupee; and the other was, the most grave consideration whether in regard to this one particular class of officials they ought, without the consent of the Indian Government, and against the views of its representatives, to lay it down that pensions should be paid in sterling at the expense of the Indian taxpayer. That was the simple question which, he thought, was before the House. There were other grievances which had been mentioned, but a special debate had been raised in order to secure what the hon. Member for Central Hull did not call a legal claim, but what he called justice in the matter of the payment of these pensions to the Uncovenanted Civil Servants. With regard to the general position, he thought the hon. Gentleman who spoke earlier in the debate was not correct in saying that the Covenanted and Uncovenanted Servants had entered under similar circumstances. The hon. Member had represented one class as under the patronage of the Home Government, and the other as under the patronage of the Indian Government.
      MR. MACNEILLsaid, he did not say that. What he said was that in the Uncovenanted Service there were two sources of patronage; the source at home, where the objects were under specially favourable conditions; and the source in India, where they were under favourable conditions. He had said that both classes had really entered for precisely the same duties, and that the different circumstances were very galling.
      MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Covenanted Service stood in a different position from the Uncovenanted, the former being qualified by an expensive education. There was no patronage. He accepted the explanation of the hon. Gentleman, but did not want it to go forth that there was any special privilege enjoyed by Covenanted Servants. The House had been appealed to on behalf of the Uncovenanted Servants as if they were its servants, and as if the Indian Government had great wealth at its disposal to be generous with to them. They had been asked why they should exact their claims as Shylock's; but he would remind the House, as the Under Secretary had shown in his most clear and convincing speech, that what they were asked to do was at the expense of the Indian taxpayer. No doubt, the fact of being paid in Indian currency was a grievance which was shared by a vast number of the servants of the Indian Government. If to relieve the Civil Servants of India from the loss they suffered in consequence of the depreciation of the rupee, they were to pay them in sterling, they would have to pay a vast amount of other salaries in sterling also. That was an argument used by the Under Secretary, and no reply had as yet been made to it. The Government did not resist this proposal from any want of sympathy with the Uncovenanted Civil Servants, who, like a great number of other most meritorious Servants of the Indian Government, suffered great hardship from the fall in the value of the rupee. But he ventured to hope the House would not take its stand on the principle that this loss should be met in the case of one particular class, when it was clear that it would be impossible to stop at that class, and that the effect would be that, without consultation with the representatives of India, at a time when the burdens of the Indian Government were very heavy, they would make a very large increase to those burdens.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was not satisfied with either the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) or that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen). ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen cheered too soon—he was not quite satisfied with
      1642
      those speeches, because they left out an argument which appeared to him more cogent for their case than any they had used. He felt the force of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he might have made it still more convincing. The hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) said that Uncovenanted Servants serving in India had suffered no loss whatever; they were paid in rupees, and rupees had suffered no depreciation in India; consequently these Civil Servants commanded the same resources they ever expected to command. But then the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of the "grievous hardship" suffered by members of the Uncovenanted Service who, residing in England, had their pensions paid in the equivalent for rupees in English pounds sterling. Now, he demurred altogether to this assumption. It was admitted by the hon. Member for North Kensington that Uncovenanted Servants residing in India were receiving just as much as they expected to receive. In England their rupees did not command the same amount in pounds sterling as they would have done 20 years ago; but did the same amount in pounds sterling command more or less of the commodities of life in England than they did 20 years ago? He would not say that precisely the same cause as produced the depreciation in the value of rupees depreciated the value of other commodities, but it was an undoubted fact that, concurrently with the depreciation of rupees, there had been a depreciation in other commodities, so that a man who expected for his 5,000 rupees £500, and now only received £400, had with the latter sum very nearly as much command over the requirements of life as £500 would have given him 20 years ago. Therefore, the annuitant who received his pay in England had suffered no more damage than if he received it in India, for though he did not receive the same amount of pounds sterling, the purchasing power of the pound having increased, had a greater command over the resources and means of life than it had 20 years ago. Admitting this—and it could not but be admitted the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take up this as stronger ground, or he would

      1643
      find it difficult to defend the Indian Exchequer against the demands of annuitants at home. He must take his stand on the ground that there was a fall in the value of other commodities beside rupees; and though there had been a nominal reduction in the income of the annuitant, he had as much command over the means of life as his larger receipts in India commanded.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 55: Majority 111.—(Div. List, No. 135.)
      Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"

    ARMY (INDIA)—GRIEVANCES OF THE OFFICERS ON THE GENERAL LIST.

      OBSERVATIONS.
      SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, as he was precluded by the Rules of Debate from actually making the Motion of which he had given Notice, he would content himself with very briefly putting before the House a statement of the case of those officers on the General List of the Indian Army whose cause he wished to plead. He trusted the House would not be withheld from the consideration of this question by its undoubted technical character, and still less by the fact that it was for a comparatively small number of persons he asked consideration. It should be remembered that the number of men would have been very much larger if the body of General List officers had not been engaged for well nigh 30 years past in serving their Queen and country in a fiery climate, under a burning sun, and thereby considerably lessened their numbers. If he had to apologize to the House for the technical character of the subject he had the honour to submit to the House, he would beg leave to remind hon. Members that it was not the officers on the General List who had made the subject technical, nor was it the Indian Government, but it was the India Office who had sheltered themselves behind a technical objection to the claims that had been urged upon them. There were two points in the case which made it unique among cases of Indian grievances. The first point was one which, he was sure, the House would regard as one of very great importance—indeed, a point to which he very earnestly asked the atten-
      1644
      tion of the House, and that was, that the Government of India, the Commander-in-Chief in India, and all the Indian Military Departments, strongly urged the redress of this monstrous injustice. It was only—and he was sure his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) would not contradict this statement—only the Secretary of State and his Council who refused that justice for which he was pleading. The India Office just now had in the House of Commons a Representative who was undoubtedly unrivalled for his abilities; and, therefore, it was to be feared that the Office had of late been tempted to brazen out injustices which otherwise they would not dare to defend. He would appeal to his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India to treat this question as if he were the Representative directly of the Government of India and the Commanderin-Chief in India, and not of the Secretary of State and the Indian Council in London; and he would appeal to the House not to allow any lack of skill on his part, in laying the case before them, to prejudice the cause of those for whom he was pleading. The second point he would submit to the consideration of the House as important in this connection was, that this grievance was the last of a long series of grievances that ensued on the amalgamation of the Indian with the British Army after the Mutiny. Many Members would remember the burning dissatisfaction that arose throughout India by reason of the measures taken at the time of that amalgamation. Every one of the objections then taken in India to those measures, every grievance that had been alleged, had been in turn examined and redressed by the Secretary of State, with the exception of this one. This was the last, and he did hope that the Secretary of State and the India Office would now at last be pleased to give way to the wishes of the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief, and would consent to the redress of this grievance. No doubt, there was some Members of the House who would be in some doubt as to who precisely are the officers on the General List of the Indian Army. A very high authority at the India Office—of course, a layman—told him not long ago that, in his opinion, officers on the General List must mean "general officers" of the Indian

