Sitting of 15 June 1888

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Kent (Isle of Thanet Division), v. the Right honble. Edward Robert King-Harman, deceased.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Third Report—Army Estimates [No. 225].
Special Report—Committee of Selection (Standing Committees).
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£5,570,712, Consolidated Fund.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Third Reading—Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway; Porthdinlleyn Railway, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Local Government (England and Wales) [182] [Sixth Night]—R.P.; Customs (Wine Duty) [293]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Third Reading—North Sea Fisheries [278], and passed.
Third Reading—National Debt (Supplemental) [264], and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland)* [277]; Local Government (No. 12)* [284]; Local Government (No. 13)* [287].
Report—Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 7)* [272]; Tramways (No. 2)* [242].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  ENNISKILLEN, BUNDORAN, AND SLIGO RAILWAY BILL [REPAYMENT OF DEPOSIT].

    RESOLUTION. [AJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [14th June].
    "That it is expedient to authorise the repayment of the sum of Three thousand two hundred and seventy-five pounds Three pounds per Centum Consolidated Annuities, being the sum deposited in respect of the application to Parliament for "The Enniskillen, Bundoran, and Sligo Railway (Donegal Extension) and Enniskillen and Bundoran Extension Railway (Abandonment) Act 1879,' which in pursuance of section thirty-six of that Act is now forfeited, together with any interest or dividends thereon."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. JORDANsaid, he could not get satisfactory information with regard to this Bill. He had asked a Question about it yesterday, but could not obtain a satisfactory reply. He had requested to be informed who were the sponsors for the Bill in the House, as there seemed to be no one promoting the measure whatever; but his query remained unanswered. Now, in 1879, the promoters of the Donegal Extension Bill obtained Parliamentary powers on condition that they made a railway within five years. Those promoters paid on deposit a sum of £3,275; but this, in 1884, was forfeited by reason of the non-performance of the conditions upon which the Bill was obtained. Now, after nine years had elapsed, some parties unknown to him came to that House and sought a Bill to obtain the repayment of this £3,275 already forfeited to the Treasury, and as one of those who came from the centre of the district that would have been largely benefited commercially by the railway, and as Chairman of the Town Commissioners in that locality who aided the promoters at that time to obtain the Bill, he thought it was only fair that he should be answered when he asked if all the necessary conditions had been fulfilled. The Chairman of Committees was the only person in the House who could give him any information yesterday, and, of course, that was not satisfactory.

    237
    He wanted to know had the necessary notices been inserted in The Dublin Gazette, and he desired, also, to know whether any claim for compensation had been made, and if any payments had been made in respect of compensation? He also wished to ask to whom the money was to be repaid? One gentleman, Mr. McBirney, Dublin, who was connected with the promotion of the former Bill, and who, he (Mr. Jordan) was almost sure, had paid the whole of this £3,275 by way of deposit, was now dead. Another gentleman, Mr. Bloomfield, who was connected with the railway, and who had, he believed, paid no money by way of deposit, however, was alive, and he (Mr. Jordan) should not like to see the money go into the wrong hands. He should like to see it paid to the proper person—that was to say, to the heirs and succesors of that gentleman who had paid it originally in the form of a deposit. It was only fair, at any rate, that he (Mr. Jordan) should have information upon the subject, being interested in the part of the country to which the original Bill applied. He would move, if it were competent for him to do so, that the Resolution be reported upon this day three months.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that it is not competent for him to make that Motion. The hon. Member can move that the debate be now adjourned.
    MR. JORDANsaid, he did not wish to delay the Bill. All he wanted was some satisfactory information in the matter. It would be as well for him, perhaps, to move the adjournment of the dobate.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY)said, that if the hon. Member moved the adjournment of the debate, he would prevent him (Mr. Courtney) from giving him an answer. As to the Motion now before the House, he could satisfy the hon. Member and give him all the information he sought in the matter. The hon. Member had correctly stated the facts. This railway was one of the many projects sanctioned by Parliament, and subsequently abandoned. When Parliamentary powers were applied for, a deposit was paid in as an earnest that the railway construction was to be carried out, and in order to meet any claim which might arise in consequence
    238
    of the action of the promoters of the Bill. That deposit, in the present instance, as the hon. Member had stated, owing to the non-fulfilment of the conditions upon which Parliamentary powers were given, was forfeited to the Crown. This Bill was a release on the part of the Crown of the money so forfeited. The hon. Gentleman wished to be assured as to whether any demands for compensation had been settled, and he also wished to be certain that the money would be paid to the persons rightly entitled to it. This Bill, which was in the strictest accordance with all previous measures dealing with such questions, released the claim of the Crown, and ordered the High Court in Dublin to pay the money deposited, subject first of all to the payment of all claims established against it to the persons who were entitled to it, and who paid the money in the first instance, or to their survivor or survivors. The first thing the High Court did in a case of this kind was to advertise for any claims, and when claims were established, after a certain interval there was a settlement, and the Court proceeded to distribute the money to those entitled to it. Whatever guarantees the hon. Member wished to have rested with the High Court, which followed the ordinary course in regard to sums paid into Court, first in advertising for claims, then in examining those claims, and paying those which were genuine, and, subsequently, in paying the remaining money to those entitled to it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Enniskillen, Bundoran, and Sligo Railway Bill, that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.

  QUESTIONS.

    CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—SECRET INQUIRY AT FALCARRAGH, CO. DONEGAL.
    MR. CAREW(for Mr. T. M. HEALY) (Longford, N.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Does Mr. Hamilton, R.M., deny that any investigations in furtherance of the secret inquiry he was holding at Falcarragh, County Donegal, in

    239
    respect of the alleged conspiracy against Mr. Olpherts, a local landlord, were conducted in Mr. Olpherts' house by Detective Reeves, who accompanies and assists Mr. Hamilton R.M.; were Thomas Carr, Alexander Wilson, and James Lindsay examined in Mr. Olpherts' library by Detective Reeves in presence of Mr. Olpherts and his son, or were they questioned at all by Reeves; and, if so, by whose authority and under what legal process; was Thomas Carr asked why Mr. Olpherts found it impossible to have his pigs conveyed last month to Derry Market, and James Lindsay whether he was told that Mr. Hugh Boyle, grocer, Falcarragh, refused to fetch a little box to Derry for Mr. Olpherts; was Brian M'Callin, a labourer in Mr. Olpherts' employment, taken from his work to the library, and by Reeves asked his name, his residence, whether Hugh Boyle, grocer, Falcarragh, refused in his presence to carry to Derry for Mr. Olpherts a certain box, and whether he had any information to give; whether, as this examination had not the desired result, M'Callin was told to go, Reeves remarking to Mr. Olpherts that there was no use in bringing that man up; and, whether Mr. Hugh Boyle, the grocer who was alleged by Reeves to have refused to carry for Mr. Olpherts, was then summoned before Mr. Hamilton, R.M., at the secret inquiry, and sent to gaol for refusing to answer?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Resident Magistrate does deny the allegation contained in the first paragraph of the Question. District Inspector Reeves reports that the inquiries he made of Mr. Olpherts' three servants named, related entirely to the Boycotting of that gentleman, which was not embraced in the Resident Magistrate's inquiry. He did see these servants in Mr. Olpherts' house. Mr. Olpherts and his son were not present. The District Inspector acted in the discharge of his duty. Hugh Boyle is a public carrier, also a grocer, in the neighbourhood; and it was in regard to alleged refusals on his part to carry goods for Mr. Olpherts that District Inspector Reeves made inquiries of Carr and Lindsay. He likewise questioned M'Callin. He did not, however, say there was no use in bringing him up. Hugh Boyle was
    240
    examined as a witness before the Resident Magistrate touching the Plan of Campaign; and refusing to answer questions he could have answered in regard to that conspiracy, was committed to prison.
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it was by direction, and with the knowledge of the magistrates, that Mr. Reeves held the inquiry; and I wish to know if the Government have a right to hold a private and unsworn inquiry in a private house, preliminary to the statutory inquiry at the Petty Sessions Court-house before the Magistrates?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is certainly in the power, and it is the duty, of a police officer to make inquiries when a crime has been committed. This is not a preliminary inquiry under Section 1 of the Crimes Act, as the hon. Gentleman seems to think. It is quite clear that the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) entirely confused two different inquiries which were going on at the same time, or nearly at the same time.
    MR. SEXTON: Were the witnesses who were examined by Reeves at Mr. Olpherts' house afterwards summoned to the sworn inquiry, and questioned on the same affairs?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He was not questioned on the same affairs. Boyle was alleged to be guilty of two separate offences—one was Boycotting Mr. Olpherts. The other subject on which he was supposed to be able to give evidence was the Plan of Campaign. He was examined on one point by the police officer, and on the other by the magistrate.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Will the right hon. Gentleman state under what authority, either in this country or in Ireland, have police officers a right to hold such an inquiry?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand it was the universal practice both in this country and in Ireland.
    MR. CONYBEAREinquired on what authority the right hon. Gentleman said Boyle could answer questions about the Plan of Campaign?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no doubt he could have done so.

    THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—REGENT'S PARK.
    MR. NORRISasked the First Commissioner of Works, If he is able to state that such arrangements have now been made with Sir Charles Warren, the Chief Commissioner of Police, as to ensure proper control and supervision in and around the Regent's Park, with a view to prevent a recurrence of the disgraceful scenes which have for some time past taken place there; if he proposes to have the vacant grass land between Gloucester Gate and the North Gate properly enclosed, or to adopt other means for public security and the prevention of misconduct within the area of the Park; and, if he will define the relative position of the "Woods and Forests," the "Department of Works," and the police, with reference to the Park and roads, and state the Acts of Parliament under which their duties are respectively carried out?
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The Chief Commissioner of Police has made certain alterations in the system of patrolling the roads in Regent's Park, which have, I believe, ensured a better control of disorderly persons; and I have put myself in communication with the Crown Estates Paving Commissioners, with a view to improving the lighting of the Inner Circle—a change which I am assured by the Police Authorities will greatly assist them in the performance of their duties. The enclosing of the grass land between Gloucester Gate and the North Gate would, I think, prevent a considerable amount of misconduct in that part of the Park; and I have applied to the Treasury to sanction the necessary expense of such enclosure. As to the third paragraph of the Question, I am afraid I can not add much to the definition which I gave in answer to my hon. Friend on the 7th of this month, except to say that the Acts of Parliament on which that definition rests are, as regards the position of the Woods and Forests and the Department of Works, the 14 & 15 Vict., c. 42, secs. 22 & 23; as regards the duties of the Metropolitan Police within Regent's Park the 35 & 36 Vict., c. 15, secs. 7 & 8.

    BANKRUPTCY ACT (IRELAND)—J. R. GUY AND THOMAS MORONEY.
    MR. MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether John R. Guy, a bankrupt, was within the past year tried and convicted by a jury on a charge of concealment of property and other offences against the Bankruptcy Act, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment; whether he was released by order of the Lord Lieutenant after a few weeks' imprisonment; whether Thomas Moroney has been now confined in prison for more than a year, without any trial or conviction, on a commitment by the Judge for unsatisfactory answering in the Bankruptcy Court; and, whether the Lord Lieutenant will order the release of Thomas Moroney as well as of John R. Guy?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, John R. Guy was released by direction of the Lord Lieutenant upon the medical officer's Report that further confinement would endanger his life. There did not appear to be any ground to apprehend that further imprisonment would endanger the life of Thomas Moroney, and the Lord Lieutenant had, therefore, no power to interfere.

    TRAMWAYS ACTS (IRELAND)—PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
    MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether several Orders in Council under the Irish Tramways Acts were passed more than two years ago, which the promoters have never since taken out, and on which the required deposits of 5 per cent on the estimates of the works have not been paid; whether the lines so sanctioned are mostly narrow gauge with excessively steep gradients, similar to the Skull and Skibbereen Tramway, which has proved a complete failure; whether the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works has reported against this class of tramways and against the adoption of any but the standard Irish railway guage; whether serious liabilities are entailed on the ratepayers should the promoters fail to complete and work the lines once their construction has been commenced; and, whether, in view of the foregoing cir-

    243
    cumstances, the Privy Council will at once cancel all Tramway Orders which have been lying over for a considerable time, and have not been taken up, and on which the deposits have not been paid?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (MR. A. J. BALFOUR): There are five cases in which Committees of the Privy Council more than two years ago recommended Orders under the Tramways Acts, and in which the promoters have failed to take further action. Two of the lines so recommended were of the narrow guage. There are no Orders to be cancelled, as no such Orders have been made. If Orders should be applied for in cases which have been lying over for a considerable time, the Privy Council, before proceeding further with them, would no doubt take into consideration the lapse of time and other circumstances which have occurred since the lines were recommended and see that no injustice is done.

    METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS— THE BLACKWALL TUNNEL.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, On what grounds the Metropolitan Board of Works have changed their original intention of proceeding at once with the vehicular tunnel at Black-wall; when does the Board expect to be able to commence the vehicular tunnel; how long will it take to complete the foot tunnel; and, what is the estimated cost?
    MR. TATTON EGERTON: In answer to the hon. Member's first Question, I must refer him to my answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Tower Hamlets, Bow Division (Sir John Colomb). The Board will be ready to enter into the first contract as soon as the question of re-housing the artizans displaced on the north approach has been decided by the Home Secretary, to whom an early application will be made to allow of re-housing in adjoining workmen's houses and unoccupied artizans' dwellings, constructed on surplus land sold by the Board. The general plans have to be approved by the Thames Conservancy, the Dock and Railway Companies, and they will be laid before
    244
    them within 10 days. The Board's engineer advises us the first tunnel will be complete in 12 months from date of commencement. The estimate from drawings will not be made until their general approval.

    LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART—THE NATIONAL GALLERY—RENEWAL OF THE GRANT.
    MR. W. H. JAMESasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether application has been made on behalf of the National Gallery Trustees for the renewal of the grant of £10,000 to the Gallery for the purchase of pictures; whether any reply has been received; and, whether he would have any objection, when complete, to lay a copy of this Correspondence upon the Table?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The House is familiar with the arrangement concluded in 1885, on the occasion of the purchase of two pictures from the Blenheim Collection for £87,500. In assenting to the expenditure of this very large sum of money the then Board of Treasury intimated to the Trustees of the National Gallery that the ordinary purchase grant of £10,000 a-year would be suspended for some years, and this decision was made known to Parliament. At the same time, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) expressed his readiness to consider favourably any proposal of the Trustees should any exceptionally advantageous opportunity occur of acquiring works of a representative character, and of a school or period of which examples are wanting in the Gallery. Since 1885 several applications have been made by the Trustees for a renewal of the purchase grant; but, so far as I have had to deal with them, I have said frankly that I was not prepared to depart from the arrangement made in 1885. I consider that continuity of policy is indispensable in such matters, on pain of Parliament never putting faith in declarations of intention made by the Executive Government; and so I have refused to entertain applications for a renewal of the annual grant.
    MR. W. H. JAMESasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay the Correspondence on the Table?
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he thought that no public advantage would be served by doing so. Such a practice was likely to lead to the members of Departments adopting a controversial style of correspondence instead of writing in a business-like manner.

    INLAND REVENUE—EXCISE— LICENCES TO BREWERS' HOUSES.
    MR. CALEB WRIGHTasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the number of new licences granted, and of old licences renewed, or refused to be renewed, by the Licensing Justices during each year since the passing of "The Licensing Act, 1874" (No. 338, August, 1883); in continuation of that Return to the end of 1887, and in reference to every licence refused renewal, to state whether the licence has one, two, or three endorsements, or none; and also showing the number of licensed premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors owned by brewers and distillers?
    THE SECRETARY (Mr. LONG)(who replied) said: In accordance with the promise made on the 14th of May, the Home Office is endeavouring to obtain information as to the number of victuallers', beer-house, and other licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors, the renewal of which has been refused in the year 1886 and four preceding years by the Justices of each Licensing District, showing in each case the ground of refusal, especially when such ground was, in any instance, that the licence was not required, and showing also the result of appeal, if any. Pending this Return the Government could not assent to a Motion for the Return suggested by the hon. Member. It would be impossible to obtain information as to the number of licences owned by brewers.

    CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS— ERROR IN AN EXAMINATION PAPER.
    MR. HUNTERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in an examination paper on arithmetic set at an open competition for female clerkships held in March, 1888, the following question was put:—
    246
    "4. Express 15, 35, 63, and 72 as decimals of their least common multiple. If the product of these decimals be multiplied by the cube of the least common multiple of the given numbers and divided by their greatest common measure, show that the result is unity. Explain the reason of this in general terms without attempting the full numerical calculation;"
    whereas the result ought to have been 945 and not unity; whether any steps were taken to inform the competitors of the error in the question; and, whether he will call the attention of the Civil Service Commissioners to this case, with a view to the prevention of similar mistakes, which must tend to embarrass competitors?
    THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): (1) The question was given as stated above; (2) the error was not discovered in time to allow all candidates to be informed of the alteration that should be made, and therefore no candidate was informed of' it; (3) the answers to this question were specially examined a second time to obviate any possibility of hardship; and (4) the Civil Service Commissioners do their utmost to prevent the occurrence of errors; but in all examination papers there must be a possibility, however carefully guarded against, of mistakes being made.

    TRAWLING (SCOTLAND) BILL—BEAM TRAWLING.
    MR. HUNTERasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government will consent to allow the Trawling (Scotland) Bill to be read a second time on the understanding that a Proviso will be inserted in Committee authorising the Fishery Board, with the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland, to make orders from time to time authorising beam trawling in specified areas in cases where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Fishery Board that such trawling will not be injurious to the industry of the line fishermen?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Government are not prepared to assent to the course proposed by the hon. Member. The question is one which should be dealt with in a Government Bill and not in a Bill brought in by a private Member. The Government are not prepared to take action at present.

    LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA—EXAMINATIONS FOR BOATSWAINS, &c.—LEGISLATION.
    SIR WILLIAM PEARCEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is his intention to introduce a short Bill, or otherwise give effect to the following recommendations of the Royal Commission on Loss of Life at Sea:—
    "That a simple professional examination should be required for the rating of boatswains and carpenters; that seamen with the rating of A.B. should be required to have continuous records of their services; and that advance notes should be legalised, but strictly limited in all cases to the advance of one month's wages?"
    THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said he had given directions for clauses to be drawn dealing with the three Recommendations to which his hon. Friend referred. He proposed to circulate those clauses among the Associations and other persons connected with shipping; and if the replies he received were so generally favourable as to lead him to imagine that legislation on the subject would be non-contentious, he would try to find an opportunity for it this year; otherwise, he feared it would not be possible to do so.

    LAW AND POLICE—ARREST AND DETENTION OF MR. JOHN MARA.
    MR. CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the fresh evidence has yet been forthcoming against Mr. John Mara, detained on remand by Mr. Newton on the charge of picking pockets, made against him on June 2 by two detectives; if he could state what was the evidence on which Mr. Mara was arrested and remanded; what is the nature of the expected evidence for which he is detained, who are the witnesses for whom the police are now searching, and have they yet been found; if they are not yet found, how long a time is it customary to detain prisoners on suspicion of committing a crime against whom no evidence justifying committal or conviction is forthcoming; on what ground did Mr. Newton refuse the bail that has already been tendered; is there any limit to the powers of the police to arrest on suspicion; if so, what are those limits; is there any limit to the powers of a police
    248
    magistrate to remand waiting further evidence; and, will he lay upon the Table of the House the notes of the evidence given in Mr. Newton's Court at Marlborough Street in this case?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the magistrate that the case will be further heard to-morrow. Mara was remanded on evidence which, in the opinion of the magistrate, made out a primâ facie case of attempting to pick the pockets of ladies at a crossing in Hyde Park. The magistrate does not know the nature of the evidence which will be given to-morrow. He informs me that it is customary to detain a prisoner charged with an offence of this nature until all the evidence is heard. The magistrate, in the exercise of his discretion, refused bail after hearing the evidence. The police have by statute the power to arrest any person whom they have good cause to suspect of having committed, or being about to commit, a felony. The power to remand is entirely within the magistrate's discretion. I must decline to lay the notes of evidence on the Table of the House, as the hon. Member will feel that it would be most improper that the House of Commons should interfere with the discretion of a magistrate in dealing with a part-heard case in a Court of criminal jurisdiction.
    MR. CAINEasked, on what ground the magistrate had refused bail?
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, it was in the exercise of his discretion.
    MR. CAINEgave Notice that he would repeat the Question on Monday.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—SCHOOL BOARD FOR LONDON—TRANSFER TO THE LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
    COLONEL DUNCAN(for Sir RICHARD TEMPLE) (Worcester, Evesham) asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will exempt the School Board for London from any liability under the Local Government Bill to have its duties and responsibilities transferred to the London County Council?
    THE SECRETARY (Mr. LONG)(who replied) said: There is no intention on the part of the Government that the duties and responsibilities

    249
    of the School Board for London should be transferred to the London County Council; and when Clause 8 of the Local Government Bill is reached in Committee, the Government will be quite prepared to consider any Amendment with the view of showing clearly that no such arrangement may be made under the clause.

    COUNTY ELECTORS ACT, 1888—DECLARATIONS FOR PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS.
    MR. SCHWANNasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether in the County Electors Act of May 16, 1888, Clause 6, Section 1, the date fixed for sending in declarations—namely, September 5, applies to boroughs and counties for Parliamentary and Municipal Registers as well as to the new County Registers, or whether the date which has hitherto been fixed—namely, September 12, will remain the last day for sending in declarations for Parliamentary elections?
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE), in reply, said, that Section 6 (1) of the County Electors Act made September 5 the last day for sending in declarations.

    METROPOLIS—HOSPITAL SUNDAY FUND—COLLECTIONS IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES.
    MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether on February 24, 1888, he approved an addition to the by-laws of the Metropolitan Board of Works, under which additional by-law the collections for the Hospital Sunday Fund have since been prevented on the open spaces under the control of the Board; whether he is aware that one prosecution has been actually commenced, and other prosecutions are now being threatened by the Metropolitan Board of Works, against working men and others for making collections on such open spaces in connection with otherwise lawful public objects; whether he will state to the House the facts on which his decision to create this new offence was based; whether public collections have been for more than 40 years made on the open spaces of the Metropolis for political, social, and pub-
    250
    lic charitable objects; and, whether he will state any cases of evil resulting therefrom?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; at the time named I did approve a by-law prohibiting persons from soliciting or gathering money in certain Parks and open spaces from persons frequenting the same. I have not been able to ascertain at present whether the Hospital Sunday Fund collection has been prevented under this by-law. I am informed by the Board that in two or three cases the names of the offenders have been taken, the Board awaiting the result of the case now pending before a magistrate. In 1887 complaint was made to the Board by a ratepayer that the practice of soliciting money after meetings was being abused. A Committee of the Board thereon made inquiry; and they found reason to believe that certain persons availed themselves of the permission to hold public meetings for the sake of collecting money for their own purposes, and made a living by it. I cannot say whether collections have been made for more than 40 years in the open spaces of the Metropolis; but I am informed by the Board that it has not until recently been the practice in the Parks under their control. The Board do not allege any evil result beyond annoyance of which members of the public complained; and they proposed the by-law with the view of protecting the public from the abuse to which the practice was liable.
    MR. LAWSONasked the Home Secretary, whether he was aware that under this by-law the Sunday music provided by the Sunday League in the Parks would be absolutely stopped, as no collections could be made?
    MR. J. ROWLANDSinquired whether, in the opinion of the Home Secretary, it would be for the public benefit to stop the collection for this music?
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that he had given all the information in his possession to the House. The practice had grown up quite recently in the Parks under the control of the Board. He would inquire whether any evils had resulted from these public collections.
    MR. BRADLAUGHasked whether, as a matter of ordinary law, persons

    251
    could not be prosecuted if they asked for money for private purposes?
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that he never attempted to solve questions of ordinary law with the hon. Member.
    MR. J. ROWLANDSasked, what was the custom with regard to those Parks which were not under the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works?
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that he was not aware, but would inquire.
    MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked whether, in view of the fact that disturbance might probably arise from the carrying out of this by-law, he would order that these prosecutions should be discontinued where the collection had been made for a bonâ fide political meeting?
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he was afraid it was beyond his power to make such an order.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that as this was a matter affecting the whole of the Metropolis, and as these collections had been made for a period of over 30 years, he should, in the event of obtaining no more satisfactory answer on Monday, move the adjournment of the House, to call attention to the subject as a matter of urgent public importance.

    LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT—ERECTION OF LABOURERS COTTAGES— FERMOY BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
    DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that on the 2nd of May last a Resolution was carried by the Board making the expenses of the erection a Divisional instead of a Union charge; and, whether the Local Government Board will insist on the Guardians furthering the construction of suitable dwellings for the poor labourers at this the most suitable time of the year for building?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I shall now reply to the Question in the form in which it appeared on yesterday's paper. It is the fact that the erection of 157 cottages has been authorized in the Fermoy Union; 13 cottages, authorized by Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament in 1884, have been built; 144 others were authorized by Provisional Order made in June, 1887; but none of these have
    252
    yet been built. The latter Order became absolute in October last, and an arbitrator was appointed by the Board of Works in February last; but the arbitration proceedings necessarily took some time. The Board of Guardians originally made the whole Rural Sanitary District the area of charge, and it was accordingly so fixed by the Provisional Order of 1887. Such a resolution as that referred to was passed by the Guardians in May last, but it was inoperative inasmuch as the Guardians have no power to alter an area of charge determined by a Provisional Order which has become absolute. Under the circumstances, the Local Government Board cannot take any steps with the view of compelling the Guardians to hasten their proceedings in the case.

    LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—ACTION AGAINST "THE TIMES."
    MR. H. J. WILSONasked Mr. Attorney General Whether there is any foundation for the suggestion which has appeared in the public Press, in reference to an impending action against The Times, to the effect that the Government have placed at his disposal information respecting the Irish Members of this House which is in the possession of the Government?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I have not seen, nor have I any knowledge of, any suggestion or statements which have appeared in the Press. The hon. Member must, I think, be aware that I should be guilty of gross breach of duty if I were, directly or indirectly, to answer this Question, or to make any statement respecting it from which any inference, direct or indirect, could be drawn.
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): The Secretary of State for the Home Department is not under a similar obligation; and I would ask him if the Government have placed at the disposal of the Attorney General, for the purposes of a private action, any real or imaginary information?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I absolutely decline to give any information whatever,

    PERU AND CHILI—THE PERUVIAN BONDHOLDERS.
    MR. HUNTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that a Protocol was signed in Santiago, on the 11th of April last, between Senor Don Augusto Mattè, Chilian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Hugh Fraser, Esq., Her Majesty's Minister, resident in Chili, relating to the terms of a contract known as the Grace-Aranîbar Contract, recently entered into between the Peruvian Bondholders Committee and the Government of Peru; if it is a fact that in that Protocol it is clearly represented that Chili will submit to no departure from the terms of her Treaty of Peace with Peru, and that Mr. Fraser, in signing the Protocol, assented thereto; whether, since the said Protocol was signed, Her Majesty's Government has received any other proposals in writing from the Chilian Government for a settlement of the claims of Peruvian bondholders; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table of the House the said Protocol, and the other proposals, if any, of the Chilian Government?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer this Question. On the 12th of April last Mr. Fraser announced that the Chilian Government had made confidential proposals to Her Majesty's Government for the amendment of the Articles of the Grace-Aranîbar Contract to which they had taken exception, and also proposals for the settlement of the claims of the bondholders against Chili. These proposals, so far as relates to the contract, have been transmitted in the form of a Protocol, which was signed by Her Majesty's Minister at Santiago ad referendum; and the Chilian Government, in a separate document, have submitted certain bases of arrangement for a combined settlement of the bondholders' claims on Chili and Peru. The proposals, being confidential, cannot be laid on the Table.

    THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES— CHINESE IMMIGRANTS.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Under Secretary of
    254
    State for the Colonies, Whether he was in a position to give the House the substance of any cable messages received from Australia embodying the result of the Conference at Sydney on the Chinese question?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): In answer to the hon. Member I will read to the House a telegram which has been received this morning from the Governor of New South Wales, reporting the result of the Conference held at Sydney. The telegram is as follows:—
    "14th June.—At the Australasian Conference held in Sydney on the 12th, 13th, and 14th instant, at which the Colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, and Western Australia were represented, the question of Chinese immigration, and your cablegram to the Governor of South Australia in connection therewith, were fully considered. The members of the Conference are sensible of the wish of Her Majesty's Government to meet the views of the Colonies, and have specially deliberated upon the possibility of securing legislation which, while effective, should be of a character so far as possible in accordance with the feeling and views of the Chinese Government. They have not overlooked the political and commercial interests of the Empire, nor the commercial interests of the Colonies. In 1886 the total exports to China from New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania were valued at £16,000, out of a total export trade amounting to £38,700,000. Our imports from China in the same year were valued at £846,000. While the custom of the Colonies, therefore, is very valuable to China, that country offers no present outlet of importance for Australasian trade. There has never been any attempt on the part of any of the Colonies to close their markets to the imports of the Chinese Empire, although most if not all of them are now produced in great quantities in the British Empire of India. The suggestion that any restrictions which are to be imposed should be of a general nature, so as to give power to exclude European or American immigrants, has been very carefully deliberated upon, but no scheme for giving effect to it has been found practicable. As the length of time to be occupied in negotiations between the Imperial Government and the Government of China is uncertain, and as the Colonies, in the meantime, have reason to dread a large influx from China, the several Governments feel impelled to legislate immediately to protect their citizens against an invasion which is dreaded because of its results, not only upon the labour market, but upon the social and moral condition of the people. At the same time, the Conference is most anxious that Her Majesty's Government should enter into communication with the Government of China with a view to obtaining, as soon as possible, a Treaty under which all Chinese, except officials, travellers, merchants, students,

    255
    and similar classes should be entirely excluded from the Australasian Colonies. By way of assisting to bring about such an understanding, the Conference has recommended the abolition of the poll tax now levied upon Chinese immigrants, While believing that the local legislation now proposed will accomplish its object, the Colonies would prefer that the exclusion of the Chinese should be brought about by international agreement of a friendly nature, as in the case of the United States. The Conference further desires that Her Majesty's Government should induce the Governments of the Crown Colonies of Hong Kong, Straits Settlements, and Labuan to at once prohibit the emigration of all Chinese to the Australasian Colonies, unless they should belong to the classes above mentioned. The Chinese who may claim to be considered British subjects in those Colonies are very numerous, and the certainty that their migration hither was prevented would give great and general satisfaction. The Resolutions arrived at by the Conference, and which have been embodied in a draft Bill, are as follows:—

    1. That, in the opinion of this Conference, the further restriction of Chinese immigration is essential to the welfare of the people of Australasia.

    2. That this Conference is of opinion that the desired restriction can best be secured through the diplomatic action of the Imperial Government and by uniform Australasian legislation.

