Sitting of 18 June 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Trustee Savings Banks, appointed and nominated.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [June 15] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Considered as amended—Alabama Great Southern Railway.
PUBLIC BILLs—Ordered—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 2)*; Allotments Act (1887) Amendment (No. 2)* [299].
Committee—Local Government (England and Wales) [182] [Seventh Night]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Customs (Wine Duty)* [293].
Third Reading—Victoria University* [198], and passed.
Withdrawn—Corn Returns [177]; Land Law (Wales and Monmouthshire) [122].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Dublin Markets)* [291].
Third Reading—Local Government (No. 9)* [274]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No, 7)* [272], and passed,

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  UNITED TELEPHONE COMPANY BILL
  (by Order).
  UNITED TELEPHONE COMPANY BILL

    SECOND READING,
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKmoved, "That the Bill be read a second time on Thursday week."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Second Reading be deferred till Thursday 28th June."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
    MR. KELLYsaid, he understood that the Bill had been put on the Paper that day for the purpose of being taken.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the understanding was that the Bill was not to be taken before Thursday next; and he had not been able to consult his hon. Friend, who took a more active part in the matter, as to the exact day on which he would be able to be present. He had, therefore, moved that the second reading be postponed until Thursday week.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he must be allowed to express a hope that the date of the second reading would now be definitely fixed, as hon. Members had been brought down to the House on several occasions in regard to the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL.

    MOTION FOR AN INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE.
    MR. KELLY, in moving—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the South Staffordshire Water Bill to insert the auction clauses with reference to the £60,750 unissued balance of the ordinary stock, and to the £41,637 unissued balance of the loan capital of the South Staffordshire Waterworks Company,"
    and who was almost entirely inaudible, was understood to say that he was quite willing to make it optional on the part of the Committee to follow the Instruction, provided that, in the event of their not doing so, they had to give their reasons and the facts upon which these were grounded. He ventured to remind the House that if the Company had not
    416
    obtained many years ago the power to raise money which they did not want, and had never used this unissued—and which then would have been new—capital would, as a matter of course, have been subject to the Auction Clauses, and he asked the House to say now that it should be treated as new capital. The present case was almost strictly analogous to that of the Limps-field and Oxted Waterworks Company, where, when Parliament authorized the raising of new Stook, the unissued original Stock was made subject to the same restrictions as the new Stock. The question was, whether the ratepayers of the district were to pay interest upon an extra sum of £30,000 that would simply go into the pockets of the shareholders of the Company, and, in the event of the waterworks being taken over, were to be saddled with an additional sum of £30,000 for the Company's works? Practically, the Stock was now a certain 5 per cent Stock, and for the last 10 years the Company had paid a dividend of 4 per cent, and the shares had been steadily going up in value, and might be expected, at no very distant date, to reach the maximum dividend of 10 per cent. It would be said that the present high price of the Stock, which was quite recently sold at 138 ex. div., was due to the purchasers having counted upon getting allotments of the unissued Stock at par; but this could not seriously be contended, as little more than 15 per cent of the Stock had yet to be issued, and the increased value of the shares was really due to the fact that in the last 20 years the dividends had steadily increased from 1 to 5 per cent.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the South Staffordshire Water Bill to insert the auction clauses with reference to the £60,750 unissued balance of the ordinary stock, and to the £41,637 unissued balance of the loan capital of the South Staffordshire Waterworks Company."—(Mr. Kelly.)
    MR. WIGGIN, in opposing the Motion, said, the antecedents of the South Staffordshire Water Company were very different from what they had been represented to the House. He, therefore, wished to explain the exact position of affairs at the present moment. The great mining district of South Staffordshire was for many years, in consequence of the pre-

    417
    valence of coal, ironstone pits and other mining works all over the district, very badly supplied with water. The supply was altogether insufficient, and of a very poor description. A number of gentlemen interested in the district met together, and formed a small Waterworks Company, with the object of supplying water to the South Staffordshire district. They had to search pretty nearly all over South Staffordshire before they could obtain a good supply. Experts were employed, and, by their advice, an investigation was made in the neighbourhood of Lichfield, where an excellent supply was found in the new red sandstone. Engines of something like 400 or 500 horse-power were erected, by means of which water was pumped to a great elevation, and the supply was spread over a distance of something like 40 miles, from Derbyshire on the one side to Worcestershire on the other, and the area supplied by the Company was 20 miles in width. The water supplied was excellent, and was a great boon to South Staffordshire. The scheme, however, was of no advantage whatever to the shareholders for the first six years, as no dividend was paid the first six years. In the next two years a dividend of 1 per cent was paid, and from that period the dividend had gone on increasing, until last year it reached 5 per cent. The demand for the water was very great, and 10 or 12 years ago the Company had to apply to Parliament for powers to increase the supply. They obtained powers to sink an additional well at Channock Chase, a very expensive operation; and they were altogether authorized to raise new capital of £350,000, of which about £300,000 had been expended on new works, and about £60,000 remained to be allotted, the dividend being limited to a maximum of 7 per cent, of which, however, there was little probability of its ever being reached. The complaint was that the powers Parliament had granted had never been used, and that the capital had not been raised or expended on new works. It was quite true that the 100 shares were now worth about £135, and it was for that reason that the purchasers of the original shares hoped to obtain the allotment of the unused capital, which was not new capital in any sense whatever. If it were a new capital, he quite agreed with the hon.
    418
    and learned Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Kelly) that it ought to be subject to the Auction Clauses. It was not, however, new capital, but capital issued and allotted some 10 years ago. It was capital in that position which the hon. and learned Member asked the House to put up for sale, and submit to the Auction Clauses, by which means the shareholders would be prejudicially affected. He trusted that the House would not sanction any such proposal. The Company were not asking for an extension of capital, nor were they proposing to erect any new works. They simply asked to consolidate certain Bills into one Act, as such a course would be more convenient and economical both to the Company and the district. He trusted that he had made himself properly understood. It was perfectly certain that the Company would be treated unfairly if any such repudiation as the hon. and learned Member referred to was agreed to.
    MR. HINGLEYsaid, he was not in any way mixed up with this Water Company, except as a consumer; but, as Mayor of Dudley, he was in a position to say that the water supply provided by the Company had conferred a considerable boon upon that borough. He thought it was scarcely fair, considering what the Company had done for the district, and the manner in which they had been called upon by the Sanitary Authority year after year to expend money, amounting in the aggregate to sums of from £10,000 to £30,000, to impose the restriction upon them which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Kelly) had moved. For many years the Company had had a long succession of struggles, and the issue of the capital was required for the extension of works.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Kelly) had stated his willingness to express the Resolution in a different form from that in which it now appeared on the Paper; but he had not moved it in an altered form, and it was now submitted to the House as an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill. It was quite unnecessary to give the Committee any such Instruction as the hon. and learned Member had moved. In the case of the Limpsfield and Oxted Bill a Committee certainly did