      1645
      Army. Well, they were not; they were officers of a much lower rank. They were officers who were presented to cadetships by the Directors of the old East India Company, just as all the old local officers of the Indian Army were presented; but in the case of those for whom he was now speaking, there was this peculiarity, that between the time of their nomination and the time when they would have been gazetted to their regiments in India, the rule of the East India Company had come to an end. In many cases the regiments to which they would have been appointed a year or two previously had meantime mutinied, and the result was there were no regiments to appoint them to when they arrived in India. From February, 1859, to December, 1861, these officers were allowed by the Secretary of State a certain option to which he would presently refer, and, with the special permission of the Secretary of State, they elected to remain local officers. At the present moment, they were only 162 in number. Their contention was that, being allowed to remain local officers, so also ought they to be allowed to retain the privileges that then attached and still belong to local officers. Of these local officers, he claimed that these General List officers were the last survivors. The privileges they asked for properly belonged to the old Local Service, and were large and valuable, so far as pensions were concerned, and they had always been looked forward to by these officers for a series of years, until they discovered that they had been living in a "fool's paradise." They expected to get these terms until, in 1882, they found themselves placed in a different category and in a different position to their colleagues, who had preceded them only by a year in the Local Service. They were not even allowed the advantages which were granted to members of their own body who, in 1861, had elected to join the Staff Corps. Nor was it any consolation to them that junior members of the Staff Corps, who joined after 1861, were cut down to the same level as themselves, for it was felt that the level was both for juniors and General List officers a very hard and inadequate measure. This hard measure was meted out to officers of the General List in defiance of the most solemn and specific
      1646
      pledge made in 1864. In the Royal Warrant of June 16, 1864, occurred these words—
      "The general promotion of Indian officers will be accelerated, and to every officer, including cadets who entered as late as December, 1861, his promotion to every grade, with the pay thereto belonging, as if the whole Native Army of India had been kept up, is assured, and his right to an Indian pension is maintained."
      These were Her Majesty's words in the Royal Warrant to those whose cause he was pleading on the present occasion; and he asked that the Secretary of State and Council would consent to allow the Viceroy and Commander-in-Chief to do what they wished to do, and maintain intact the promises of Her Most Gracious Majesty. Of course, at the time of which he was speaking—1864—the question of pensions had not arisen; but by the statement he had read from the terms of the Royal Warrant, it was perfectly clear that it was understood by those who framed the Warrant that officers were guaranteed in all the privileges of all local officers, including, of course, that of pensions. It was not until 1867 that the first blow was struck at the privileges of these officers. In that year, their promotion had grown somewhat rapidly, because a considerable number of their body had left for the Staff Corps, and the Government at once seized on this fact—promotion, they said, was growing too rapidly—and they issued a General Order, on September 6, 1867, summarily stopping all promotion above the rank of captain to be gazetted in future by the fixed rate of service as in the Staff Corps. But it was in 1882 that the final crushing blow was delivered against the rights of these officers—the particular blow against which he was inveighing, and that was the grievance for which he sought redress. This new Order gave officers on the General List, in some cases—in many cases—not much more than half the pensions they would have been entitled to if they had been allowed to retain the old privileges of the Local Service to which they belonged. From the ranks of that Local Service they were only separated by the mere accident of the transfer of the government from the East India Company to the Crown just at the moment of their appointment, and he trusted the House would consider this accident was not

      1647
      sufficient ground for depriving a large and meritorious body of officers of their just rights. This, on the face of it, seemed to be a direct breach of faith. What had the Government to say in reply? He trusted the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State would not condescend to use the only argument that it seemed to him had ever yet been put forward on behalf of the Secretary of State's ruling—an argument that, it must be confessed, had some strictly legal force, though in somewhat of that Shylock spirit of which the House had heard. At all events it had a force that these officers could not resist. The Secretary of State took his stand upon the declaration of these officers made when boys entering the Service, by writing "Yes" upon the document, declaring they would submit to any changes the Government might choose to impose on their conditions of service. In honour, these gentlemen were bound by this declaration of their boyhood, and they would manfully abide by it; but they said it was hard to be held to this declaration to such an extent as that to which the Government drove them, by depriving them of nearly half their pensions. If it be held that a Secretary of State was bound on sound principles to demand his "pound of flesh" in this matter, then he would say most distinctly the declaration of these boys when they entered the Service was most distinctly barred by the ruling of the Secretary of State in the General Order 966 of October, 1861, in which the option to elect which Service they would choose, and which was taken from them, was directly restored to them. The Secretary of State ruled that "option may be given them"—that was the General List officers—"in common with other young officers, to volunteer for the General or Local Service or for the Staff Corps. They were permitted, by special order of the Secretary of State—for this was a correction in answer to a question addressed to the India Office, a correction which was in the handwriting of the Secretary of State literally under his hand—allowing the option. If this was permitted, they should also have the privileges of that Service they chose to elect for, and as if to explain and confirm this order, the Warrant he quoted earlier, issued in 1864, declared that their rights would
      1648
      be maintained just as if the whole Native Army had been kept up, and especially that their rights to an Indian pension would be maintained. He ventured to ask the Government to allow the Government of India to carry out this promise. These men had been serving their country all these years in India, some of them had attained to the highest distinctions, some had been engaged in most perilous and creditable enterprizes in Central Asia; and, in various ways, all had deserved well of their country, for which they had toiled in a dangerous climate. He trusted their claims would be deemed worthy of consideration, and the Secretary of State for India would do, not a generous, but a just thing, if he entertained those claims favourably.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)said, this was a grievance which hardly anybody understood, and which it was very difficult for anybody to qualify himself to make a speech upon; and he was afraid it would be quite impossible for him, in the short time before the House suspended its proceedings, to do full justice to the importance of the subject. It was one of those cases of which there were many which lay at the India Office for the recreation of successive Under Secretaries of State. They all had been considered; they had been decided over and over again; but so sure as a fresh Government came into Office and a fresh Secretary of State took up his position in Downing Street, these cases cropped up again, and then there had to be another inquiry, and yet another decision. He believed the last formal decision was pronounced by Lord Kimberley, and probably his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) would be prepared to support the ruling of his former Chief. If the House would allow him, in a summary way, to describe this case, he would say that these officers on the General List were an extremely fortunate body of men. They were men who, under special circumstances, had been promised commissions in the Indian Army, but, before they were gazetted, that Army had ceased to exist. He was invited by the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) to "brazen it out," and he could only brazen it out by giving

      1649
      the House the benefit of the advice he had received from his technical advisers, for he could not presume to enter into a contest with hon. and gallant Gentlemen on military matters, or venture to rely on his own opinion in support of the conclusion at which he had arrived. These officers on the General List were promised appointments in the Indian Army, which, however, had ceased to exist before they were gazetted. In these circumstances it was decided to place them upon what was called the General List of the Indian Army. The present question did not permanently affect all the officers on the General List, but only some of them. Some of its officers volunteered for general service, went into the Queen's regiments, were scattered over the face of the globe, and ceased to be Indian officers; others went into the Indian Staff Corps, and it was only the residuum remaining on the General List that this grievance affected. These officers on the General List did duty in the local Service along with the previously existing local officers of the Indian Army; but they were never gazetted with them; they were kept on the General List, and it was especially stated that they were liable to such alterations in the conditions of their service as might thereafter be decided on. Of course, they expected to be treated fairly and liberally, and fairly and liberally he was informed they had been treated. They had all the privileges and rights of promotion and prospects of succession to what were called colonel's allowances as they had when they first went to India. But it happened that in 1866 it was discovered that the old officers of the local Indian Army had been subjected, by the formation of the Staff Corps, to an infringement of the Parliamentary Guarantee, which had been given them under the "Henley" Clause, before any officer of the General List had been gazetted to the Army. The officers of the old Indian Army had had reserved to them at the time when the Act for the Government of India—the original Act of 1858—was passed, very special privileges by a clause in that Act that went by the name of the "Henley" Clause. That clause, in general terms, guaranteed to the officers of the Indian Army, at the time when the Government of India was changed, all the rights, privileges, promotion, and so on, they
      1650
      at that time possessed—it was a sort of guarantee of the vested interests of officers of the old Indian Army. But it was found in 1866 that the terms of this clause had been broken; and thereupon, on the Report of a Royal Commission, there was given to the officers of the local Army, but not to those on the General List—who, as explained before, did not fall under the same category—a certain number of privileges and advantages which he would not now trouble the House by enumerating in consideration of the breach of the "Henley" Clause. But these were given to officers of the local Indian Army, and not to officers on the General List, because only the first-mentioned were entitled to them. The General List officers were not entitled to the operation of the "Henley" Clause, because they joined the Army after the Government of India Act containing that Act had been passed. Shortly stated, the grievance of these officers was that they did not in 1866 share in the special privileges given to Indian local officers, for a special reason—namely, that they were entitled to the protection of the "Henley" Clause, and to a re-adjustment of their position in accordance with the views of the Royal Commission. But, as regards the officers on the General List, he was informed there was no grievance whatsoever arising out of what was done in 1866 for a quite distinct body of officers, and there was no reason why the present Secretary of State should take the position of a Court of Appeal against his Predecessors, and reverse the decision which had invariably been arrived at whenever this question came up for consideration.
      MR. WHITBREADsaid, he agreed that this was a question difficult to understand; and even the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India—who could usually put a case clearly—had failed to do so in this instance. He (Mr. Whitbread) had that day had the duty of presenting a Petition from a constituent who was one of the officers whose claims had been urged. He joined directly after the Mutiny, and he was made to sign a paper to say that he submitted to all the alterations that might be made in the Service. He was compelled to sign the document; he could not have got his commission with-