    3. That this Conference resolves to consider a joint representation to the Imperial Government for the purpose of obtaining the desired diplomatic action.

    4. That this Conference is of opinion that the desired Australasian legislation should contain the following provisions:—

    (1.) That it shall apply to all Chinese, with specified exceptions.

    (2.) That the restriction should be by limitation of the number of Chinese which any vessel may bring into any Australian port to one passenger to every 500 tons of the ship's burthen.

    (3.) That the passage of Chinese from one Colony to another without consent of the Colony which they enter be made a misdemeanour.

    The first and fourth Resolutions were indorsed by all the Colonies except Tasmania, who dissented, and Western Australia, who did not vote; while the second and third were carried unanimously. As a whole, therefore, they faithfully represent the opinion of the Parliaments and peoples of Australia.
    In conclusion, the Conference would call attention to the fact that the treatment of Chinese in the Australian Colonies has been invariably humane and considerate; and that, in spite of the intensity of popular feeling during the recent sudden influx, good order has been everywhere maintained.
    In so serious a crisis the Colonial Governments have felt called upon to take strong and decisive action to protect their peoples; but in so doing they have been studious of Imperial interests, of international obligations, and of their reputation as law-abiding communities.
    256
    They now confidently rely upon the support and assistance of Her Majesty's Government in their endeavour to prevent their country from being overrun by an alien race, who are incapable of assimilation in the body politic, strangers to our civilization, out of sympathy with our aspirations, and unfitted for our free institutions, to which their presence in any number would be a source of constant danger."

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—COUNTY COUNCILLORS.
    In reply to Mr. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne),
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the duty had been cast upon the Local Government Board of fixing the number of County Councillors for each county. The printed proposals of the Government were entirely provisional. He would be perfectly prepared to consider any representations made to him on the subject.

    CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AT LOUGHREA.
    MR. DILLON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given private notice. It is this—Whether his attention has been directed to the statement made as to 11 prisoners who were arrested under the Coercion Act in Loughrea on the day before yesterday, and detained for one night in the Bridewell. The statement is—
    "That we protest against the treatment that we have received since our arrest. We were taken from our beds at 3 o'clock on Wednesday morning and marched to the police barrack, where we were detained until 2 o'clock, when we were taken over to the Petty Sessions Court, and forced to listen to the reading of depositions until 6 o'clock, when our application for bail was refused, and we were committed to Loughrea Bridewell—we consisting of 11 men—where there is only accommodation for three, and where even the beds of these three were almost wet, and quite filthy. In the interests of those who may be committed to gaol we feel bound to make this protest."
    I wish to know whether there is any truth in this protest; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to ascertain if there is truth in this statement of treatment, endangering the lives of these men; and, further, I wish

    257
    to ask him whether he can furnish any information to the House as to a collision which took place yesterday in the town of Loughrea between the people and the police, at which some 30 people are said to have been injured?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I only got Notice of the Question when I came down to the House at 2 o'clock. I immediately telegraphed to Dublin; but I have received as yet no information on the subject.
    MR. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any security—as this is a matter which may affect the lives of these men, and as the offence with which they are charged is a trivial one—can he give the House any assurance that, if the facts turn out to be true, he will take some steps to see that these people are not injured?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, Sir, the Irish Government will, in this as in every other case, do all they can to secure the proper treatment of prisoners.

    GERMANY—DEATH OF HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY FREDERICK III.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to inform the House that Her Majesty's Government have received information of the death this morning, at a quarter past 11, of His Majesty the German Emperor. It will be my duty, on Monday, to move an Address to the Crown and to the Empress of Germany, expressing the deep sorrow and concern of this House at the calamity which has overtaken the Royal Family and the people of Germany.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, I have only to say how deeply all sections of this House associate themselves with the sentiments which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed, and with the grief that is felt at an event which is not only an affliction to this country, in consequence of the connection of the late Emperor of Germany with the Royal Family of England, but which, I am sure, is felt to be an irreparable loss by all the nations of the civilized world.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    NATIONAL DEBT (SUPPLEMENTAL) BILL.— [BILL 264.]
    (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Jackson.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    DR. TANNERsaid, that before the Bill was read a third time he should like to have some explanation or assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) in reference to the question of annuities in the Bill. The market price of 3 per cent was taken as the basis for calculating annuities, and he thought the House ought to have some information in regard to the annuities under the Trustee Savings Banks Act. He held in his hand a Return from the National Debt Commissioners made on the 11th of May, 1888, and it would be found that the value of the assets, according to Acts of Parliament, differed, being fixed in one at £47,944,217, and by the other at £45,853,108, and showing a large deficiency. That deficiency would have to be met by the Commissioners of the National Debt, and he should like to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to what the effect of the present Bill would be upon the deficit.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had mentioned this Bill yesterday, but he wished the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand that if it was in any way inconvenient he would not press for the information he had then asked for. Probably the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give it before the end of the Session. He (Sir William Harcourt) wanted to know what measures had been taken in reference to the Debt which was still unconverted? There was, however, another matter upon which he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question in regard to the Bill. Great changes had now been made in the position of the National Debt. The Treasury had been good enough, in reply to his Motion, to give a Paper containing some fuller information as to past transactions in reference to the Debt than had been

    259
    given before; but what appeared to him to be desirable and perfectly feasible was that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt—as a Department of the State—should make an Annual Report of their transactions, just as the Post Office, the Inland Revenue, and the Customs did. It was a Department comprising many officers, and supported at considerable expense, and it was only experts and those who understood these most complicated matters who were able to give information upon them. The transactions were of an extremely complicated character, and there ought to be a Report presented year by year. He would go further, and he should like to have the history of what had been done with reference to the Debt since the great war in 1815. He believed there were ample materials for compiling such a history, and it was certainly information that ought to be in the hands of the public. He would, therefore, be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) would hold out a prospect of making this an interesting feature in connection with the reform of the Debt in which the right hon. Gentleman's own career would take a distinguished part.
    MR. W. BECKETT (Notts,)said, that before the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, he wished to put a question as to the reduction of interest in connection with the Post Office Savings Banks. The margin of profit made by the Post Office Savings Banks was now very small; and as the reduction of interest on Consols would convert that profit into a loss, he would like to know when it was intended to reduce the rate of interest payable by the Post Office Banks; and whether it should not be reduced at the same time as that of the Trustee Savings Banks?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCEHN): In answer to the question put to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), the point he has raised is one of considerable interest, but really it is not touched by the provisions of the present Bill. The annuities dealt with by the present Bill are annuities to be granted after the passing of the Act. If the hon. Member desires further in-
    260
    formation as to the deficiency in the Trustee Savings Banks fund, of course I shall have to prepare to give it. With reference to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for the Bassetlaw Division of Notts (Mr. W. Beckett) as to the reduction to be made in the interest upon the deposits in Post Office Savings Banks, it is clear that the rate of interest will have to be reduced. The same kind of measure will have to be applied to the Post Office Savings Banks as I was compelled to suggest in the case of the Trustee Savings Banks. I cannot say the precise date or the precise form in which the change will be made, but it is a question which must claim the early attention of the Government. It is extremely difficult to deal with all these matters at the same moment, as all of them involve questions of great complexity, and must be approached with the greatest care, in order to prevent injustice. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), I may say that I am at present engaged in considering the best means of dealing with the amount still outstanding from the conversion. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of stating that the amount of Consols which is still outstanding is £40,467,771, and the amount of Reduced is £6,009,968, making a total of £46,477,739. These are the latest figures I have been able to obtain, and the reduction is still going on, as the conversion is still open to those residing at considerable distances. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, all I can say is that it is in contemplation to have that Report made annually by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. It is extremely desirable to place clear and precise information upon all these matters before the House, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I will do what I can in the way of making further improvements in the statement of the National Debt, and in simplifying, as far as I can, what I admit are, in their present form, somewhat complicated figures. I will also consider to what extent the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman can be carried out by issuing an exhaustive Report of the history of the National Debt during a course of years. Of course, I have very able assistance in

    261
    producing such a Report, and I am quite sure that Sir Rivers Wilson, the Controller General, will give his best attention to the undertaking.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, he believed that such a Paper would be a most interesting document. He hoped that it would be issued in such a form that those who wished to compare the state of the National Debt now with what it was in other years would have no difficulty in doing so.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. Member, because it sometimes involves difficult matters when we undertake to make comparisons in a Return of this kind, and might throw the subject into some confusion. Therefore, I cannot bind myself as to the form in which the Return shall be made, or how far it will follow the form of the Return of the proceedings of the National Debt Commissioners. It is a difficult task to adjust the figures in such a way as both to have a comparative and statistical interest and not to avoid confusing the public mind to a certain extent. I will examine the point, and, if it is desirable, will see that the document is reprinted.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped that the Annual Return which was called by his name, and which he had moved for at the request of the Treasury for many years, would be continued, although, perhaps, another column might be added to it.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he hoped that the Government would take this opportunity of the reduction of the interest in the Post Office Savings Banks to devise some scheme by which indirect pressure would be brought to bear upon the holders of deposits to induce them to become larger holders of Consols, in order to get as large a number of persons as possible interested in the National Debt of the country.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I entirely sympathize with the object of the hon. Member, and I think the House will sympathize with it also. It is extremely desirable that the depositors in Post Office Savings Banks should become large owners of Consols. I am glad to say that the number is increasing, and I will endeavour to formulate a plan by which it may continue to increase.
    MR. ESSLEMONTsaid, he was not sure that he was quite in Order; but he wished to ask, with regard to the interest to be allowed in the case of Savings Banks, whether it was the object of the Government to assimilate Post Office Savings Banks and the National Securities Savings Banks, so that the interest in both cases should be as far as possible the same?
    MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, he wished to know whether, in dealing with the interest of the Trustee Savings Banks, any steps would be taken to prevent the wrongful use of the name of the Government?
    MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member should be aware that there is a Committee about to be appointed to inquire into the management of Trustee Savings Banks, and one of the questions with which they will have to deal—in regard to which I shall put a Notice on the Paper this evening—is the description which is sometimes given of these banks, and which occasionally involves to some extent the deception of the public. In reply to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont), I did not say that the amount of interest would be precisely the same in the Trustee Savings Banks as in the Post Office Savings Banks; but the relative rates will be maintained as they are now, there being a reduction of ¼ per cent in both cases.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  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.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress 14 th June.]

    SIXTH NIGHT.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

  PART I.

    COUNTY COUNCILS.
    Clause 2 (Composition and election of Council and position of chairman).
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that before his hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) moved the first Amendment on the Paper he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentle-

    263
    man the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) to the wording of the second line of this clause. He did so in no hostile sense, but with a view of securing that the drafting of the Bill should be improved. The clause spoke of "the administrative business of the justices of the county." He thought that that was a new phrase in legislation. It was certainly a very slip-shod phrase, if he might use the word, and it would be very difficult to devise what the transference of administrative business precisely meant. He would suggest the substitution of the words "jurisdiction and power," phrases with which they were perfectly familiar.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having called his attention to the matter, but he would rather not make any alteration then. He would, however, consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    MR. LAWSON, in moving, in page 3, line 7, to insert as a paragraph—
    "The preparation and revision of a basis or standard for the county rate, which, with such additions and modifications as may be necessary, shall be the basis or standard for all rates in the county,"
    said, in moving that Amendment, he could not understand why Clause 5 provided that in relation to the preparation or revision of a basis or standard for the county rate, or in relation to appeals by any overseers or persons against that or any other rate, should be retained in the hands of the Justices, and not transferred with the other powers to the County Council. The rating question in the counties was a very big one, and he did not think it should continue on its present basis. The state of assessment and valuation in the counties was extremely unsatisfactory. What they wanted to arrive at was a uniform system of valuation and assessment. He was quite certain the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board knew that there had been many unsatisfactory incidents connected with the present system. Some residences were said to be so spacious and splendid that it was impossible to fix the assessment, because not letable. The right hon. Gentleman would also
    264
    be aware that there had been cases where the Chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions had himself appealed against the assessment made by the Committee of the Union, and had got it reduced. He maintained that the ideal at which they should aim was the Metropolitan model. He was not very proud of the way in which the government of the Metropolis had been administered, but the system, as a rule, was good. Under the Act of 1869 there was a quinquennial valuation, so that every five years the whole property of the Metropolis was revalued, and the rateable value fairly represented the property of the Metropolis, while the contributions to the rates kept abreast with the wealth of the community. Perhaps he might be allowed to point out how the system worked, because he thought it would be generally appreciated. Every five years there was a revaluation; the overseers' forms were filled up as to the rent and terms of holding, and the occupier had notice of increase or decrease, and could appeal to the Assessment Committee. The surveyor of taxes was always present, and had such large powers that he could insist on his own value being taken, so as to make unfairness or jobbery almost impossible. Of course, there were provisions for intermediate valuations between the quinquennial periods. When any property was rated for the first time or the assessment increased, it was placed in a provisional list by the overseers, and notice of the increase in the value was given to the owner, who could object, if he chose, and go before the Assessment Committee. Then, if he were not satisfied with the decision of the Assessment Committee, he could carry the case still further and appeal to the Assessment Sessions, and thence to the Court of Queen's Bench. The Assessment Committee inserted the new rateable value in a supplemental list, which, together with all other lists, was taken into consideration when the quinquennial valuation was made. The advantage of this system, he thought everybody would admit, was obvious, especially in regard to the application of the Schedule to the Act of 1869, under which there was a certain fixed proportion deducted from the gross value, sometimes amounting to a sixth, sometimes a fifth, and sometimes a fourth. He believed that it would be impossible

    265
    to obtain an equal and regular system of assessment upon valuation except under some provision of this kind and he, therefore, moved the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 7, after "namely," insert as paragraph (i),—The preparation and revision of a basis or standard for the county rate, which, with such additions and modifications as may be necessary, shall be the basis or standard for all rates leviable in the county."—(Mr. Lawson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DUGDALEsaid, he had been somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Member refer to the work of the Assessment Committee as purely administrative business. He should have described it as one of the most essentially judicial duties of Quarter Sessions. The methods of the assessment and the levying of rates were laid down in a Statute of 1852, which provided for the appointment of a County Rate Assessment Committee, and it gave them power of levying rates, of having all the officers before them, and examining them on oath. After that was done, the rate was sent to the overseers and submitted to the Vestry, and the overseers were required to forward any objections they might have to the County Rate Assessment Committee, who were compelled to fix a day for hearing such appeals. The County Rate Assessment Committee thereupon appointed a meeting, heard the overseers, or whoever made an objection to the basis of the rate, and, after hearing them, settled the rate, and laid it before the general Court of Quarter Sessions. The Court of Quarter Sessions could alter it in any way they liked; and by the Act of 1852, when confirmed by them, it became the basis for the county rate. So far he did not think there was very much objection to the functions of the Court of Quarter Sessions being transferred to the County Council; but Sections 17 and 18 of the Act of 1832 gave parishes and persons affected a right of appeal to the Quarter Sessions against the decision of the County Rate Basis Committee. Section 17, which gave that power of appeal, placed appellants in the usual position of persons appealing. They were to issue notices and state the grounds of appeal, and to go
    266
    through all the forms of procedure in an ordinary case of appeal. When the cases came on for hearing, the Quarter Sessions were required to hear witnesses on oath, and he did not think the County Council would be a proper tribunal to perform such a duty as that. Therefore, although he thought the making of the basis might be transferred to the County Council, he was of opinion that it would be unwise to put on them the judicial business of hearing appeals.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) did not quite, as far as he could see, embrace all the matters which he had referred to in his speech. The hon. Member desired to have a new system of valuation and a uniform system of assessment. In regard to that, the Government were in entire accord with the hon. Gentleman. Originally, these matters formed a portion of the Local Government Bill; but so many clauses were intricate and controversial that, at the last moment, it was found quite impossible to deal completely and satisfactorily with so large a question as that, in addition to the other important subjects in the Bill. They, therefore, struck those clauses out; but he hoped that they might have an early opportunity of dealing with the whole question of valuations, and he was inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that if they were to take any standard on which the present system was to be amended or reformed, probably the system existing in the Metropolis was the system which they ought to take. Therefore, although there was no proposal of that kind in the Bill at present before the Committee, he could assure the Committee it was not because he was not fully aware of the great importance of the subject. He earnestly hoped that within a reasonable time the Government would be able to deal with the whole question, As far as the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman on the Paper was concerned, it dealt with two questions. One of them was the question of the basis of the standard county rate, and the other was the question of the basis of the standard of all rates leviable in the county. In regard to the question of the preparation of a basis for the County Rate, he had listened attentively to what

    267
    his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Nuneaton Division of Warwickshire (Mr. Dugdale) had said, and he agreed with most of the observations which fell from his hon. and learned Friend. As the Committee were aware, they did not propose in the Bill to transfer the duty of the preparation of the standard or basis of the county rate to the County Council, because they desired to deal with that question also in connection with the whole system of valuation; but they had received large numbers of representations from Quarter Sessions in all parts of the country, strongly urging them, along with the duty of levying the rate, to transfer the preparation of the basis of the rate to the County Council. They were, therefore, prepared to accept that portion of the proposals which were made in various Amendments on the Paper, in accordance with the view of his hon. and learned Friend. They were prepared to propose an Amendment by which not only the levying of the county rate, but the preparation of the basis of the county rate, should be transferred to the County Councils. But in reference to the appeals which were twofold—an appeal by the parish against the assessment of the county authorities, and another, an appeal by an individual against the rating in his particular case—these appeals appeared to the Government to have an important judicial element connected with them; and they did not, therefore, propose to make a transfer as far as the question of appeals was concerned, but they proposed to leave the question of appeal, as now, in the hands of the judicial authorities which now exist edin the counties—namely, the Quarter Sessions. He hoped the suggestion he had made would meet with the acceptance of hon. Members who had put down Amendments on the Paper. He proposed to move the insertion of the following Amendment, in page 3, line 12—"And the preparation and revision of the basis of the plan for the county rate." With regard to other rates, he wished to remark that there were a large number of Unions which overlapped counties, and until they had all matters brought within the area of the county they could not give the County Authority power to deal with them. Some Unions were in as many as three counties, and if they gave to the county the power of fixing the basis for
    268
    all rates, there might be three different bases in the same Union.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, that although he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made, he did not think that it went quite far enough. Speaking of the experience he had gained in connection with the County of Lincoln, he might say that they had been now waiting for 15 years for a new county rate. The whole assessment at the present moment was entirely unsatisfactory—for instance, the docks of Grimsby had sprung up and had made the value very different from what it was. Then, again, the assessment for the different Unions was framed on entirely different principles, so that it was utterly impossible to arrive at any uniform basis by a comparison. Therefore, unless the Government were prepared to go one step further, it appeared to him that they would be in exactly the same position after the Bill was passed as they occupied now. He had placed an Amendment on the Paper giving the County Council—
    "The revision of the present county and poor rate assessments, and the preparation of one uniform basis or standard of assessment for all rates leviable within the area of their jurisdiction under this Act, as well as the hearing and deciding of all appeals in relation to the county, district, or local rates."
    The object of his Amendment was to secure that there should be one uniform assessment for all purposes, whether for county rate, district rate, or local rate. He himself would go much further, and desired that there should be one collection and one Department. What he desired was that in consultation with the Revenue officers some authority or other—and he could not conceive a better authority than a County Council—should have power to lay down an assessment that should be the sole assessment for all purposes throughout the county. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to bring in a valuation Bill, or some clause that would enable a provision of that nature to be carried out. As far as the speech of the right hon. Gentleman went, he was much obliged to him for the concession he had made, although he thought it did not go far enough.
    MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, he thought there ought to be power on the part of one parish to appeal

    269
    against the course pursued in another, instead of allowing matters to go on as they did at present. One parish ought to be able to go in and see that another parish was kept up to its proper valuation.
    MR. CHANNINGsaid, he had heard with satisfaction the concession which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had made in this matter; on the wider subject of valuation generally, he thought it was, perhaps, unreasonable to press the Government at this stage. He was glad to hear the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for the Nuneaton Division of Warwickshire (Mr. Dugdale) that as regarded rating the functions of Quarter Sessions should be limited to hearing appeals. He should like to point out that this was, in fact, to adopt the principle of the Amendment he had on the Paper, which exactly carried out the view of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. It provided that the County Council should have "the preparation and revision of the basis or standard for the county rate." He had also an Amendment on Clause 5 reserving appeals to the Quarter Sessions. He understood that to be the principle adopted by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was afraid he had not followed the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board clearly, and he therefore wished to ask him what was the purport and extent of the clauses it was originally intended to include in the Bill which dealt with the question of the basis for the assessment of the rate? Was it to extend beyond the county rate, and apply to the whole of the rates in the county? He had no desire to raise any objection against the Bill of the Government; but he was bound to express his very great regret at the statement the right hon. Gentleman now felt himself compelled to make. If there was a subject of primary importance, then he maintained that in any scheme for the reform of County Councils the question of assessment and the fixing of all the rates within the county on a uniform system was of the greatest importance. It was not a question which needed argument, and the right hon. Gentleman could not deny its importance, because it was
    270
    originally part of his measure. Comparing it with other matters that were contained in the Government proposals, what could there be so important for the simplification of the affairs of county government as securing a uniform assessment of property, and why should it not be undertaken now? The Government had intended to undertake it, and it formed the subject of a certain number of clauses in the Bill with that object. They were not very numerous, and they were not clauses which were likely to be discussed in a contentious spirit. The uniformity of assessment was not a Party question. Every Member of that House, to whatever Party he belonged, was bound to desire uniformity of assessment, at any rate throughout the county, if not throughout the country altogether. Since the right hon. Gentleman put the Assessment Clauses in the Bill, and afterwards withdrew them, certain things had happened—for instance, the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn the Licensing Clauses, which were contentious, and would have occupied much more time in discussion. He would therefore suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take an opportunity of revising his intention of not including the Assessment Clauses within the Bill, with the view of reinstating those clauses, and, at any rate, of giving his Bill a more respectable appearance when it was passed in the shape of an Act than it now presented. The functions to be handed over to the County Councils were very limited in their nature. They were to manage the main roads, to look after the lunatic asylums, and they were to have something to do, although he did not know exactly how much, with the police. Those were not very large functions—in fact, hardly sufficient to justify the creation of the new Body and the position it was intended to occupy in the county. There was a clause, it was true—namely, the 8th clause, which was of a very remarkable character—to enable by Orders in Council all the administrative business of almost every Department to be handed over without any actual discussion or assent on the part of Parliament to the future County Councils. That clause would have to be discussed in due time. He did not think it would meet entirely with the acceptance of the House; but before anything of that kind was at-

    271
    tempted, which the right hon. Gentleman himself regarded as an important matter, in the future establishment of County Councils, surely they should endeavour to deal with the question of assessment. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that he entirely agreed in the opinion that the securing of uniformity of assessment in the counties was a great object, and he took it from the right hon. Gentleman that he originally thought he could accomplish that object in this measure, and that it would not be necessary to introduce a separate Assessment Bill. The right hon. Gentleman only withdrew the clauses because he thought they would occupy too much time. He had an opportunity now of reinstating them, and it was perfectly certain that they would be discussed in a non-contentious spirit. All desired that the Bill should be reasonably amended, wherever it was necessary, so that when it became law it should be as complete as possible. Moreover, it would reflect greater credit on the right hon. Gentleman, on the Government, and on the House if they could succeed in carrying these clauses.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, he should like to say a few words on this subject, seeing that it was one in which he took a considerable interest when he first entered Parliament 25 years ago. No one would accuse the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) of any desire to defeat the Bill. So far as he was aware, the right hon. Gentleman had supported the Government wherever he could, and had acted fairly and straightforwardly in the discussion of the measure; but, in spite of that, the effect of the acceptance by the Government of the proposal the right hon. Gentleman had so insidiously made would be tantamount to the defeat of the Bill. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to remember what had happened already on the subject of assessment. The first Select Committee upon which he ever sat in that House was one appointed in 1866, and it was engaged for that whole Session upon this single question of assessment. If hon. Members knew anything of the discussions which took place in that Committee they would be aware that the subject was discussed with an utter
    272
    absence of Party spirit; but there were numberless Divisions and endless differences of opinion in regard to points of valuations, as to the amount of deduction to be made in calculating the rateable value of property, and especially as to the powers to be given in relation to the Revenue officers arising from a uniform assessment for Imperial and local purposes. The result of the inquiry of the Committee was that a Bill was introduced by different Governments on more than one occasion in that House—a Bill of 35 or 40 clauses—but no Government ever succeeded in passing it into law, although Members of all shades of opinion were agreed as to the desirability of introducing the principle of uniformity of assessment. Yet with all this information before him, and with the Departmental knowledge he must have obtained when at the Local Government Board, the right hon. Gentleman calmly, at this stage of the Bill, with he did not know how many clauses contained in it, in the middle of June, asked his right hon. Friend to introduce this most difficult and complicated subject into the Bill, and add some 25 or 30 clauses to it. If that was not practically an attempt to defeat the Bill he did not know what was. It was their duty to act in an impartial spirit. The first thing, in his opinion, to be done was to institute reform of county government. When that was done, no doubt, the powers of the tribunal instituted might from time to time be increased; but it would be as absurd to try to place in this Bill all the matters with which county government might have to deal, as to insert in a measure for the reform of Parliament all the social changes which those who promoted Parliamentary reform might hope to secure from a reformed Parliament. Therefore, with as strong a feeling as the right hon. Gentleman could possibly entertain of the desirability of securing uniformity of valuation for Imperial and local taxation through the machinery they were now setting up, and with the firm intention, as expressed by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, of taking the subject up at the earliest possible moment, the Government could not consent to encumber and defeat their Bill by inserting such clauses as the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
    MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire,)said, he could not altogether agree with the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. For 30 years they had looked for the promised Valuation Bill, and they wanted, if possible, to get some instalment without waiting for another 30 years. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether something might not be done by this measure, and by a very simple addition to the Amendment before the Committee? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had pointed out that it was impossible to take up the last part of the Amendment, making the standard for the county rate the standard and basis for all the rates of the county, because in a great many counties the boundaries of the county cut the boundaries of the Union. That was a very reasonable objection; but in a great many counties that was not the case, and, as he understood the Bill, it was intended that where they did cut the boundary of counties there was to be a revision of boundaries. He thought the following addition to the Amendment would meet the case—namely, "where or as soon as the boundaries of the county do not cut the boundaries of the union." If the Government would adopt that principle, it would be possible to give a good instalment of what they all wished.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was afraid it would be impossible to deal with the question in the off-hand way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. It would be necessary to give suggestions as to the lines upon which the boundaries were to be settled. Such directions would be absolutely necessary, and clauses that would be essential for the proper carrying out of the view of the hon. Gentleman would be very numerous. Therefore, to come to a satisfactory concession in a few lines, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, was hardly possible.
    MR. LAWSONasked if the Government were inclined to go no further than the first line of the Amendment?
    MR. RITCHIE: We shall be prepared to accept the first line.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, that, in those circumstances, he should not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 12, after the word "found," to insert "the preparation and revision of a basis or standard for the county rate."—(Mr. Channing.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. HENEAGE, in moving an Amendment in the same clause, to insert, at the end of line 15—
    "The appointment, control, and dismissal of chief constables, and the management of the police in pursuance of this Act,"
    said, his object was to hand over the control of the police to the County Councils. He was bound to say that since he put the Amendment on the Paper circumstances had very considerably altered, because the Licensing Clauses of the Bill had been withdrawn; but, at the same time, he still objected to the proposal of the Government to give the control of the police to a joint committee of the magistrates and the members of the County Council. For his own part, he was in favour either of one or the other; and eventually there could be no doubt that the control of the county police would be given to the County Council. Therefore, in order to clear the way, he proposed to give them that control now by his Amendment; but he wished to make it perfectly clear that he should prefer that it should still remain in the hands of the magistrates than it should be handed over to a joint committee. If he did not carry his Amendment now, he should support an Amendment to provide that the control should be retained in the hands of the magistrates instead of being handed over to a joint committee. His objection to a joint committee was that it would be no joint committee at all. It would be a committee either of the Quarter Sessions or of the County Council. How was it to be elected? According to the Bill, it was to be elected one-half by the magistrates and the other half by the County Council, so that one-half, under any circumstances, must be magistrates; and if the County Council, in electing their half, elected one-half magistrates, three-fourths of the entire committee would be magistrates. If, on the other hand, in order to prevent the magistrates from having a predominant voice on the committee, the Council decided not to elect magistrates at all, the effect would be to exclude the most

    275
    efficient magistrates. That was his chief objection to the present proposal of the Bill; but, for many other reasons, he thought that the County Councils had better deal with the police altogether. There were many duties which the police would have to perform under the County Councils with which the magistrates would have nothing to do. He, therefore, hoped the Government would either agree to place the police under the County Councils, or if they thought it would be better at the present moment that the control of the police should remain in the hands of the magistrates, let them take that course. He sincerely hoped that they would not agree to appoint a joint committee.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 15, at end, to insert the words "the appointment, control, and dismissal of chief constables, and the management of the police in pursuance of this Act."—(Mr. Heneage.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper, which he intended to move in Clause 5, in regard to the powers, duties, and liabilities of the Quarter Sessions with regard to the police, and perhaps it would be convenient to the Committee to take the discussion of that question on the Amendment which had been moved by his right hon. Friend. This was a very serious question, and one which he hoped the Committee would not pass by in a light way. They were only seeking to retain the powers possessed by the magistrates in regard to the police, and they looked upon it as a question of vital consequence to the interests of the country. He looked upon the maintenance of law and order as the one which, above all others, should be in the hands of the magistrates; and if upon them devolved the duty of maintaining law and order, the police should be absolutely under their control. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) proposed to place them under the control of the County Council; whereas his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board proposed, with the exception of the appointment of the Chief
    276
    Constable, which was to be retained by the Quarter Sessions, to place them under the joint custody of a Committee appointed by the Quarter Sessions, and one appointed by the County Council. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) contended that that was an unfortunate arrangement for many reasons. He wished to put the case very shortly—and he hoped without any prejudice—before the Committee. He thought they ought in this country to maintain, as far as possible, the control of the police in the hands of those persons who happened, from circumstances, to be in a position to undertake the duties of magistrates. Men of all classes, as soon as they were in a condition to support the position, tried by every means in their power to be made magistrates. It was a very laudable desire. [Laughter.] He saw that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) was very much amused; but he had no doubt that there were a good many persons who were anxious to become magistrates and perform the duties connected with the office. If they took away the position they now occupied from the magistrates and their sons, and did not give them something to do in the country—[Laughter.] He knew that would provoke a laugh from the other side of the House. But if they drove these men away and prevented them from rendering services that were, in his humble opinion, of great advantage to the counties, they would only drive them into the towns for amusement, instead of allowing them to learn the most useful part of man's education—namely, the administration of law and justice. That was one point he wished specially to call attention to; but there was another—and there he felt he was treading on delicate ground—but he would not mention names or places. Instances had occurred lately—he would not say where, or whereabouts, although a good deal had been stated in that House on the subject—where, if the whole control over the police had been in the hands of the County Councils, there was every reason to believe that in many instances there would have been a grave dereliction of duty. [Dissent.] Hon. Members shook their heads; but in dealing with a question of this kind it was most important to look at all the considerations