    419
    inquire into the matter, and had provided that unissued capital should be subjected to the Auction Clauses. But this case differed altogether from the Limpsfield and Oxted case, and he confessed that he did not see any reason for adopting the Instruction which had been moved. The Limpsfield and Oxted Bill extended the area of the operations of the Company, and applied for the extension of the authorized capital which had not been issued or required in connection with the original scheme. It was right, therefore, in that case to treat it as new capital, and it came before the Committee in the same form as if it were fresh capital about to be newly authorized. The present Bill dealt with a balance of unissued capital which was now required in order to complete the scheme which was originally authorized by Parliament. It was unexpended capital to be spent on work already sanctioned and not yet completed, and he thought that it would be taking a strong step to subject capital of that kind to the Auction Clauses. There was no question whatever of the issue of new capital. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Member for North Camberwell that, as he had shown by the example of Limpsfield and Oxted, the question could be inquired into without an Instruction to the Committee, he should withdraw the Motion, and leave the matter in the hands of the Committee.
    MR. KELLYsaid, after what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman he would withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)— ARREST OF NEIL O'HARE—MIS- TAKEN IDENTITY.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH(for Dr. R. MACDONALD) (Ross and Cromarty) asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is true that a person named Neil O'Hare, agent for a firm of Glasgow hide merchants, and well known for many years in the Western Highlands and Islands, was lately apprehended by the police in the parish of Lochalsh, and conveyed to a cell in the prison of Portree, and there detained from Saturday 2nd to Monday
  420
  4th June current, notwithstanding substantial bail being offered for his appearance by friends to whom he was well known; whether O'Hare repeatedly protested his innocence of any crime, and asserted that the police were mistaken in apprehending and detaining him if they were really in search of some accused person; whether on the Monday night O'Hare was discharged, without apology or explanation, other than he had been taken for a person of the same name accused of committing some offence in another county; and, whether, seeing O'Hare was a well-known and law-abiding person for whom bail was tendered, he, the Lord Advocate, will take such steps as may be necessary to prevent such conduct on the part of the police in the future, and cause Neil O'Hare to be properly compensated?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): It is the fact that a person of the name given was apprehended by the Skye police, at the instance of the Argyllshire authorities, at Tobermory. He unfortunately bore the same name, and was engaged in the same class of work in the same part of the country, as a man against whom a charge of serious crime was laid in Argyllshire. He was brought to Portree, and a full description of him was at once telegraphed to Tobermory, the Police Inspector making arrangements to keep the wire open after hours that night, so that the authorities at Tobermory might communicate without delay. Instructions came that night to send him in custody to Tobermory on the following Monday. It appeared from a letter found on the man that his wife lived in Ireland, and the Inspector telegraphed this fact to Tobermory. The Procurator Fiscal at Tobermory telegraphed on Monday morning to say that the wife of the man wanted had been ascertained not to live in Ireland, but at Oban, that he thought there must be a mistake, and that O'Hare should be liberated. He mentioned in the telegram a point of personal description which might be a good test; and the Inspector, on examination, found that the man in custody did not answer to it. On this being communicated the man was at once liberated. O'Hare, and a man believed to be his brother, did ask

  421
  whether he could be admitted to bail; but was correctly informed by the Inspector that he had no power to do so. The question of bail could not, by law, be considered until he had been brought before a magistrate having jurisdiction in the place of the alleged crime. The Inspector, on liberating O'Hare, expressed to him his sincere regret that in doing his duty he had been compelled to detain him, and at the annoyance to which O'Hare had been subjected by the mistake of identity. I do not consider that the Inspector was to blame in the circumstances. He appears to have taken every step possible to prevent any delay in clearing up the matter, and to have O'Hare released if he were not the right man. It is not in my power to order any compensation to be made to O'Hare; but I think it right publicly in this House to express the regret of the authorities at an occurrence which is one of those that, unfortunately, must take place occasionally, even in the most careful conduct of duties of criminal prosecutions.

  NORTH AMERICAN FISHERIES—SEAL FISHING IN BEHRING SEA.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the United States Government have officially announced the departure of the war ship Dolphin, and three other armed vessels, to the Behring Sea, with instructions to seize British or other vessels engaged in seal fishing in those waters; if Her Majesty's Government have sent a war ship to warn masters of British sealing vessels of the consequences of infringing the Alaskan Laws; and, if any of the vessels seized for alleged illegal fishing in 1886 and 1887 have been, as promised, released?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): In so far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, no such announcement has been made by the United States Government, nor has any British ship of war been ordered to Behring Sea. Orders have been given by the United States Government that the three British vessels seized in 1886, with their tackle, apparel, and furniture, should be restored to their owners. The
  422
  vessels in question were the Onward, Caroline, and Thornton. As regards the seizures in 1887, we have not heard that any of them have been released; but proceedings in connection with all the seizures are before the American Law Courts.

  CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)—SUSPI-CIOUS DEATH OF D. BALLINGALL, CO. FIFE.
  MR. ASQUITHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the death under suspicious circumstances, on April 8, of a gamekeeper called David Ballingall, near King's Kettle, in the County of Fife; whether it is the fact that two men, named Andrew Walton and David Wright, were arrested on suspicion, and have since been set at liberty; whether he can state why these men were not put on their trial; and, whether any further steps have been, or are being, taken to investigate the circumstances of Ballingall's death?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): My attention has been called to this matter. The facts are as stated by the hon. Member. After full inquiry, no evidence was obtained connecting either of the persons arrested with the event. Instructions were given that if any further evidence could be obtained, to report again and at once to the Crown Counsel.

  ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, WOOL-WICH—ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOEasked the Secretary of State for War, What progress has been made in the arrangements for so altering the Regulations for the Entrance Examinations to Woolwich that the subject of natural science shall be duly represented?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I am sorry to be obliged to ask the hon. Member to postpone his Question for a week. We are still in communication with the Civil Service Commissioners on the subject; but I have every hope of arriving at new Regulations which will satisfy the hon. Member's claims on behalf of science.

  PATENTS—SPECIFICATIONS OFCOLONIAL PATENTS.
  SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, whilst the specifications of American and other foreign patents are supplied regularly, and at an early date, to the Patent Office Library, and whilst our Patent Office supplies copies of patents taken out in this country punctually to our Colonies, information as to Colonial patents is received in this country at long intervals only, and in an incomplete form; whether he is aware that the absence of correct information as to Colonial patents tends to occasion great inconvenience, and not unfrequently considerable loss on our manufactures; and, whether he will endeavour, through the medium of the Colonial Office, to induce our Colonies to reciprocate the advantage which they derive from the early and regular information given to them of our patents, by furnishing to us similar information in return with regard to theirs?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, he was informed that there was some delay in for warding specifications of Colonial patents to the Colonial Office, and that inconvenience was occasioned at the Patent Office Library thereby. The Secretary of State for the Colonies was in communication with the Colonial Governments on the question, with a view to an improvement in this respect.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES)—WITHHOLDING GRANTS FROM VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
  SIR CHARLES PALMERasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether any instructions have been given to Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools to withhold grants from voluntary schools unless the managers made certain extensions of the school buildings, although these buildings satisfied the requirements of Her Majesty's Inspectors in 1885 and 1886, and there has been no increase in the average attendance since that time?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): No, Sir; no such instructions as are indicated in the Question have been issued. If the hon. Baronet will give me particulars of any special case I will make inquiries, it being important to secure uniformity in dealing with these questions.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCES—THE GUNS ATADEN.
  MR. ERNEST BECKETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has discovered who was responsible for sending guns to Aden without sights; whether he intends to call the delinquent to account for his negligence; and, what he proposes to do to prevent, as far as he can, a recurrence of such negligence in the future?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): These were guns of a new description, and some delay arose in making sights owing to a question of pattern. As the latter are small articles, readily fixed and always packed separately from the guns, the officer whose duty it was to despatch the stores considered that it was best to forward the guns, which would take some time to mount, without waiting till the sights were ready. And as he had every reason to feel confident that, as the guns would take some time to mount, the sights could be sent out in ample time, I do not feel called upon to visit his conduct with censure. But this omission was not reported to the Director of Artillery at the time, as it should have been; and I have taken due notice of the omission. Steps have been taken to secure that, in future, all essential fittings for guns shall be ready for despatch as soon as the guns themselves.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—DISMISSAL OF JOHN DALY, SLIGO PRISON.
  MR. SHEEHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Prison Warder John Daly, of Sligo Prison, has been dismissed, after sworn inquiry, for having allowed prohibited articles into the possession of a prisoner; when

  425
  was the inquiry held; when was its result communicated to Daly; and, whether he has any objection to furnishing a copy of the information sworn at the inquiry to Daly?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The man referred to was dismissed for the reason stated. Subsequently, on his own request, a sworn inquiry was held on the 26th of April. The result, which confirmed the decision already arrived at by the General Prisons Board, was communicated to him on the 9th of June. The Board report that the course suggested would be contrary to practice.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if Daly was examined at the inquiry; and, also, if the Government made any inquiry of the prisoner in question—my hon. Friend the Member for South Galway (Mr. Sheehy)?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware if that is so.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—THE LOUGH-REA DISTRICT.
  MR. SHEEHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What action has been taken with regard to the appointment of Registrar for the Loughrea District; also with regard to the appointment of sub-sanitary officer of Loughrea Union; and, why the application of the Guardians of Loughrea Union for a powder licence for Mr. Peter Sweeney, their building contractor, has been delayed, which delay has prevented Mr. Sweeney from carrying out important public contracts?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The person who acted ad interim Registrar has been appointed to the vacancy. The Guardians have appointed a sanitary sub-officer, and have submitted the appointment for the sanction of the Local Government Board, before whom the matter now is. As regards the last paragraph, the Guardians have been already informed that a licence for dynamite and blasting powder cannot be issued to the man referred to, as he is not considered a fit person to hold such a licence.
  MR. SHEEHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how long the Local
  426
  Government Board have had under their consideration the question of sanctioning the appointment of the sanitary officer?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer that.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE MILITIA—FINES FOR DRUNKEN- NESS.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the amount that has accrued from fines for drunkenness in the Militia since 1878 will be distributed among the battalions of that Force, in accordance with the precedent of 1879; and, if so, whether deprivations of Militia bounty for offences will be similarly dealt with?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: There is no accumulation from these fines, as the amount is spent from year to year in aid of increased pay to the Militia sergeants and corporals. The hon. Member will find that the sum is taken as an appropriation in aid of Vote 5 of the Army Estimates.