      1651
      out it; but that paper was understood at the time by this officer, and it was to be presumed by every officer who signed, to refer to any Regulations the Government might make on taking over the Indian Army, and amalgamating it with the British Army; but it could hardly be thought by the officer to whom he referred, or any of those who joined with him, that long years after a Minute would be issued that so materially altered those Regulations. This was the case of his friend. He joined, he signed the paper, and was prepared to accept any conditions laid down at the time. When the Warrant was issued in 1864, their Magna Charta, as it was called, declaring that all rights and privileges should remain as if the Indian Army had been maintained in its strength—this was the substance, though not the exact words—then these officers felt themselves in a secure position; and it was not until long after they found out that promotion was to be regulated by the speed of promotion in the Staff Corps, while they were not to share in any advantages the Staff Corps had. That was one of their grievances, and the main one. He was aware that this question had been discussed before, and he did not expect the House would re-open the question, which had been decided by previous Secretaries of State; but, undoubtedly, there was good ground of complaint that the Order issued by the India Office was not clear, and officers were buoyed up through long service in India by hopes that, in the end, they found were not to be realized. It was much to be regretted that public servants, who spent the best part of their lives in India, should at the end of their term leave the Service with this sore rankling in their minds. The Order referred to, read by any ordinary man, would lead to the belief that these officers had a real and substantial grievance. He was not complaining of the amount of pension ultimately awarded to them; but he thought they had a right to complain of being misled by the Order issued.
      GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, from his Indian experience, as head of the military finance, and as a Member of the Commission engaged in the drawing-up of the amalgamation scheme, he had no hesitation in saying that the misunderstand-
      1652
      ing as to the position of the Officers on the General List arose entirely from the vague and indefinite Orders emanating from the Directors and Secretary of State and subsequent action of the India Office. When the Bengal Mutiny led to that Army being deprived of Regiments, a large number of young officers went out to India, and they were required to sign the declaration referred to, because it was felt that the Governor General should be free to make such arrangements for the posting as the work of the Commission might render necessary for carrying out the amalgamation. But in the Orders of 1861 forming the Staff Corps, the India Office failed to define the rights of these young officers. He had no hesitation in saying that, whatever conditions were attached to General List officers, they ought to have equal advantages to those retained on the Staff Corps. Any fault, any grievance there was, arose from the action of the India Office.
      Main Question, by leave, withdrawn.
      WAYS AND MEANS—Committee upon Monday next.

    EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOT- LAND) ACT, 1882—SCHEMES OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
      OBSERVATIONS.
      MR. H. F. H. ELLIOTsaid, he had given Notice of a Motion in favour of appointing a Select Committee to consider such schemes of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Commissioners as might be laid upon the Table of the House, but it would be absurd for him to attempt to introduce the subject at that time of night. He begged to withdraw the motion for the present.

      NATIONAL DEFENCE [REMUNERA- TION, &c.].—COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he wished to ask whether the Government really proposed to press the Motion for going into Committee, and to take an important Resolution at such a time—within a few minutes of 1 o'clock? The ominous visage of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer betokened a keen desire to dispose of his Resolution in regard to the duty on bottled wines. For himself,

      1653
      he confessed he took a great interest in bottled wines; but that interest was not sufficient to enable him to enter on the discussion now. If the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair were persisted in he should take a Division against it.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he would remind the hon. and learned Member that this was but the preliminary stage. There would then be the Report of the Resolution of the Committee, which should be taken at a time to allow of discussion, and then there would be the second reading of the clause.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: The duty is too high.
      MR. GOSCHENsaid, he was most anxious to have the matter settled, and he had hoped for an extension of the courtesy that had allowed similar formal Resolutions to pass yesterday.
      Committee deferred till Monday next.

MOTION

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the Borough of Wolverhampton, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 287.]

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES) (SPECIAL REPORT).
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection have leave to make a Special Report.
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAYaccordingly reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping and Manufactures: Mr. Henry Chaplin, Sir Edward Clarke, Mr. Goschen, and Mr. Hanbury; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Eyre, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Tomlinson, and Sir Richard Webster.
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAYfurther reported; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping and Manufactures, in respect of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill [Lords], and the Rail-
  1654
  way and Canal Companies' Charges Bill: Mr. Barnes; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hingley.
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAYfurther reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure: Mr. Tomlinson and Sir Richard Webster; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Edward Clarke and Mr. Milvain.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Habitual Drunkards Act (1879) Amendment (No. 2) * (138).
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, Amendment (112).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Ballymoney, &c.)* (97); Elementary Education (Birmingham)* (101); Elementary Education (London)* (102); Local Government* (113); Local Government (No. 2)* (114); Local Government (Poor Law)* (115); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 2)* (116); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 3)* (117).
Committee—Report— Metropolitan Commons (Farnborough, &c.) * (104); Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) * (105).
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Dublin Markets) * (85), and passed.

PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND), 1875, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 112.)
(The Earl of Milltown.)
PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND), 1875, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 112.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he had received an intimation that the Government would not oppose the second reading, provided the Bill were referred to a Select Committee, and he was most anxious that it should be so referred. The Bill was similar in its objects to one which he recently carried through that House for Great Britain. The main object was to protect the public against the uncontrolled and indiscriminate sale of poisons. The condition of things in Ireland was worse than it had been in Great Britain; the sale of poisons was practically uncontrolled, because defects in legislation rendered it almost impossible to secure convictions for illegal sale. By the Act of 1791 the Apothecaries Hall was constituted, and the making up of medical prescriptions was confined to members of that Body. It did not, however, restrict the sale of poisons which were not so made up; and that sale was restricted only by the provisions of an Act relating to arsenic. By the Act of 1870, strict provisions were made for regulating the sale of poisons, but no attempt was made to confine the sale to particular persons. A schedule of poisons was affixed to the Act, and the sale of them, except as provided by the Act, was a matter subjecting the vendor to severe penalties. But it had been found practically impossible to enforce the Act through the College of Physicians acting under the Privy Council, on whom the responsibility of enforcing it devolved. The Irish Pharmaceutical Society was constituted by the Pharmacy Act of 1875, which provided that all qualified persons should have their names inscribed on a register of chemists and druggists, and the 31st clause protected the rights of all existing dealers in poisons; but there was no provision for registering the names of those who had been formerly engaged in the indiscriminate sale, and it was impossible to identify those who had secured the right to continue in the trade. To remedy this defect was one of the objects of the Bill. Complaints had been made of the lax enforcement of the law by the Pharmaceutical Society, which had not money to carry on prosecutions. It had been suggested that some of those who had taken advantage of the lax state of things should be allowed to
  1500
  continue their trade if they passed a modified examination, and should have their names inscribed on the register A similar provision was made for the protection of assistants. There were also provisions for removing uncertainty as to the proprietorship of establishments where the sale of poisons was carried on, and requiring that they should in all cases be under the personal management of qualified persons.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, that the subject of the Bill was not only one of great importance, but also one of great complexity. It was extremely difficult to unravel the various differences which had arisen between the several Bodies who produced poisons in Ireland. The Government of Ireland were anxious that the Bill should not pass without further examination, but they had no prejudice against it. They were determined to ask the House to read the Bill a second time, on the understanding that it should be referred to a Select Committee. To that course his noble Friend had assented, and he now begged to recommend their Lordships to adopt it.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.

  ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GAR- DENS—THE ROEHAMPTON GATE OF RICHMOND PARK.—QUESTION.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEasked, Whether it was not the case that the owner of the road from Barnes Common to the Roehampton Gate of Richmond Park had offered to make a present of that road to the public; and whether her Majesty's Ministers did not consider that the offer should be accepted, and thus a much nearer entrance be afforded from London to Richmond Park?
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, that he could not add anything to the answer which was given by the First Commissioner of Works on this subject on the 19th of March in the House of Commons. Perhaps he might be allowed to read part of that answer. The First Commissioner said—
  "No Vote has ever been taken in Parliament for the purchase of Clarence Lanes. In 1869

  1501
  the Treasury authorized negotiations for their purchase at the price of £2,000; but the negotiations came to nothing, as the then proprietor held out for a larger sum. In 1874 the matter again came up; and the office of Works asked the Treasury whether they were still willing to propose that Parliament should contribute £2,000 towards freeing the roads, as there was a movement among residents in the neighbourhood to raise by subscription the balance of the sum demanded by the proprietor (£2,500); but that suggestion was not adopted."—(3 Hansard, [323] 1636–7.)
  It was true that the road had been offered as a gift to the Office of Works. That Department had refused the offer, because the Treasury would not undertake the expense of maintaining the road. The cost of maintaining it would be about £100 a-year, but £200 would be required to put the road in order. It would not be possible to save that amount out of the sum allowed by Parliament for the maintenance of the roads in Richmond Park, particularly as this year the Estimate for the maintenance of the Park had been considerably cut down. The Government were not, as he had said, willing to undertake the maintenance of these roads; but if the roads were otherwise made available, they were prepared to maintain and keep a gatekeeper to look after the road and see that it was properly protected.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—SENTENCE N MR. CONDON, M.P.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD COLERIDGEasked her Majesty's Government, Whether there was any objection to lay upon the Table of the House copies of the summons and of the indictment or information on which Mr. Thomas Condon, M.P., was recently sentenced to one month's imprisonment, together with any copies which might exist of the passage or passages in his speech which were the subject of the indictment, or information of any evidence which was given upon his trial, and of the judgment; also whether her Majesty's Government were aware, or could inform the House, whether the judgment was founded on any previous decision of any competent Court? His attention was drawn to the proceedings in this case as they were reported in the newspapers, but he would not state what impression the newspaper reports pro-
  1502
  duced on his mind, because he knew by experience that newspaper reports of legal cases were very often necessarily, and very often when they need not be, inaccurate. The case was an important one, and he had taken care to put the Question in such a form that it should not interfere with any proceedings that might be pending. Whether it was intended to draw attention to it in the other House he knew not. He simply asked for information, because he knew perfectly well that if he said anything on the case in the present state of his information he would invite at the hands of the Government the very proper answer that he had interfered in a matter about which his information was perfectly unreliable. He did not think that he would be justified—and he did not intend doing so—in expressing any opinion on the case whatever. He would only say, as regards the last portion of his Question, that he took it for granted that the proceedings—though it did not appear on the Paper, because he had taken it for granted—were taken under the Crimes Act, and he supposed under Section 2 of that Act. He did not know whether that was so or not, but he took the liberty of assuming it; and what he meant by the last portion of his Question was, he wished to know whether the noble and learned Lord opposite (the Lord Chancellor of Ireland), or any other noble Lord, could inform him whether there had been any previous decision on that section or not?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, he had considered the Question placed upon the Paper by the noble and learned Lord with all the care and attention which was due to one holding so high a position as the noble and learned Lord in the House and in the Legal Profession. He gathered from the few observations which the noble and learned Lord had made that his attention was called to this case by some statement in the newspapers, and that his desire was to obtain information, the giving of which would not interfere with the course of justice. If the noble and learned Lord had lived in Ireland, or had been in the habit of reading Irish newspapers even at irregular periods, he would have been tolerably familiar with every aspect of this case, and he would know that all the points upon which he desired infor-

  1503
  mation, and that every matter having the slightest connection with this case had been mentioned at length and fully reported in the Press. He said frankly that all the information which he had to give on the subject was only what any person could have made himself acquainted with through the ordinary channels of information. On the 2nd of April, 1888, a meeting was held at Mitchelstown at which Mr. Condon took an active part and made a speech; and it was in reference to a portion of that speech, which was held to amount to an incitement to persons to commit a breach of the law, that the sentence of one month's imprisonment was inflicted. As their Lordships would recollect, a police constable named Leahy was very seriously and dangerously maimed and wounded in the riot at Mitchelstown last autumn, where this meeting had been held, on the 2nd of April, and the Grand Jury of the county of Cork at the last Spring Assizes, under the Grand Jury Act passed in the reign of William IV., awarded to Constable Leahy for those injuries that he had sustained the sum of £1,000. In accordance with the ordinary requirements of the law that was fiated in the usual way by the Judge of Assize afterwards at the Spring Assizes at Cork. On the 2nd of April that meeting was held, and the Attorney General for Ireland, whose business it was to consider those matters, arrived, not unreasonably, at the conclusion that the meeting was an unlawful meeting, that it was held to support the Plan of Campaign, and also to induce the ratepayers not to pay the tax for the compensation awarded to Constable Leahy by the Grand Jury and upheld at the Spring Assizes. At the meeting held on April 2, Mr. Condon made a speech in which he said—
  "You have heard from Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Healy that a tax of £1,000 is being levied off the barony for his unconstitutional conduct in being the first to lead the baton party that broke through your meeting on the 9th of September last. I hope the men of the barony of Condons and Clongibbons will do in the future as they have done in the past—namely, organize themselves to make the collection of that tax as difficult and expensive for these landlords and for the taxgatherers. All this may be illegal. I do not know whether it is or not, and, furthermore, do not care. It is quite possible that you will have policemen out in a day or two, but I will ask you to feed yourselves
  1504
  your families before you part with this money for Constable Leahy. It is one of the most infamous acts that was ever perpetrated by a Grand Jury. It was not out of love for Leahy, but it was poor revenge for the triumph that you had over them and their class on the Kingston property; not that one shilling will come out of their own pockets. If you contrast their action in the Grand Jury room in Cork with their action in the country you can see the motive that actuates the Grand Jury of the County of Cork in levying this infamous tax. I hope that you will send back a message to the Grand Jury of Cork that by the time this tax is collected it will cost them ten times more than the original tax levied. I have not the slightest doubt but that you will make the collection of this tax impossible, and that before a few months they will have reason to remember it. This is no time to be mealy-mouthed in speaking on these subjects."
  The Attorney General for Ireland and the Executive Government could not, consistently with their duty, allow those words to pass unnoticed. They had to discharge their duty; and they directed that Mr. Condon should be prosecuted for those words and for his action at that meeting. The charges preferred against Mr. Condon were four in number—namely—
  "That the defendant did take part in a criminal conspiracy to induce certain persons not to fulfil their legal obligations, to wit, to pay a certain tax, to wit, county cess or grand jury cess, in respect of a certain presentment of the Grand Jury of the County of Cork, made at last Spring Assizes for said county, whereby a sum of £1,000 was presented to be raised off the barony of Condons and Clongibbons, in said county, in pursuance of Section 106, 6 and 7 Will. IV., c. 116, for the maiming of one Constable James Leahy at Mitchelstown, in said barony. 2. That defendant did at same time and place incite certain persons to unlawfully take part in a criminal conspiracy to induce certain other persons not to fulfil their legal obligations, to wit, to pay a certain tax, to wit, county cess or grand jury cess, in respect of said presentment hereinbefore mentioned. 3. And also that defendant did at same time and place aforesaid take part in an unlawful assembly. 4. And also that defendant at same time and place aforesaid being a district, to wit, within the barony of Condons and Clongibbons, in said County of Cork, and specified by an Order of the Lord Lieutenant in Council dated the 17th of September, 1887, made in pursuance of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, by which Order the association named and described as the Irish National League in said district was suppressed, and which order was, after a special Proclamation in pursuance of the said Act, made by the Lord Lieutenant by and with the advice of the Privy Council, did knowingly take part in a meeting of the said association."
  The case came on at Mitchelstown before the tribunal constituted under the recent