    277
    involved, and, after mature consideration, to come to the conclusion which they believed to be the best, not only for particular localities and individuals, but for the whole country. He believed it would be far wiser, more prudent, and far better in the interests of the country that the police should remain, as they were at present, under the control of the Quarter Sessions, and it was with that object he had ventured to put down the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper.
    SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, the Committee had in this case a means of testing the earnestness and sincerity of the Government in conferring upon the County Councils as much power and dignity as they undoubtedly ought to have. If the magistrates were to lose many of the powers which they had hitherto enjoyed, and which they esteemed so highly, why not give the new County Councils, which were to replace them, all the power and dignity the magistrates had enjoyed, and especially with regard to the control of the police? He was of opinion that the only way in which they could make local government successful was to give all the dignity and power they could to the elected representatives of the people. On that account he was anxious that the control of the police should be given to these Councils. There had been no complaint that the control which the large Corporations possessed over the police had worked badly. On the contrary, all the evidence showed that it had worked well, and he asserted fearlessly that some of the scandals of police administration which had appeared lately in the newspapers—and some of the instances occurred not far from where he was speaking—could not have occurred in localities that were controlled by Watch Committees. For that reason he supported the Amendment which had been moved by his right hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). Last Session he had to bring before the House an instance of the brutal treatment on the part of the police of a child in his own Division, and that case would have been inquired into with much less friction in a borough where the Watch Committee had control. Having been a member of a Watch Committee, his own opinion was that it was most desirable that the representa-
    278
    tives of the people should control the police of the district in which they were elected. He believed that course would bring about a far larger amount of sympathy between the people whom the police controlled and the police themselves. Nowadays there was a strong tendency to convert the police into a quasi-military force. He objected to that, because he wanted to see the police in closer sympathy with the people, and to bring that about it was necessary that they should be placed under the control of elected representatives of the people. He believed that the Amendment would accomplish that object. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) spoke of the preservation of law and order; but there were few instances of the violation of law and order in towns where a popularly elected Watch Committee controlled the police. It was only where the police were under the control of the magistrates or the Government that these questions of law and order cropped up. The best way to preserve law and order was to place the police under the entire control of elected representatives.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Heneage) had declared his desire that the police should remain as they were, under the control of the magistrates.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he had not said anything of the sort. What he had said was, that rather than leave them under the control of a joint committee he should prefer that they should remain as they were.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, there were four proposals before the Committee, and it would, perhaps, be better to consider them separately. There was the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who wished the police to be under the control of a joint committee. The proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was that they should remain as they were. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) desired them to be under the control of the County Councils; and he (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had a further

    279
    proposal that they should be under the control of the Home Office. He did not propose to consider the advantages or disadvantages of all these proposals at once, but he wished to suggest only the objections he entertained to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman that the police should be under the control of the elected Body. Now, an elected Body would not be always and altogether in favour of law and order. In certain cases the elected Body would be entirely in the hands of one class of the community, and that class might be opposed to the law. In the mining counties, for instance, it would be altogether in the hands of the Miners' Organization; and the Miners' Organization was, like every trade organization, not always in favour of law and order. These trade organizations, if they used their power, would be able to command a majority in the County Councils. Now, the police ought to have nothing to do with one class of the community or another. Their only business was to carry out certain laws passed in that House, and they ought not to be influenced in any way by any local or popular feeling. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Sir Walter Foster) said that all the evidence was in favour of the management of the police in large towns by an elected Watch Committee. He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) denied altogether that there was any evidence whatever to justify the assertion. On the contrary, the weight of evidence went against the theory that the Watch Committee of the towns managed their police either as well as they were managed in the counties, or in London, or in Ireland. There were certain Acts of Parliament that were never put in force at all by Town Councils. In some places, like Leicester, the authorities refused to put in force the Vaccination Acts; in other places these elected Bodies would not put in force the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts; and in others they would not allow the police to interfere with licensed houses, because a good many of them belonged to members of the Town Councils; in many of the boroughs they would not allow the police to interfere in any way with weights and measures; and in others the Food and Drugs Act was a dead letter. He was, therefore, justified in saying—and he did so without fear of contradiction—that these elected Bodies did not con-
    280
    duct their business satisfactorily on the whole. He thought that before this Bill was brought in it would have been prudent to have had a searching investigation into the manner in which the Town Councils had managed their affairs. The Commission which had considered the question in 1839, just before the new Constabulary were established, made this Report—
    "It appears to us essential that any paid constabulary should, as far as possible without impeding their general action, be under the judicial supervision of the local magistrates."
    That Commission, at all events, was in favour of the police being under the control of persons who were responsible for the maintenance of law and order; and for these reasons he strongly opposed the Amendment.
    VISCOUNT LYMINGTONsaid, he was sorry that his right hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had moved his Amendment. In his opinion it was positively a mischievous Amendment, and, taking into consideration the views of his right hon. Friend on other questions, he was sorry that it had been moved. It was impossible for him, and he hoped that it was impossible for any other Unionist, in view of the question of Ireland, to vote for a proposal to hand over the control of police entirely to elected Councillors. [Ironical cheers.] He heard the cheer which hon. Members on that side of the House gave; but they did not shake his position in the least. If his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) went to a Division he should certainly vote with him, because on other grounds—not upon political grounds, but upon grounds of principle—he considered that the police and its administration should be under the control of and directed by a Judicial Body—he was in favour of placing the police under the control of a committee of magistrates, instead of handing them over to a committee of elected Councillors. He was quite aware that there were many objections to the compromise which had been offered by the Government. He knew from considerable experience—having served for many years on the police committee of his own county—that there were questions of friction and of difficulty that might arise; but, on the other

    281
    hand, he preferred the compromise proposed by the Government to the Amendment proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. He thought the Committee ought to view the matter as a very serious one. They need not only look to Ireland; but there were, unfortunately, other parts of the United Kingdom where popular feeling or popular excitement for the moment might interfere most unjustly and most unfairly with the practical administration of the law. [Cries of "Where?"] If hon. Gentlemen asked him "Where?" he should like to recall their attention to the position of affairs in many of the Welsh counties. The point was that it was the law; and the law, until Parliament thought fit to abrogate it, should be maintained. This was no question whether the law was just or unjust; and hon. Members were returned to that House by a democracy in their constituencies, and if the law was unjust they should get Parliament to repeal it, but as long as the law existed it was the duty of the Executive, with complete impartiality, to see that it was carried out. What he objected to was that they should be asked to offer any opportunity or means by which in times of excitement, or in the passion of the moment, the laws might be defeated, and their administration be obstructed by pressure being put on the police, and the police prevented from carrying out their first and primary duty. Before he sat down, he desired to say that if the police were to be prevented from performing that duty, experience had repeatedly shown that the only force on which the country could rely was one which it was most invidious and objectionable to use in such circumstances—namely, the military.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am afraid that I shall not be able to keep the debate on so high a level as that to which it has been raised by my noble Friend (Viscount Lymington), who, according to his speech, seems to imagine that the real question at issue is not the control of the police, but that, at all events, the important consequential question is the dismemberment of the Empire. The touching appeals which the noble Lord has addressed to those whom he calls Unionists shows that he is duly impressed with the magnitude of
    282
    the subject we are now discussing The challenge of the noble Lord is very serious, because he says no Unionist will support the proposal except the renegade who proposed it. But my noble Friend will find there are more renegades than one, for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had, in debating this very Bill, stated that he objected to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government, and that his vote would be in favour of placing the police under the control of the County Councils. Having now done justice to the lofty and statesmanlike elements which my noble Friend has introduced into the debate, I will descend to the more humble mode of conducting the discussion, which I think the Committee will be content to pursue. I regret that in some speeches—not from the Treasury Bench—an element of suspicion and distrust has been introduced. It has been stated, with a good deal of tact and caution, by the hon. Baronet opposite, and with much greater courage by the hon. Member who followed him, that they cannot really trust popularly elected Bodies with the administration of the police in connection with the maintenance of law and order. I venture to express the confident conviction that when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board comes to defend the proposal, he will not found his defence upon any such ground as that a representative Body cannot be trusted in this matter, because, if no representative Body can be trusted, how deplorable is the position of the inhabitants of the great towns, who amount to half the population of the country, and who are in the most serious danger in respect of life and property in consequence of the arrangements made for giving them the control of the police. I have no mistrust of anybody in this matter. I am far from saying that the magistrates have misused their powers in this respect; and it is not because they have mismanaged the police, but because I think that the plan proposed by my right hon. Friend is more excellent, more historical, more traditional, more Conservative, and more agreeable to the ancient usage of the country that I shall heartily support his proposal. I must say one word, however, with regard to the magistrates. They are a

    283
    Judicial Body, and I do not think that as a Judicial Body they are particularly well qualified to exercise control over the police in the matter of the Game Laws. I think in that respect their control of the police might be attended with a certain amount of injurious effect. I am far from making any imputation on the magistrates; but I doubt very much whether the magistrates, personally concerned as they are to so large and special extent with the subject-matter of the Game Laws, are on that account the best chosen authority for the control of the police. However, I do not want to put the case on that ground. But the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that he had an apprehension that the Bill was likely to lead to expense. Well, Sir, I am afraid that is not altogether a chimerical apprehension. We are now going to create a separate Body for the management of the police. But every new Body means new expense, and upon the ground of economy, if that were the only ground, I shall certainly prefer a plan which keeps the police under some Body which is about to exist for other purposes, than a plan which creates a now Body for the sake of this arrangement. I think, however, what has been said in this and in former debates is of very great importance. We are now about to create new offices of considerable moment—at least, new offices which we wish to wear considerable dignity, and we can only invest them with dignity by giving them special functions. And, for my part, I own to the desire of giving to the County Councils every duty which it cannot be shown that they are disqualified from performing, or which it cannot be shown that they will perform worse than others. It is most important that in creating these County Councils we should not run the risk of setting up in any shape whatever offices of great prominence which, at the same time, will not be sustained in the mind and view of the people by adequate duties; because the immediate consequence would be that the quality of the men who will seek election will infallibly and very seriously decline. The County Authorities in my own recollection have had no connection whatever with the police. At the time when I came into Parliament there was not the slightest connection between the county and the
    284
    police. The police were a parochial affair; they were appointed parochially, such as they were. No doubt they are defective, and require to be improved; but they are not defective because they are appointed under a representative authority. Go as far back as you will in history, and you will find that the management and appointment of police, as well as the responsibility for the maintenance of life and property, was admitted to be one of the very first and most essential functions of self-government. In my opinion, self-government without the maintenance and control of the police, and without responsibility for the preservation of life and property, is a mere skeleton or phantasm of self-government. And how came the magistrates to exercise the functions that they now exercise? Simply on this account—that it was thought right, very properly, to put the county police on a new and better footing, and there was no other County Authority whatever to whom, except the magistrates, the management of the police could be entrusted. When I come to a case like that of the Municipality of London, where there are 4,000,000 people to be protected in person and property, it may be wise to adjourn for a reasonable time the transfer of the Police Authority; but, unquestionably, in principle, in my opinion, whether it be in London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, or elsewhere, the normal and the permanent arrangement—nay, the only arrangement—agreeable to the ancient usages of the country, is an arrangement which entrusts to the inhabitants, and the representatives of the inhabitants, the appointment and the control of those who are to see to the security of life and property. I earnestly contend that that is not only a tolerable, enduring, and allowable mode of securing that life and property, but that it is the best of all modes.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): The importance of the question now before the Committee is, I think, fully recognized by us all. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has adverted to ancient usages; but I do not think that we should derive much benefit in respect of this discussion from the system of parish constables. The old police of the country was of

    285
    the most imperfect and inefficient kind. But I think I could show that the police force, such as it was, and totally inefficient as it was, was not entirely divorced, as this proposal would divorce it, from something of judicial authority. The old parish constable was under the authority of the Court Leet, and, primarily, he was the servant of the law, and not the servant of a merely public body, such as the Vestry, or any elective body. Judicial authority of some sort has always been deemed necessary in this matter, and to divorce them wholly from such authority would not be wise or expedient. There is a great deal of truth in what the right hon. Gentleman said—namely, that when the ancient and parochial system of police was set aside and superseded, there was no other visible body in the country to whom the management of the police could have been committed, except Quarter Sessions; but I apprehend that if the Acts dating from the beginning of this Reign were carefully looked at, that was not the only consideration which guided Parliament in the matter. Is it true that we can expect greater impartiality and calmness and more judicial temper in the administration of the law from a purely elective body than from the magistrates, or a body in which the magisterial element has its influence? I think not. I agree that a poacher in some parts of England has not much chance if he comes before a preserver of game; but it does not seem to me to touch the sort of control which we think it desirable to keep up. Though I am far from saying a word that would imply distrust of an elective body that had the confidence of the people, yet I do think the influences which operate on an elective body is a matter to be borne in mind. It is impossible that they should not be swayed not merely by a general sympathy with the people, which is a good thing, but by sympathy with temporary gusts of popular feeling, which is not always a good thing, and may lead to uncertainty in respect to the administration of the law. No doubt, when prejudice, passion, and feeling come into collision with some particular law, and when a special law becomes unpopular, a great gust of popular feeling arises which does not represent the true feeling of the country, but only the passion of the moment;
    286
    and it must be recognized that a body of men dependent for election on the sympathy of the masses may be less able to resist that gust of feeling than the magistrates. An hon. Member opposite spoke of the manner in which the Watch Committees of the boroughs administered the police. I admit that it deserves admiration, but when the hon. Gentleman said there was never any disturbance of law and order in the boroughs, I would point out that—
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I said that certain breaches of the law which had occurred lately could not have arisen under the borough system.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has in his mind at this moment, but I think the hon. Gentleman has forgotten the incident at Cardiff. I do not think electioneering influences are desirable things to introduce into the administration of the police. Can it be said that because there are magistrates in one county who are not in sympathy with the people, that where they are drawn from the people, they do not represent all classes and ranks of life? Such a position cannot be maintained. What, then, is there to load us to say that they are not to have any share in the enforcement of the part of the law which is committed to them here? It seems to me that this Bill, in offering to the County Councils a joint share in the management and administration of the police, is as large a concession as can reasonably be made on this subject. The whole system of the financial part of the administration is committed to the care of the County Councils, and the various duties they have to perform are certainly sufficient to satisfy the ambition of any man likely to become member of a County Council without the extraordinary course of putting the whole force responsible for law and order into the hands of a purely elective Body.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, he felt bound to say a word or two with regard to the observation of the Home Secretary that it was a matter of importance that the police should be under the control of the judicial authorities. He took exception to that observation as a matter of principle. If there was any authority which would do its work better by being confined strictly to its own duties,

    287
    for very obvious reasons it was the judicial authority. And when the noble Lord behind him (Viscount Lymington) shrank from supporting the Amendment, because it would be setting up a had example for Ireland in the future, when he asked whether they would hand over the control of the police in Ireland to elective Councils, he (Sir George Trevelyan) would ask him whether he was ready to accept the alternative, and hand over the control of the police in Ireland to the Justices of the Peace? But they need not go to Ireland. Let them look at Scotland, where law and order were maintained, and in no part of which were the police under judicial authority. They were under the Commissioners of Supply.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, he was in a position to state the exact contrary. The police force in Scotland was under a judicial authority—namely, the Sheriff of the county.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORDsaid, with the greatest deference to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, he wished to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in error. The Sheriff had, no doubt, a voice in the control of the police, but no one knew better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Sheriff had two distinct functions, one judicial and the other representative of the Crown. It was not in his judicial capacity that he was connected with the police.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, he thought the Lord Advocate by his interruption had not attained the end which in a moment of hurry he had in view—namely, for throwing doubt on his argument. The Chief Constable in a Scotch county was selected by a Committee of the Commissioners of supply, who were not judicial persons. He would, however, pass from the counties to the boroughs of Scotland, where law and order was preserved, sometimes in the most trying circumstances and in the most admirable manner, by the police who were under an elective authority, not only such as they had in English boroughs, but such as they were now desirous of establishing in the counties. What great city was there in which they could imagine it more difficult to keep order than in
    288
    Glasgow? And yet its police were most admirably managed by a purely elective Council. In addition to its great floating population, there was in Glasgow a large imported population from Ireland, belonging to the two conflicting parties in that country, but the police discharged their duties in a manner which was unsurpassed in any other part of the country, and they were under an elected authority which contained no Aldermen or selected Councillors. In his opinion, the more purely elective they made their authority the more they would bring on the side of the authority those moral forces which were the basis of law and order. He believed there was much less danger of favouritism and jobbery in an elective than in a nominated Body. Of all important concessions that could be made in the shape of self-government, almost the most important was the disposal of offices of responsibility and emolument, and he believed that this had, perhaps, as much to do with the question to which the noble Lord behind him had referred as any other part of the question. They were going to give Home Rule to counties, and were they to keep from them about the best and most important piece of patronage in the counties? In Northumberland, on the election of Chief Constable, after a committee of magistrates had carefully selected three candidates, a majority of the magistrates, from personal motives and under personal pressure, appointed a candidate who proved to be a most unsuitable person, and whose appointment was most unfortunate for the county. He did not believe that would have been done if the great influence now exercised in the county by his hon. Friend the Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire (Sir Matthew Ridley) had at the time been exercised as extensively as it was at that moment. But the thing was done, and he believed it always might be done in any nominated Body, and it was for the purpose of preventing such abuses, as well as for the purpose of separating administrative from judicial functions, that he should vote for the Amendment.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he had no intention of intervening in the discussion, but thought it right to make a short statement with reference to the management of the police in Scot-

    289
    land. It was perfectly true that it was not in his judicial but in his administrative capacity that the Sheriff of a county in Scotland took charge of the police in its administrative work. He took that to be true of every magistrate, but it did not alter the fact that, as in England, a judicial officer was entrusted with the control of the police; and not only had the Sheriff control of the police in a county, but, if at any time disturbance arose in a borough, and he came on the spot and took the steps necessary to put an end to it by means of the borough police, the magistrates of the borough could not interfere with his orders and directions. He was the executive officer of the State, and the responsible administrative official to take charge of the police in that capacity in all cases. His right hon. Friend referred to the fact that in the boroughs the police were administered by elective Bodies, but he ventured to point out that in that respect the right hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken. The police were not under the orders of the borough council, but under the orders of the magistrates, who were gentlemen elected and chosen by the Town Council as Aldermen were in England, but had to take the position of judicial officers as well.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORDsaid, it was no accidental or verbal distinction which existed between the functions of the Sheriff as Judge and as the representative of the Crown in his county, and it was in the latter capacity only that he had certain authority over the police. The control of the police rested with a body of men who were in no sense a judicial body—namely, the Commissioners of Supply, who were qualified in virtue of certain property, and it was to a police committee, nominated by them, that the control of the police was entrusted, an arrangement which corresponded in all respects to the police in an English county. It was entirely a mistake to say that the control of the police was made dependent on judicial functionaries either in counties or boroughs.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he did not wish to refer either to Scotland or Ireland in the few observations he had to make on this subject. All he desired was to submit one or two practical considerations in connection with the Bill, which related
    290
    solely to England and Wales. In that light it appeared to him that there was a good deal of force in the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Heneage) to the dual control of the police, and that being so there remained the choice between the County Councils on the one hand and the magistrates on the other. If they were to transfer the police to the County Councils, it would be acknowledged that that would be a very considerable change, and if it was to be made, the least hon. Members could do was to offer some serious reasons for making it. What reasons had been given in the whole of the discussion? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had, by way of illustration, cited a certain case which he said occurred in Northumberland. He (Mr. Chaplin) was unable to speak on that subject from personal knowledge; but he believed it was a solitary instance, probably the only one which could be quoted. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!) Then he hoped they would have other illustrations, because the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was less jobbery in elective Bodies in appointing to important offices than there was in nominated Bodies, and he was bound to say that, so far as he and the great majority of the Committee were concerned, that was totally opposed to their experience. Was it pretended that the administration of the police, as conducted by the magistrates in the past, was to be generally condemned? They had heard something from the hon. Member for Chester about the scandalous administration in the past, but he believed the hon. Gentleman stood alone in the assertion he made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), last night, expressly repudiated the making of any charge against the magistrates, so far as their duties were performed, although he complained of the manner in which they were appointed; and that repudiation was re-affirmed that day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. The right hon. Gentleman made some remarks in connection with the Game Laws; but he expressly guarded himself against making any imputation against the magistrates. That being so, he (Mr. Chaplin) was

    291
    bound to come to the conclusion, which was a perfectly fair one, that up to the present time no good reason had been advanced for making any change in the system which by general, if not by universal, admission was acknowledged to have worked well up to the present time. Who was in future to be responsible for the administration of the law—the County Council or the magistrates? There was no question that for some time it must be the magistrates in whose hands the responsibility was to rest. Why, then, should they be deprived of the means of discharging the responsibility? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian made a somewhat sweeping assertion when he said that the County Council ought not to be entrusted with every duty unless it was shown they were qualified to undertake them. But how were they to prove a negative? How were they to prove they were disqualified for duties until they had shown themselves unfit to perform them? He would rather put it in the other way—reversing the contention of the right hon. Gentleman—and say, "Give to the County Councils, and impose upon them every duty that you like, as soon as it is shown that they are qualified to perform them." He was opposed to binding these new Councils with too many and too onerous duties until, at all events, they had had an opportunity of seeing how these bodies performed their duties. He hoped that when his right hon. Friend (Mr. Heneage) went to a Division, and he supposed that his right hon. Friend would go to a Division, they—on the Ministerial side of the House—accompanied by a great number of good Friends on the other side of the House, would go solid against the Amendment. Then, when the Amendment was rejected, it would remain to consider at a future time whether the control of the police was to be entrusted to the authority contemplated by the Government in the Bill, or whether it should be left, as in his opinion it ought to be, in the hands of the magistrates as at present.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, there were some on the Opposition side of the House who regarded this matter as inferior in importance to none in the Bill. He, for one, must express his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
    292
    West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was not in his place to take what he (Mr. James Stuart) regarded as the popular side, at any rate, upon this important matter. He listened with astonishment to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews), and to that of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald). He listened with astonishment to those speeches, because in them what the right hon. Gentleman seemed to argue in favour of, was the status quo in respect to the police. He was astonished that those two Gentlemen were prepared to support the proposal of the Government contained in this clause. If it was desirable to remove the police from the danger of popular control, which was really the essence of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, surely, then, the argument was that the police should remain as they were, and dead against the proposal of this Bill, which was to put the police under a joint committee of the two Bodies specified in the Bill. It ought to be borne in mind why the police were placed under the Quarter Sessions. If they looked through the country it would be seen that the police had, by the wisdom of Parliament, always been placed under the control of the Body most nearly representative of those among whom the police acted. In the boroughs they were put in the hands of the representative Body, and the boroughs were the only places where they had representative Bodies; in the counties, the nearest approach to a representative Body was the Quarter Sessions. In the case of London, they found that the very reason for not putting the police under the control of any Body short of Parliament was given by Sir Robert Peel at the time of the passing of the Metropolitan Police Act, and the reason given was this, that there was no representative Body in the Metropolis in whose hands the control of the Police Force could be placed. Now, why he and his hon. Friends argued that the police should be put in the hands of the Councils, was that Parliament was creating a representative Body in the counties where no representative Body had hitherto existed. If the Government followed, as nearly as they could, the conditions which had been

    293
    laid down previously, they would place the police in the hands of the new Bodies. They need not go very far from their own doors to see the evils which arose when the police were entirely managed by some Body away from and outside the people. He asserted, without referring in detail to a matter which he would have to refer to again,—he meant the question of the London police—there was no place in England where the control of the police was more removed from the people than London, and there was no place in England where there was more dissatisfaction generally in connection with the police. He did not put that at the door of the police, but at the door of the method of their control. If they went over the water to Ireland, where they found nearly continual the conflict between the people and the police, the police were controlled from a great distance. It had been noticed by people coming to this country how ready the people were to assist the action of the law. People here assisted the action of the law because they knew the control over the execution of the law emanated, to a very great extent, from among themselves, much more, at any rate, than it did in other countries. Even as the police were now constituted, in the counties they were more under the control of the people than they were on the other side of the water. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary spoke as if a popularly elected Body would be subject to the whims of every passing impulse, and as if the Justices of the Peace or the Commissioners of the Police in London were Bodies of persons who, like the gods, were entirely free from the influence of human affairs. They needed to go no further than London to see that the controlling Bodies were certainly not altogether free from the pressure of certain prejudices, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether there were not as many instances of unelected Bodies, controlling the police in this country, being affected by passing events as there were of elected Bodies? Although a previous speaker had referred to some temporary difficulty at Cardiff, that was altogether exceptional. The borough police of this country had, as a whole, been well conducted and managed, and, as a whole, had been free from those influences which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary sought
    294
    to attribute to the police in the counties if they were made subject to popular control. If the right hon. Gentleman feared popular control in that way, why did he introduce popular control in the Bill to the extent it was introduced? He (Mr. James Stuart) had abstained intentionally from entering into the question which affected Londoners more than any other body of persons—namely, the relation of the police in London to the people. He had done so because the question would come up again for discussion. He dealt with the matter on general grounds, and he repeated that there was no question which to him was of more importance, there was none which required more discussion, there was none on which he and his hon. Friends would criticize more closely the votes of those Liberals who sat upon the Opposition Benches, but who generally voted with the Government.
    COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he thought it was very unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Heneage) had coupled together two subjects, each of which seemed worthy of discussion. These subjects were the control of the police and the appointment of the Chief Constables. His sympathies were entirely with the right hon. Gentleman in the one; in the other they were entirely opposed to him. His right hon. Friend the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) in his speech just now, pointed out that no one had shown any reason to suppose that the County Councils would be capable of undertaking the duties proposed to be entrusted to them. But he would point out to his right hon. Friend that when they were constituting a new and great Body like the County Council there ought to be some strong reasons shown for withholding from them a duty so important as the duty of controlling the police. He held that the more power that was given to these assemblies, the greater would be the position they would occupy in the county. Nor did he believe there was any reason whatever to suppose that popularly elected Bodies had any sympathy at all with disorder. There were exceptional cases, no doubt, but he thought it could be shown that elected bodies generally did exercise with rigour the

    295
    executive powers entrusted to them in the direction of suppressing disorder. He must say there was one difficulty which presented itself to his mind—it was one of those anomalies, however, which he supposed were frequently found in our system. The magistrates of a county were responsible for the peace of the county, and it certainly did seem an anomalous condition of things to deprive them of all power of keeping the peace. As a matter of fact, the same circumstances existed at present in the boroughs, and although it was an anomaly, it was one of those which had been found to work well. Therefore he supposed it might be equally applied to the counties. That was the only consideration which seemed to be against placing the control of the police in the hands of the County Councils, but he should not oppose the proposal on that account. He desired, however, to say a word in reference to the appointment of the Chief Constables. That appeared to be a matter of much greater importance. He did not believe the appointment of any high official could be satisfactorily made by any large body whatever, by the Quarter Sessions or the County Council. He had been informed by various people who were familiar with the working of Quarter Sessions that when the appointment of a Chief Constable came up it did happen that gentlemen who did not usually attend the Sessions turned up in considerable numbers. He did not think there was any reason to suppose that County Councils would be any freer than Quarter Sessions from this peculiar fallibility of human nature. Personally, he thought elected Bodies were much more likely to be swayed in that direction than Quarter Sessions; his belief was that Chief Constables ought to be appointed by some individual, be he the Lord Lieutenant or the Home Secretary, with the power of removal by address from the County Council; and he had a strong suspicion they would get better men in that way, and that there would be, by address from the County Council, a check upon the appointment of men who were not fit for the office. He was, under these circumstances, in some doubt as to the way he ought to vote. He had to weigh in his mind which was the more important feature of the case—the appointment of the Chief Constable or the control of the police. He was bound to say that, on
    296
    the whole, the control of the police being placed under the County Councils was of more urgent importance than the appointment of the Chief Constable, and it would, therefore, be his unhappy fortune on this occasion to dissociate himself from very many of his hon. Friends.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he thought there was a little confusion in the debate arising from the mixing up of the administrative and the judicial control of the police. The Committee would see the essential difference if they would allow him to recall to their minds what was the position of the police both administratively and judicially in the boroughs of the Kingdom. He knew nothing about the law of Scotland, but he knew how the police were administered in the boroughs with large populations. The administrative control of the police in those boroughs was in the hands of a Watch Committee appointed by the Town Council of the borough, and if the contention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was correct, that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) amounted to a divorce of the police from all judicial control, the greatest sinner in that respect would be the borough which the Home Secretary had the honour to represent, in which he ventured to say the police were as well and as efficiently managed as they were in any county in England. But in boroughs there was also judicial control of the police, the judicial control to which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary alluded when he went through all the various processes of issuing summonses controlling the action of the police with reference to the preservation of the peace, and that maintenance of law and order to which so many hon. Members had alluded. That was in the hands of the magistrates, and was not in the hands of Town Councils. If they went into the counties, they found the magistrates exercised a two-fold jurisdiction. As the magistrates are responsible for he maintenance of law and order, they controlled the police in the exercise of those functions to which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had alluded; but the administrative control of the county police was in the hands of the Police Committee of the county, which