  INDIA—THE UNCOVENANTED CIVIL SERVICE—FURLOUGHS.
  MR. MACNEILLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that members of the Uncovenanted Civil Service of India who were in receipt of a salary of Rs.6,000 a-year on February 10, 1876, and those appointed by the Secretary of State for India, obtain two years' furlough on half-pay after eight years' service, whereas members of the Uncovenanted Civil Service who have been appointed by the Governor General of India can only obtain one year's furlough after 10 years' service; and, on what principle is this distinction drawn between members of the Uncovenanted Service appointed by the Secretary of State and those appointed by the Indian Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): (1.) Yes; subject to the qualification that those to whom the first part of the Question relates held certain specified offices at the date mentioned; and that those mentioned in the last part of the Question have been appointed by the

  427
  Governor General in Council without the sanction of the Secretary of State, given either before or after the appointment. (2.) On the principle that the Uncovenanted Service should be recruited, as far as possible, from Natives of India; and that appointments carrying the special privilege mentioned should be filled by officers who are selected in England with special qualifications, or who have gained their appointments by competitive examination involving expensive training.

  INDIA—THE UNCOVENANTED CIVIL SERVICE—PENSION RULES.
  MR. MACNEILLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether members of the Uncovenanted Civil Service of India who are nominated by the Secretary of State for India as officers of the Public Works, Telegraph, and Forest Departments are allowed to count service for retirement on pension from the year they leave Cooper's Hill or other College, irrespective of age, whereas service before the age of 22 years, in the case of an Uncovenanted civilian appointed by the Governor General of India, is not permitted to count as service for retirement on pension; whether officers in the Administrative Departments of the Uncovenanted Civil Service of India have been placed, before the age of 22, in charge of Divisions of Districts, and in exercise of the powers of magistrates of the first class; did the Government of India in 1868 recommend that the limit of age for service counting for pension should be reduced; and did the then Secretary of State for India refuse to entertain it; and, on what principle is this distinction drawn between different members of the Uncovenanted Civil Service of India?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The answer to Questions 1, 2, and 3 is affirmative. The principle of the distinction is that more favourable Pension Rules are given to Departments recruited in this country, for which special training is requisite.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—THE AMANDEBELE COUNTRY.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies,
  428
  Whether he can now state the boundaries or extent of the "Amandabele country with its dependencies" (mentioned in the Treaty of Friendship of 11th February of this year), of which the permanent Chief, Lobengula, undertakes not to alienate any portion without the previous sanction of Her Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa; and, whether he can state whether that territory is bounded on the north by the Zambesi River?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Her Majesty's Government are not at present in a position to state precisely the boundaries and extent of the territory over which Lobengula claims to have authority. It is, however, understood that this territory is bounded, in part at all events, to the northward by the Zambesi.

  SCOTLAND—ISLAND OF LEWIS—PAY-MENT OF RATES.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, If he can state the amount of poor and education rates due by owners and occupiers respectively in the Island of Lewis for the present year which is still unpaid; whether it has been customary in that Island for the owner to collect rates with the rents in the case of holdings under £4 annual rental; whether it is true that, in consequence of the refusal of the principal owner in the Island to pay tenants' rates in the customary manner, thousands of crofters are in danger of being struck off the roll of Parliamentary voters; and, how many collectors there are in the Island to whom small tenants can pay their rates direct, so as to enable them to retain their status as voters?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): It has been impossible, since this Question was put upon the Paper, to obtain all the particulars required by the hon. Member; but I may state that recently £3,574 of rates have been paid up by proprietors and tenants. The principal proprietor's factor has declined to pay the rates for those tenants under £4 who have not paid any rents, but has paid the rates of all who have paid rent. There are four

  429
  collectors of rate—namely, in Stornoway, Barvas, Lochs, and Uig.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE(IRELAND) ACT, 1887—THOMAS BARRY, CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the case of Thomas Barry, convicted on May 31st, at Castle Martyr, of conspiracy, and sentenced by Resident Magistrates Gardiner and Redmond to a month's imprisonment, any evidence was taken beyond the fact of his personal refusal to supply goods to a member of the Constabulary?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It would seem that much additional evidence was taken. It was proved that a Boycotting conspiracy existed among several shopkeepers not to deal with the police, involving, as such conspiracies always do, mutual compulsion and coercion
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My Question was rather more specific than that. I knew that several persons were tried at the same time; but my Question is, whether, in the case of the man I have mentioned, Thomas Barry, evidence was taken beyond the fact of his personal refusal to supply goods that he was implicated in the conspiracy?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; evidence of conspiracy was given.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: In this case I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to lay the evidence on the Table.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That would be a very unusual course. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] The hon. Gentleman who said "No, no" cannot have had much Parliamentary experience; but it is a very unusual course to lay the evidence in such a case on the Table, and I could not give an answer in the affirmative without consideration.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: May I ask a Question with reference to this? I have read an account of the evidence in this case; and I cannot find there is any such evidence as that stated by the right hon. Gentleman in the printed account. I wish to know, will the right hon. Gentleman furnish from some other source the evidence to which he refers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; for the right hon. Gentleman's satisfaction, I
  430
  believe I can supplement the printed account.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether or not it was sworn at the trial that Barry was a member of the conspiracy?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, Sir; I have stated what I believe to be the fact, that evidence as to Barry's participation in this conspiracy was given at the trial. I do not know that I can give a more specific reply either to the hon. Gentleman, or to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

  BOARD OF TRADE (WORKING OF RAILWAYS).
  MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is now in a position to introduce a short Bill to deal with the several points of safety arrangements on railways, and Returns of Overtime Work, on which he undertook, on the 8th of May last, to legislate?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, he had no hope, during the present Session, of introducing such a Bill. As to the Returns of Overtime, he intended to insert in the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill a clause requiring statistics, which he thought would cover that point.

  POST OFFICE—CONVEYANCE OF MAILS —NORTH OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. FINLAY (, &c.)asked the Postmaster General, What arrangements had been made for the conveyance of mails by the down London day mail combined with the Scotch night mail from Perth to Inverness and the North of Scotland after the 30th of June.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES), in reply, said, he had assented to a proposal made by the Railway Company that the train conveying the London day mail and the Scotch night mail from Perth to Inverness should remain under the control of the Post Office. No alteration would, therefore, be made after the 30th.