  1505
  Act and presided over by Mr. Irwin, gentleman of character, experience, and knowledge. Mr. Deasy, a Member of Parliament, and also a member of the Bar, represented Mr. Condon, and he asked that the hearing of the charge against his client for taking part in a criminal conspiracy to induce certain persons not to fulfil their legal obligations in regard to payment of the tax for providing the compensation awarded to Constable Leahy should be adjourned until after the decision of the Queen's Bench Division in Ireland had been given upon the legality of the presentment of the Grand Jury of the County of Cork, that presentment having been removed upon certiorari to the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin. The counsel for the Crown, Mr. Ronan, who represented the Attorney General, a lawyer of great experience and ability, in order to prevent all possibility of complaint that the defendant was unfairly treated, assented to the proposed adjournment until the Court of Queen's Bench had given its judgment on the legality of the presentment. The Queen's Bench Division afterwards gave judgment, upholding the legality of the presentment, and the liability of the ratepayers to pay the rate out of which Constable Leahy was to receive compensation was clear and manifest. The case against Mr. Condon then came on at Mitchelstown before Mr. Irwin and his colleague. The defence made by counsel for the defendant appeared to be that the words which Mr. Condon had spoken at the meeting only suggested and recommended that the people should not pay the tax until they knew what the action of the Court of Queen's Bench would be, and whether it would affirm the presentment, or set it aside as being illegal. The case was heard fully, and Mr. Irwin gave judgment against Mr. Condon. In passing sentence, Mr. Irwin was reported by The Freeman's Journal of May 22 to have said—
  "There were two charges against the defendant, the evidence with regard to which they already heard, and they had only to pronounce judgment. The first was that the defendant did at Mitchelstown on the 2nd of April last take part in a criminal conspiracy to induce certain other persons, being ratepayers and cesspayers in the barony of Condons and Clongibbons, not to fulfil their legal obligations to pay a certain tax assessed at last Spring Assizes by the Grand Jury, when a
  1506
  sum of £1,000 as awarded to Constable Leahy to be levied off the barony of Condons and Clongibbons. In that charge they would make no rule. The next charge was one of inciting certain persons to take part in a criminal conspiracy to induce the ratepayers of the barony not to fulfil their legal obligations. Now, it appeared from the evidence which was laid before them that at the last Assizes of Cork, all the necessary preliminaries having been gone through, the presiding Judge, Mr. Justice Gibson, fiated the presentment to Constable Leahy for the most serious injuries he received while in the execution of his duties in Mitchelstown in September last. Now, that fiat or decree of the Judge imposed upon the ratepayers of that barony of Condons and Clongibbons the strict legal obligation of paying that tax. No doubt it was open to the ratepayers to seek relief from that tax by appealing, if they thought fit, to some Superior Court. There would be nothing wrong and certainly nothing criminal in that. But they had searched and searched in Mr. Condon's speech on that occasion for any remark or expression that would go to show that he had in his mind the idea, of inducing the ratepayers to appeal to a Court of Law. If they had found any such expression in his speech they should have dismissed the charge. Mr. Condon told the people to organize themselves to make the collection of that tax difficult and as expensive as possible to the landlord and taxgatherer. Again, he said he had not the slightest doubt that they would make the collection of the tax impossible, and before a few months they would have reason to remember it. There was not one word in his speech about the Court of Queen's Bench or any other Court. They then came to consider what was the real and obvious meaning and construction to be put upon these words. Evidently they were uttered to encourage and induce the ratepayers to enter into combination so as materially to induce one and another not to fulfil their legal obligations in respect to this tax. Resistance to the payment of public taxes was perhaps the very next thing to rebellion. They had considered the matter very carefully, and they thought that they would be discharging a public duty in sentencing the defendant to one calendar month's imprisonment without hard labour."
  That was the case to which the noble and learned Lord opposite had called attention, and about which he had asked for information. He had endeavoured to confine his observations to the circumstances which had led to that sentence, to the charge upon which it passed, to the speech upon which that charge rested, and to the judgment which the Court had pronounced in the case. He apprehended that the noble and learned Lord had not suggested that the charge on which Mr. Condon was convicted was not a clear and manifest offence, and he thought there was no possibility of question in reference to that

  1507
  matter. It was an offence so obvious and so patent that the laws of no country could exist if words recommending that taxes and rates should not be paid were allowed to pass without notice, and if such language was not to be punishable the laws of no country would be able to keep civil society together. The advice of Mr. Condon had, unfortunately, been taken, and efforts were being made to make the collection of that tax, as Mr. Condon had advised, as difficult as possible. He would not refer to that matter further than to say that if noble Lords looked at the Irish Press they would at once see that the advice was being acted on. Placards had been posted within the last few days actually quoting portions of the speech just read, showing the danger of using such language and the necessity of bringing those persons who employed it to the test of legal examination before properly constituted tribunals like those which existed in the present case. He thought that every fact he had stated had appeared in the public Press. The facts were well known, but as the noble and learned Lord had put the Question on the Paper, he thought it only right and becoming to give this information, at more length, perhaps, than some of their Lordships might think right or necessary, and give all the information which the noble and learned Lord appeared to desire. He did not think, however, that it would be expedient to lay Papers on the Table. He had not much experience of that House, but he did not believe it was in accordance with precedent that he should do so; he believed it might be a precedent which would lead to very mischievous results, because to lay such Papers on the Table would be making their Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament a sort of irregular Court of Appeal in a matter which would be decided by debate, and not according to the canons which regulated and controlled the actions of Courts which had to consider such cases on appeal. If, however, there was any point in reference to which the noble and learned Lord desired any further information, he would endeavour to supplement what he had already stated. He had endeavoured to avoid the language of prejudice and comment in stating the
  1508
  facts as fully and as clearly as he could, and he trusted that he had given all the information which could reasonably be desired.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he thought that the noble and learned Lord had given ample reasons for not laying. Papers on the Table, because he had laid before their Lordships all the information bearing on the case. He took exception, however, to the closing observations of the noble and learned Lord. He could not at all admit that in all such cases as this it would be improper to have Papers produced. Their Lordships had to bear in mind that the cases in which such Papers were asked for were cases in which the Government had created a special tribunal to try them under certain conditions. He therefore could not imagine that in all the circumstances it would be improper that tribunals so constituted should be subject to review by their Lordships' House or by the other House of Parliament, if they were deemed to have exceeded their legal functions. He merely rose to make that remark by way of protest.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he did not say that it would never be proper to present Papers in such cases. "Never" was a very big word. It would certainly not be expedient on the present occasion to produce the Papers. The noble and learned Lord who asked the Question did not question the legality of the action of the tribunal in this case. At the hearing before the Resident Magistrates, they were not asked to state a case, and it was not sought to be questioned that the charges disclosed a legal offence.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that the Motion of the noble and learned Lord appeared to him very like "maintenance." It had always been the endeavour of the noble and learned Lord's last Predecessor but two, when at the Bar and on the Bench, to make an appeal to law rare, and to put a speedy end to litigation; and under the exceptional state of the law in Ireland, he thought it unbecoming of any Judge to ask for that which might hinder reconciliation and keep up discord, and he was sure that his noble and learned and lamented Predecessor would rather have cut off his right hand than sign such a Notice as that on the Minutes of this House.