    297
    was appointed by the Quarter Sessions, and really he did not suppose for one moment that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) would contend that that was a judicial function at all. That was a purely administrative function which the magistrates had discharged with great efficiency and economy. The point, therefore, was not whether they were going to transfer what was judicial, but whether, when they were setting up in the county a popularly elected Body, who were to have control of the expenditure of the finances, they should not place that elected Body in precisely the same position in regard to the administrative control of the police as Town Councils were placed in the boroughs. Of course, they might argue from theory or from experience; they might argue that a nominated Body as magistrates were a better Body for exercising these functions than an elected Body; but the whole theory of the Bill was that it was desirable to transfer the administrative functions of nominated Bodies to the hands of elected Bodies; and the arguments which had been addressed to the Committee against elected Bodies applied not only to this clause, but to every other clause of the Bill. If they wanted to judge from experience they must take the experience of the large boroughs. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary raise some doubt about the administration of the police in large boroughs. Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, had all larger populations than most of the counties; they had a larger number of police, and they had a more difficult population to deal with. They contained large numbers of the criminal classes, and they were subjected to what had been called popular gusts of feeling. Yet no one had ever complained that the administration of the police there had been ineffective or unsatisfactory, or that in any way the administration of law and order had been prejudiced by being placed in the hands of the elected representatives of those boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary alluded to the case of Torquay; he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) intended to quote that as an illustration of his point. There the police were in no way interfered with by the elected
    298
    Body. The elected Body was the prosecuting Body in that case, and the police were perfectly independent. Speaking from his own experience in a Watch Committee, the police, in the discharge of their functions, in the preservation of Laws, were not interfered with by the Town Council. For all purposes of the maintenance of law and order the police were under the control of the magistrates. If any question arose the magistrates communicated with the Home Secretary, and if it was necessary action was taken through the magistrates. All that the supporters of this Amendment argued was that the administration and financial control of the police and the patronage of the police should follow the administration and financial control of all the other business of the county. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Holderness Division of York (Commander Bethell) referred to the question of the appointment of the Chief Constable. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) thought he could show to the Committee, if they could go through the various elections which had taken place, that the election of a Chief Constable in a large borough was not conducted on those principles of popular election which prevailed in counties. The appointment of a Chief Constable—say, at Birmingham, or any other large town—vested in the hands of the Watch Committee, which was a small Body. There had just been a Chief Constable elected in Staffordshire, and the election had aroused as much interest among the magistracy as a Parliamentary Election Votes had been sought East and West, and North and South. He had no doubt the Quarter Sessions elected the very best man, but to say that there had been anything of a judicial character in the election proceedings was to caricature judicial functions. The principle which underlay the whole of this question was, were they prepared to maintain that constituents who were competent to elect men to sit in the House of Commons to control all the naval and military expenditure, and to control the policy of the Empire, were incapable of electing a Body of men in order to control financially the police force in the counties in which they lived. If popular election was worthy of the name, if popular government could be trusted to any extent, it surely could be

    299
    trusted to the extent which the very small Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage) proposed. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) trusted the Government would accept the Amendment, and that they would not maim the Representative Councils of the Counties by depriving them of functions which similarly elected Bodies in great towns had efficiently discharged for upwards of half a century.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that what they all desired was that now they were constituting new county authorities they should make adequate provision for the maintenance of that force which had the preservation of law and order in its hands in a state of effieiency. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had drawn an analogy from the case of towns, and had endeavoured to prove from that analogy that they would be perfectly safe in dealing with this question of the police in the counties in precisely the same manner as had been for a long time past done in towns. But he (Mr. Ritchie) had ventured once before in discussing this question to point out that, in the opinion of the Government, there was a very marked and wide difference between a borough and a county for purposes of this kind. He ventured again to press upon the Committee that there was that very real distinction, a distinction which made it essential that they should consider this question of counties altogether apart from the question of how the matter was arranged in the large towns for which the right hon. Gentleman was no doubt competent to speak. What was the position in large boroughs, at Birmingham, and Liverpool, and Wolverhampton? It was perfectly true that the administration of the police was in the hands of elected Bodies, but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) would acknowledge that the representation of individual interests in the borough he represented was very much more complete than it was possible for them to hope for in the case of the smaller areas over which the County Councils would have to exercise control. The Town Councils of the large boroughs consisted of a very large number of representatives; they were elected in considerable number from all parts of the borough, and they represented all sec-
    300
    tions of the community within the borough. A borough itself was a comparatively small area; although the population was large it was confined within a very limited space, and the condition of affairs in every part of the borough was within the knowledge of all the members of the council having to administer the police who had the care of law and order. But what was the condition of things in counties? They had a very large number of districts in the counties, some of them rural, some of them municipal boroughs, and if they were to follow out the analogy of the boroughs, the fit and proper system would be not to give the control of the police to the County Councils at all or to any Joint Committee, but to have a separate police force for all the various districts over which the District Councils which were to be created should have separate administrative control. But the right hon. Gentleman did not propose that, and no Member of the Committee had proposed it. What the right hon. Gentleman proposed was that the County Council—which was elected from a very large area, an area which contained many smaller areas often very widely scattered, and very often in no sense connected by interest or association—that they should give to the County Council which represented all the various places in the county the control of the police for the whole area of the county including both rural and urban districts. Now, in some counties the area was so large and the population was so great that the number of representatives which were to be retained in order to make a workable Council compelled them to limit very much indeed the number of representatives to be returned from the various areas, and many of these areas, some of them boroughs, some large urban districts, others rural districts, would only return one or two members. Now, under these circumstances, he did not think that it could be in any sense considered that the representatives of these districts or the ratepayers of these districts could have that complete control over the police force which the ratepayers of a borough had over their police force. That being so, and the county itself consisting of a very large area of very scattered population, and a very large number of districts, hardly any one of

    301
    which had connection with the other, they considered that the Representative Council of that county was not in the same sense as qualified to efficiently represent all the various communities, as able to give that same kind of control over the police force as a Town Council of a borough was. These things considered, let him observe what, in the opinion of the Government, was the best means for providing for the adequate administration of the police force. They found that hitherto it had been entirely in the hands of the magistrates. They recognized at once that, having set up a great Representative Institution, they could not propose in the House of Commons that the representatives of the people duly elected were to have no control over the administration of the police force, but they considered that, having set up an entirely new Body under the circumstances he had named, it would not be wise to put the entire control of this force which was responsible for law and order throughout the great county area under the new Body. They, therefore, thought it was a perfectly justifiable proposal that along with this new Body they should associate the old body which had for so many years adequately performed its duties respecting the administration of police. He did not anticipate that there was at all likely to be any conflict whatever in connection with this matter. He knew that some of his hon. Friends thought that possibly there might be some conflict between the two component parts of the joint committee, but the Government did not think there would be anything of the kind. There were many joint committees at the present time, some of which had been mentioned before, where nothing like the conflict which had been spoken of arose, or was likely to arise. The sole and only desire of the Government had been, in handing over to the new Authority these large powers, to obtain efficiency. There had been no question whatever of suspicion on their part of the newly-elected Bodies. It would, indeed, be a sorry compliment to these great Bodies, which the Government, as their authors, would be naturally the last to pay, if they were to say that they had a suspicion as to the way in which they would exercise their authority. What they were seeking to obtain was a Body so composed as would in their
    302
    opinion be the best for maintaining in efficiency the police force; and in associating the old and new Bodies for that object, they thought they had arrived at a solution of the difficulty which met exactly the requirements of the case, and which did not in any shape or form reflect the smallest discredit or suspicion upon the new Authorities.
    MR. BOWEN ROWLANDSsaid, he confessed he was unable to follow the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) to show the difference between the new Councils as the representatives of the interests of the counties and the Watch Committees and Town Councils as the representatives of the interests of the boroughs. As he was unable to follow the course of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, he did not intend to attempt any refutation of them. He hoped that the Government would carry out loyally their expressed intention of endeavouring to make the County Council as representative a Body as circumstances would allow, and, in his opinion, as far as it was representative it warranted the analogy which had been drawn between its functions and these of existing Town Councils. On the general question he did not know whether one ought not to sympathize with the Government in this matter, because they seemed to him to be anything but at one with their supporters. While the Government professed to be actuated by no distrust of the Bodies they proposed to set up, the speeches of their supporters behind them had breathed an entirely contrary spirit. The Committee were told by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) that an elected Body was not in favour of law and order. He (Mr. Bowen Rowlands) did not know in what quarter the hon. Gentleman had pursued his historical researches, but they must have been in quarters entirely misleading. If there was one charge more than another as to this matter which had been urged against republics and elected Bodies generally, it was that they had been too arbitrary in the exercise of the powers conferred upon them, and had put down with too strong a hand any attempted invasion of the rights and authority of which they believed themselves to be

    303
    possessed. He saw in the present proposal of the Government a gloomy foreboding as to the way the Body which the Bill called into existence would exercise their functions. While the Government were prepared to confide lunatics, the most helpless part of the community, to the care and consideration of the County Councils, they considered that if they entrusted to them the administration of the police force they would be putting power into the hands of persons who knew not how to use it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had rebuked certain hon. Gentlemen who sat behind him in no uncertain tone. He had argued that it was impossible to prove a negative. He had argued that because there was no proof as yet to show that the new County Councils were fitted for the duties conferred upon them by the Bill, the control of the police should not be given to them. That was another example of the forebodings which they had heard uttered in dismal tones by some of those who had spoken from behind the Front Government Bench. If they pursued the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division to its logical conclusion they would give these County Councils no duties at all. They were not, according to the right hon. Gentleman, to be entrusted with duties until they had shown their fitness to discharge them; but that could not be shown until they had had duties to discharge. This language of the gloomy prophets contrasted very strongly and markedly with the language of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who looked with a cheerful countenance to a not far distant period, when all, or nearly all, the functions of county government, would be vested in these new Bodies. The noble Viscount the Member for the South Molten Division of Devon (Viscount Lymington) had referred to Ireland and Wales. He (Mr. Bowen Rowlands) did not think that the tithe riots in Wales was a very happy instance for the noble Viscount to select, because the tithe disturbances occurred at a place where the police were under the control of the county magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mat-
    304
    thews) had alluded to disturbances which had taken place in Cardiff. He (Mr. Bowen Rowlands) was unable to see how the case of the disturbances at Cardiff helped the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite. At Cardiff an inquiry was held into the conduct of the police on a certain occasion. It was not for him to criticize the capacity of the tribunal which investigated the conduct of the police, nor to say anything in regard to its findings; but how an inquiry into the conduct of the police in a borough could assist the argument that the control of the police was not to be given to the County Councils, he was at a loss to understand, especially in view of those instances which were given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) showing how admirably the control worked in the larger towns and boroughs throughout the Kingdom. It was far from his intention to do anything to delay the Committee in arriving at a conclusion by a vote upon the question; but there were one or two other matters he wished to refer to. It was a curious fact, with regard to the control of the police by the authorities in boroughs and the authorities in counties, that in the disturbances which took place in Cardiff (and he believed it was also the case at Belfast) it was to the police who were imported from outside that the bulk of the disorders were mainly, if not altogether, attributed, and not to those who were under the control of the authorities within the borough. That was another instance which went to support the argument adduced on the Opposition side of the House; but among the gloomy pictures drawn on the other side, there was one bright spot shown by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). The hon. and gallant Baronet gave as a reason for the continuance of the present system that everybody in his district was desirous of being a magistrate; this might be true and might be an example of well or ill regulated ambition, but it proved nothing that could be of service in this discussion. The complaint they had to make in Wales was that magistrates were almost invariably selected from one class of people, and persons who were fairly entitled to a seat upon the Bench

    305
    were denied the position by those who had the power of appointment. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had referred to the enforcement of the Game Laws by magistrates, and had appeared to confess that it was not all that could be desired. But his (Mr. Bowen Rowland's) and his hon. Friend's complaint was not by any means restricted to the hearing of cases under the same Laws, but rather as to the employment of police as additional gamekeepers. There was a Statute which prevented gamekeepers being constables, but the action of the magistrates really turned constables into gamekeepers. He was not there to make any special charge against the magistrates, although he was obliged to confess that their training and prejudices disposed them to run in one groove. On the grounds he had enumerated, he hoped the Committee would grant full control of the police to the County Council.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had had, he thought, a difficult task, and he had not been perfectly successful in fulfilling it in endeavouring to justify the scheme of the Bill in regard to the control of the police, because the measure of the right hon. Gentleman was founded on the precedent of the Municipal Corporations Act, and everyone knew that in the Municipal Corporations the police were under the Town Council, and not under any mixed Committee or under any foreign Body. How did the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to justify and account for the proposal in his measure? As far as he (Mr. Stansfeld) could understand it, the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to draw a distinction between the boroughs and the counties with respect to the management of the police. He had said, in the first place, that if they were to go by analogy they ought to confer on District Councils the superintendence and management of the police; and he added that the County Councils were not as distinctly and as definitely representative Bodies as the District Councils were, or might be, in regard to the question of police. But what was his proposal? To give the superintendence of the police and the patronage of the police to a Body which was less representative than the County
    306
    Council itself. There was no justification, it seemed to him (Mr. Stansfeld), for that argument. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the County Council was in some respects less fitted than the Council of a borough to undertake these functions. When the Municipal Corporations Act was passed, what experience had the Councils which were created for the first time under that Act? Besides, the County Councils of the future would be largely, and perhaps mainly, composed of the very men, or, at any rate, the class of men, from whom magistrates were chosen, and who had peculiar experience in the management of police. It was no use casting doubts on the Councils which they proposed to create for popular government in the counties, unless they could justify those doubts, and he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the conditions of the case were such that the future County Councils would largely consist of county magistrates, and almost exclusively consist of owners of property and county gentlemen, from which classes of the community magistrates were chosen. Therefore, he maintained that on the ground of experience there was more reason for conferring on County Councils the administration of the police than there was reason when the Municipal Corporations Act was passed for conferring that power on the Councils which were thereby created. He wanted to give the Government to understand that they had come at length in this Bill upon what was a vital question, a question upon which they on the Opposition Benches felt deeply, and upon which their friends and constituents, and those who were politically in accord with them felt deeply; and he said this without fear or hesitation, that upon the conclusion to which the Committee came that day would depend largely the aspect in which the measure would be regarded by the people of the country, and that it would be impossible to avoid dissensions and political discussions, particularly with reference to that part of the measure. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) seemed to think that they (the Opposition) would find a difficulty in stating positively their reasons for objecting to the Government measures

    307
    or to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) and of approving of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage), which they were discussing at this moment. He (Mr. Stansfeld) felt no difficulty in stating the views and principles by which he believed they on that (the Opposition) side of the House were guided on this subject. First of all, they objected to the very thing which many people seemed to desire—they objected to mixing judicial with executive functions. They objected to too close and intimate an alliance between the Judges or magistrates and the police, and they adopted entirely the lucid and unanswerable explanation and arguments which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had put forward so clearly, to the effect that what they desired was not to interfere with the judicial functions of the magistracy, or to take away from them any power which judicially they were entitled to exercise over the police in the county, but simply to place in the hands of a popularly elected Body, which was to pay for the police, the right of nominating and managing the police. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had placed in his (Mr. Stansfeld's) hands the words of the Municipal Corporations Act which referred to this subject, and the thing was perfectly plain. The words were contained in the 91st section of the Act, and it was plain from that section that the powers conferred on the Watch Committees of Town Councils were purely administrative, and that the police remained absolutely at the disposal of the Justices, who were entitled to call upon them to act. In the 2nd sub-section of that clause, he found that every constable should be liable to obey all such lawful commands as he might receive from any of the Justices having jurisdiction in the borough or in any county in which that constable was called on to act. Therefore, there was no difference at all between hon. Members on that and hon. Members on the other side on the question of the magistracy retaining all that power which might fairly be called judicial as distinct from the administrative power, and all that he claimed was that the measure,
    308
    the principal object of which was to take away from the magistrates of counties that which was not judicial, but purely administrative, should follow that principle when they came to deal with the subject of the administration of the police. They on that (the Opposition) side of the House had another reason. They objected to the refusal to give the County Councils of the future that control over the police which the Borough Councils had, and which the Councils of Boroughs which were to be Counties were to have in the future. He thought it was a sorry compliment on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to pay to the County Councils, which he was instrumental in creating, to refuse them administrative powers which were vested in Town Councils by the Municipal Corporations Act. He (Mr. Stansfeld) ventured to think, or to suspect, that the right hon. Gentleman's feeling was not very strong against the arguments and the resolution which he (Mr. Stansfeld) was now advocating, and that it had been a matter of Party tactics and of concession to what might be called the Quarter Sessions element which had led the right hon. Gentleman to propose this compromise, which many even on the opposite side of the House did not think would work without difficulty and friction. But he (Mr. Stansfeld) should like the Committee to take a somewhat larger view of the matter, and would put it in this way. He contended that they could not do a more useful thing for law and order than to call upon the local representatives, freely chosen by the people, to administer the police, subject always to the right of the magistracy to call upon them when it might be necessary to do so. He had yet to learn the very A B C of Constitutional Government, if it was not a fact that if they wanted to rule the people with law and order, the people must be put on the side of law and order. Did not everyone know that looking back at the history of the Municipal Corporations of the country, how eminently successful the adoption in practice of that principle had been? There might have been occasions when there had been some difficulties to encounter, and when there had been some partial failure, but, looking at the question broadly and fairly, could anyone say to himself that any

    309
    other measure or proposal or method could have conduced so much to the successful observance of law and order in the big boroughs of this country as the principles and arrangements of the Municipal Corporations Act, which placed the police under the administrative control of the Town Councils? Why, it was common sense and common knowledge that about the best thing they could do with men was to sot them to a good work—was to define their duty and set them to do it. Under such circumstances most men would do their duty. If an elective Body of men were given the administration of the Bill whether they were a Borough Council or a County Council, however popularly they were chosen, they placed them at once upon the side of the law, and infused into their minds a high sense of responsibility. There had been many occasions in the history of the Municipal Corporations of this country when popular feeling was strongly against the exercise of police power, but the popularly elected representatives of the people in the Councils had not hesitated in the fulfilment of their duties, and had called upon the police to perform theirs. He said, therefore, that if they would do the best thing for law and order, they would place the police entirely under the control—subject to the right by law of the magistrates to call upon them to act in certain cases—entirely under the superintendence and control of the County Councils. What he had noted, he must say with some surprise, was that the objection to the present proposal had sprung from the other side of the House—from the supporters of the Government who had brought in this measure. He would put it to the Gentlemen who opposed this proposal to invest the County Councils of the future with the management of the police—he would put it to them on what ground did they support the proposal to create County Councils, if they could not trust them? These County Councils would undoubtedly consist to a large extent of gentlemen who were magistrates at the present time. They would further consist of persons coming mainly from the class from whom the magistrates were chosen. Was it for hon. Gentlemen opposite to cast discredit and a slur upon their own class, and upon their fitness for the fulfilment of their duties, and to
    310
    take refuge in the argument of the President of the Local Government Board, when he said that those duties which the Borough Councils and their Watch Committees had conducted and fulfilled with admirable success for half a century, those who would compose the County Councils were not fitted to perform. These were the views and the principles which they (the Opposition) entertained. They held the strongest opinion upon the subject, and they would vote upon it that day with the strongest and deepest conviction, and they would never rest satisfied, even if it were carried against them now, until they had reform, and had invested the County Councils with the same rights in regard to the police as the Borough Councils possessed.
    MR. SWETENHAM (Carnarvon, &c.)said, he had listened with admiration to the very eloquent and theoretical speech with which they had just been favoured by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld); but, with the permission of the Committee, he should like to recall it to a few dull, common-place facts. Now, let them just look for a moment at what was the proposal of the Government in this Bill. First, in regard to the position of the Chief Constable, it was proposed by the Bill that he should be retained, and that the power of appointing him should still rest with the County Magistrates; but before he dealt purely with the Amendment which they were now considering, he would draw the attention of the Committee for one moment to what the powers were which the magistrates had over the Chief Constable. They had power to appoint him, but they had not, to use the words of the Amendment, the power of controlling the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable, he apprehended, acted independently of the magistracy, nor did he think—and he spoke under correction if he was wrong—that they had the power of dismissing him, except indirectly, because, of course, they controlled the purse-strings. But the Amendment they had now under consideration went a great deal further, and proposed to give to the County Council much more power over the Chief Constable than the magistrates now had, because they not only proposed to give to the County Council his appointment, but the power of controlling him and dismissing him

    311
    as well. He ventured, therefore, to think that the matter was one to which the Committee should devote very careful consideration before they decided in which way they ought to vote. Something had been said in regard to the magistrates, and in particular by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed). Well, he could not help thinking that, as a rule, the magistrates had performed their duty, so far, in a most exemplary manner. He could not help thinking himself that if attacks were made upon them from time to time, such as were recently made upon them by some Members on the other side of the House, and if these attacks were unjustifiable, he did not think the present wish to belong to the magistracy would long continue; but, on the other hand, he felt certain that if Lords Lieutenants of counties were to take care in appointing magistrates that they only chose the best men, men of culture and intelligence and position, and who had characters to lose, the magistracy would continue to enjoy the very high respect it had hitherto secured on the part of the community. He should further like to say this: he could hardly help thinking that it was a mistake to suppose that when gentlemen took upon themselves the office of magistrates, they did not put on one side, as the Judges did, all considerations of politics and all considerations of religion, and he thought that when they came to the decision of cases brought before them, they endeavoured to decide them as the Judges did, however they may have felt politically on certain subjects beforehand. Therefore, he was one of those who maintained that magistrates ought never to be selected on account of their religion or politics, but entirely on account of their intelligence and capacity. Now, let him say one word with regard to the appointment of the constables. He confessed, himself, he should have preferred to see both the appointment of the Chief Constable and of the other constables still kept in the hands of the magistrates, or given over to some Government Department—say, the Local Government Board; but it seemed to him the Bill proposed that there should be a joint committee, so far as the management was concerned. As a matter of course, he should vote for it; but he should draw attention to what
    312
    he thought was an argument from which they could pretty well form an opinion as to how they ought to vote in this case. Suppose for one moment that a County Council, say, in the North of Wales, were to be composed—[Cries of "Divide!"] He would undertake not to trespass on the time of the Committee for more than a few moments; but perhaps the Committee would allow him to put this case. Suppose for a moment, what was not impossible, that in some of the counties of North Wales County Councils were composed largely of highly conscientious, excellent men, Nonconformist ministers who thought that the payment of tithe was wrong, and were entirely opposed to its payment. So long as tithe was payable, it was, of course, payable by law, and if the people would not pay when the law was set in motion, the police when called upon were bound to assist in carrying it out. Suppose the Chief Constable and the other constables were absolutely under the control and subject to the dismissal by a County Council such as that he had referred to, would it be in human nature either for the Chief Constable or the other constables to dare to act contrary to the wishes of those under whom they served—of those who had the control of their appointments and of their dismissal? Those appeared to him to be practical subjects which they ought to consider. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had asked, rather triumphantly—"Are you going to distrust this body which you are now creating?" No; he did not distrust them; he would not distrust them any more than the right hon. Gentleman himself; but there were certain cases in which people ought not to be judges, and those cases were where their own interests were concerned. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he did not distrust the magistrates. No; but he would distrust them just as much as anyone else, where they were made judges in their own cases. Certainly, with all admiration for the way in which magistrates had fulfilled their duties, if he had had the power to stop them, he never would have allowed them to be judges in game cases. As he objected to the magistrates being judges in their own cases, so he objected to the police, whether the Chief Constable or

    313
    the other constables, being put under the control or power of the County Councils, against some members of which they might from time to time be called upon to act. He would detain the Committee no further. He was obliged to them for having listened to his remarks, and he could not help feeling that they ought thoroughly to consider the proposal in the Amendment before they agreed to it.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he hoped they might now be allowed to divide after a debate which had lasted two hours and a-half.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 218; Noes 264: Majority 46.

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

    Craig, J.

    Craven, J.

    Acland, A. H. D.

    Crawford, D.

    Acland, C. T. D.

    Cremer, W. R.

    Allison, R. A.

    Crilly, D.

    Anderson, C. H.

    Davies, W.

    Asher, A.

    Deasy, J.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Dillon, J.

    Austin, J.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Dodds, J.

    Ballantine, W. H. W.

    Ebrington, Viscount

    Barbour, W. B.

    Ellis, J.

    Barclay, J. W.

    Ellis, J. E.

    Barran, J.

    Ellis, T. E.

    Bethell, Commander G. R.

    Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.

    Esslemont, P.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Evans, F. H.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    Bolton, T. D.

    Finucane, J.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    Firth, J. F. B.

    Bright, Jacob

    Flower, C.

    Bright, W. L.

    Flynn, J. C.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Foley, P. J.

    Bruce, hon. R. P.

    Foljambe, C. G. S.

    Brunner, J. T.

    Forster, Sir C.

    Bryce, J.

    Foster, Sir W. B.

    Buxton, S. C.

    Fowler, right hon. H. H.

    Byrne, G. M.

    Caine, W. S.

    Fox, Dr. J. F.

    Cameron, C.

    Fry, T.

    Cameron, J. M.

    Fuller, G. P.

    Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H

    Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

    Gilhooly, J.

    Carew, J. L.

    Gill, T. P.

    Causton, R. K.

    Gladstone, right hon. W. E.

    Chamberlain, R.

    Channing, F. A.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Graham, R. C.

    Clancy, J. J.

    Grey, Sir E.

    Clark, Dr. G. B.

    Gully, W. C.

    Cobb, H. P.

    Hanbury-Tracy, hon. F.S.A.

    Conway, M.

    Conybeare, C. A. V.

    Harrington, E.

    Corbet, W. J.

    Harris, M.

    Cossham, H.

    Hayden, L. P.

    Cox, J. R.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

    Holden, I.

    314

    Hooper, J.

    Playfair, right hon. Sir L.

    Howell, G.

    Hoyle, I.

    Plowden, Sir W. C.

    Jacoby, J. A.

    Potter, T. B.

    James, hon. W. H.

    Powell, W. R. H.

    Joicey, J.

    Power, P. J.

    Jordan, J.

    Power, R.

    Kay-Shuttleworth, rt. hon. Sir U. J.

    Price, T. P.

    Priestley, B.

    Kenny, C. S.

    Pugh, D.

    Kenrick, W.

    Pyne, J. D.

    Kilbride, D.

    Quinn, T.

    Labouchere, H.

    Rathbone, W.

    Lalor, R.

    Redmond, W. H. K.

    Lane, W. J.

    Reed, Sir E. J.

    Lawson, Sir W.

    Reid, R. T.

    Lawson, H. L. W.

    Richard, H.

    Leahy, J.

    Roberts, J. B.

    Leake, R.

    Robertson, E.

    Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

    Roe, T.

    Roscoe, sir H. E.

    Lewis, T. P.

    Rowlands, J.

    Lockwood, F.

    Rowlands, W. B.

    Lyell, L.

    Rowntree, J.

    Macdonald, W. A.

    Samuelson, Sir B.

    Mac Innes, M.

    Schwann, C. E.

    Mac Neill, J. G. S.

    Sexton, T.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Shaw, T.

    M'Arthur, W. A.

    Sheehan, J. D.

    M'Carthy, J. H.

    Sheehy, D.

    M'Donald, P.

    Sheil, E.

    M'Ewan, W.

    Simon, Sir J.

    M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    Slagg, J.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Smith, S.

    M'Laren, W. S. B.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    Mahony, P.

    Stack, J.

    Maitland, W. F.

    Stanhope, hon. P. J.

    Mappin, Sir F. T.

    Stansfeld, right hon. J.

    Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    Stevenson J. C.

    Marum, E. M.

    Stewart, H.

    Mayne, T.

    Storey, S.

    Molloy, B. C.

    Stuart, J.

    Montagu, S.

    Sullivan, D.

    Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

    Summers, W.

    Morgan, O. V.

    Swinburne, Sir J.

    Morley, right hon. J.

    Tanner, C. K.

    Morley, A.

    Thomas, A.

    Mundella, rt. hn. A. J.

    Thomas, D. A.

    Murphy, W. M.

    Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

    Neville, R.

    Newnes, G.

    Tuite, J.

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Vivian, Sir H. H.

    Nolan, J.

    Waddy, S. D.

    O'Brien, J. F. X.

    Wallace, R.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Watt, H.

    O'Connor, A.

    Wayman, T.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Whitbread, S.

    O'Hanlon, T.

    Williams, A. J.

    O'Hea, P.

    Williamson, S.

    O'Kelly, J.

    Wilson, C. H.

    Palmer, Sir C. M.

    Wilson, H. J.

    Parker, C. S.

    Woodall, W.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Woodhead, J.

    Paulton, J. M.

    Wright, C.

    Pease, A. E.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    TELLERS,

    Picton, J. A.

    Gardner, H.

    Pinkerton, J.

    Heneage, right hon. E.

    NOES.

    Addison, J. E. W.

    Aird, J.

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Allsopp, hon. G.

    315

    Allsopp, hon. P.

    Duncombe, A.

    Ambrose, W.

    Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

    Egerton, hon. A. J. F.

    Egerton, hon. A. de T.

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Elcho, Lord

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Elliot, Sir G.

    Baden-Powell, Sir G. S.

    Elliot, G. W.

    Elton, C. I.

    Bailey, Sir J. R.

    Ewing, Sir A. O.

    Baird, J. G. A.

    Eyre, Colonel H.

    Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

    Fellowes, A. E.

    Banes, Major G. E.

    Field, Admiral E.

    Baring, T. C.

    Fielden, T.

    Barry, A. H. S.

    Finlay, R. B.

    Bartley, G. C. T.

    Fisher, W. H.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

    Bates, Sir E.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Baumann, A. A.

    Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

    Bazley-White, J.

    Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

    Forwood, A. B.

    Fowler, Sir R. N.

    Beadel, W. J.

    Fraser, General C. C.

    Beaumont, H. F.

    Fry, L.

    Beckett, E. W.

    Fulton, J. F.

    Beckett, W.

    Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

    Bentinck, W. G. C.

    Beresford, Lord C. W. de la Poer

    Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

    Bickford-Smith, W.

    Gedge, S.

    Biddulph, M.

    Gent-Davis, R.

    Bigwood, J.

    Gilliat, J. S.

    Birkbeck, Sir E.

    Goldsmid, Sir J.

    Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

    Goldsworthy, Major General W. T.

    Bond, G. H.

    Boord, T. W.

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

    Borthwick, Sir A.

    Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

    Bristowe, T. L.

    Granby, Marquess of

    Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

    Gray, C. W.

    Green, Sir E.

    Brookfield, A. M.

    Greene, E.

    Brooks, Sir W. C.

    Grimston, Viscount

    Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.

    Grotrian, F. B.

    Gunter, Colonel R.

    Burghley, Lord

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Campbell, Sir A.

    Hall, A. W.

    Campbell, J. A.

    Hall, C.

    Carmarthen, Marq. of

    Halsey, T. F.

    Cavendish, Lord E.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Chaplin, right hon. H.

    Charrington, S.

    Hamilton, Col. C. E.

    Clarke, Sir E. G.

    Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

    Coddington, W.

    Hanbury, R. W.

    Colomb, Sir J. C. R.

    Hankey, F. A.

    Compton, F.

    Hardcastle, E.

    Cooke, C. W. R.

    Hartington, Marq, of

    Corbett, A. C.

    Heath, A. R.

    Corbett, J.

    Heaton, J. H.

    Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hervey, Lord F.

    Cross, H. S.

    Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

    Cubitt, right hon. G.

    Curzon, hon. G. N.

    Hill, Colonel E. S.

    Dalrymple, Sir C.

    Hill, A. S.

    Darling, C. J.

    Hoare, E. B.

    De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

    Hoare, S.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    Hobhouse, H.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Hornby, W. H.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

    Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

    Donkin, R. S.

    Howard, J.

    Dorington, Sir J. E.

    Howorth, H. H.

    Dugdale, J. S.

    Hozier, J. H. C.

    Duncan, Colonel F.

    Hubbard, hon. E.

    316

    Hughes, Colonel E.

    Norton, R.

    Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

    O'Neill, hon. R. T.

    Paget, Sir R. H.

    Hunt, F. S.

    Parker, hon. F.

    Hunter, Sir W. G.

    Pearce, Sir W.