  ENGLISH UNIVERSITY COLLEGES.
  *SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked Mr. Chancellor of the

  431
  Exchequer, Whether he can yet state the intentions of Government as to affording any assistance to the English University Colleges?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): This Question would have been more properly addressed to my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. I may say, however, that I believe that the Lord President and the Vice President received a deputation on this subject, and have since been in communication with the various Colleges, in order to ascertain all the material facts of their position. The information asked for is not yet, in all cases, complete.

  THE METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD—SMALL-POX HOSPITAL AT DARENTH.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Metropolitan Asylums Board has accepted a tender for the erection of a small-pox hospital at Darenth which is £5,000 in excess of the lowest of the nine tenders received?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The tenders for the erection of the hospital for convalescing small-pox patients at Darenth ranged from £41,928 to £59,100. The lowest tender was by a firm at Sleaford; and before the tender was accepted the managers received a communication from the firm requesting that they might be allowed to withdraw their tender, as the cost of the cartage and other matters very much exceeded what they had anticipated. The next lowest tender, which was for £47,000, was accepted.

  CHELSEA HOSPITAL—GEORGE WIL-LIAMS—ARREARS OF GOOD CON- DUCT PAY.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, Upon what grounds the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital refuse to pay to George Williams the amount of arrears of good conduct pay to which he is entitled, and which was certified to be due to him, and payment of which was promised by the Letter of the Com-
  432
  missioners, No. I. Bd. 1. 6. 85, Case No. 31, dated 8th June, 1887?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: Under the Warrant of 1848, 1d. a-day was added for each good conduct badge to pensions—whether temporary or permanent—granted on their discharge to soldiers incapacitated in the Service—the temporary pension being renewable for such period as the circumstances might warrant. It was decided by Viscount Cardwell, in 1870, that a temporary pensioner, whose pension was so renewed, had no claim to have good conduct pay added to the renewed pension. Pensioner Williams claims arrears of this good conduct pay, which was not added to his renewed pension in 1865. The present Secretary of State is of opinion that a soldier who was granted a temporary pension under such circumstances, and whose temporary pension was so renewed or made permanent, should have the good conduct pay added to pensions, as had been the case up to the decision of Viscount Cardwell in 1870. He caused his interpretation of the Warrant to be notified to the Chelsea Commissioners, who informed Williams that he would get the arrears. It was subsequently pointed out that the Secretary of State would require the approval of the Treasury to a reversal of the decision of a former Secretary of State, involving the grant of arrears. The Treasury differed from the Secretary of State in his interpretation of the Warrant, and held that, as the Chelsea Commissioners and Secretary of State for the time being refused to recognize the claim, their Lordships could not grant the arrears asked for.

  ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOL-WICH—POST OF CHAPLAIN.
  LORD HENRY BRUCEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true, as stated in the Press, that it is the intention to disestablish the post of chaplain at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich; and, if so, on what grounds?
  MR. HOWORTHalso asked, If the recent Regulation, dispensing with a chaplain at the Woolwich Academy, is a permanent or only a temporary one?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): No definite decision has been arrived at. I am sorry to say that there is no chapel in the Royal Military Academy, and, therefore, there is some doubt as to the necessity for a resident chaplain, unless the duty can be taken, as it formerly was, by one of the Professors; but there is no intention of leaving the cadets without proper spiritual supervision.

  POST OFFICE—LETTERS FROM THE SQUADRON IN CHILIAN WATERS.
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the case that the Chilian Government have recently refused to allow letters to be sent to the British Squadron serving in Chilian waters in any other way than through the post office; and, if so, whether he will be able to arrange any plan by which the seamen and marines can continue to send and receive their letters for 1d., in accordance with the privilege that has been granted to them for many years in all parts of the world?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAKIES): I am not aware that the Chilian Government has recently refused to allow letters to be sent to the British Squadron in Chilian waters in any other way than through the Post Office. That Government has certainly within the last few months raised objections to the delivery of bags containing homeward letters direct from Her Majesty's ships in Chilian waters to mail packets proceeding to England; but I have been in communication with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the subject, and I have no reason to suppose that the diplomatic steps taken in the matter will fail to secure the maintenance of the privilege.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—INDEBTED-NESS TO CONTRACTORS FOR FOOD.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that in five Unions of Ireland a considerable debt has been incurred to contractors for food supplied for purposes of relief under the belief that it would be met by the provisions of the Relief Act passed by the present Government; and, if the
  434
  Government will find money to settle such of these debts as are owed for goods bonâ fide supplied, or if they will introduce a measure which will enable these five Unions to borrow money to pay the contractors; and, if not, will they suggest any course by which these contractors can recover the money of which they are actually out of pocket?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It is the case that the Guardians of five of the Unions scheduled under the Poor Relief Act, 1886, incurred large debts to contractors who supplied food for the purposes of exceptional out-door relief. The Guardians had no grounds for believing that this debt would be mot by Government; and they were warned by the Local Government Board of the consequence of extravagant expenditure. As regards the concluding portion of the Question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave a few days ago in regard to the Swinford Union.
  COLONEL NOLAN: What was that?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I certainly do not propose to pay the debts of these Unions.
  COLONEL NOLAN: But will you allow legislation by a private Member for the purpose?
  [No reply.]

  BRITISH GUIANA—MEDICAL IN-SPECTOR OF ESTATES HOSPITAL.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the case that the Court of Policy of the Colony of British Guiana have passed a Resolution requesting the Secretary of State for the Colonies to remove the Medical Inspector of Estates Hospitals from his office; whether this action of the Court of Policy is traceable to a Report made by that officer in the course of his duties which was considered to have "injuriously reflected on the planters;" and, whether it is the intention of the Colonial Secretary to comply with this demand without investigating the correctness, or otherwise, of the allegations contained in the Report?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Combined Court have passed a Resolution

  435
  of the nature suggested in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question. The action of the Court is understood to be the result of dissatisfaction on the part of the members with the manner in which the officer has discharged the duties of his office; and particularly with certain statements in an Official Report made by him, which they consider to have reflected unjustly on the employers of immigrant labour. The Secretary of State has received such conflicting statements supporting and contradicting the allegations in the Report that he would be unable to arrive at a conclusion as to their correctness without a Commission of Inquiry; and he has not considered the question to be of sufficient importance to justify the expense of such a Commission. He had already decided, before receiving this Resolution of the Court, to transfer the officer in question to another appointment in the Colonial Service.