AUSTRALIAN COLONIES—ADMISSION OF CHINESE IMMIGRANTS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I rise to move for—
  "Copies or extracts of correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governors of the Australasian Colonies on the subject of the admission of Chinese immigrants to such Colonies."
  There is no question affecting the Australian Colonies which is of more serious import than this, and I think the Colonial Secretary will agree with me in thinking that the importance of it is not confined to Australia, but that it is very important as regards this country, our Treaty obligations, and our relations with a powerful State. In Australia there has been from time to time very considerable difference of opinion and of action with regard to it. The question is not a new one; it has arisen at different times. The Australian Continent has been alarmed at the sudden invasion of large numbers of Chinese, and legislation has been adopted in different Colonies with the view of meeting the evil. It is to be observed that on almost every occasion on which that legislation has been introduced the number of Chinese immigrants has sensibly fallen off. Now, in the present case there has been a diversity of action. In Now South Wales a Bill was passed by the Assembly in very hot haste, but which has been since delayed in the Council. Certain Chinese immigrants who arrived in ships were also refused the right to land. That was a decision taken by the Executive Government, but it has since been over-ruled by the Judges. In New Zealand, on the other hand, the Government have adopted the very questionable course, as it seems to me, of declaring the Chinese ports whence the immigrants have sailed to be infected, placing the ships arriving from them in quarantine. Lastly, Victoria and South Australia have desired to meet this difficulty by means of an Intercolonial Conference. The genesis of the agitation in Australia is briefly this:—A despatch was sent by the Chinese Minister here in London to my noble Friend the Prime Minister requesting that greater facilities should be given for the admission of Chinese to our Colonies. Meanwhile the Chinese
  1510
  themselves appearing in great numbers in the Northern districts, created alarm and agitation. That agitation, I am sorry to say, has spread far and wide. It is a matter of public feeling which can no longer brook delay. Now, there are two sides to this important question. There is the Chinese view of the question and also the Australian view. Let me give your Lordships a summary of what those views are. The Chinese Government might complain, and perhaps with some justice, of the precipitancy which has characterized the action of the authorities in New South Wales. I think the result of that has undoubtedly been bad, and much evil has been inflicted on trade on account of persons leaving China with the full conviction that they would be allowed to land in Australia having been sent back. It must not be forgotten that Chinese subjects can come from any of our Colonies, such as Singapore, as British subjects, provided only that the certificates of naturalization they bring with them are right. On this point great complaint has constantly been raised. It is said that those papers of naturalization have often been forged, and that the difficulty of detecting one Chinaman from another is so great that practically no exclusion exists. Your Lordships must not forget what the general relations of this country with China are. I am quite aware that the general tradition of the Chinese Government has never been to force emigrants upon any other country. On the contrary, the tradition has been to keep them at home; but whether or not that tradition holds good now it is impossible to say. About 25 or 30 years ago we compelled the Chinese, at the mouth of the Canton, to receive our traders; and, of course, there does seem to be an inconsistency that they are refused leave to land on British soil. I do not know how far the Treaties which we have with China affect this question; but I am not sure that the Treaty of Pekin does not contain clauses which would be rather awkward to construe in reference to the present case. On the other hand, the Australian Colonies have a very strong case. During many years, whenever their grievance has become great, they have passed prohibitory laws and have issued warnings to Chinese labourers; and they might claim with perfect truth

  1511
  that, on the whole, their treatment of Chinese immigrants has been good. Compared with their treatment in Cuba, in America, and in other parts of the world, the treatment of the Chinese in Australia has been of a mild and satisfactory character. The real difficulty of the question is to be found in the fact of the excessive population of China. They are not merely alien in blood, but their habits are different from those of the Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of Australia, and they live in quarters by themselves which they frequently make notorious. If ever a large swarm of these people found their way to Australia I can well understand the consternation and dismay which would be created. Almost without exception, every Australian statesman is of one mind on the subject, not to allow the unrestricted immigration of these aliens. To a large extent I sympathize with them, because, although I am disposed to uphold Treaty rights to the utmost, nothing will ever induce me to run the risk of peopling the Australian Colonies with Mongols instead of with Anglo-Saxons. The Secretary of State must have thought this question over both in regard to the wishes of the Australian Colonies and the claims and requirements of the Chinese Government. The matter may easily be placed upon a Treaty footing. Quite recently the Government of the United States arranged such a Treaty. A Conference, at which the Australian Colonies are to be represented, is to be held shortly at Sydney to consider this question. Nothing could be better or wiser than to hold such a Conference; but I must ask, with reference to one very important particular, who is to represent our Imperial interests, and who is to expound the views of her Majesty's Government at that meeting? I sincerely hope and trust that the noble Lord is not going to allow this Conference to be held without sending over someone to attend it who is in the confidence of, and who knows the mind of, her Majesty's Government, and can speak their opinions with regard to this question. This question is essentially an Imperial one, and it involves responsibilities from which no English Government can possibly escape. I hope that my noble Friend will recognize the fact that her Majesty's Government are bound to take
  1512
  part in the solution of this question, and will give their hearty assistance in bringing it to a satisfactory solution. I will further say that it is essential, as it appears to me, to both England and Australia that a friendly solution of this question should be brought about. I should like to ask your Lordships whether it has ever occurred to you to note how great has been the advance of the Chinese Empire during the last few years, both as regards their domestic and their external affairs? They have adopted steamers, railways, and telegraphs, while their trade has increased enormously. The Chinese Empire is, in fact, year by year, for better or worse, taking its place in the family of civilized nations, while her material force in our Colonial waters enables her to make her views respected. These are all serious facts which Her Majesty's Government will do well to consider. China has had her disputes with France and Russia, but our relations with her have recently been of a peculiarly friendly character. I would also ask the Australian Colonies to remember that their interests and those of China are by no means antagonistic, and that friendship with that Empire is well worth purchasing, even at the cost of some little sacrifice. This, therefore, is a question in which there must be, on the one side, co-operation and friendly offices, and on the other great forbearance. I beg, my Lords, to move for copies of the Correspondence of which I have given Notice.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, for copies or extracts of correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governors of the Australasian Colonies on the subject of the admission of Chinese immigrants to such colonies."—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he begged to move the addition of the following words to the Motion of the noble Earl:—
  "And for a Return of all Acts passed by Colonial Legislatures affecting Chinese immigration."
  His reason for wishing for a Return of these Acts was that a great mass of Colonial legislation dealing with Chinese immigration existed, but was very little accessible, and it was very desirable that Parliament and the country should clearly understand the views that the various Colonies had from time to time