    Isaacson, F. W.

    Pelly, Sir L.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Penton, Captain F. T.

    James, rt. hon. Sir H.

    Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

    Jeffreys, A. F.

    Plunkett, hon. J. W.

    Jennings, L. J.

    Powell, F. S.

    Johnston, W.

    Price, Captain G. E.

    Kelly, J. R.

    Puleston, Sir J. H.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Quilter, W. C.

    Kenyon, hon. G. T.

    Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

    Rankin, J.

    Rasch, Major F. C.

    King, H. S.

    Reed, H. B.

    Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

    Richardson, T.

    Ridley, Sir M. W.

    Knightley, Sir R.

    Ritchie, rt. hn. C. T.

    Knowles, L.

    Robertson, Sir W. T.

    Kynoch, G.

    Robertson, J. P. B.

    Lafone, A.

    Robinson, B.

    Lambert, C.

    Ross, A. H.

    Lawrance, J. C.

    Round, J.

    Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.

    Russell, Sir G.

    Lawrence, W. F.

    Russell, T. W.

    Lea, T.

    Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M.

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Sellar, A. C.

    Lees, E.

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

    Leighton, S.

    Sidebotham, J. W.

    Lennox, Lord W. C. Gordon-

    Sinclair, W. P.

    Smith, right hon. W. H.

    Lethbridge, Sir R.

    Lewis, Sir C. E.

    Smith, A.

    Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

    Spencer, J. E.

    Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Stanley, E. J.

    Long, W. H.

    Stephens, H. C.

    Lowther, hon. W.

    Stewart, M. J.

    Lowther, J. W.

    Swetenham, E.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Sykes, C.

    Macdonald, rt. hon. J. H. A.

    Talbot, C. R. M.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Maclean, F. W.

    Taylor, F.

    Maclean, J. M.

    Temple, Sir R.

    Maclure, J. W.

    Theobald, J.

    Madden, D. H.

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Makins, Colonel W. T.

    Townsend, F.

    Malcolm, Col. J. W.

    Trotter, Colonel H. J.

    Mallock, R.

    Tyler, Sir H. W.

    Maple, J. B.

    Vernon, hon. G. R.

    Matthews, rt. hon. H.

    Vincent, C. E. H.

    Mattinson, M. W.

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Webster, R. G.

    Milvain, T.

    Whitley, E.

    More, R. J.

    Whitmore, C. A.

    Morgan, hon. F.

    Wilson, Sir S.

    Morrison, W.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Moss, R.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

    Wood, N.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Mulholland, H. L.

    Wright, H. S.

    Muncaster, Lord

    Wroughton, P.

    Murdoch, C. T.

    Yerburgh, R. A.

    Newark, Viscount

    Young, C. E. B.

    Noble, W.

    Norris, E. S.

    TELLERS.

    Northcote, hon. Sir H. S.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the next Amendment was

    317
    in his name, to strike out from the fourth Sub-section the words—
    "Subject as to the use of buildings by the Quarter Sessions and the Justices to the provisions of this Act respecting the Joint Committee of Quarter Sessions and County Councils."
    The clause proposed to give to County Councils certain powers. It transferred to the Councils administrative business at present transacted by the Quarter Sessions in respect of certain matters. Sub-section 4 provided for the transfer to the County Council of the powers of Quarter Sessions with regard to shire halls, county halls, Assize Courts, Judges' lodgings, lock-up houses, Court houses, Justices' rooms, police stations and county buildings, works and property, but this power was subject to their use by the Quarter Sessions under other provisions of the Bill respecting Joint Committees of Quarter Sessions and County Councils. He brought forward the Amendment because he had a strong objection to the principle of dual control by the joint committee which it was proposed to establish, consisting partly of the Justices of the Peace and partly of the County Councils; and just as the principle of the control of the police by such joint committee was open to very grave objection, so he thought that the same dual control as applied to the question of shire halls, county halls, Assize Courts, Judges' lodgings, and so on, was liable to friction and very great abuse. It would be said, no doubt, by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that as these matters related to the administration of justice, therefore it was desirable that the magistrates should have something to say as to the use of these buildings. Well, he took the position himself in the first place, that to retain the existing magistrates as a judicial Body was a mistake, and that they ought to be abolished altogether; but that, of course, he was not going to argue at the present time. Another principle upon which he went, in opposing the dual control intended to be set up, so far as regarded the matters specified in this sub-clause, was that, as those buildings and so forth had to be maintained out of the rates, and as the people were to be taxed for the purpose of providing such rates, it was only proper that their elected representatives
    318
    should have control over these specified buildings and other places. It was a fundamental principle that was known in the constitution of this country that there should be no taxation without representation, and if it was argued that the magistrates were entitled to share this control, his answer would be that the magistrates, having the opportunity of being elected on the County Councils—an opportunity which they were pretty certain to exercise to the fullest extent, because they would have better opportunities of becoming elected, in all probability than other persons, because they would have greater advantages under municipal nominations under this Bill—would have all the control over these buildings as members of the Councils, either nominated or elected, which they could desire. In view of the great difficulties that would arise, and, in view of the great objections that might exist on many grounds to this principle of dual control by joint committees, he thought that it was undesirable that these buildings and other arrangements should be left under the control of any such joint committee. The principle they went upon was that those who had to pay for these things should be unfettered in their control and use, and that, if the Justices of the Peace wanted the use of those buildings for particular purposes at particular seasons, they should apply to the Councils for permission to use them. Under the clause as it stood, what would happen would be this: county buildings would be entirely under the control of an unrepresentative section of the Councils and unrepresentative magistrates, because it would hardly be denied that the joint committee would, in all probability, consist almost exclusively of the magistrates who had not been, and would not be, the elected members of the Councils. Now, that being so, he thought it would be very hard indeed on the majority of the people in any county that the buildings they had put up there, and which had to be maintained by a rate paid by them, should be entirely and exclusively under the control of those who did not directly represent them. He thought there could be no doubt as to what would be the result. That would happen which was happening to-day in many parts of the country, especially in country districts, at political meetings—

    319
    namely, that they who represented the party opposite to the parson and the squire were excluded from the only room in villages in which they could possibly hold meetings—that was to say, in the village school-room. That was a great grievance, and just as they felt it to be a grievance in that small matter, so he apprehended the ratepayers would find it a grievance to be excluded from their own buildings through the prejudices of the unrepresentative members of the Council who would constitute one part of the joint committee. It was in order to obviate such difficulties as those, which it was pretty sure were likely to arise, and, in order to insist upon the great principle that the people had a rightto control their own buildings and works and property, that he ventured on this sub-section to enter the strongest protest against the dual control mentioned in this sub-section, and that he ventured to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 18, to leave out from "subject" to end of paragraph (IV.).—(Mr. Conybeare.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)said, he did not know whether the hon. Member seriously contemplated the acceptance by the Committee of this Amendment. He (Mr. Long) could assure the Committee that there need be no apprehension of that which the hon. Member referred to—namely, unfair execution of these duties by the joint committees. The only object of the sub-section was to enable the joint committee of the Quarter Sessions and the County Councils to have the use of the buildings mentioned so far as they might be required by either of those Bodies. The Quarter Sessions would have to make use of those buildings for several purposes.
    MR. PICTONsaid, that surely the representatives of the ratepayers ought to be supreme in managing the property of the ratepayers. The representatives of the ratepayers were the County Council, and the joint
    320
    committees would be by no means representative. He did not think that it was in the slightest degree probable that the representatives of the ratepayers would be unreasonable people, and it was in the highest degree likely that they would always allow such use of the county property as was requisite for the carrying out of the law. He thought it was in the highest degree unlikely that any difficulty would arise through the carrying of this Amendment, and he considered it most desirable that the County Council should be supreme on this subject, and should have complete control over the property of the ratepayers.
    It being ten minutes to Seven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES BILL— [BILL 278.]
  (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Baron Henry de Worms.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  DR. TANNERsaid, it really seemed to him unseemly at such an hour as this to attempt to make progress with an important Bill of this character. It would be improper to proceed with a Bill even smaller than this; indeed, he should think it would be impossible to push any measure through at such an hour. He supposed the hon. Member who had the Bill in charge, like other hon. Members, was at this time of the evening rather hungry and waiting for his dinner, and he (Dr. Tanner) should think that the five minutes time which was all that was left for hon. Members to discuss matters of public interest would be a great deal better employed in the fulfilment of one's natural functions, which not even hon. Gentlemen opposite could ignore, than trying to run through measures in this manner. He sincerely hoped that further discussion on the Bill would be deferred until a more seemly opportunity.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he would appeal to the hon.

  321
  Gentleman to withdraw his objection. The present Bill was not only an innocent one, but one which would be of the greatest benefit to the North Sea fishermen; therefore, he trusted the hon. Gentleman would allow it to pass this stage. The Bill was founded upon a Convention agreed to by all European nations bounding on the North Sea.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he would add his appeal to that of the right hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks). This Bill was one of the best which had been brought in this Session. It was one for total prohibition on the sea. It only remained for Her Majesty's Government to bring in a measure to carry out total prohibition on the land, and their legislation upon the subject of the liquor traffic would be perfect.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he did not care much for appeals which were made to him from the other side of the House. Her Majesty's Government and hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side invariably obstructed Irish measures when they were brought forward; and he, therefore, felt in duty bound, when Ministerial measures were brought forward, to try and get them discussed in an adequate fashion. He was always anxious to prevent the misuse on the part of the Government of the privileges the House conferred upon them. Seeing that the Bill was of the character described by hon. Gentlemen who had spoken from those (the Opposition) Benches, he would not proceed with his objection. If he refrained from offering opposition, however, it was not because of any love he bore the other side. He should not persist in his objection out of compliment to Gentlemen on his own side with whom he was proud to be associated.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he wished to state to the House that in accordance with the statement he had made yesterday, he should ask the House to go into Committee of Supply on Thursday next,
  322
  and that Vote 12 of the Army Estimates would be proposed and some Votes on the Navy Estimates.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will not Votes on the Civil Service be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No; no Civil Service Votes will be taken.
  DR. TANNER: Will the Navy Estimates be taken in order?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Not in regular order.
  STANSFELD: Will the Local Government Bill be the first Order on Monday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes; or if not, only some remaining stages of minor measures will be taken.
  The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  EAST INDIA (MR. WILLIAM TAYLER).

    RESOLUTION.
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE, in rising to call attention to the case of Mr. William Taylor, late Commissioner of Patna; and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable, with a view to the settlement of a long-standing controversy as to the wrong stated to have been suffered by a meritorious servant of the Crown, that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into this case,"
    said, he entreated the House not to turn away from the cry of a meritorious servant of the Crown because his was "a tale of ancient wrong," and because he was 81 years of age, and his wrongs had their origin 31 years ago. The longer cruel hardships had remained unredressed the greater was the urgency for redress. The story which he had to tell was of a man who, placed in a position of the highest responsibility, and in circumstances of appalling difficulty and danger, did his duty to the bust of

    323
    his abilities, and saved a great Province from the horrors of the Mutiny. That man was, unfortunately, misunderstood, and cruelly wronged by his superior officer, and for 30 years since then he had devoted all his energies to the task of rehabilitating himself before the world. He now appealed to the Commons of England for the redress which that House never refused in a deserving case. Close upon 60 years ago William Taylor landed in India as a young cadet in the Company's employment. He served for nearly 30 years with success and distinction in every grade of the Bengal Civil Service, and at length reached the topmost step but one of the official ladder, and became Commissioner, or Chief Ruler, of the populous Province of Patna or Western Behar. The Commissioner of Patna, as an administrative Chief, was subordinate only to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal at Calcutta, who, in his turn, was subordinate only to the Governor General and the Supreme Government of India. That was the position held by Mr. Tayler at the moment when the awful wave of the great Mutiny in 1857 swept over Northern India and surged up to and around the Province of Patna. How he faced this appalling situation was matter of history. Unfortunately, his views and those of his superior, Sir Frederick Halliday, Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, were directly and openly at variance, both as to the nature of the crisis and as to the means by which it should be met. Sir Frederick Halliday had before this proposed to remove Mr. Taylor. Four hundred miles away, in the security of Calcutta, he thought that Patna was safe; that the revolt of the neighbouring Sepoys at the Patna Cantonments of Dinapore was inconceivable; that the Wahabee Mahomedans of Patna were "innocent and inoffensive," and so forth; he considered all Taylor's measures utterly wrong, and one, whereby the Christians at Gya and Tirhoot were warned to concentrate on the central station of Patna, he stigmatized as done under a panic. The upshot was that while Sir Frederick Halliday was brought home to the high places of the Secretary of State's Council—from which he had only retired a few months ago—Mr. Taylor was virtually dismissed from his high office, a ruined and broken man. The sentence of the Lieutenant Governor
    324
    of Bengal was confirmed by Lord Canning and the Government of India, who, in such a case, would be little else than the Lieutenant Governor under another name; and while the facts of the Mutiny were only obscurely known, the crushing sentence was further endorsed by the Board of Control, though some of the most serious parts of the charge were there withdrawn. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) would not attempt to pass judgment himself on these remote events, or on the actions of Mr. Tayler in the Behar crisis; but he should refer to the testimony of every recognized authority and every competent witness. He would first show that at least two out of the five Members of Lord Canning's Government who had concurred in the dismissal on the imperfect evidence entirely changed their opinion on fuller information, and after the Wahabee trials of 1865. One of the chief charges brought against Mr. Tayler was that he had been unduly severe against the Wahabee fanatics, whom Sir Frederick Halliday called "inoffensive men, against whom there was no ground of suspicion." And it was suggested that Mr. Taylor had been misled by the intrigues of his own subordinates. But some years later these very Wahabees were tried by Sir Herbert Edwardes on other charges of treason, convicted, and sentenced to death, and Mr. Taylor's subordinates, who had been dubbed intriguers, were decorated with the Star of India. Writing to Mr. Tayler, Sir Herbert Edwardes said—
    "The centre of the truly bitter and formidable conspiracy was Patna. You lived there and knew what was going on. You acted on your knowledge, and paralyzed the whole of the Wahabee sect, by seizing their leaders at the very moment when they could and would have struck a heavy blow against us. The Bengal Government were determined not to believe in the Wahabee conspiracy, and punished you for your vigour. Time has done you justice, shown that you were right, and hanged or transported the enemies whom you suspected and disarmed."
    Sir Bartle Frere wrote that it "had been proved beyond all doubt" that Mr. Tayler saved the Province from insurrection. He turned from the evidence of Members of the Government—two of whom voluntarily came forward afterwards and testified that, had the facts been known to them, they would not have joined in the censure passed on Mr. Taylor—to the opinions of every

    325
    historian and every writer who had written upon the terrible times in India during the great Sepoy Mutiny. Their authority would not be impugned by Her Majesty's Government. They were Sir John Kaye, Colonel Malleson, and Dr. Alexander Duff. They had all given precisely the same verdict with respect to the treatment of Mr. Taylor by the Government, and they showed the greatest anxiety, as being honest men they were bound to do, that he should obtain redress of his injuries. Dr. Alexander Duff was the head of the Scottish missionaries in Bengal, and his name was a household word over the Province, and he was known as a most estimable character when he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) was in Bengal; and he wrote that, under Providence, Mr. Tayler was the protector of Patna and the saviour of Behar, and for a single error of judgment he was removed from his exalted station, in which he had rendered momentous service to India and the British Crown; and Dr. Duff added that the real ground obviously was the antagonism between Mr. Tayler's policy and the policy of the Government in dealing with the events of the crisis. A precisely similar verdict was given by others—by Victoria Cross heroes, like his old friend Mr. Fraser Macdonald and Mr. Ross Mangles. The latter wrote—
    "I can bear my humble testimony to the vigorous and judicious measures which you adopted at Patna, and which, beyond question, saved that city. I have always been surprised that your services have never been recognized, but I hope that justice nuts yet be done to you."
    These words were written 20 years ago. Take the evidence, again, of gallant Boyle, the engineer who planned the defence of the little Arrah Compound. He wrote—
    "I am glad to repeat what was then the general conviction, since confirmed by facts—that had you not acted as you did on your own responsibility (disregarding for a time routine and needless technicality)"—this was the sting of the whole thing—"Patna could not have been saved. That you were the means of saving Patna and the lives of the Christian community there is as undeniable as that less far-seeing policy would have involved a widespread catastrophe. When I consider these things, how you have been treated for your eminent services while Commissioner of Patna, how you have been wronged, how you were degraded instead of being honoured, and how even yet neglect and injustice are unredressed."
    326
    Sir Vincent Eyre endorsed all that had been written by Sir John Kaye and Colonel Malleson, who rejoiced that in Mr. Taylor they had the right man in the right place, who had the courage to assume responsibility adequate to the occasion. It was because Mr. Tayler had that courage and assumed that responsibility that he had been disgraced and degraded these long years. He should only trouble the House with one extract more on the subject, and it was from the gallant Colonel Rattray, of Rattray's Sikhs, who happened to have lived in the same house with Mr. Taylor. He said—
    "No one but those who were working with Mr. Tayler, living in his house as I was, can know the amount of burden thrown upon him, and all that I can say is not once did I see a symptom of panic during the whole of the time I was working with him. Always courteous, always affable, always cool, and always approachable, he was the picture of what an English gentleman should be when placed in a most critical and dangerous position, and I maintain through thick and thin that it is mainly due to him that Patna was saved. I sincerely trust that Mr. Tayler may yet live to see full justice meted out to him."
    This testimony was given 10 years ago. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) might quote precisely similar language from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Patna, the Church of England Chaplain of Patna, the German missionary there, round robins of English residents, round robins of Natives, surgeons, engineers, all sorts and conditions of men; and he challenged a single contradictory statement from those who were there to say that Mr. Tayler's policy was wrong. He did not think that anyone would deny that there had been all along an overwhelming consensus of opinion, especially in India, that a grave error was committed by the Government in this case; and what he feared was that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) might be tempted to say that the matter had been decided on its merits, and that the Government could not re-open the case. He held in his hand absolutely undeniable proof that the matter had never been decided on its merits since the time when, in 1865, the new facts were discovered, and the Members of the Government of India themselves altered their opinions. The letter which he was about to read was the keystone of his

    327
    case. It was an autograph letter of that noble-minded statesman, the late Sir Stafford Northcote. It was written on India Office paper, and the signature had been verified by his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir Stafford Northcote). The Under Secretary of State for India had informed him, in reply to a Question, that there was no trace whatever to be found of this letter in the India Office. The letter was as follows:—
    "Harley Street, December 7, 1868. My dear Sir,—Your appeal has not yet, as I find, gone before the Committee of our Council, by whom it will have to be dealt with. I take for granted that when it comes on for discussion, Sir Frederick Halliday will abstain from taking part in the deliberation of the Council; and I feel assured that the Duke of Argyll will look into the question 'fairly and fully.' I remain, yours very faithfully, STAFFORD NORTHCOTE."
    What next did they find? The Government to which the late Sir Stafford Northcote belonged went out of Office. With regard to what happened, The Times—which did not usually use unmeasured language—called it "a sinister fact." His hon. Friend (Sir John Gorst) spoke of it as "an accident that may happen in the best-regulated Departments." For 10 long years Mr. Taylor waited for the orders on his Memorial that was to be "fairly and fully" looked into, and then he discovered, from a statement in The Scotsman, and not by information from the India Office, that his papers, including the Memorial, had gone, vanished, no one knew when, no one knew whither, and that the Duke of Argyll, as Secretary of State, had recorded this most significant Minute—"My opinion is against re-opening the case." The House would observe that this was not against Mr. Tayler on the merits of the case, not against the merciful inclinations of his Predecessor, Sir Stafford Northcote, but against any consideration of those merits. He protested at once, and most strongly, against the attempt that had been made to throw the blame for the miscarriage of justice on the Duke of Argyll. He held that the opinion of the Duke was a just and proper one, probably even a necessary one, for he had not been made aware of the promise and intention of Sir Stafford Northcote, and could only conclude that in re-opening the case he would be casting a slur on the judgment of his Predecessor. The words of the Duke, after
    328
    the promise of Sir Stafford Northcote, could not possibly be got over. They declared definitely that the case had not been re-opened, and they cast palpably and incontestably on his hon. Friend the responsibility of refusing to do an act of justice. Why, it might be asked, was the present year so especially favourable for the reconsideration of this matter? He had some little delicacy in replying very directly to that question, though the answer was well known to everyone who had followed the case. It was his determination, and that of those who acted with him, not to say one word of imputation against the two most distinguished and most eminent Members of the Secretary of State's Council, Sir Frederick Halliday and Sir Henry Maine, who for a great many years thought it their duty strongly to oppose Mr. Tayler, and who both, within the last few months, had been removed from that Council, one by death and one by resignation. Hard words enough had passed on both sides. He would earnestly say let bygones be bygones; and in extenuation of any bitter words that might be raked up against Mr. Tayler, he would urge that when charges on public grounds were brought against a man and were known by him to be false it was only human nature to assign some of the animus to private grounds. And if Sir Henry Maine were alive he would be the first to laugh at the original cause of quarrel between him and Mr. Tayler. The quarrel was over the famous Simla "pickles case," when the late Sir William Mansfield accused his secretary, Captain Jervis, of stealing his pickles. Simla society was rent asunder into fiercely contending factions by the case. Sir Henry Maine, as Law Member of Council, was, in a way, the Legal Adviser of the Commander-in-Chief. Mr. Tayler was the advocate of the secretary, and triumphantly won his case. But surely those old feuds of bygone times might now be forgotten. It remained an obvious practical fact that, whereas for at least 20 years it had been impossible for a Secretary of State to do anything for Mr. Taylor without offering something like a rebuff to his two most distinguished Councillors, now nothing of the kind was involved. He might say that the whole Press of India and a most influential portion of the Press of England had dwelt on that fact,

    329
    Within the last few months everyone of the great newspapers of India had called on the Secretary of State to move in the matter, and had declared that justice could now be done without hurting the dignity or the character of anyone, and with great advantage to the character of the Government. The Times the other day said of Mr. Taylor that—
    "The time that is left to him in the ordinary course of nature cannot be long. It will be our loss rather than his if the future historian has to record that he went down to the grave with all who knew his deeds applauding them, and officialism alone holding stupidly, unjustly, and dishonestly aloof."
    It was official, not national, ingratitude; and The Calcutta Englishman, passionately applauding this sentiment, added that—
    "Every right-hearted Englishman must hope that his children and grandchildren will have cause to be thankful that he worked for their honour during the 30 years of his retirement undeterred by official slights or by unmanly doubts of his eventual success."
    Everyone who knew the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary and the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cross) would feel that they, at least, were the last men in the world not to join heartily in such a wish. But he must sorrowfully confess that it was possible that his hon. Friend, after all he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) had ventured to urge, and after all that would be urged by those who would follow him, might still feel a dread of some reproach for committing what had been represented to him as a breach of official etiquette. He ventured to assure him—and the generous heart of the people of this country would assure him—that when that official sin came to be recorded against him, the Recording Angel would remember the poor old hero of Patna and his wrongs, and would drop a tear on the record and blot it out for ever. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN S.E.said, he rose with the greatest pleasure to second the Resolution, and if he might be permitted to offer a reason for doing so, it was because he was to have had the honour of seconding the Motion of Sir Eardley Wilmot on this subject when the case was about to be brought forward in 1878. Since that time, owing to changes of
    330
    Governments, changes in Ministries and other accidental circumstances the case had not been brought forward, and there had been no investigation whatsoever of this question. They had been told time after time that the case, having been investigated by successive Secretaries of State, had passed beyond the cognizance of the present day. He should elaborate that point in the course of his observations to show that, except in the first interval, no investigation of any description whatsoever had been held. If he might be allowed to offer an apology for intervening in this debate, it would be that he had the honour of having been himself engaged in the transactions to which the Motion of the hon. Member related at the time at which they occurred, and he hoped that the personal testimony of one who had been engaged in the circumstances he was endeavouring to relate would, however junior his position might be, continue to be regarded as of some value in that House. In 1857, when these events occurred, the Province of Bahar and the City of Patna were saved from destruction, and from a loss of life such as they were not able to estimate by the bold, determined, wise, and well-conducted action of Mr. Commissioner Tayler. The Mutiny which broke out in India in 1857 had overwhelmed nearly the whole of the country, and in a few isolated spots there were detached sections of our countrymen exposed to dangers to which he sincerely hoped none would ever be exposed again. In such circumstances as those, Mr. Commissioner Tayler, then in the prime of life—now an old man of 81 years—and having had an official experience of 26 years in India—during which he had obtained the distinguished approbation of everyone under whom he had served—had to meet a most perilous crisis with scarcely any assistance from those with whom he was associated, that which he did receive being in many cases a detriment and a block to him. He rose to the emergency; but he committed the unpardonable fault of having been right when his official superiors were wrong, and the vindictiveness and narrow-minded spite which wrecked his career and had followed him ever since was attributable to nothing but that he, being a most clear-sighted and capable Englishman, had met with the censure

    331
    of those who were loss clear-sighted and capable than himself. The great City of Patna, close to the military station of Dinapore, containing great Government factories, and millions of treasure, was left with scarcely any garrison at all, which might be said to consist of Commissioner Tayler himself and a few police when the emergency arose. In the month of June, 1857, Commissioner Taylor knew from previous investigation what was not understood by the authorities at Calcutta—of the existence of a great and powerful conspiracy aimed at uprooting the foundation of our power in India—concerning which everything that he then alleged was, seven years afterwards, borne out by unimpeachable evidence beyond the possibility of doubt. He had to deal with the circumstance that eight miles lower down the Ganges than Patna there was a garrison of three of the best regiments of our Indian Army, who were held in check by one regiment in which he (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) had the honour to serve. Their efficiency could not be doubted from a military point of view; but for that very reason they were all the more dangerous should they become our enemies. Commissioner Tayler was urging on the authorities the existence of the conspiracy, and the necessity of disarmament. The insurrection was spreading all over the country, and our out-stations were being overwhelmed, owing to their small numbers, when Commissioner Tayler thought that it would be a prudent step to disarm these 2,000 Indian troops, for which proceeding there were means at hand, and an opportunity afforded. The only opposition offered was that of Sir Frederick Halliday and General Lloyd, who desired to retain a belief in the loyalty of the Native troops with whom he had been associated all his life, although in the course he took he was afterwards proved to have been grievously mistaken, and which course was absolutely opposed to the information of Commissioner Taylor. At Patua itself he nipped the insurrection in the bud by seizing somewhat unceremoniously—insurrections were not to be put down with rose water—the Wahabee leaders without further detriment to themselves, except that they were deprived of the power of doing mischief. That raised the ire of Sir Frederick Halliday, then Governor of Bengal, whose in-
    332
    fluence was strong enough to induce Lord Canning and General Lloyd to resist every representation made to them as to the disarmament of the forces, which might, in the early days of the conspiracy, have been deprived of the power of doing evil. Subsequent events had undoubtedly proved that in every step taken by Commissioner Taylor he was right, and that the steps taken by his official superiors, who were opposed to him, were absolutely and lamentably wrong. He (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) would show presently how that bore on the insurrection in India, and how, without the intervention of Providence, Lucknow—to whose relief his father was advancing—would have fallen, in consequence of this neglect of Mr. Taylor's advice. This disarmament of the Native troops might easily have taken place early in June, and when at last permission was given the operation was so mismanaged and bungled that a large force of somewhat over 2,000 trained Sepoys—as fine soldiers as any in the world—were able to escape into the adjoining Province of Behar, with the whole of their ammunition in their possession, which enabled them for 15 months to oppose resistance to the attempt to suppress the Mutiny. But the chief point alleged against Mr. Commissioner Tayler was that he showed a want of courage in what was called the disgraceful withdrawal of the officials from the districts. What did that mean? All over India small detached bodies of Europeans were striving for their lives. In the midst of the circumstances that surrounded them they would naturally retire to the nearest town; and the whole gravamen of the charge against Mr. Taylor was that he foresaw the possibility of those small detached parties being obliged to take refuge in Patna, and gave facilities for that which all over India was taking place without any orders at all. Another charge against him was that he had prevented the advance of the heroic Sir Vincent Eyre to the relief of Arrah. When the authorities had succeeded in bungling the plan of disarmament, the 2,000 Sepoys, who made their escape with their arms and ammunition, laid siege to the small house at Arrah to which the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) had alluded. A detachment of European soldiers, 400 in number, who were sent to their relief,

    333
    had fallen into an ambush; they suffered severely, and had to return diminished in number by 250. The allegation against Commissioner Taylor was that when some few days later a much smaller detachment of British soldiers, available for the relief of the beleaguered garrison, was passing up the river, he recommended them to proceed with caution. If he had not done that, he would have been deficient in respect of the first element of his public duty. Seeing what had happened to a much superior force a few days before Commissioner Tayler—whose business, as a Civil officer, it was to sift all the evidence derived from a hundred sources as to what the probability of success might be—sent through the military officer commanding at Dinapore, who had to decide whether the movement should be made or not, certain advice either not to advance, or else to advance with caution to what, in his opinion, might otherwise be almost certain defeat. So far from that being in any degree a discredit to Mr. Taylor, he (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) maintained that it reflected the highest possible credit upon his foresight and his appreciation of the duties which fell to his share as Civil officer, in giving all the information in his power to the Military Authorities. These were the only two points alleged against this man. He would not say, in general terms, that there had been official rancour displayed against Mr. Tayler, as he (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) did not believe that such a feeling was entertained by the higher officials, the case having received a fair hearing whenever it had come up for higher consideration, and Mr. Taylor having been especially completely exonerated by the Court of Directors. But one individual had, from first to last, displayed implacable hostility against Commissioner Tayler, because that gentleman had been right, whilst he himself, his official superior, had been wrong, and these two insignificant reasons had been picked out as a lever for bringing to an end the official career and ruining the prospects and embittering the life of a gentleman to whomthe people of India, perhaps, owed as much as to any other man engaged in the Mutiny. He was not aware that there was anything further alleged against him; but if Mr. Taylor had committed an error of judgment in this
    334
    matter, what did it amount to? It amounted to a case of this kind—that in extinguishing a great and dangerous conflagration, which threatened life and property, those who managed the fire-engine might have accidentally sprinkled the bystanders. Now, let him (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) point out that subsequent events, in every respect, had confirmed the soundness of the judgment arrived at by Mr. Taylor. It was at that time urged on Lord Canning, who had not then been long in India—and of whom he wished to speak with every respect, he having, of course, been in this matter in the hands of his official advisers—who had long years of Indian experience—that Commissioner Tayler had, without duo cause, seized and imprisoned some worthy and inoffensive Mahommedan gentlemen—these being the Wahabee conspirators. If that conspiracy had not been promptly checked much bloodshed and slaughter would have resulted. But what happened later on? In 1864, after Commissioner Taylor had been displaced and relegated to private life, when everything had been done that was possible to ruin him, when he had been deprived of pay and pension, and forced to rely upon his own extraordinary talents as an advocate for a subsistence, this remarkable event occurred. An investigation which was carried on by Sir Herbert Edwards at Simla, in the North-West Provinces, in connection with the Wahabee conspiracy, brought to light the fact that the very individuals whom Commissioner Taylor had seized—thus nipping the insurrection in the bud—were the persons who were subsequently proved to be the principal movers in the insurrectionary movement in 1857, which was intended to upset the British power in India. Those men were convicted in 1861, on the clearest evidence; but Commissioner Tayler was, unfortunately, unable to profit by what happened. But the men who were instrumental in proving that the Wahabees seized by Commissioner Taylor were connected with the conspiracy were, by the deliberate action of the Indian Government, promoted for the services they had rendered the country. From that day up to the present, every subsequent event had fully and completely established the soundness and correctness of Mr. Taylor's judgment. Speaking from personal knowledge in