  PASSENGER ACTS—THE TRANS-ATLANTIC STEAMERS FROM LIVERPOOL.
  DR. TANNERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Transatlantic steamers sailing from the ports of Liverpool and Queenstown ever put to sea with an over complement of passengers; and, whether the ship's surgeon is, or has been, instructed in such cases by the authorities from Liverpool offices, or their agents at Queenstown, after leaving port to make over the hospital for such passengers' accommodation?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The emigration officer is the last person to leave the ship before she sails, and it is his duty to see that there is for every passenger the space and accommodation required by Statute. I have every reason to believe that the duty is strictly performed.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask, whether the Board of Trade inspecting emigration officers always visit the hospital before they leave the ship?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I presume they make such inspection as they consider necessary?
  DR. TANNER: I beg to give Notice that on going into Committee of Supply I shall raise this question.

  ADMIRALTY—H.M.S. "BELLEISLE."
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Where H.M.S. Belleisle is at present; how long she has been absent from her moorings at Kingstown; and, when she is to return there?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Belleisle is at present at Devonport, undergoing her annual re-fit. She has been absent from her moorings since January last on special duty, and will return there as soon as the summer manœuvres are over—in about six weeks.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE(IRELAND) ACT, 1887—SECRET IN-QUIRY AT FALCARRAGH, COUNTY DONEGAL.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following in The Daily News:—
  "At Falcarragh yesterday four prisoners were remanded for the fourth time to Derry Gaol for seven days for refusing to give evidence. An old man named Shane O'Donnell fainted on his third journey from gaol. He was with great difficulty resuscitated, and was eventually discharged;"
  how long has O'Donnell been in prison altogether; and, has he been charged with, or convicted of, any crime?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A J. BALFOUR): The District Inspector of Constabulary reports that The Daily News' allegation that O'Donnell fainted is untrue. On the contrary, he was perfectly well during the entire journey. O'Donnell can hardly be described as an old man. His age is 64. He was first committed to prison on the 24th of May, and brought up on two subsequent occasions on remand, and finally discharged on the 13th of June, There were no previous convictions against him.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the alleged offence on which he was discharged?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he would require Notice of that Question.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to answer that portion of the Question in which I inquired how long

  437
  O'Donnell was in prison, and if he was convicted of any crime, or charged with any crime, and that the right hon. Gentleman said there was no previous conviction.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly he was committed for an offence—of refusing to answer a question that he could have answered. With regard to the other Question of the hon. Member, I stated that he was committed on the 24th of May, and finally discharged on the 13th of June.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, upon what ground he makes the allegation that the man was committed to prison for not answering a question which he could have answered? How does the right hon. Gentleman know that the man could have answered the question or not? What evidence was there to show that he could have answered it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Resident Magistrate so held from the facts of the case.

  EGYPT—MISSION OF MUKHTAR PASHA.
  MR. LEGHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can give any information as to the probable duration of Mukhtar Pasha's Mission in Egypt?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I can only reply to my hon. Friend, as I have done on previous occasions, that Her Majesty's Government are unable to give any information on the subject of the probable duration of Mukhtar Pasha's Mission.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (METROPOLIS)— COLLECTIONS OF MONEY—THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will bring in a Bill to repeal the by-law of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which gives power to prohibit public meetings amongst the poorer classes of the Metropolis by taking from them the power of collecting money to pay their printing and other expenses?
  MR. BRADLAUGHalso asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiry into the
  438
  grounds alleged by the one ratepayer on which the Metropolitan Board of Works made the additional by-law forbidding collections on open spaces approved by him on the 24th of February last; whether he will inquire if similar collections have taken place without objection in the Metropolis on behalf of Sunday bands for more than 33 years, and on behalf of various political and charitable objects for more than 40 years, and whether any breach of the peace or other public evil or annoyance has arisen in consequence of such collections; and, whether, pending such inquiry, he will direct the police not to initiate further prosecutions for alleged breach of such additional by-law?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have been in further communication with the Board of Works, who inform me that the by-law complained of does not apply to collections of money on behalf of bands and musical performances which have been expressly allowed by the Board. These collections are made in the form of selling programmes and letting of chairs, and are not of the same character as collections made after public meetings, when persons frequenting the Parks, whether they join the assemblages or not, are solicited for money. I have asked the police to report to me whether the practice, in their opinion, tends to a breach of the peace, or creates any public evil or annoyance. I have also written to the Board of Works asking them to consider whether, inasmuch as no by-law such as this is in force in the Royal Parks, and inasmuch as its enforcement has apparently occasioned more vexation and annoyance than it prevents, any sufficient reason exists for maintaining it. The power of varying and altering by-laws is vested in the Board of Works. The prosecutions are instituted by them, and not by the police. I hope legislation may not be necessary on this subject now that attention has been drawn to it.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that on the previous day several policemen in uniform, and some in plain clothes, were employed in taking down the names and addresses of persons collecting, and that special action was being taken by the Police Authorities in connection with those collections?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he was not aware that such proceedings had been in progress. The prosecutions were initiated by the Board upon information which the Board had themselves gained.
  MR. BRADLAUGHfurther asked the right hon. Gentleman, did he know that the by-law, as it stood, gave Park-keepers under the Metropolitan Board of Works authority to enforce the by-law; and that the action taken by the police in uniform gave the impression that they were acting under the instructions of the Government?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he would take care that no such impression as that could be justified.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—COLLEC-TIONS OF MONEY.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether collections are allowed after meetings held in the Royal Parks in London; and, whether such collections have lately taken place?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): There is no rule against making collections after meetings in the Royal Parks. Such collections have recently been made.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACT— VACANCIES IN THE STAFF OF IN- SPECTORS.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that there are two vacancies in the staff of Factory and Workshop Inspectors; and, if so, whether one vacancy has been open for some months; and, whether, seeing the strong evidence before the Select Committee on the Sweating System of the necessity for increased inspection of factories and workshops, the Government will fill the vacancies without further delay?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): There is at present only one vacancy in the Factory Inspectors' Department, a vacancy which recently occurred having been filled up by an Inspector who was redundant on the staff. The other vacancy has been open for some months, for this reason. I nominated a gentle-
  440
  man who seemed to me to be well qualified, as he had practical experience in factory work. For reasons which I need not detail to the House, but which do not alter my opinion as to his fitness, he was unable to satisfy all the requirements of the new scheme of examination which was settled by my Predecessor. I hope, however, that in a short time he will be able to satisfy the Civil Service Commissioners, and the vacancy will be filled.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE(IRELAND) ACT, 1887—THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. MACNEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What steps has the Lord Lieutenant taken to satisfy himself of the legal knowledge of the Resident Magistrates who try cases under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, especially cases of conspiracy?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The duty referred to is one vested solely in the Lord Lieutenant by Statute. He acts with a full sense of his responsibility in the matter; and I do not see that any public advantage would be served by entering into the explanation required in the Question, even if it were proper for me to do so.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—"INFERIOR COURTS OF RECORD"—THE RE- TURNS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the note in italics at the head of the Return, "Inferior Courts of Record," showing that such Return is "preliminary," If he can state when the complete Return is likely to be laid before the House; and, in the event of it being impossible to furnish such Return by an early day, whether he can make any statement as to the probable number and nature of the Inferior Courts not included in the Preliminary Return?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY of STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: It is impossible to say when the complete Return will be ready. Urgent application for the requisite particulars has