  1513
  taken on this subject. On the general question raised by the noble Earl he only proposed to say a word or two. The noble Earl had thoroughly explained to the House the universal desire expressed by statesmen and the public generally in Australia that some check should be placed upon Chinese immigration. No doubt at various times broader views had been held by different Colonies, but the sudden influx of Chinese into the Northern part of South Australia had brought about a different state of feeling. It was of great importance to preserve a friendly feeling with China, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would use as much expedition as possible to arrive at a conclusion on this subject.
  Amendment moved,
  To add, at the end of the Motion, the following words:—"And for a Return of all Acts passed by Colonial Legislatures affecting Chinese immigration."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, with respect to the Amendment of the noble Earl who has just sat down, I will only say that I am prepared to give the information he desires. I understand him to wish for the production not only of the existing Acts, but of any that may have been passed within recent years, although since repealed, so as to show generally the lines of legislation upon this subject. I am satisfied that your Lordships have listened with great interest to the statement of the noble Earl who introduced this subject, and with greater interest, perhaps, because he has so recently come from Australia, and, therefore, is far more in touch with the feelings of the Australians than I can possibly be. I hope the noble Earl will acquit me of discourtesy if I reply to his speech rather briefly, because, as has already been stated, an Intercolonial Conference is to consider the whole of this subject on June 12, at Sydney. The more fitting time, therefore, to make a full statement on behalf of the Government, and to produce Papers, will be when the Conference has concluded its labours, and when we shall have in our possession the Report of its proceedings. As at present advised, I am unable to agree as to the advantage of sending an Imperial delegate to that Conference. The noble Earl who sug-
  1514
  gested that a delegate should be sent is well aware of the jealousy that is still entertained of anything approaching to what is called Downing Street spirit or Imperial influence, and I think it far better that the Colonial Governments should express and discuss their views upon this matter free from the presence of an Imperial delegate. If I answer briefly, it is not because I do not recognize the importance of this subject. The Government are, indeed, fully alive to its importance and to the strong feeling that has very naturally sprung up in Australia. The Government are as anxious as any of the Colonial Governments to secure that proper checks should be put upon this Chinese immigration, and proper precautions taken to prevent the Colonies from being swamped by it. The noble Earl has shown very clearly, and, indeed, it cannot be disputed, that the character of Chinese immigration is totally different from that of immigration from any other country. There are certain special evils, or rather defects, inherent in Chinese immigration, from which the other class of immigration is free, and therefore it is absolutely necessary that Australia should be protected from unchecked Chinese immigration. The Australian Government have shown for many years their sense of the difficulties, and, I may say, dangers, arising from unchecked Chinese immigration, and, as your Lordships are aware, there have already been many Colonial Acts specially directed against this immigration. In some Colonies a poll tax, varying from £10 to £30, has been imposed, and in all the larger Australian Colonies, I think, there are legislative provisions for limiting the number of immigrants by enacting that there shall be only one Chinese immigrant, not being a British subject, to 100 tons. I leave promised the production of Papers, and stated my reasons for not now entering upon a full discussion of this very important question, but as attacks have been made not only in this country, but, unfortunately, in the Colonies also, upon the action of her Majesty's Government, and as we have been accused of neglecting the interests of the Colonists, perhaps your Lordships will allow me very briefly to explain the position of affairs and to show that these charges are unfounded.

  1515
  The feeling of distrust and alarm at Chinese immigration was very greatly intensified at the beginning of this year by the large and unexpected influx of immigrants into the Northern territory of Australia. Great fear was entertained lest the Chinese, whose presence might possibly be very useful and unobjectionable in that territory, if they could be confined to that territory, should spread from there over other portions of the Australian Colonies. The report of this sudden influx of Chinese into the Northern territory was received by me on April 7, and I received at the same time a telegram from New South Wales referring to the rumour of a Treaty between the United States and China, and asking for some similar protection. I rather fancy that that Treaty has not yet been ratified in the Senate, but, at all events, its terms were published, and I sent them out to the Australian Colonies. Upon receiving the telegram from New South Wales I replied at once that the matter was under consideration, and I learnt by a telegram that that reply was received with satisfaction. During April, therefore, there was no pressure upon the Government to lead them to take immediate action. In fact, at the end of April we received a telegram from the Governor of Victoria asking us not to take any decision adverse to opening negotiations with the Chinese Government until we should have received despatches which had been forwarded. I mention this to show that during April there was no delay on the part of the Government and no disinclination to act. In the last days of April and the beginning of May vessels with an unusual number of emigrants on board arrived at Melbourne and Sydney, and then followed the action of the New South Wales Government. There is some defence to be made for that action in the sudden panic and great alarm which sprung up at Sydney. It resulted in the prohibition to land, and in hasty legislation. That I regret, because it made any opening of negotiations with the Chinese Government at the time impossible. It certainly would have been useless to begin negotiations then. The charge against the Government of having before that time refused to negotiate is absolutely unfounded. It was unfortunate that not only that re-
  1516
  port but many other unfounded reports appeared in the Colonial newspapers, because they tended to excite feeling and to spread the belief that the Government did not desire to meet the wishes of the Colonies. I have more than once contradicted the reports; but, perhaps, as a proof of the desire of the Government to meet the wishes of the Colonial Governments, I may be permitted to read a telegram which I sent to Lord Carrington on May 11—
  "Referring to your telegram of April 26, no foundation for report that the Government refuse to negotiate with Chinese Government. Negotiations being carefully considered. Before arriving at conclusion against negotiations, Australian Colonies would have been consulted further. Her Majesty's Government fully recognize strength of feeling."
  The fact is that we have been always ready to negotiate, but it was necessary before beginning negotiations that we should thoroughly understand the case. Exact information as to the state of Colonial legislation with respect to Chinese immigration had been called for by a Circular Despatch early in the year; and it would have been useful to have had that information, and to have learned whether the Colonial Governments were all agreed upon total prohibition, or upon carefully restricted immigration, and the nature of such restrictions. We should have been unwise to enter upon negotiations at once in a hurry, and with imperfect information. So much for the charge, which, I trust, I have fully disposed of, of refusal of her Majesty's Government to negotiate. Let me add, as another proof of the unfounded character of the charge, that we did not regard the strong feeling existing in Australia upon this subject, that although, as I have before said, we regretted the action of the New South Wales Government in passing through the Assembly a very stringent law against Chinese immigration, we gave the Governor leave to assent to the measure, without prejudice to Her Majesty's power of disallowance should the provisions prove inadmissible. I shall not now enter upon the Treaty question which has been touched upon by the noble Earl, but I may say that there is no reason to suppose that legislation restricting the immigration of Chinese and imposing certain limitations upon it is opposed to the Treaty of Tien-Tsin. I