    335
    this matter, he could say that the escape of the Dinapore brigade from Dinapore into the jungle, with all their arms and ammunition complete, might have had, except for the interposition of Providence, a fatal effect on the result of the insurrection in India. At that time the force under his father's command, and of which he (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) had the honour to be executive officer, was on the further—the northern—side of the Ganges, having fought 11 battles on the near side, capturing 100 pieces of artillery, and being then within 50 miles of the relief of Lucknow. As far as he and his father knew every hour was of importance. What happened? In consequence of Mr. Taylor's advice not being followed, and this large body of men being allowed to escape intact to swell the forces of rebellion, the whole of his father's movements were absolutely checked. He asked the permission of the House to read a few words from a letter of his father, expressing the judgment which, with great regret, he had arrived at on this occasion. He was not quoting from a copy of a document, but from the original, written by himself at that time to his father's dictation, in the warmth of the circumstances as they occurred, and he would then ask whether Commissioner Taylor was right or wrong in the course he recommended. On receiving the news that this large reinforcement had been received by the enemy, that they had cut his line of communication, and that reinforcements would cease to reach them for many weeks, his father wrote this letter—
    "Camp Mungurwar, August 8, 1857.
    "Imperious circumstances compel me to recross the Ganges. When further defence becomes impossible, do not negotiate or capitulate. Cut your way out to Cawnpore; you will save the colours of the 32nd, and two-thirds of your British troops. Blow up your fortifications, magazines, &c., by constructing surcharged mines under them and leaving slow matches burning.
    H. HAVELOCK, Brigadier General.
    To Colonel INGLIS, Commanding Lucknow."
    Why was this advice rendered necessary? His father was compelled to give it, because Commissioner Taylor's advice was not followed, and because this large reinforcement was allowed to reach the enemy intact, and to cut their communications. He apologized for re-
    336
    ferring to this personal matter, and assured the House that he only did so under a strong impelling sense to obey the dictates of justice and honour,—in letting the truth be known—which, he believed, were not extinct, and never would be extinct, in that House. Since that time Mr. Tayler had, from time to time, endeavoured in poverty, in circumstances of unexampled trial and depression during 31 years, to call the attention of his countrymen to the injustice he had suffered. He (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) came now to a dark and unexplained circumstance, which, if it stood alone, would justify the request now made, that fuller investigation into this case should take place. In 1878 he was engaged with Sir Eardley Wilmot in bringing this case before Parliament. He had sent Memorials to the India Office, which were not then replied to. They were told in July, 1878, that it was desirable that inquiry should be deferred, because a very comprehensive Minute on the subject had been prepared by Sir Frederick Halliday, and that it would shortly be laid before the House. That reply stopped action in 1878. In 1879 other circumstances intervened to prevent the case being taken up, and in 1880 there was a change of Government. But he wished to draw the attention of the House to a circumstance, which had remained unexplained to this day, and such circumstances fortunately did not often happen. When the papers on which Commissioner Taylor relied for his defence were searched for, it was found that they were absent from the records of the India Office, and could not be traced. He cast imputation on no person. It so happened that the parties in this case on the one side and the other were equally friends of his, and he should not like to be swayed by the slightest bias against anyone, or by any feeling but that which was usually felt by an Englishman to stand up for a man whom he believed to be oppressed and injured. As he had said, all the papers required by Mr. Taylor to prove his case were abstracted from the India Office. The only thing that could be discovered of the voluminous documents was the flyleaf, which bore the simple Minute of the Duke of Argyll in 1868, that his Grace was against the re-opening of the case. He (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan)

    337
    did not wish to attach any further importance to that remarkable incident than it deserved; but he did say that when official documents disappeared in this extraordinary way, the question naturally arose whether anyone, and if so who, was most interested in their disappearance. Fortunately, they were not at a loss as to the facts. Through 31 years of privation, of loss of position, of circumstances which would have broken any man of inferior courage and spirit, Mr. Tayler had survived to bear the test of public investigation, and the gentleman who was mixed up with Mr. Tayler in the events of that time, the gentlemen of whom he (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) did not wish to say a word stronger than was warranted by circumstances, but who, at all events, was the sole opposing element in the case, also survived. This was not a case like that of Lord Dundonald, where all who had been originally concerned in the events which had led to acts of injustice had passed away, though even in that case in 1878 justice was at last done to the memory of a great and gallant gentleman, and to those who had succeeded him. As to the present case, they were in no such difficulty. The accused and the accuser, if they might be said to stand in that position, were still before them, and the documents were forthcoming in abundance. Every historian who had judicially examined the circumstances of this case had been unanimously in asserting that Commissioner Tayler, of Patna, had certainly established his position as having, not only acted with judgment, but as having thoroughly earned the gratitude of his country. This man was now 81 years of age. In the course of nature his life could not be much longer prolonged. He had borne with unexampled courage what be (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) and his hon. Friends believed to be an intolerable injustice and wrong. He appealed to both sides of the House on the question. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), though the right hon. Gentleman had no personal responsibility in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman was, however, at the head of the Government during the period of many of the transactions referred to. He appealed also to the right hon. Gentleman the
    338
    First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), who, he was sure, was actuated on all occasions by a sense of inflexible justice. To that sense of justice he now appealed. Give this man an open and fair inquiry. If it was shown that Mr. Tayler had committed an error no harm would be done, because the grave would soon close over a sad story. But if, on the other hand, it could be shown that justice had been continually postponed by the resistance of one man, who, from his official position, had been better able to thwart Mr. Tayler than anyone else could have been, then he said that not only was the national faith involved, but the national sense of justice was involved in doing complete justice in this matter, though justice had been so long deferred. He begged to second the Resolution.
    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 desirable, with a view to the settlement of a long-standing controversy as to the wrong stated to have been suffered by a meritorious servant of the Crown, that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the case of Mr. William Taylor, late Commissioner of Patna,"—(Sir Roper Lethbridge,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)said, that he, in common with the other Members of the House, had listened with great pleasure to the manly and eloquent speech of the hon, and gallant Member for Durham (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan). He hoped the House would believe him when he said that the Secretary of State for India was as anxious to do justice to anyone who was suffering under undeserved obloquy as was the hon. and gallant Member himself; but before the House embarked a Select Committee upon an inquiry into this voluminous case a plain, unvarnished statement of the facts ought to be laid before it. The two speeches which had been made had been rather the speeches of advocates putting forward points chosen to produce an impression that injustice had been done, than impartial statements of fact such as it was his duty to submit. The

    339
    real grievance had been greatly exaggerated, for it had been said that this gentleman had been dismissed from the Public Service. He was not dismissed; he was simply superseded in the position he held at Patna. He was transferred from that position to another, and if it had not been for subsequent events he might for a long period have served the Crown. The House had to consider whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the Government of India of the day were justified in removing Mr. Tayler from Patna and putting him elsewhere. He would give the reasons which induced the Government of India to take that course. But he must first object that this was not a matter on which there ought to be an appeal to all. The Empire of India was imperilled, and the Government, in the action it took on that occasion, must be judged by the rules of military procedure. Supposing a Commanding Officer in the middle of a battle were to remove an officer from some post under some misapprehension, would it be endured that there should be an inquiry whether the General had justly estimated the capacity of the man? The second objection he had was that the bringing forward of the question compelled him to rake up matters that were more than 30 years old, and charges against Mr. Taylor that the existing Members of the Government of India would be glad to bury in oblivion. If he was obliged to mention things which did not entirely redound to the credit of Mr. Tayler, it was the fault of those who now brought the matter forward. He would not go into extraneous matters. It had been mentioned that before the Mutiny it was intended to remove Mr. Tayler from Patna. That intention was formed in consequence of complaints which afterwards received the investigation of the Secretary of State, and as to which the Secretary of State decided that the Government of Bengal were right and Mr. Taylor was wrong. With this explanation, he would begin with the date of the 7th of June, 1857, when the first alarm occurred at Patna. It was on the 31st of July following that Mr. Tayler issued the withdrawal order, and the events he would deal with occurred within those two dates. He wished to read Mr. Tayler's own description of the resolution which
    340
    he formed on the 7th of June as to the conduct he would pursue during the critical days that he foresaw. He said—
    "Then it was that, after carefully pondering the various sources of danger, after weighing and comparing the information brought to me from various sources, I resolved to adopt a series of coercive measures which would anticipate and nullify any movement that might be contemplated, and draw the teeth of the disloyal before they had opportunity to bite."
    And he afterwards said—
    "All was done on my own sole responsibility, without the permission or knowledge of Mr. Halliday."
    [Cheers.] The House cheered that as if, at a moment when you were fighting against mutiny, insubordination was something to be admired. He strongly objected to that. If ever there was a crisis in the history of the world it was that of the Mutiny. No doubt, there had been instances of splendid insubordination, such as that of Lord Nelson at Copenhagen, or even that committed on this very occasion by the officer who disobeyed Mr. Taylor himself; but these were isolated cases of disobedience in some one particular matter. A man who did such a thing, did it with a rope round his neck; he ran the risk of failure; but he might succeed and have his act condoned by his superior officer. He protested, however, against the doctrine which seemed to find favour with some hon. Members, that you were to embark in dangerous operations of this kind with the predetermination that you would tell your superior officer—"All was done on my sole responsibility, without the permission—["Hear, hear!"]—or knowledge—["Hear, hear!"]—of my superiors."
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: There were no orders.
    SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, he was astonished that any hon. Member should cheer such a sentiment. The arrest of the four Wahabees took place on the 20th of June. These gentlemen were never brought to trial; they were discharged afterwards with the knowledge and approval of Mr. Taylor himself, and no conspiracy and no offence of any kind was proved against these men. The hon. and gallant Member for Durham said that this was a great accusation made against Mr. Tayler; but he never heard that any accusation was made against Mr. Taylor in respect of these men.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANsaid, he had been misapprehended; he did not say that. He said the particular accusation was the withdrawal order. He was not aware that Mr. Tayler was ever censured for the arrest of these men, which was perfectly justified.
    SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, he was not censured for arresting them; but Sir John Kaye, to whom the hon. Member for North Kensington appealed, said of this event, in his History of the Mutiny—
    "It can hardly escape the consideration of any candid mind that what is thus regarded as a successful stroke of policy when executed by Englishmen against Mahomedans would, if Englishmen had been the victims of it, have been described by another name. To invite men to a friendly conference and, when actually the guests of a British officer, to seize their persons is not only very like treachery, but is treachery itself.The exigencies of a great crisis justify exceptional acts in the interests of public safety; but I do not know any excuses that may be pleaded or arguments that may be advanced by a British officer in such a case that might not be pleaded and advanced by Native Chiefs in like circumstances. But, whatsoever other successes this stroke of policy may have brought, the tranquillization of Patna was not one of them."
    What was chiefly complained of was not the actual arrest, but that no information was given to the Government. On the 25th of June the following letter was addressed by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal to Mr. Taylor:—
    "Intelligence has reached the Lieutenant Governor from a private source that on the 21st instant you arrested certain influential Native gentlemen at Patna, and caused the town to be searched in order to disarm the population. Whether these measures were right or wrong the Lieutenant Governor has no means of judging. They are certainly extraordinary, and at first sight open to much question. But the Lieutenant Governor has to complain seriously that he hears on such occasions nothing from you of your intentions and nothing of your acts till after they had been completed, and that your method of reporting to Government at the present important crisis is loose, desultory, and incomplete."
    And on the 26th of June the Government wrote—
    "Your promised letter of the 22nd instant has just been received. It contains no detail of any sort, but is written, as usual, in a hurried and careless manner, with an intimation that you are too busy to write in detail, and will write more in a day or two. You add—'I have the four principal Wahabees in custody, and am just going to catch Ali Kureem.' Not a word is said to explain this extraordinary and dangerous measure, or why these arrests are made and to be made. I am directed to repeat to you that this conduct is most unsatisfactory. You cannot have so much
    342
    to do as to be unable to afford the smallest information of your proceedings, especially when they are of a nature very questionable in appearance. At all events, it is your duty and your business to keep the Government informed of what you are doing, and you can have no work of greater or more pressing necessity than to do this. The Lieutenant Governor regrets to be obliged thus to urge you on such very obvious points of duty which no other Commissioner has neglected."
    Then the next day they complained again—
    "The dawk of the 23rd has come in from Patna, and the Lieutenant Governor has again to complain of the absence of all information of your proceedings. He has received a scarcely intelligible demi-official note from you dated the 23rd instant, written, as usual, in a hurry, and affording no tangible information. It is very probable you may be doing all that is right, and the Lieutenant Governor is willing to place all reasonable confidence in your zeal and discretion; but that you should keep the Government wholly in the dark for days and days together while you darkly intimate that you are adopting measures of great responsibility and importance, is, I am directed to say, quite intolerable. It is impossible that you should have anything to do of greater importance than keeping the Government informed of your proceedings. Should this most unsatisfactory state of things not be speedily amended, the Lieutenant Governor, I am directed to say, will be constrained to supersede you, however unwillingly, in order that he may have at Patna an officer who will keep up proper and necessary communication with his superiors. But he trusts that you will not force him to this extremity."
    On the 29th of June they wrote again—
    "Having no knowledge whatever of your information or its sources, or the objects and principles of your acts and measures, and bus very little knowlodge of the acts and measuret themselves, regarding all which you have keps him in ignorance, the Lieutenant Governor is unable to give you any directions or instructions to guide or assist you. It seems evident that you are doing irregular and probably illegal acts, and are incurring serious responsibility, but you may be able hereafter to explain and justify them. Meantime your own responsibility is greatly increased by your omitting to enable the Government to understand either what you are doing or why you are doing it."
    He had read these letters to show that at the very outset Mr. Taylor was cautioned by the Government of Bengal, and that the course of conduct he prescribed for himself was such as it was impossible for any Government to allow. On July 17 Mr. Taylor wrote the following answer to the Government of Bengal—
    "I may, perhaps, be pardoned at a crisis like the present for stating that when I had made up my mind to act thus decisively I purposely put my plan into execution without asking fur authority, because I deemed it possible that the Lieu-

    343
    tenant Governor, judging from a distance, might not possibly have approved of measures which to some extent undoubtedly are beyond the law, but which I, on the spot, felt to be essential for the safety of Patna."
    To that the Government replied on the 22nd of July, 1857—
    "The only part of this letter which appears to the Lieutenant Governor to call for immediate notice is what is stated in paragraghs 6 to 9, in which you avow that you wilfully and purposely kept the Government uninformed of your intentions, acts, and measures. This conduct you persevered in, not only up to the time of carrying out the measures referred to, but for some time afterwards, and indeed until you were compelled, by repeated and strong censures, to adopt a different course. In doing this I am to observe you committed a grave and very reprehensible error, and you cannot but be sensible that the knowledge that it is in your opinion justifiable in an officer to conceal his official acts and purposes from the head of the Government he serves, if he has reason to suppose that they will not be approved, must make it impossible for the Lieutenant Governor to place implicit confidence in you."
    What were the acts which were being committed? They had been described as "hanging and imprisoning wholesale." ["Hear, hear!"] There were some Members in the House who appeared to think that as long as it was only a coloured man that was hanged it did not matter. All he wanted to show the House was the nature of the acts which were described as illegal and irregular, and which Mr. Tayler was all this time committing. He could not give a better example than the case of one Waris Ali, a jemadar of police. This man was arrested and handed over to Major Holmes, who was generally regarded in India as what is called "a man of action." Major Holmes sent the man on to General Lloyd with a very remarkable letter, which he would read to the House. It ran as follows:—
    "My dear General,—The magistrate of Tirhoot has sent me a jemadar of police with a polite request to hang him up. The chief evidence against this man is a letter of doubtful import, in which he speaks of a great merchandise and his friends joining to obtain the pearl of his desire, rebellion and murder—rather vague to string a chap upon—so I have sent him to you in irons that he may be placed in the European barracks, and his fellow-conspirators at Patna being seized the matter can be properly silted by a Commission of European officers and justice dealt out accordingly."
    On the 30th of June, Major Holmes wrote to the General again about the man Waris Ali as follows:—
    344
    "I wish to point out that my great power over my own men and the Natives of these parts arises from their own sense of my perfect justice and perfect determination. They know that if I am convinced that a man is guilty his life is not worth an hour's purchase; but were I to condemn a man on mere suspicion, which was really all I had to go on in this case, I should be looked upon as bloody-minded and unjust, and I should lose half my real power. I went over those papers carefully with my Native officers, and they and I quite concur in our minds about them."
    This man, Waris Ali, was sent by General Lloyd to Mr. Tayler, and he arrived at Patna on July 1 or 2. Mr. Tayler postponed his trial for two or three days in the hope of eliciting information from him. On July 6 he put him on his trial. The evidence adduced was the same as that which Major Holmes had thought insufficient; but Mr. Tayler convicted the man and hanged him the same day. The following was the account which Mr. Taylor gave in his own words:—
    "Waris Ali, whose arrest has been previously mentioned, was tried under the Commission on Monday, the 6th of July, and capitally sentenced. He was executed the same day, and his last words were to ask whether no Mussulman would assist him. This man is said to be related to the Royal Family of Delhi. He was a large, stout, and good-looking man, and was selected, I imagine, more for these qualities and his family connection, and perhaps for the assistance which his position in the police enabled him to give. I postponed his trial for two or three days after his arrival, and had several private interviews with him in the hope of eliciting information. But he was evidently, I think, not in Ali Kureem's secrets, as he was in such excessive alarm and despair that I am convinced he would have done anything to save his life. When speaking in private with him he implored me to tell him whether there was any way in which his life could be spared. I said 'Yes,' and his eyes opened with unmistakable delight, and when he asked again what the way was his countenance was a picture of anxiety, hope, and terror. I told him—'I will make a bargain with you; give me three lives and I will give you yours.' He then told me all the names that I already knew; but could disclose nothing further, at least with any proof in support. He was evidently not sufficiently clever to be Ali Kureem's confidant."
    He would give the House another case. On July 3 occurred the only disturbance that took place at Patna. That riot commenced by the assembling of 50 or 100 men at the house of a bookseller. They were armed with guns and swords and spears. They were met and kept in check by two men, a patrol, and a Soubahdar. It was quite true that the patrol was killed; but the two men succeeded in checking the rioters. The only

    345
    European that was killed was Dr. Lyell, who had galloped on in front of the Sikh soldiers who accompanied him, and came alone into the middle of the excited crowd. The whole thing did not last three-quarters of an hour. In connection with this riot, a trial was held by Mr. Taylor under an Act then in force, a kind of Drumhead Court Martial Act, which gave tremendous power to the Commissioners appointed under it. The trial took place on the 7th of July, four days after the riot; and out of a number of men tried, Mr. Tayler sentenced 14 to death—all being found guilty, he said, on clear evidence. With the exception of two, they were all hanged within two hours of being sentenced. They were tried by Commission under Act XIV. of 1857, of which the 9th section said that on every person convicted of murder, arson, &c., the Court might pass any sentence warranted by law, and the judgment of such Court should be final and conclusive and the Court should not be subject to the Sudder or any other Court. That was an Act under which the Commissioners ought to have acted with the greatest care and gravest sense of responsibility. He could not read to the House the evidence on which these men were hanged. He had read it himself, and, having had some experience in such matters, he must say that, so far from being clear evidence, it was evidence open to the greatest doubt and the gravest suspicion. The House might easily understand why that was the case, because the riot happened at dusk, about 7 o'clock in the evening, the faces of the men engaged in it were all tied up with cloths, and the evidence of identity was given by persons who did not previously know the accused. Of all things in the world evidence was the most unreliable. But he would not ask the House to take his word for it. Mr. Lowis, the magistrate, wrote in February, 1858, about eight months after, to Mr. Samuells, who was then Commissioner of Patna, as follows:—
    "As Patna is now considered quiet, I would beg to bring to your notice a circumstance connected with the late disturbances there, which, should you think fit, you can lay before Government. After the riot in which Dr. Lyell lost his life, certain persons, said to have been concerned in it were brought up for trial before Mr. Tayler, the then Commissioner, and myself. Of the guilt of some of these men there was cer-
    346
    tainly no doubt, and they were accordingly convicted and at once hung. Of the participation of the other prisoners I had, however, strong doubts, and I held that on the evidence against them it was impossible for me to convict. I therefore proposed remanding them till further inquiry could be made. To this Mr. Tayler objected, and endeavoured to prove that, there being the same evidence against all, all must be equally guilty. This, however, failed to convince me, and I still adhered to my former opinion. Mr. Tayler then proposed that the prisoners should be sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, and that when the country became quiet the Government might, if it saw fit, inquire into the matter. The critical state of affairs demanded that no difference of opinion should appear between us. I therefore yielded the point so strongly urged by Mr. Tayler, and consented to the sentence of imprisonment being recorded, determined to refer the matter as soon as quiet was restored. I had hoped that Mr. Tayler would have joined me in this reference, and wrote to him inviting him to do so, but he declines having anything to do with the matter, the whole of the above circumstances having apparently escaped his memory."
    Here was what Mr. R. M. Farquharson, Sessions Judge, Patna, wrote to the Governor of Bengal on July 25, 1857—
    "It is currently reported here that some of those punished for being concerned in the late outbreak in the City of Patna were convicted by the Commission, presided over by Mr. Taylor, on evidence less reliable even than that I have rejected in Lootf Ali Khan's case. I am not in the least cognizant of what that evidence was, but consider it my duty to report the common opinion on the subject, that Government may take any steps it thinks fit to ascertain the truth of reports, very damaging, not only to the Civil Service, but to the European character at large. I am the more induced to this step from the fact of Mr. Taylor disregarding the Government instructions of the 11th of July, 1857, and persisting in conducting trials himself, notwithstanding the presence of the Judge. Mr. Tayler has probably reported to Government his having tried and condemned to death a trooper of Captain Rattray's regiment since receipt of the Government letter No. 1,179 of the 11th of July above alluded to."
    But that was not all. Here was an extract from a Minute by Lord Canning, dated February 5, 1859—
    "I believe that in the course of Mr. Taylor's proceedings men were condemned and executed upon insufficient evidence. But since this took place Mr. Tayler has, for other reasons, been suspended from judicial office, and has said that he intends shortly to resign the Service.… Mr. Taylor's individual case would, no doubt, be disposed of more thoroughly and incontrovertibly if the opinion of the Judges were taken upon this part of it; but if the omission to do this is not regarded by Mr. Tayler as unjust towards himself, I see no sufficient reason for keeping the discussion open by a further appeal to the Sudder Bench."

    347
    Mr. Tayler was subsequently asked whether he wished that an inquiry should be held by the Sudder Court Judges as to whether he had not convicted and sentenced men on evidence which was not reasonably sufficient; and this was what Mr. Tayler, in reply, said in a letter to the Secretary to the Government of Bengal, dated the 24th of March, 1859—
    "Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, as Mr. Samuells has disavowed the offensive and dishonouring imputations which his words appear to me to convey, and as I am about so soon to resign the Service, I have no desire to subject myself to any further anxiety or harassment. While, therefore, I am thankful to the Governor General in Council for offering me the option of a public inquiry, I beg respectfully to decline it, and shall take the liberty of submitting hereafter the reasons which have induced me to do so."
    So that this gentleman, who had the same charges made against him 30 years ago, and being offered a public inquiry before the Judges of the Sudder Court declined the offer, came to-day to the House of Commons and asked for that public inquiry which he might have had 30 years ago. Moreover, the complaint against Mr. Tayler was not only that he acted with injustice himself, but that he improperly interfered with the course of justice administered by others. A certain person named Lootf Ali Khan was accused by Mr. Tayler, who caused him to be arrested. He was then tried by the Judge of Patna, and while the man was under trial Mr. Tayler wrote a series of letters to Mr. Farquharson (the Judge), Mr. Tayler himself being virtually the prosecutor. In a letter to the Sessions Judge of July 9, 1857, he said—
    "Lest the supposed respectability of Lootf Ali Khan should in any way tend to throw doubt on the probability of his guilt, I beg to inform you that Guseeta, one of the most active of the rebels concerned in the late outrage in which Dr. Lyell lost his life, is this man's Jemadar. Guseeta has been sentenced to death by Mr. Lowis and myself. Another Guseeta, clearly implicated in the same crime, states that his mother is ayah to Lootf Ali Khan's mother. That some wealthy party has been at the bottom of the intrigues that are now shown to have been carried on here for months, with an object not to be mistaken, is evident from the fact that men have been kept for months on pay, regularly distributed, under a conditional compact to come forward when called for."
    And in a letter to Mr. Farquharson of July 14, 1857, Mr. Taylor said—
    "Lootf Ali Khan seems to have had a nest of ruffians in employ; two of the hangees are shown
    348
    to have been closely connected with him. The man himself admits that he was an Omedwar for eight or ten days with him. I fancy hundreds have been hanged on less evidence than this."
    On July 14, 1857, Mr. Tayler also wrote to Mr. Farquharson—
    "A little more presumptive evidence and Lootf Ali Khan might hang. No one seems to have any moral doubt but that he is deeply implicated, and these are the fellows who do the real mischief, heads worth thousand tails... Have the trial rather late, to give me time."
    On July 15, 1857, he wrote again—
    "As for Lootf Ali, my moral conviction of his guilt is so strong that I should not much fear making a mistake about him."
    He now came to the withdrawal order. These were Mr. Taylor's words, writing to the Secretary to the Bengal Government on July 31, 1857—
    "I have, therefore, authorized all the officials of the district to come into Patna. Those of Chuprah have been in for some days; they made an attempt to return to Dooriagunge yesterday, but returned when they heard of the defeat of our force."
    The order of the Belgian Government gave the reasons for the removal of Mr. Taylor more clearly than anything he could say, and he would read it to the House. It was as follows:—
    "August 4, 1857.
    "On the 31st ultimo the Lieutenant Governor received a telegraphic message from Gya announcing that the civil officers of the district were about to abandon the station and all in it, including the large amount of cash in the Treasury. As it was known that the residents had up to the day before been fully prepared to repel attack and to defend themselves, having 45 European soldiers and 100 Sikhs, and Sherghotty, with its little garrison close at hand, and no enemy in sight or in present apprehension, this extraordinary movement was wholly unintelligible to the Lieutenant Governor, and he was disposed to blame very severely the injudiciour and pusillanimous conduct of the English officers in question, and did, in fact, send a message after them to that purport. From your letter of the same date, No, 724, which was received late last night and laid before the Lieutenant Governor this morning, he is astonished to find that this most unfortunate and unnecessary retreat was your doing; and that, under the obvious influence of a local panic, you have actually directed the abandonment by the civil functionaries of all the stations in your division. The Lieutenant Governor most strongly disapproves of this act, and considers it not merely injudicious but disgraceful. In the case of Gya, more particularly, it was utterly without reasonable cause, because the station was threatened with no immediate danger, was guarded by a detachment of English and Sikh soldiers, and was in close communication with the trunk road of Sherghotty, where was at the time another detachment of English

    349
    soldiers. What terrible and unexpected disasters this error may have brought on the stations thus abandoned the Lieutenant Governor is unwilling to surmise. You have already been directed by electric telegraph"—
    the electric telegraph communication having been interrupted, this message was not transmitted—
    "to revoke your orders and to send the residents back to their respective stations if it should be found possible for them to return, and it will remain to be seen whether they will return in time to prevent the otherwise inevitable disasters which their absence, if prolonged, is sure to produce.After the evidence thus afforded of your haste and want of judgment, coming, as it does, after many other reasons for dissatisfaction which you have given to the Lieutenant Governor, it is no longer considered safe that you should continue in charge of your office."
    Now, that was the case; these were the facts, and those were the circumstances under which the Government in 1857 had thought it their duty to remove Mr. Tayler from the situation he then held at Patna, and to place him elsewhere in the Public Service. What had happened since threw no fresh light upon the subject. He would gladly stop his remarks there, and allow the House to form its judgment. But so much had been said by the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) and echoed by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Durham (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) about this case never having been properly considered by the persons responsible, that he must, in common justice, tell the House what an extraordinary amount of consideration the case had received. Mr. Tayler had appealed, as he was perfectly entitled to appeal, against the decision of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal superseding him at Patna. The case was considered by the Governor General in Council, and the appeal was rejected. Mr. Taylor then appealed to the Court of Directors in London, who decided against him. By the time that decision reached India the Government of India had come directly under the Crown, and a fresh appeal was made to the first Secretary of State for India, the present Lord Derby. That appeal was answered in a despatch which showed that Lord Derby fully understood the case with which he had to deal. From the time that the case was so decided, it was not again revived until 1867 or 1868. A great deal had been made of some trials
    350
    which took place about 1865, which, however, had really nothing to do with this case. There had been four Wahabees arrested at Patna in 1857; no evidence was forthcoming against them, and all were released. Of these four, one was implicated in a conspiracy with reference to the North-West Frontier disturbances about 1863 and 1864. He was tried in 1865, but it was for assisting the rebels in Sittana to urge war against the British Government, and though he was found guilty, there was no evidence implicating him in any conspiracy in connection with any contemplated rising at Patna in 1857. What the trial in 1865 had to do with the case of Mr. Taylor no impartial judge had ever been able to make out. If this man's conviction in 1865 was so important a matter, why had it been allowed to sleep from 1865 to 1868; and why, when Mr. Taylor first made his appeal to Sir Stafford Northcote, had he asked merely for the grant of some honour? In the autumn of 1868, Mr. Taylor had sent in his celebrated Memorial, which was too late to be dealt with by Sir Stafford Northcote, but afterwards came under the consideration of the Duke of Argyll, who succeeded Sir Stafford on the change of Government. Now, a great deal had been said about the loss of this document. Well, it was lost, but a copy of it survived, and no injury had been done to Mr. Tayler through the loss of the original Memorial.
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: The copy was supplied by Mr. Tayler himself afterwards.
    SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, he did not see how that made any difference. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Durham had drawn a picture—which had almost moved him to tears, official though he was—of the condition into which the negligence of the India Office had put Mr. Tayler. But they were not lawyers, and an authentic copy was as useful as the original document. There was an authentic copy in the India Office, on the Table of the House, and in the Library. The Duke of Argyll's decision, no doubt, was never communicated to Mr. Taylor; but that was very much Mr. Taylor's own fault. He went away to India and begged there might be no decision till he came back. When he came back, he communicated repeatedly with the India