  441
  been made to 194 Courts, in addition to those to which the preliminary Return relates. Inasmuch as there are doubts whether many of these Courts are not obsolete, much difficulty is anticipated in obtaining the whole of the information sought for. As to their nature, 57 of them are Courts of Request; 56 "Hundred" Courts; 75 Borough Courts; one is a University Chancellor's Court; and five are miscellaneous.

  THE WESTERN PACIFIC—EXPULSION OF THE REV. JOHN JONES FROM MARE.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will produce the précis of a conversation between the Acting Consul at Noumea and Mr. Lacascade, then Director of the Interior for New Caledonia, forwarded to the Foreign Office two years ago by Consul Layard; whether the Vice Consul, New Caledonia, now in London, has given any information respecting the expulsion by the French of the Rev. John Jones from Maré; and, whether a satisfactory settlement of the case of Mr. Jones has yet been obtained by Her Majesty's Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I can only state that communications are in progress on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and that it is not desirable to present any Papers just now.

  THE THAMES EMBANKMENT—SUB-WAY FROM PALACE YARD.
  MR. COX(for Mr. CONYBEARE) (Cornwall, Camborne) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can now state what conclusion he has arrived at respecting the opening to the public use of the subway leading from the corner of Palace Yard to the Thames Embankment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS)said: After consulting with the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Office of Works, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no objection to the re-opening of the subway front Palace Yard to the Thames Embankment to the public use.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—PRISONERS AT LOUGHREA.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following protest of 11 prisoners in Loughrea as to their treatment:—
  "Taken from our beds at 3 o'clock on Wednesday morning, kept in the police barracks and Court until 2 o'clock, when the inquiry commenced, forced to sit listening to depositions being read until 6 that evening, and then, having our application for bail refused, committed to Loughrea Bridewell (11 men in all), where there was only accommodation for three, and even these beds were almost wet and filthy;"
  and, whether he will inquire into the truth of these allegations; and, if they are true, take steps to prevent similar treatment of unconvicted prisoners?
  MR. HARRISalso had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the following statement alleged to have been made by 11 men charged under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act at Loughrea on Wednesday:—
  "Taken from our beds at 3 o'clock on Wednesday morning, kept in the police barracks and Court until 2 o'clock, when the inquiry commenced, forced to sit listening to depositions being read until 6 that evening, and then, having our application for bail refused, committed to Loughrea Bridewell (11 men in all), where there was only accommodation for three, and even these beds were almost wet and filthy;"
  and, whether this statement is well-founded; and, if so, whether he will take steps to save unconvicted prisoners from such treatment in gaol in future?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Perhaps I may be permitted now to reply also to the Question of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Harris). The charge was not under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, but under the ordinary law. The District Inspector of Constabulary reports that, bail having been refused, it was necessary to lodge these prisoners in the Bridewell. Some were accommodated in three available cells, and the remainder in the day-room. The former had beds which were neither filthy nor wet; and the latter were given such spare rugs and blankets

  443
  as were at the keeper's disposal. The question of the accommodation for, and treatment of, untried prisoners generally throughout the country has been engaging the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): May I ask, if the Government will offer any explanation of the tactics which they are now resorting to in Ireland, and of taking men out of their beds at the dead of night? Could not they make the arrests either before bed-time or after the people had risen?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose the usual course is for the police to arrest persons when they can find them. The people appear to have escaped arrest before.
  MR. SHEEHY: What is the charge against these men?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The charge is not under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, but under the ordinary law. I believe it is a prosecution for conspiracy.