  1517
  have now sketched the action of the Government up to the middle of May, and shown that there was no disinclination, but that there was, on the contrary, a desire to co-operate with the Colonists. Early in May we were informed of the proposal to hold a Conference, and from the very first we readily assented to the plan. We offered at once to communicate points which we thought were deserving of special consideration and discussion, and, within the last few days, we have formulated and sent over certain questions which we think might usefully be brought before the delegates at the Conference. The object of these questions is to discover how far an effective restriction of Chinese immigration can be secured in a manner conducive to the general interests of the Australian Colonies and the Empire at large. I have great confidence that the whole subject will be most carefully discussed at this Conference, and that all its bearings, political and commercial, will be considered. But until that Conference has reported, it would not be right for the Government to take any further step or to make any more definite declaration of policy. I cordially concur with what the noble Earl said as to our position with China, and I need hardly assure your Lordships that it is our earnest desire to maintain and strengthen our relations with that great country. Her Majesty's Government will do all in their power to secure a friendly solution of this very important question, whether by Treaty or otherwise. With the co-operation of the Australian Colonies, we hope to come to some arrangement beneficial and honourable alike to all interested. I feel that the answer I have given to the noble Earl does not meet many of the points to which he refers; but he is more in the position of a chartered libertine than I am. Speaking for her Majesty's Government, I should desire to express our sympathy with the views and wishes of the great Australian Governments, our sense of the importance of the question, and our hope that we may arrive at a speedy and satisfactory solution of it.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of criticizing the conduct of the Government, as to which I was not aware that they
  1518
  had been subject to attack, nor do I wish to find any fault with the very wise caution and reserve which my noble Friend has exercised in his present announcement. I think he is quite right not in any way to anticipate the discussions or decisions of the Conference which is about to be held; but we who are not responsible, we who have simply the position of interested lookers-on, are not under the same restraint; and I do not think that a plain and frank expression of opinion on the part of Members of this House can do any harm or increase the present complications. There are two questions involved. One is whether the line of conduct which the Australian Governments have pursued, are pursuing, and evidently intend in the future to pursue upon this question of Chinese immigration, is in itself an altogether wise and reasonable one; and the other is whether, supposing we entertain some doubt upon that point, it is any part of our business to interfere to prevent their taking their own course. The former, to my mind, is really an abstract and theoretical question as to the latter, the question, What is our duty? is a practical question. I apprehend there may be some shades of difference between individuals; but, speaking generally, there will be an almost unanimous feeling in this country that, in point of fact, and to put it plainly, we have no option. Supposing we were to veto any anti-Chinese legislation on the part of the Colonies and to announce that any similar legislation would be similarly vetoed in future, what would be the result? Can we suppose that that veto would be submitted to? You know perfectly well that you would have an agitation spreading through every one of the Australian Colonies, and even if the prohibition of Chinese immigration could not be obtained by legal means, we know very well that popular feeling would be translated into action and whether by legal means or by means beyond the law, the immigration would soon be stopped. We are in the hands of the Colonists, and they must do in this matter as they please. If there is in Australia any opinion which is universally held, it is that Australia belongs to the Australians, and that it is not for us to regulate the conditions for the admission of the Chinese or other

  1519
  immigrants into their country. I do not for a moment conceal that certain inconvenience may arise from what is being done in Australia with regard to the Chinese; but I do not think it will interfere with our general relations with China. I do not believe that at any time it has been the policy of China to encourage emigration. The Chinese have plenty of room at home; and, if we know anything of their way of thinking, those among them who have most considered the matter seem to be anxious to see the stream of Chinese emigration directed towards their own interior Provinces rather than to foreign countries. But the matter does touch us in this way. We have for many years past been trying to obtain admission for our merchants, traders, missionaries, and whoever may have business of any kind into the interior of China. I am afraid that what our Colonial friends are doing will cut the ground from under our feet. We can have no locus standi to claim the right of unlimited admission into China for our people when the Chinese are practically excluded from Australia. But if this is a question which touches us, it is not a question which greatly concerns Australia; and it is childish to suppose that in a matter in which their own feelings and, as they suppose, their own interests are very much concerned, they will sacrifice their own wishes to considerations of Imperial policy. I believe that upon this question of the keeping out of the Chinese, the Australians are practically of one mind. I quite agree with my noble Friend the Colonial Secretary in his reason for declining to send a delegate to the Conference now being held in the Colony—that he wishes the discussions of that Conference to be uninfluenced or unbiassed from home. As to the merits of the Colonial policy itfelf, perhaps the less said the better. I have seen articles in the newspaper Press about the alleged immoral habits of the Chinese; but, taking them in the mass, I believe the Chinese population are quite as moral as any similar number of Europeans. Nor can I treat seriously the supposed danger to Australia of becoming a Mongol rather than a white community. Some 10,000 or 100,000 Chinamen pouring into Australia would not make it a Mongol community any more than the negroes
  1520
  imported into the United States have made the United States a black Republic. It really is, to speak plainly, a question of wages. The Chinaman is exceedingly industrious; he works very hard for very low wages; he does not spend his wages when he has earned them, but he takes them home; and that course of conduct is naturally not popular in a country which is governed by its working class. The rate of wages all over Australia is one which we in England should think abnormally high; those who have the power in their hands do not desire that it shall be lower. The strongest objection that I see—and it is one that may really cause some practical difficulty—is the exclusion of those who are formally British subjects from our own Colonies. There are immense numbers of Chinese naturalized or Colonial-born in Hong Kong, Singapore, and the Strait Settlements; and it is not easy to justify upon any general ground the absolute exclusion of British subjects belonging to one Colony from another Colony. Whether any concession will or can be made on that point I do not know, but I think it is a matter to which attention should be drawn. One moral I draw from this agitation. We hear a great deal in these days about large schemes for pouring out our surplus population upon the Colonies. If we were to do it upon such a scale or in such a manner as to materially lower the rate of wages, we should find that the immigrants being Englishmen and not Chinese would not prevent them from being almost as unpopular among the working class as the Chinese are. The whole question of immigration is really in the hands of the Colonists, and the sooner and more thoroughly we recognize that fact the better.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I agree with my noble Friend that, practically, when the Australian Colonies are united upon a point of this kind it is impossible that they should not have their own way; but I should like to call attention to the fact that the interests of the Australian Colonies are not the only interests that have to be considered. There are the interests—and they are not small—of the rest of the British Empire; and a portion of that Empire which is specially concerned is India. No one can deny that it is

  1521
  most important as affecting India that the relations of this country with China should be not only friendly but cordial. It is of the highest moment to this country that China should be our cordial ally. It is impossible not to feel that this question of Chinese immigration places us in difficulty in the conduct of our foreign relations. Although I do not profess to be able to suggest a solution, yet if my voice could have any influence in Australia I would say I hope that in discussing this question they will take into serious consideration our relations with other countries of the world and with China. I would deprecate strongly—I trust it is not likely to happen—that this question should be left simply to the Colonists to settle by legislation of their own, and that it should not be settled by some distinct and, I hope, satisfactory agreement with China. I trust that the Australian statesmen will so conduct this matter that, while doing justice to the strong feeling of their countrymen in Australia, they will do everything in their power to facilitate the negotiations with China which have to be conducted by Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he readily assented to what the noble Lord had said as to the ground for delaying the production of the Papers on the assumption that as soon as that reason ceased to operate they would be produced. He wished to impress upon the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies not to leave this matter to be decided entirely by the Australian Colonies. He did not think that that represented at all the view of the Government or their wish in the matter. The arguments used that night as to the complexity of the interests involved, not merely Colonial but foreign also, showed how important it was that there should be someone in the Colonies who could speak on behalf of her Majesty's Government, who could indicate the view of the Government, and who could remind the Colonies that ultimately the management of affairs must rest with her Majesty's Government. He wished, therefore, to impress upon his noble Friend the great importance of not abdicating in any degree the Imperial responsibility and the Imperial power in this matter. Australian statesmen, in dealing with this question, would prefer
  1522
  to know the views of Her Majesty's Government, and once they were assured of the sympathy of this country with them, he believed they would not be found to be in the slighest degree unreasonable in their demands.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: What I intended to say, though I fear I may not have expressed myself clearly, was that Her Majesty's Government did not wish to interfere with free discussion at the Conference, and that when they had the result of the Conference and the views of the Colonial Governments before them, and not till then, they would decide what course should be taken. Her Majesty's Government are aware that the responsibility of finally dealing with this question rests upon them, and the power is also in their hands, because, as the noble Earl is aware, they could disallow Colonial legislation, though they would be very unwilling to take such a step. This responsibility will devolve upon her Majesty's Government when they have received in a concrete form the views and wishes of the Colonies.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Then the original Motion, as amended, agreed to.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.