    351
    Office; but for years he never asked for any decision regarding his case. Though, no doubt, it was an oversight not to communicate the decision to him, that was, as he had already said, very much Mr. Tayler's own fault. And from that day to the present, this case had been before every Secretary of State. Every Under Secretary, every Member of Council, everybody who had had anything to do with the administration of affairs in India for the last 20 years had had to consider it. For his own part, the House knew very well he could not reveal the secrets of his prison house; but he pledged his word, from memoranda which he had himself read from some of the most illustrious men who had served the State in India, that the case of Mr. Taylor had been most carefully considered again and again and again. It would be idle for his noble Friend the present Secretary of State for India to constitute himself into a Court of Appeal against the decision of every one of his Predecessors who had held the Seals of the India Office. The House had now the whole case before it. He had no prejudices of his own; but he hoped he had stated enough to lead the House to believe that the Government of Lord Canning in 1857, when it thought it consistent with its duty to remove Mr. Tayler from the position he held at Patna, was not animated by those unworthy motives suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, but solely by a desire to save India from an extreme peril, and because it honestly believed he was a man whose administration was likely to prove inimical to the safety of the Indian Empire.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that personally he knew nothing of Mr. Tayler; but, like most hon. Members of the House, no doubt, he had read a good deal of correspondence and a great many pamphlets on the subject. Generally speaking, he did not read the pamphlets sent to him complaining of grievances; but a friend of his who knew Mr. Tayler had urged him to read the one in Mr. Taylor's case, saying, "Look into it yourself!" Well, he had looked into it, and, though he would not, for his own part, justify everything that Mr. Tayler had done, he was convinced that this gentleman had experienced substantial injustice. He was
    352
    not alone in that opinion; that opinion was shared by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst), because, in 1879, a Petition was presented to the House of Commons through the late Sir Stafford Northcote, as Leader of the House, signed by the hon. Gentleman amongst others, stating that it came from Gentlemen deeply interested in Her Majesty's Indian Empire, and that they, being fully acquainted with the eminent services of Mr. William Tayler, in saving the great Province of Patna in the Mutiny of 1857, and of the manner in which his services had been requited, could not but express approval of the Petition lately addressed to the House by Mr. Tayler, and therefore prayed that the House would be pleased to consider the extraordinary amount, variety, and weight of the evidence on record as to the eminent services rendered by Mr. Taylor. With regard to the investigation in 1865, which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India sneered at, it was said, in the Petition he had signed, that amongst other reasons for doing justice to Mr. Tayler was the reason that two members of the Supreme Council in Calcutta, Sir John Lowe and Mr. Dorey, had expressed regret that they had been misinformed as to the facts of the case which led to the arrest of the Wahabee conspirators, it having been proved that those persons were dangerous traitors. The hon. Gentlemen had given them his official view of the case; but in the Petition which he had signed when not in Office he had given an independent view as a person interested in, and knowing much of, the Government of India. Well, the hon. Gentleman had gone back to the question of the withdrawal order through having given which Sir Frederick Halliday, the Lieutenant Governor, charged Mr. Tayler with having yielded to panic. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to an appeal made by Mr. Taylor to the Directors of the India Company. What did they reply to that appeal? They replied that they considered Mr. Taylor's conduct praiseworthy in the main, but that he had been guilty of an error of judgment—nothing but "an error of judgment" in issuing this order of withdrawal. He (Mr. Labouchere) was not a military man, and did not know whether the order of withdrawal was a

    353
    wise or foolish one. All he knew was this, that the men to whom the order was sent were our outposts, and that they knew what was going on, Europeans being destroyed in all parts of the country, that there were no troops near them, and that they, therefore, could not withdraw, and that no sooner did they get troops near them than they withdrew themselves and their treasure, not to Patna, which was near, but to Calcutta, which was 400 miles off. Therefore, the order seemed a perfectly reasonable one, though he was free to admit that it might have been an error of judgment. The hon. Gentleman had called attention to the action of Mr. Taylor in hanging and imprisoning inhabitants of Patna. These charges had really never been made against Mr. Tayler by the Lieutenant Governor except under circumstances which he would show. It was true that Mr. Taylor did arrest 30 men, and had about 14 hanged. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India said he supposed that it was only those who approved of coloured men being hanged because they were coloured men who would applaud. But what had occurred? The House would remember that this Town of Patna was a town of 2,000 inhabitants, and that the Province round it that was to be kept down consisted of 11,000,000 inhabitants. It must be remembered that it was the great centre of the Wahabees for a long time, and that so far back as 1846, and for a number of years before, these Wahabees had been discovered tampering with the loyalty of the Sepoys. There was a considerable European population there, and Mr. Tayler was responsible for their lives. He was obliged to take exceptionally severe measures. He (Mr. Labouchere) considered that all this hanging and shooting was far too severe, but that was not the question at this moment; they must take the matter from the Governmental point of view. Mr. Tayler was not attacked by men like them, Radicals, but he was attacked by Members of the Government, who lauded and praised others who did precisely what Mr. Taylor had done, and that was where he (Mr. Labouchere) thought that injustice had been done. Dr. Lyell, as the hon. Gentleman had said, was murdered. That was nothing. It was a little émeute which lasted only
    354
    three quarters of an hour. Waris Ali was condemned to death and executed, but he (Mr. Labouchere) would point out that Colonel Malleson in his history—from which the hon. Member had read one or two extracts—said that upon his person were found a number of compromising letters. Waris Ali was not executed until after Dr. Lyell had been murdered, at the same time as the other prisoners were, in order, no doubt, to keep down the insurrection which was ready to break out. It must be remembered that these Wahabees were ready to rise in insurrection at any moment in Patna, that the garrison at Dingapore had been decimated, that the commander at Arrah had been killed, and that Europeans were still there and were being surrounded by a mass of mutineers who were trying to take their lives. Whilst he deprecated all this severity, he did think that the Government itself should look at the matter with a certain amount of leniency and should not bring up a charge—which had practically never been made before—30 years after the occurrence of the event. Sir Frederick Halliday did examine the records to see whether a charge could be substantiated against Mr. Taylor for having illegally permitted these executions. He submitted the records to Judge Latour—an eminent Judge in Calcutta. Judge Latour could make nothing of them. He could not say that injustice had been done, looking at the way that justice was dealt out at that time, and Sir Frederick Halliday never again alluded to the charge. But there was a Mr. Samuells there who had been sent to replace Commissioner Taylor. Mr. Samuells, it appeared, had a strong feeling against Mr. Tayler, and after the records had been examined and Sir Frederick Halliday had said there was nothing in them, this gentleman brought the charge for a second time and asked to be allowed to examine the records. Why on earth should he do that? Sir Frederick Halliday had already done it. What was his charge? Why, that the majority of the people at Patna considered that the criminals who had been sentenced were innocent. Mr. Samuells was called on to substantiate his charge, and an inquiry took place, and what did that inquiry say? Why, that there were certain criticisms as to the proceedings and evidence that might be

    355
    brought forward, but that the actual charge of having sentenced these men who were innocent to the knowledge of the people of Patna was not proved. The whole point at that time was that there had been errors in taking evidence. The House was somewhat surprised when it heard from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India that Mr. Tayler had been told that he should submit his case to the Judges of Calcutta, and that he had refused to do so. It must be remembered, however, that Mr. Tayler was then being attacked by all the officials, who were very much inclined, on their parts, to hang together. Mr. Samuells wrote a despatch to Sir Frederick Halliday on this matter. He (Mr. Labouchere) would give one or two words from it to show the sort of language used by one of these officials in writing to another as to Mr. Taylor. He said Mr. Taylor's despatches were "daubed with the blackest colours against his immediate superior the Lieutenant Governor and his successor;" that he was "guilty of dishonest artifice;" that "much of what he said was pure slander;" that what he had done was "a simple piece of impertinence;" that he was guilty of "a pack of impudent libels;" that he was "utterly unscrupulous," a "charlatan;" that ,he was "guilty of bare-faced clap-trap;" and that he "simply talked nonsense." One would have thought that Sir Frederick Halliday would have deprecated that language. He said, however, that "the despatch was written in somewhat less measured terms than was customary in official correspondence, but that it was a very successful performance." Under the circumstances, when it was proposed to Mr. Tayler to submit for inquiry the one point, whether he had been guilty of technical illegalities as to the sentences at Patna, he was perfectly right in refusing to accept the reference, because the main charge was that he was guilty of panic in the matter of the withdrawal order. No sort of proposal or offer was made to Mr. Tayler, telling him that this would be submitted to the Judges or anyone else. Now he (Mr. Labouchere) came to what happened in England. He had stated, so far as he could understand it, what took place in India from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and the official papers they had.
    356
    What happened in England? Unquestionably, Mr. Taylor did apply to Sir Stafford Northcote. What did Sir Stafford Northcote say? He promised, in a letter which had been read in the House, that there should be a full and fair inquiry, and handed over his letter to the Duke of Argyll. Now there was a sort of continuity in public offices. When one Secretary of State promised a full and fair inquiry, his Successor was bound to make that full and fair inquiry. But what happened? Why the Successor in this case made no inquiry at all. It was not pretended that he did. All that was produced was a scrap of paper on which the noble Duke wrote, that in his opinion the case ought not to be reopened. After that, Mr. Taylor went to India. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India said, it was that Gentleman's own fault—owing to his own negligence—that he did not get an answer from the India Office. He (Mr. Labouchere) understood that Mr. Tayler was invited by Lord Northbrook—who was Governor General at the time, and who had a better opinion of this gentleman than the hon. Gentleman the present Under Secretary—to go over to India in some sort of capacity on the occasion of the visit of the Prince of Wales, and he went over to India. He did not, however, receive from the India Office any statement that any decision had been come to in the case. The last official declaration made to him was that there was to be a full and fair inquiry. He awaited that inquiry, and had a perfect right to expect that it would take place, but when he at last read in a newspaper that the papers he had sent in had been, in a most extraordinary fashion, stolen, and that all that remained was a scrap of paper with words written on it that the case was not to be re-opened, he at once wrote to the India Office asking what was to be done. All he was told was that the Duke of Argyll had said that the case would not be re-opened. Four successive times Lord Salisbury, Lord Beacon-field and others, had questions put to them in the House of Lords. What was the answer given in the House of Lords? Were the charges now made by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State brought against Mr. Tayler? Not a bit of it. The reply made was that such a long time had

    357
    elapsed that the inquiry could not be made. He admitted that, considering the doubtful evidence, there was great difficulty, in a debate like this in the House of Commons, in coming to a clear decision. But, there was the expressed opinion of historians and eminent men like Sir Bartle Frere, that this man had been treated with injustice. For a large number of years he had applied for justice, and from the fact, the impartial fact, that Sir Stafford Northcote in his official position of Secretary of State for India had promised an inquiry, an inquiry ought to take place. He did not know whether Mr. Tayler was worthy of honours or orders, but he did know this, that many men who were respected in the House thought so. The Press of India was of that opinion. Lord Napier of Magdala, Sir Bartle Frere, and many others had demanded that he should have honours. In any case, the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge), who had brought forward this matter, and the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for the South-East Division of Durham (Sir Henry Havelock-Allen), who had seconded the Motion, had made a fair case for inquiry, and he (Mr. Labouchere) did hope, that as this man was now 82 years of age, and it was not to be expected that he would remain in this world for ever, before he was removed from the world he would be allowed to have this inquiry—some form of Commission or Select Committee or something of that kind. That was all he (Mr. Labouchere) pleaded for, and he maintained that they had made out a primâ facie case in favour of the Motion.
    MR. J. M. MACLEANsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) began his speech with the ingenuous confession that he knew hardly anything about this subject. The hon. Gentleman did not quite do himself justice in making that statement, because his speech showed them he knew a great deal; unfortunately, however, his knowledge was all on one side. The hon. Gentleman referred to the great number of pamphlets and memorials which had been distributed amongst the Members of the House. It was a fact that this subject had been overlaid with an enormous mass of literary material extending over 30 years; it was so
    358
    voluminous that Members of the House might be pardoned for not trying to make themselves acquainted with it. But that literature was almost entirely composed of the essays of Mr. Taylor himself, and of the evidence he had contrived to bring together during the last 30 years, in order to show he was unfairly treated during the time of the Mutiny. Anybody who took the trouble to look through the official documents which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) had said were in the Library of the House, and read the answer of Sir Frederick Halliday to the memorial of Mr. Taylor—true, it was written some 10 years ago—would know there was a very great deal, indeed, to be said on the other side. He (Mr. J. M. Maclean) admitted that Mr. Taylor had been very fortunate in his advocates in the House that evening. His hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) stated the case with great moderation and dexterity, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) seconded the Motion in a speech which appealed to all the generous instincts of the House, and which was full of personal reminiscenes of the Mutiny that were rendered very interesting by the references to the deeds of his illustrious and ever to be lamented father. But it was necessary they should approach the discussion of this question without having their feelings so strongly moved. There was one passage in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington which he very much regretted to hear, and which greatly disfigured the speech. The hon. Gentleman permitted himself to insinuate that Sir Henry Maine in advising the Council of India not to re-open this case was animated by some paltry personal feelings arising out of a quarrel—
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, he distinctly stated that he made no imputation, and he wished to make none. He stated, he believed that no imputation could properly be made, and in referring to ancient feuds, he remarked that surely at that time those feuds might be forgotten.
    MR. J. M. MACLEANdenied that there was any private quarrel between Sir Henry Maine and Mr. Tayler, though they were opposed in some paltry case.

    359
    But to what purpose did the hon. Member introduce any mention of that case, except to create a prejudice against Sir Henry Maine, and to suggest to the minds of hon. members that that eminent man had been animated by some other motive than a regard for truth and the public interest when he advised, three years ago, that this case should not be re-opened by the India office? Mr. Tayler himself was spoken of by the hon. Member for North Kensington as a ruined and broken man. But certainly Mr. Tayler's conduct during the last 30 years had not been that of a ruined or broken man. Mr. Tayler had shown a most extraordinary spirit in the misfortune he was supposed to have suffered. Now, what was the position in which this gentleman was actually placed by the Government of India? Many Members of the House possibly supposed that this man was cast adrift, without a penny in his pocket, utterly ruined in character and fortune. What were the facts of the case? Mr. Tayler was, at the time of the Mutiny, the Governor of the Province of Patna, and in receipt of a salary of about £4,000 a-year. When he was superseded by Sir Frederick Halliday, he was appointed to a Judgeship, in which position he received about £3,000 a year. That was not a very great fall in his income. It was subsequent misconduct whilst he held that position which placed him in such a difficulty that he thought himself compelled to resign the Service. But he retired with the full pension of a Civil Servant—£1,000 a-year, and it was well known to many that Mr. Taylor, so far from being broken in fortune, had always been regarded as a wealthy man, as a man who, after leaving the Civil Service, employed to very great advantage his extraordinary natural abilities as a pleader in the Courts of India. Besides that, Mr. Taylor had never acted towards those with whom he had differences in the spirit of a man who merely sought justice and was anxious to vindicate his reputation. On the contrary, he had assailed Sir Frederick Halliday with a bitterness of feeling which, no doubt, was natural enough in a man who conceived himself to be suffering under a great injustice, and with a prodigality of invective which might move even a temperance orator to envy. This had been going on for 30 years. Every month and
    360
    every year, Mr. Tayler had been assailing Sir Frederick Halliday in this way. He had pressed into his service the aid of newspapers both in India and this country; he had enlisted on his side historian after historian, and he had obtained testimonials from a large number of distinguished men whom he had besieged with importunities and to whom he had made out a very plausible case. Everyone knew that when they were approached by a man with a grievance they were disposed, either from indolence or from good nature, to say something satisfactory to him, in order that he might not trouble them any longer. This had been the way in which Mr. Taylor had borne himself during the last 30 years, and now they had the whole story re-opened; they were asked to begin again an inquiry which was closed, and which ought to have been put finally on one side when it was disposed of by Lord Stanley, the Secretary of State of 1859. The Under Secretary of State (Sir John Gorst) had gone into the whole story of Mr. Taylor's proceedings at Patna, for some little time before he issued what was now so well known as "the withdrawal order." He (Mr. J. M. Maclean) observed there were cheers from some Members of the House when it was pointed out that Mr. Tayler acted in an insubordinate manner for a long time towards the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal by failing to keep the Lieutenant Governor informed as to what he was going to do. If Mr. Tayler had been the Governor of a Province perfectly isolated from the Government at Calcutta, and had been thrown on his own resources, he would have been justified in acting as Lord Lawrence did in the Punjab, and as Sir Henry Lawrence did in Oude, and as other distinguished men engaged in suppressing the Mutiny acted elsewhere, in making the best of the means at his command. But he was in constant communication by post and electric telegraph with Calcutta. There was no difficulty in communicating with the Lieutenant Governor, and telling him exactly the course of his proceedings. Suppose the Governor of every Province in communication with Calcutta had chosen to do exactly as he liked, and had never let the Lieutenant Governor know what was going on, the whole administration of India

    361
    would have collapsed. It would have been impossible to have any subordination or any rule whatever. But he (Mr. J. M. Maclean) now came to the withdrawal order, a most important matter in the case. He heard a good deal some years ago about the whole business from Mr. Tayler himself, and he read carefully all the letters and pamphlets which Mr. Tayler submitted to him at that time. He confessed that at that time he was, like many hon. Members, under the belief that Mr. Tayler had perhaps not been very fairly dealt with. Mr. Tayler was such a clever and practised controversialist, and he put his case so plausibly, that, until one looked carefully into the materials on the other side, he was naturally carried away by what he was told. Let the House consider what the withdrawal order which Mr. Taylor issued was. Three Native regiments had mutinied and got away with all their arms, without being attacked by the European troops. They had crossed the river and were besieging Arrah. A detachment of British troops was sent against them, but was defeated with loss, and had to retire on Patna. Immediately, Mr. Tayler, who was a man of eager and impulsive disposition, took the sudden resolution that the whole of the Europeans throughout the Province of Patna ought to abandon their stations and concentrate themselves in Patna, Nor was he satisfied with that, but he addressed a letter to Major Vincent Eyre, who was on his way up the river with a small force, and intended to march to the relief of Arrah from the opposite direction, begging him not to advance. It was said he did not write to Major Vincent Eyre in these specific terms, but he himself said, on August 22, 1857, "I myself and the General, in concurrence with the military authorities, wrote officially to order him not to advance." Now, what was the meaning of an order for the concentration at Patna of all the Europeans at the different stations throughout the Province? It meant the complete abandonment of the heroic little garrison of Arrah to certain destruction by the besieging force of rebels. It meant the determination that no help should be given to any Europeans who remained there. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) spoke of the failure of that great general, his
    362
    father, to advance to Lucknow, and of his writing to Colonel Inglis there, telling him he must do the best he could, as he could not advance further, and, when all his means were exhausted, he must try to cut his way through. But Major Eyre had not tried to advance, and failed. It was not until every effort had been used by Sir Henry Havelock to relieve Lucknow, that he for a time gave up the attempt and fell back to Cawnpore. But this was an order not to attempt relief at all, but to give it up as a bad job and leave our men to be massacred. Look at the disastrous effect of such an order. It was said that Sir Vincent Eyre, some years afterwards, when Mr. Tayler appealed to him, said he thought the letter was justified in the circumstances of the case. Sir Vincent Eyre was a successful and honourable man; he could afford to be magnanimous, and he said that, no doubt, in a spirit of compassion to Mr. Tayler. But the question was not what he said long afterwards, but what he did at the time. Sir Vincent Eyre neglected the order, advanced, dispersed the rebels, and secured the safety of the Province. He (Mr, J. M. Maclean) thought he had said enough to show what a miserable error of judgment this order, which was issued by Mr. Taylor, was; what a terrible example was thus set to Englishmen in authority throughout India at a time when the Empire could only be saved by the constant maintenance of the highest possible standard of public virtue. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) said, "Oh; it was only an error of judgment!" But, surely, it was one of those errors of judgment which the men at the head of the Government of India at that time were bound to punish with the utmost severity, and that was the course which Sir Frederick Halliday, or Lord Canning, acting on Sir Frederick Halliday's advice, pursued. He (Mr. J. M. Maclean) hoped he would be permitted to say a few words with regard to the complaint that Mr. Tayler's appeals had never been heard properly by the Government of India, or by the Council of India in this country. It had been pointed out by the Under Secretary of State (Sir John Gorst), that the Court of Directors confirmed the decision of Lord Canning, and that on an appeal to the Secretary

    363
    of State, Lord Stanley, in 1859, that decision of the Court of Directors was further confirmed. He could not trace, from the records available to them, that anything more was done until about 10 years afterwards, but about that time a Memorial was presented. It was said that this Memorial was read over by the late Sir Stafford Northcote; that he promised that the Duke of Argyll should deal with the matter, but that nothing more took place. The Under Secretary of State for India said that night that his lips as an official were sealed with regard to the opinions of distinguished men on the other side of the question to that put forward by Mr. Tayler's friends. It so happened he (Mr. J. M. Maclean) had in his possession the opinions of two very distinguished men upon the other side, and as he was an unofficial Member, perhaps he might be permitted, without a breach of secrecy, to make two or three quotations from them. He had before him a Minute, dated November, 1868, and written by Sir Erskine Perry, on the Memorial of Mr. Tayler which was submitted to the India Office in 1868. Sir Erskine Perry went thoroughly into the case, and argued it out from beginning to end. There were many Members of the House who must remember who Sir Erskine Perry was. A fairer minded man never existed; he was an upright, able, and impartial Judge, a man who had been for many years at the head of the High Court of Bombay, and who absolutely knew nothing about the miserable personal feuds in Bengal, which were said to be at the bottom of this dispute. Well, Sir Erskine Perry went into the case, and this was what he gave as his judgment upon it:—
    "The only new matter which appears in this Memorial, with the exception of the oft reiterated but, for aught that appears, most empty boast that 'he saved Patna' during the period in question, is the fact that one of the Mussulmans, whom he arrested as a hostage in 1857, was seven years afterwards arrested and convicted for participation in a subsequent Wahabi conspiracy. It appears to me that this matter is wholly irrelevant to the subject under consideration. Even if this Wahabi had been convicted and hanged by him, as others were, it would not have affected in the slightest degree the questions whether Sir Frederick Halliday was justified in removing him from his post and withdrawing from him all confidence. It was admitted at the time that in several circumstances he had displayed great energy and vigour, and he was praised for it;
    364
    but the question still remained whether he was properly removed. He placed his conduct in every possible light before Her Majesty's Government, with all the skill of a most able and practised writer, and I am sorry to add with all the latitude of expression which an unscrupulous man permits to himself; nevertheless, the decision of such a distinguished lover of justice as Lord Canning was absolutely against him, and to my mind this ought to be conclusive against opening up the inquiry again. But, as it has become necessary to go into the inquiry, I will record here the considerations which a full examination of the case has forced upon me. Sir Frederick Halliday selected Mr. Tayler for the very important post he held at the breaking out of the mutiny, and seems to have passed over some seniors in making the selection. The bias, therefore, of Sir Frederick Halliday towards Mr. Tayler was naturally favourable. This natural bias was disturbed by Mr. Taylor's own conduct. Previously to the breaking out of the mutiny, Mr. Tayler's conduct towards his chief was such as necessarily to destroy all confidence in him, and it deserves to be noted in order to bring home to Indian administrators its full culpability. Mr. Tayler having occupied himself in getting up subscriptions from Natives of rank in behalf of an industrial exhibition, which he assured the Lieutenant Governor was entirely voluntary, complaints reached the ears of the latter that many of these subscriptions had been extorted under the pressure of official coercion; he thereupon directed Mr. Tayler to make inquiry as to the facts, upon which Mr. Taylor sent up all the statements confirming his own account of the transaction, but suppressed all that were unfavourable, and, when these afterwards transpired, he justified having done so. There is little doubt then that, had the mutiny not broken out, Sir Frederick Halliday would have removed him from his post. When the mutiny broke out, we find Mr. Tayler assuring the Lieutenant Governor that Patna was safe, but at the same time advisedly withholding from his chief information of his proceedings, because he chose to consider that Sir Frederick Halliday would have disapproved of them if he had been informed. Such an act of insubordination would also have justified removal from office. It was at this period, when on two separate grounds Sir Frederick Halliday would have been justified in removing Mr. Taylor, that the latter issued the order for calling in Europeans, on which he was actually removed. A recapitulation of these facts shows that no other course was open. As soon as Mr. Tayler was removed his course was equally reprehensible. He resorted to the Press and to pamphleteering in the most outrageous form; he seems to have been the leader in those attacks on Clemency Canning, which so much outraged the English sense of good feeling; he was, I think, somewhat unwisely re-instated in high office—a judicial one—by Sir Frederick Halliday; but the violence of his conduct and unjustifiableness of his attacks again led to his suspension from office by the Supreme Government. I quit the inquiry with the full conviction that no injustice was done him, and that he was a thoroughly untrustworthy public servant."

    365
    That was the opinion of Sir Erskine Perry, and there could not be a doubt that the Duke of Argyll had that opinion before him, when he decided that the case could not be re-opened. Then there was a Minute by Sir Henry Maine. He would not trouble the House by quoting from it—it was sufficient to say that the writer took exactly the same view of the case as Sir Erskine Perry did. It was proposed that night that the case should be re-opened, and that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should be appointed to inquire into events which took place 30 years ago. Most of the men who were responsible for what took place could not come forward to give evidence; but it was an extraordinary circumstance that both Sir Frederick Halliday and Mr. Taylor survived at the present day. They were both old men, and he entreated the House to remember that there were two characters at stake in the matter. There was not only at stake the character of Mr. Taylor, but also the character of that distinguished servant of the Government of India, Sir Frederick Halliday. They could not absolve Mr. Tayler from blame, and endorse the accusations he had made against Sir Frederick Halliday, without declaring that a man who had received the thanks of Parliament for his distinguished services must have been one of the basest of human beings, a man who was animated by low personal motives of malignity against Mr. Taylor, and did him the grossest injustice by removing him from the Public Service on that account. He hoped the House of Commons would deal with this question in a thoroughly judicial spirit, that they would appreciate the conduct of successive Governments in determining, after full inquiry, it was impossible to re-open the case; and that, having heard what Mr. Taylor's most eloquent advocates had had to say, they would decide that the case must now be left to the verdict of posterity.
    MR. JEFFREYS (Hants,)said, he regretted very much that the Government were unable to see their way to support this Resolution. It seemed to him it was only an act of justice and fairness to Mr. Taylor, who had worked all his life as a Civil servant in India, that there should be an inquiry into his case. The hon. Gentleman the
    366
    Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean) said Mr. Tayler was a man of spirit, and had been able to earn a good deal of money. He had no doubt Mr. Taylor was a man of spirit, and he acted at Patna like a man of spirit. One of the chief charges brought against him was that he had acted with insubordination. It was not shown that Mr. Tayler acted against orders, but merely that he acted without orders, and hon. Gentlemen would remember that in those critical times in India there was no time to send to Calcutta for instructions. Many men were obliged to act on their own responsibility. Mr. Tayler did so, and Patna was perfectly safe during the Mutiny. It was not shown that he acted with any injustice to anybody, but only took certain measures which were necessary for the security of the town and district. He (Mr. Jeffreys) would remind the House that by the Motion they were not asked to decide on the merits of the case. They were not asked to decide whether Mr. Tayler acted rightly or wrongly, but merely to give him an investigation. It would only be an act of justice on the part of the Government to allow an investigation to take place.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he only desired to say a few words before the Division was taken. Generally speaking, under ordinary circumstances, there was nothing fairer or more reasonable than a demand for inquiry; but in the present case the question really was whether the Government were to support their officers in the discharge of their duty. The House was asked to sanction what would really be aninquiry into the conduct of Lord Canning and the Government of India in 1857. Bearing in mind the extracts from Lord Canning's Minute of February 5, 1859, which had been read by the Under Secretary of State for India, he thought there could be no doubt that Lord Canning was at the time anxious to do full justice to Mr. Taylor. Would it be advantageous to the Public Service, and for the good of the State, that, after an interval of 30 years, an inquiry should now be held by the House of Commons? However much hon. Members might sympathize with a gentleman of advanced age, who believed that he had suffered wrong, let them remember that at the time of

    367
    these occurrences, when all the requisite evidence was procurable, this gentleman was offered an ample judicial inquiry, and deliberately declined the offer. In the circumstances, he submitted that it would not be right for the House to enter upon an investigation of the circumstances of the case.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 20: Majority 164.—(Div. List, No. 155.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889, the sum of £5,570,712 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

    CUSTOMS (WINE DUTY) BILL.
    (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jackson.)

    [BILL 293.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short Title).
    DR. TANNERsaid, on going through the clauses, he found that the Bill dealt only with sparkling wines, and had for its object the imposition of a differential duty on wines of a cheaper kind—wines of a character and nature which, as a medical man, he could not but think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be wiser to tax heavily, while allowing the pure productions of the juice of the grape to be introduced free of duty. With that, however, he could not now deal; he only now suggested that, inasmuch as this was a Bill for imposing a duty on sparkling wines, it would be in the interest of accuracy if the word "sparkling" were introduced in the parenthesis.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    DR. TANNERsaid, he really must press for an answer.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he did not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Member, but he really thought the hon. Member's remarks were rather good humoured banter than in support of a seriously proposed Amendment. It was an Amendment he was unable to accept. The Bill had been carefully drafted, and in reference to the remarks on the character of the cheaper wines it would be observed that the proposition had no relation to the alcoholic strength or purity of the wines.
    DR. TANNERsaid, after that explanation he would not press the matter.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Duty on sparkling wines in bottle).
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had an Amendment to this clause, to omit the words "sparkling wine imported in bottle." That would bring back the proposal to the form it assumed when it was originally put before the House. On the previous night, he made a few observations on the second reading, and called his right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the wine trade generally approved of the original proposal, and could see no reason why "still" wines should be exempted from the duty. He would not pretend to speak on the subject with any authority himself; but he had had the opportunity of conversing with leading members of the association which represented nearly all the principal wine traders in the country, and he was able to say in their name, as to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman on their action in regard to light wines, that the effect of the alteration of duty, as the Bill proposed, would be to give encouragement to the adulteration of still wines in this country. His right hon. Friend last night committed himself to the proposition that it would be of advantage to the consumer if still wines were imported in bottle; but for reasons supplied by the authorities he had referred to, and from the opinions of experts, he was able to say that the proposition of his right hon. Friend was entirely fallacious, and that no consumer of the cheaper light wines would have suffered from the legislation proposed by his right hon. Friend. There was no doubt whatever that all the poor wines that were imported, whether from

    369
    France, Germany, or Italy, could be best imported in cask.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman on a point of Order. The point is one of very considerable nicety; but this clause carries out a Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means, authorizing the imposition of 2s. 6d. a gallon on sparkling wines. Before that there had been a duty of 5s. a dozen on all wines; but, inasmuch as the duty being imposed by the gallon, increases the duty on wines imported in larger bottles, it is impossible to go beyond the Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means. If sparkling wines were struck out, it would impose on magnums, jereboams and larger bottles, a greater duty than is now levied; the Amendment therefore cannot be moved.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he regretted that that ruling had not been given earlier; it would have saved his occupation of the time of the Committee. Accepting the decision, he had only to say that he should support the next Amendment, if moved by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock.
    MR. S. WILLIAMSON (, &c.)said, his Amendment was aimed at that seriously objectionable principle in the Bill, the establishment of an ad valorem duty in our Customs regulations. He was quite sure that the scheme as embodied in the Bill for imposing a differential duty of 2s. 6d. a-gallon, or 5s. a dozen, in addition to the present duty on expensive wines, and establishing a lower duty of 2s. on wines under 30 s. value, would open the door to a great deal of fraud, which he did not see how it was possibe for the Customs to check. He was quite sure that shippers would ship "green" wines, possibly unfit for sale at a high price at the moment, but which would after an interval be worth 60 s. or 70 s. But they would be invoiced at 30 s. a-dozen, or 15 s. a-gallon, and he did not see how the Customs Authorities could check the practice. Of course, they might be tested; but, still, he defied the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell the Committee how there would not still be open the means of fraud of a very serious character. What was quite as had was that while fair traders would be subject to a disadvantage, unscrupulous traders would gain an advantage on wines that in the course of a year or two would be worth 50 s, or
    370
    60 s. a-dozen, but which would be imported as costing 28 s. or 30 s. The honest trader's invoice would fairly state the value of the "green" wines; but not so the invoices of the unscrupulous shippers. How could the Customs apply a test? The invoices would be produced, and evidence would be given, all in perfect order. Unfortunately, he had had some experience of what was possible, and what had been done in invoicing. Foreign merchants entered into keen competition with us, and much as was said about the progress of Continental trade, he was afraid that much was done by unscrupulous invoicing and the defrauding of Customs abroad. He felt sure that the Government proposal would work injuriously to the fair trader, and with no advantage to the Revenue of the country. His proposal was that instead of a duty of 5s. a-dozen on the better class wines in addition to the existing duty, and 2s. on the common wines, to place a duty of 4s. all round. He was quite sure that the fair traders, even when importers of cheap wines about 30 s. would rather pay 4s. than be subjected to the risk of unscrupulous competition. For that, and a variety of other causes, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice. Should it commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would, probably derive from it a larger revenue than from the Bill as it stood. As a natural consequence, Clause 3 would come out, and the other Amendments would fall to the ground.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, after the word "bottle," to insert the words "in bond, bottles, and in cases, or other packages."—(Mr. Stephen Williamson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, as he understood the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, it was to impose a duty of 4s. a-dozen on all wines. [Mr. S. WILLIAMSON: All sparkling wines.] The duty would be 4s. on Saumur and cheap wines of about the price of 20 s., as well as on the high priced Champagnes. But the general view of the House, so far as he had been able to gather it, was that a heavy duty should not be imposed on cheap wines; that it would not be wise

    371
    to handicap cheap wines in the manner suggested. He was aware that there was on the part of a large portion of the trade an anxiety to have a heavy duty put upon cheap wines. Importers of high-class wines viewed with great disfavour the importation of cheap wines at 24 s. or 30 s. a-dozen, and were annoyed somewhat that a change in duty should enable these cheap wines to be introduced without the penalty of the same duty as was paid on the dearer wines. He did not wish to argue the question at length, for he considered it was more or less decided by the previous debate; but, of course, if the hon. Member desired to press his Amendment, he would be prepared to meet him and maintain the contention that the cheaper wines should not be excluded or handicapped by a heavy duty. He did not know whether the hon. Member put forward his proposition simply to avoid the ad valorem principle, or whether he shared the feeling of hostility existing in some quarters to these cheap wines; but he rather gathered it was because the hon. Member felt the difficulty of levying an ad valorem duty, that he desired to make the duty uniform? [Mr. S. WILLIAMSON assented.] Then he would address himself to the argument of the difficulty of ascertaing the value. The hon. Member suggested a mode of fraud or evasion of duty by shipping wine in a green state, when it would be worth 30 s., and then waiting until it had matured to its full quality, and that commended itself to his hon. Friend also (Sir Robert Fowler) who was somewhat hostile to the Bill. A very important question here arose connected with Champagne, whether the wine would develope as well in its green state in cellars in England as in the Champagne country? He had inquired carefully into the matter, and could re-assure the hon. Gentleman. If green Champagne—unripe Champagne—were immediately shipped in the state described, the result would be that the wine would be spoiled. Champagne had to be treated with the greatest delicacy in its earlier stages. It had to be kept at a particular temperature in vaults specially constructed for the purpose by the great Champagne houses. The wine would spoil in the bonded warehouses of this country. There was the strongest evidence that the wine must be so kept for two or three years in France. The wines
    372
    of 1884–5 were being now imported; but the vintage of 1887 could not be shipped now for the purpose of escaping the difference between the 5s. and 2s. duty. The higher temperature to which the new wine would be subjected in transit to this country would lead to much loss through the bursting of bottles; a loss to the merchant much more serious than the amount of the duty he could expect to evade. This had been considered. Champagne required special treatment beyond that of any other wine to develop its full quality. The great houses who shipped Champagne were not going to degrade the commodity in which they dealt by attempting to introduce it below its value. They had built up the reputation of their wines at an enormous expense of capital and trouble over a long series of years, and he was not prepared to admit for a moment that it would be to their interest, even if they were all rogues and wished to evade the tax, to attempt devices that would probably spoil their wines, degrade their reputation in the market, and cause them infinitely more loss than the gain they could hope to secure in the attempts.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, he was sorry to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he might say that in his constituency (London) the original proposition was received with great satisfaction, and great regret was expressed when the right hon. Gentleman deviated from his original purpose, and made the alteration the Committee were now discussing. There was a general feeling—it had been pointed out to himself, and no doubt similar representations had been made to the right hon. Gentleman—that it would be very difficult to meet the question of duty on wines above and below 30 s., and that it would lead to a good deal of fraud on the Customs. He certainly concurred in the view of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. S. Williamson) that a uniform duty on all sparkling wines would be a much better plan than an ad valorem duty, such as was proposed in the Bill. He very much regretted that the alteration had been made. He knew there was a good deal of cavil at the original proposition, and that this Bill was brought in in pursuance of a pledge given to right hon. Gentlemen

    373
    opposite; but it was much to be regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had run from his guns.
    MR. BARINGsaid, he was sorry to say he did not entirely agree with anybody who had spoken in the discussion. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Williamson), for he was not opposed to an ad valorem duty; but as he did not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway was out of Order, he was bound to vote for that before the Committee. He did not see why this particular change should be made in favour of what be considered the most unwholesome drink anybody could put down their throats; therefore, if the hon. Member for Kilmarnock went to a Division, he should vote with him.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, a misconception had taken possession of the mind of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen), if he supposed the wine trade were at all opposed to the consumption of cheap wines. What they said was that there ought not to be the vast difference sought to be established between the two qualities, and why should this differential duty be established against sparkling wines? He believed the trade got a larger profit out of cheap wines than from dear wines; but they felt that the present proposal created a large difference of treatment absolutely without precedent. For instance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said Saumur and other cheap wines should have an advantage; but why not apply the same principle to Sherry and Maderia? Maderia, it might be said, cost 5s. or 6s. a-bottle; but then the consumer, who could not afford Maderia, bought Marsala, and an excellent cheap wine it was, costing 2s. or 2s. 6d. Why, again, when the ordinary duty on wines was the same, should particular wines be surtaxed on a different principle? That was an argument that had considerable weight with him, and which induced him to support the Amendment. The hon. Member who proposed the Amendment referred to frauds that might possibly be carried out, and surely he had reason on his side. He would put a case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which, perhaps, his financial genius could explain. Suppose a Champagne worth 32 s. a-dozen. If that Champagne
    374
    were imported and declared to be of that value, it would be subject to a surtax of ,5s., raising the price to 37 s. But if the dealer dropped 2s. from the original price, and declared it of the value of 30 s., he would only have to pay 2s, duty, so, therefore, according to the great authority of Cocker, the importer would make 1s. a-dozen on the transaction, for, while he would lose 2s. on the wine, he would save 3s. on the duty. That was one case out of many that might be proposed; but, without detaining the Committee further, he did not hesitate to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the leaders in the trade who were interested in the trade being fairly conducted were in favour of a uniform duty, and the proposal of the hon. Member seemed to be a fair one, though the particular sum to be fixed might be a matter for subsequent consideration. But it was perfectly clear that the gross inequality of the system would never be got rid of, and there would be no check to fraud until an analogous proposal was adopted.
    MR. S. WILLIAMSONsaid, in using the words "green wine," he did not mean wine of last year's growth, which he knew would be in an unfit state to ship, but wine of two or three years old which it would be impossible for the Custom House officers to value. It could not be denied that the door was opened to fraud. The honest trader would invoice his wine two or three years old, and which would be valuable two or three years later, fairly at 32 s. or 33 s. a-dozen; but his trade might be ruined by the less scrupulous man who declared the value at 29 s., securing a difference of 10 per cent.
    MR. WILLIAM LOWTHERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined to put that Question.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, there was no such fear of injury to the honest trader. Hon. Members surely were aware that the general price of Champagne was, unfortunately, such that the difference to the consumer of 3s. a-dozen, on this expensive wine would not be such as greatly to affect the merchant one way or the other. The great bulk of Champagne came to England, even after two or three years, at a much higher price than 30 s. All the great houses who

    375
    imported wines of well known brands, "Moet and Chandon," "Cliquot," and other great firms, shipped wines worth for the most part much more than 30 s. Here and there there might be a small proportion of wines the price of which might fluctuate about the dividing limit; but he did not believe the honest trader would suffer the loss suggested. The wines coming in of about the value of 30 s. bore a very small proportion indeed to the whole. That was the answer to his right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven.
    DR. TANNERasked, was he to understand that the main object and intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to tax the true and good Champagne highly, and at the same time admit, on more favourable terms, the deleterious, he might almost say poisonous, compounds such as Chante, Barolo, or the villanous spirituous Asti Spumante—he really could not stigmatize it strongly enough? If the Bill passed, it should contain provisions for securing that some so-called wines should bear labels conveying similar warnings of their poisonous nature as was attached to some bottles sent out by the apothecary.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he had no particular acquaintance with the decoctions mentioned by the hon. Member; but he could tell him that there were many of the wines of the Saumur class which were not deleterious, which were agreeable, and which were largely consumed by a portion of the community in this country who could not afford more expensive wines. These wines were perfectly wholesome, though they might not commend themselves to the more educated palates accustomed to wines of a higher class.
    DR. TANNERimagined that the right hon. Gentleman's acquaintance with them had not been of a personal nature.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 110: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 156.)
    MR. S. WILLIAMSONsaid, that, seeing what the opinion of the Committee was, he would not proceed with the next Amendment.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Reduction of duty).
    DR. TANNERsaid, the hour was late, many Members had had a long day's duty, and it was evident from the Notice Paper that the remaining clauses would meet with considerable opposition. The new Rules, he always understood, were devised in a humane spirit, to enable Members to go home in reasonable time, and he would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should avail himself of another opportunity to proceed further.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Tanner.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Motion. He was as anxious as anyone not to prolong the Sitting; but he was afraid hon. Members had been a little spoiled by easy hours under the new Rules, and the hour was early compared with the experience of former Sessions. He might urge that which might have some influence with the hon. Member, at all events it had with himself, that it was important to the trade that this matter should be settled. The duty could not be altered until the Bill passed; and though the longer it was delayed the longer the Revenue received the higher duty, it was only fair to the trade to terminate a state of uncertainty, and come to a decision as soon as possible.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, he only wished to say that a leading member of the trade had, in conversation that day, strongly urged the postponement of the Bill.
    MR. CUNYBEAREsaid, he could not agree with the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would remind the right hon. Gentleman that some Members had been in attendance on Committees or in the House since half-past 11, and had also paid close attention to the discussion of the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill. He also reminded the right hon. Gentleman that when the question was raised on a previous occasion, the House was asked particularly to postpone discussion to the clauses. [Mr. GOSCHEN: To the second reading.] He did not know what discussion there might have been then; but it was only

    377
    in Committee that questions of detail could be adequately dealt with. He was strongly opposed to the exemption of Money Bills from the Rule closing Business at a certain hour; they were just the Bills that ought not to be urged forward for an unlimited time.
    DR. TANNERsaid, he thought some consideration should be shown to Members, who by making a House, had enabled any progress to be made with the Bill. It would be wise, and, indeed, only reasonable, to yield to the wish that had been expressed from both sides, instead of sitting late to further a Bill which, it seemed, would not benefit the Revenue, and certainly would not benefit those who swallowed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's had champagne.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 107: Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 157).
    MR. S. WILLIAMSONsaid, the object of his Amendment he now moved would be apparent. It was that it might be distinctly understood that the invoice price must include the cost of packing.
    Amendment proposed, in line 25, after the word "gallon," to insert the words "in bond, bottled, and in cases or other packages."—(Mr. Stephen Williamson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, the object of the hon. Member would be met by an Amendment to Clause 8, by inserting in line 30, after "customs," the words "but including freight and all other charges." He had consulted with the legal advisers of the Customs, and they believed that these words would make it quite clear that the price included all those charges.
    MR. S. WILLIAMSONsaid, that would scarcely meet his object. Clause 8 referred to two classes of invoices; first, to wine imported by the consumer, and paid for by him; but the words proposed would exclude the other part of the clause.
    MR. JACKSONbelieved the Amendment would apply to both cases.
    MR. S. WILLIAMSONsaid, he was not sure that the Amendment specifically met the point. It was his intention, however, to vote against the clause.
    MR. WADDYsaid, he would appeal to the Government to allow the matter to rest for the present. When the Government called upon the House to give them an extra Morning Sitting, surely it was not desirable to choose the occasion for putting down a Money Bill, by means of which the Sitting could be prolonged for an indefinite time. The least that should be done was to avoid making the Sitting unusually late as well as unusually early. He would rather not make a Motion to report Progress; but unless the Government yielded to the protest he must do so.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, looking at the remaining Amendments in the light of decisions arrived at, he did not think they need give rise to long discussion. They were Amendments to omit clauses containing the substance of the Bill which had already been discussed and decided. He admitted the force of the objection urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he was sure his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would not wish to persevere if there was any general desire for a long discussion. But, at the same time, he reminded the Committee that the alternative was to resume the Bill at a late hour on another night. [Cries of "No!" and "Why?"] The course of the Local Government Bill could not be interrupted, and the Rules of the House permitted the continuation of this Bill after 12. But the Government had every desire to be conciliatory, and would not press the Committee now beyond the present Amendment if there was a strong desire against doing so. In the interest of the trade, however, it would be well to terminate the period of uncertainty, and to resume the discussion on Monday would be to again prolong the Sitting. The balance of convenience was certainly in favour of going on now.
    MR. BARINGsaid, if the Bill were set down as First Order on Monday there would be no difficulty in getting it through, and then other Business could be proceeded with.
    MR. WADDYsuggested that, inasmuch as the time of the House was practically at the disposal of the Government, there would be no difficulty in taking a little of the time intended for the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill, remembering how materially the Government had lightened the latter

    379
    Bill by the determination to omit clauses that would have consumed much time and given much trouble.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he should be exceedingly glad to meet the wish expressed from both sides; but he was under a pledge, repeated only at Question time, to proceed with the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill day by day as the principal Government Business. It would be for the convenience of the House to proceed now; but he did not wish to press that, though he was sure it would save time to do so.
    MR. SINCLAIR (, &c.)said, he came down to a Committee at half-past 11, and should do so again on Monday, and he urged the Government to persevere and finish the Bill now. It could easily be done, not much debatable matter was left, and it would be preferable to having another late Sitting on Monday.
    MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONsaid, that from 2 o'clock the Government had had practically the whole time of the House at their disposal, with the exception of an interval in which a supporter of the Government ventilated a supposed grievance. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members on the other side had an equal right with his own Party to have or invent grievances. It would be only reasonable now for the Government to conform to the spirit of their own Rule—that Business should cease at 1 o'clock. He had no objection to the Bill, and in the last Division upon it gave his vote in favour of the Government. Let the Government make the Bill first Order on one of their own days, or even take it last, and perhaps the Committee would be more disposed to go on with it.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument in favour of the trade interest failed when one of his supporters, who seemed to be a spokesman for the trade, informed the Committee that the trade were anxious the Bill should be postponed. Seeing also that, on the other hand, as time ran on, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the advantage of the higher duty levied, there was no necessity for pressing the Bill with unusual celerity.
    MR. FLYNNurged the Government to act up to the spirit of
    380
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks, and defer to the strong desire for adjournment expressed on both sides.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. WADDYsaid, when he made his appeal to the Government he stated that, unless that appeal were responded to, he should be impelled to make a Motion to report Progress. To bring the matter to a crisis he would now move it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Waddy.)
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would suggest to the hon. and learned Member that he should withdraw that Motion, and allow the Committee to take the clause. Then, if hon. Members insisted, he would not contest the Motion any longer. He had promised representatives of the trade to bring the matter to an issue as soon as possible, and he regretted that the state of uncertainty should continue.
    SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, the clause would give rise to considerable discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had been reasonable and conciliatory in his remarks when he referred to the alternative of sitting late on Monday. But the inconvenience to Members would be less on Monday, than on Friday at the end of a week's work.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he was very sorry the Government had given way. They might be assured that they would find themselves in the same position on Monday night. The Committee might make up its mind that it would then be too late to proceed with the Bill any night after 12. A proposition had been made to put the Bill in front of the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill; but he submitted that that Bill had not made such extraordinary progress as to justify that.
    DR. TANNERrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," and negatived.
    Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he was surprised the Chancellor of the Exchequer should say no serious question remained, for he had Notice of a Motion to omit the clause in relation to which questions arose as to which no explanation had been given by either the right hon. Gentleman or the Secretary to the Treasury. The clause provided that where it was proved to the satisfaction of the Customs that the market value of any wine imported in bottle was not more than 5s. a-gallon duty should be levied as proposed. He did not wish to go over old ground again; but he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state to the Committee how it was proposed to establish the value of a wine. There had been no indication of the method how that interesting task was to be executed. He was told by authorities in the trade, that it was impossible to do it, that no agent of the Customs would be equal to the task. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, then, in an unfortunate position. If the right hon. Gentleman had stuck to his original proposition all would have been plain sailing; but he deliberately walked into the pitfall prepared for him by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who then left him in his difficulty. Members of the trade declared that it was extremely difficult to distinguish the relative value of wines a little above and a little below 30 s., and common sense would incline one to accept that statement. He was told that an experienced expert found it next to impossible to distinguish between two bottles of Champagne valued at 30 s. and 32 s. How then would the Customs Authorities prove to their satisfaction that a wine was worth a little less or a little more than 30 s. a-dozen?
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not wish to imply that no opposition remained to the Bill. He said there were no Amendments, except to do away with clauses altogether. In reply to his right hon. Friend, it was not proposed to test the wine by a taster trying every bottle. He could understand that no palate, however highly trained, could distinguish between wines at 30 s. and 32 s. What he proposed was that documents should be forthcoming, such as invoices
    382
    and bills of lading, and that a statutory declaration should be made when any wine claimed to come in under the lower rate of duty. He refused to believe that the great majority of the trade in this country were going to enter into a combination for carrying out a system of wholesale fraud upon the Customs. There would be heavy penalties for false description, and there would be the risk of confiscation if false declarations were made. He admitted there might be a difficulty with regard to wine just about the border line of 30 s.; but there would be no difficulty in the case of at least two-thirds of the Champagne imported, for there would be documentary proof with regard to the price. Careful forms of declaration would be drawn up; but his right hon. Friend need not fear that the Customs were going to embark in the extremely troublesome and difficult task of deciding the value of a wine by tasting.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked did he understand his right hon. Friend to say that the value of a wine would be determined by documentary evidence?
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, great latitude would be given to Custom House officers, and if there was reason to suspect fraud, of course there would be an opportunity of testing the wine. The attempt to pass a wine unfairly at 30 s. would be attended with much risk of loss, and his right hon. Friend's knowledge of the trade and study of the subject generally would show him that of the great majority of Champagnes, the brands were fairly known, and none of the great and well-known houses would attempt to introduce wines at a low price when their value in the majority of cases was well known.
    Question put, and agreed to
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    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

    383
    following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure; Mr. Dugdale; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Kynoch.
    SIR JOHN MOWBRAYfurther reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Employers' Liability for Injuries to Workmen Bill: Mr. Abraham (Glamorganshire), Mr. Ainslie, Mr. Aird, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Donald Crawford, Mr. William Crawford, Sir Donald Currie, Mr. Davenport, Mr. George Elliot, Sir William Ewart, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Gill, Mr. MacInnes, and Mr. Royden.
    Report to be upon the Table.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—National Debt (Supplemental)* (155).
Committee—Report—Augmentation of Benefices Act Amendment* (78).
Third Reading—Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, Amendment* (91); Rochester Bishopric* (98), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Gas and Water* (156); Water (No. 2)* (157).
Second Reading—Metropolitan Police* (134).
Committee—Report—Public Health (Scotland) (Denny and Dunipace Water)* (136).
Third Reading—Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 4)* (120); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 5)* (121); Metropolitan Commons (Chislehurst and St. Paul's Cray)* (122), and passed.

THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES— CHINESE IMMIGRANTS.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he could communicate to the House the telegram which was stated to have been received with regard to the resolutions adopted at the Australasian Conference recently held on the subject of Chinese immigration?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD), in reply, said he had received the following telegram, which, he thought, would sufficiently show that the hope he entertained that the matter would be fully and carefully discussed from all points of view had been fully justified.
"14th June.—At the Australasian Conference held in Sydney on the 12th, 13th, and 14th inst., at which the colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, and Western Australia were represented, the question of Chinese immigration and your cablegram to the Governor of South Australia in connection therewith were fully considered. The members of the Conference are sensible of the wish of Her Majesty's Government to meet the views of the colonies, and have specially deliberated upon the possibility of securing legislation which, while effective, should be of a character so far as possible in accordance with the feeling and views of the Chinese Government. They have not overlooked the political and commercial interests of the Empire nor the commercial interests of the colonies. In 1886 the total exports to China from New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania were valued at £16,000 out of a total export trade amounting to £38,700,000. Our imports from China in the same year were valued at £846,000. While the custom of the colonies, therefore, is very valuable to China, that country offers no present outlet of importance for Australasian trade. There has never been any attempt on the part of any of the colonies to close their markets to the imports of the Chinese Empire, although most, if not all, of them are now produced in great quantities in the British Empire of India. The suggestion that any restrictions which are to be imposed should be of a general nature, so as to give power to exclude European or American immigrants, has been very carefully deliberated upon, but no scheme for giving effect to it has been found practicable. As the length of time to be occupied in negotiations between the Imperial Government and the Government of China is uncertain, and as the colonies in the

231
meantime have reason to dread a large influx from China, the several Governments feel impelled to legislate immediately to protect their citizens against an invasion which is dreaded because of its results, not only upon the labour market, but upon the social and moral condition of the people. At the same time the Conference is most anxious that Her Majesty's Government should enter into communication with the Government of China, with a view to obtaining as soon as possible a treaty under which all Chinese except officials, travellers, merchants, students, and similar classes should be entirely excluded from the Australasian Colonies. By way of assisting to bring about such an understanding the Conference has recommended the abolition of the poll tax now levied upon Chinese immigrants. While believing that the local legislation now proposed will accomplish its object, the Colonies would prefer that the exclusion of the Chinese should be brought about by international agreement of a friendly nature, as in the case of the United States. The Conference further desires that Her Majesty's Government should induce the Governments of the Crown Colonies of Hong Kong, Straits Settlements, and Labuan to at once prohibit the emigration of all Chinese to the Australasian Colonies, unless they should belong to the classes above mentioned. The Chinese who may claim to be considered British subjects in those Colonies are very numerous, and the certainty that their migration hither was prevented would give great and general satisfaction. The resolutions arrived at by the Conference, and which have been embodied in a draft Bill, are as follows:—1. That, in the opinion of this Conference, the further restriction of Chinese immigration is essential to the welfare of the people of Australasia. 2. That this Conference is of opinion that the desired restriction can best be secured through the diplomatic action of the Imperial Government and by uniform Australasian legislation. 3. That this Conference resolves to consider a joint representation to the Imperial Government for the purpose of obtaining the desired diplomatic action. 4. That this Conference is of opinion that the desired Australasian legislation should contain the following provisions:—(1) That it shall apply to all Chinese with specified exceptions; (2) that the restriction should be by limitation of the number of Chinese which any vessel may bring into any Australian port to one passenger to every 500 tons of the ship's burden; (3) that the passage of Chinese from one Colony to another without consent of the Colony which they enter be made a misdemeanour. The first and fourth resolutions were indorsed by all the Colonies except Tasmania, who dissented, and Western Australia, who did not vote; while the second and third were carried unanimously. As a whole, therefore, they faithfully represent the opinion of the Parliaments and peoples of Australia. In conclusion, the Conference would call attention to the fact that the treatment of Chinese in the Australian Colonies has been invariably humane and considerate, and that in spite of the intensity of popular feeling during the recent sudden influx good order has been everywhere maintained. In so serious a crisis the Colonial Governments have felt called upon to
232
take strong and decisive action to protect their peoples; but, in so doing, they have been studious of Imperial interests, of international obligations, and of their reputation as law-abiding communities. They now confidently rely upon the support and assistance of Her Majesty's Government in their endeavour to prevent their country from being overrun by an alien race, who are incapable of assimilation in the body politic, strangers to our civilization, out of sympathy with our aspirations, and unfitted for our free institutions, to which their presence in any number would be a source of constant danger."
THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked who had sent the telegram?
LORD KNUTSFORDsaid, it was sent by Lord Carrington by desire of the Conference.

HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE LATE GERMAN EMPEROR.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, it is my melancholy duty to announce to this House what, no doubt, is already known to many of your Lordships—the death of the Emperor of Germany. I need not say how deeply we grieve for the loss of one so justly valued both here and in Germany. Our Queen has lost a beloved son-in-law, and Germany a most enlightened ruler. It will be your Lordships' desire to put on formal record the sympathy which you feel for the afflicted relatives, and for the nation that has lost so much. I therefore give Notice, according to precedent, that I shall move an Address to Her Majesty the Queen and an Address to Her Imperial Majesty the Empress of Germany, on Monday next.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, in the absence of my noble Friend who leads the Opposition in this House (Earl Granville), and who is prevented from being present, I should not like to let this opportunity pass without saying that I am certain that every word that has been said by the noble Marquess opposite is fully echoed on this side of the House. If I may be permitted to say something on my own behalf, I would add that, apart from the high respect always felt for one in so great a position as that occupied by the late Emperor, and the admiration which all of us have for the noble qualities which he displayed throughout his

233
career, those who had the honour of being personally known to him must have felt that he was one who inspired the deepest feelings of attachment to him on the part of all who had the privilege of his acquaintance.

STREET IMPROVEMENTS (METROPOLIS.)

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MEATHasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether it was necessary that Piccadilly Circus, one of the principal sites of the Metropolis, should be disfigured by rough balks of timber supporting an unsightly wooden railing placed round a small paved space in the centre of the Circus; and, if so, how long Piccadilly Circus was likely to remain in this apparently uncared for condition? He supposed that the balks of timber were kept in their present position to show that the Metropolitan Board had not given the place up to the public. It was a pity that this spot, and others elsewhere, should be surrounded by unsightly hoardings when temporary railings could be set up on certain days in the year to prove that there had been no dedication to the public. He was aware that the Metropolitan Board, as regarded its health, was in a very unsatisfactory condition, and that it was often the case that a man in extremis looked upon mundane affairs with different eyes from a man who was strong and vigorous. At the same time, he hoped the noble Lord might be able to assure their Lordships that although the life of the Board was not likely to be very prolonged, it would act as private individuals were supposed to act in that condition, and that it would set its affairs in order so as to transmit them to its successor in a satisfactory state. He might add that, although the Board had been the object of much hard hitting lately, yet he was certain that there were large numbers of the public who felt that they owed a debt of gratitude to the Board for all it had done in the way of improving the Metropolis, especially for its two greatest works—the main drainage of London and the Thames Embankment.
  LORD MAGHERAMORNEsaid, he had to thank the noble Earl for his kind recognition of the services of the Metro-
  234
  politan Board of Works, which had been, and were now, being unduly, and he might say most atrociously, assailed in many quarters. He confessed that there were subjects which he would not allude to, because he saw present the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell), who was the head of the Commission which was investigating them, and he would not have touched on the subject at all had not the noble Earl done so; but he should not be worthy of his position as Chairman of the Board, which he had held for 18 years, if he did not say that he considered the great bulk of his colleagues to be as noble and as straightforward men as any in either that or the other House of Parliament. He said that fearlessly, and he defied anybody to prove the contrary. When he was asked whether, when they retired, they would hand on to those who should succeed them everything in the best possible form, he answered, "Yes, we will do it." They would stick to their work and hand it over to those whom Parliament might select to succeed them. As to the special point of the noble Earl's Question, he could only say that the Board was now considering what should be done with the vacant site in Piccadilly Circus. The balks of timber, which the noble Earl did not seem to think pretty—and he agreed with him—had been placed there for the purpose of reserving the control of the Board over the place, it being undesirable to subject it to the unfettered discretion of the Vestry. Their reason for thus acting was this. Their Lordships were all aware that wherever there was an open space there were all kinds of ideas as to what should be done with it, and many suggestions had been made and many plans proposed for the adornment of this site. One proposal was that a statue or fountain should be erected; another that an artistic lamppost should be set up; and a third that the place should be planted with trees. Another fanciful suggestion was very curious—namely, that a retiring room should be built underneath it, but this idea certainly did not find favour with his colleagues. He thought the Metropolitan Board might be proud of its West End streets and of the communication at this particular point; and they were anxious, if they were to die—and it seemed they were to die—

  235
  but be that as it might, they would like as long as they were given the power in their own days to put something, or let somebody else put up something, which would be a credit to the Metropolis, in what he considered to be one of the best spaces of London. There were so many different suggestions that the matter required careful consideration. They were giving it that consideration, and he hoped before they were extinguished that they should be able to give an opinion and a decision on that important question, and he would assure their Lordships that they would be guided in their decision by the desire that the adornment of this fine site should be a credit to the Metropolis.

  PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 72. and 82. be suspended for the remainder of the Session.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, to Monday next a quarter before Eleven o'clock.