  INDIA—MR. J. T. FERNANDEZ, CIVIL ENGINEER.
  MR. PICTONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the Petition of Mr. James Thomas Fernandez, lately in the Indian Service as a civil engineer; whether the recital of facts in that Petition is generally accurate; and, whether it will be possible to re-consider the case of the Petitioner, with a view to affording him the restitution for which he asks?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): I am not sure to what Petition the hon. Member refers; but a Memorial from Mr. Fernandez was, in 1887, addressed to the Secretary of State in Council. The facts were not accurately represented in that Memorial. Mr. Fernandez resigned after 10 years' service in 1884, being at the time under suspension. In April, 1885, he was re-employed on a temporary engagement; but in November he was again suspended, and his services were dispensed with, he being granted a month's salary as an act of grace. The case has been fully considered by the Government of India and the Secretary of State, and the Secretary
  444
  of State sees no reason for re-considering the decision arrived at.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DISMISSAL OF MR. P. LOUGHRY—TULLA UNION.
  MR. COXasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. Patrick Loughry, Poor Rate Collector, Tulla Union, has been dismissed by sealed order of the Local Government Board; whether any communication passed between the Local Government Board and the Board of Guardians before the issue of the sealed order; and, whether he will state what was the nature of the offence charged against Mr. Loughry for which he was dismissed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I reply to the first paragraph in the affirmative; to the second in the negative. As regards the last portion of the Question, the Local Government Board considered the man an unfit person to hold office under the Irish Poor Relief Acts, he having been sentenced to imprisonment in default of finding sureties for his good behaviour.
  MR. COX: What is the offence he was summoned for, and for which he refused to find bail—will the right hon. Gentleman state that?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information.
  MR. COX: I beg to give Notice that I shall put a further Question on the subject.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—HYDE PARK—BATHING IN THE SERPEN- TINE.
  MR. BAUMANNasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware that the south bank of the Serpentine is crowded with naked men and boys bathing at a time when Hyde Park is full of ladies; whether there is any regulation requiring the bathers to wear costumes; and, whether he will take steps to compel the observance of decency?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): Bathing is allowed in Hyde Park under the Regulations made in pursuance of the Park Regulations Act (1872), only from the south shore of the Serpentine, and

  445
  only at the following hours:—In the morning from 5 to 8, and in the evening, at this time of the year, from 7.30 to 8.30. Bathers may not undress or land anywhere except within the space set apart for that purpose, and must observe the directions of the Park-keepers. I do not think that it would be possible to enforce any Regulations requiring bathers to wear costumes, considering the thousands who bathe there—amounting to more than 250,000 annually. Of course, if any specified charges of indecency are made they will be attended to; but I have not received any such complaints.

  ABYSSINIA—RUMOURED RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.
  MR. HOWORTHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the rumour, which appears in the papers, is true that a Russian officer has taken possession of the Port of Alifat, south of Tula, from which a road runs into Abyssinia?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY of STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): We have no such information as is stated in my hon. Friend's Question.

  ABYSSINIA (MR. PORTAL'S MISSION).
  MR. HOWORTHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Papers referring to the recent Mission to Abyssinia, which were ordered to be printed on May 8 last, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): It is hoped that these Papers will be ready in 10 days.

  VENEZUELA—REDUCTION OF TRADE.
  MR. WATTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that exports from Trinidad to the United States of Venezuela show a reduction of over 50 per cent during April last, as compared with the same month in 1885?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)(who replied) said: I am informed that the exports from Trinidad
  446
  to Venezuela in April, 1885, amounted to £13,969; and in April, 1888, to £64,527. Deducting the exports of specie, the figures are £9,471 and £16,406 respectively; so that instead of a reduction of 50 per cent, as assumed in the hon. Member's Question, there has been an increase of nearly 500 per cent in the gross exports, and an increase of about 75 per cent in the exports excluding specie.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—REPRESENTATION ON BOARD OF IMPROVEMENT COM-MISSIONERS.
  MR. BRUNNERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Local Government Bill will interfere with the right of appointing representation upon the Board of Improvement Commissioners now enjoyed by the University at Cambridge and by the Manchester Ship Canal Company at Runcorn?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): With regard to Cambridge, the Council of the borough are not at present the Urban Sanitary Authority; and it will be necessary that the case should be dealt with by a Provisional Order under Clause 55 of the Bill. It will depend upon the provisions of that Order, which will require the confirmation of Parliament, whether the University will be specially represented on the District Council. The Bill does not contemplate that in the case of Runcorn the Manchester Ship Canal Company should have the right of appointing members of the District Council.

  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES—THE ENGLISH CONSUL AT AJACCIO, CORSICA.
  DR. TANNERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the present English Consul at Ajaccio, Corsica, receives a yearly salary of £450, and £50 for office expenses; if it is true that his predecessor, Mr. Short, only received a salary of £120; when was the Deputy Vice Consulate at Bonefeccia done away with; what is the nature of the Consular business transacted in Corsica; what is the average annual amount received at Ajaccio in Consular fees; and, for what reason was the salary increased?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The salary and allowance of Her Majesty's Consul at Ajaccio are as stated in the first Question. Mr. Short, who was not the immediate predecessor of the present Consul, received a salary of £100, and office allowance of £50. The Deputy Vice Consulate at Bonefeccia was abolished on the 10th of May, 1886. The Consular business in Corsica is of the ordinary nature; there is nothing exceptional in it. The average for three years is about £7. The salary was increased on the death of Mr. Short's successor, by the advice of Lord Lyons, who strongly recommended the augmentation.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF MR. HOGAN, AT SORRHA PETTY SESSIONS, CO. TIPPERARY.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the report of a case recently tried at Sorrha Petty Sessions, County Tipperary, where Mr. Michael Hogan, Honorary Secretary to the local branch of the League, was charged with being "drunk and disorderly" on May 10, at the prosecution of Police Sergeant M'Clintock, of Pike Station; whether, according to the report, the case was dismissed by the magistrates on the evidence of the witnesses called for the prosecution, two of them being police constables; whether one witness, Constable Foy, denied having seen the defendant where he was charged with being drunk and disorderly, but stated—
  "That he saw him sitting on his own stile, no way misconducting himself;"
  whether another witness, Thomas Kennedy, called for the prosecution, admitted—
  "Having been brought into the police barrack and asked to swear against the prisoner,"
  while he deposed to not having seen him at all on the night in question; and, whether, under those circumstances, he will cause inquiry to be made into the conduct of Sergeant M'Clintock in this case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Local Constabulary Authorities report that the case referred to was dismissed
  448
  on the technical ground that it was not proved that Hogan was disorderly on the public road. There could be no question as to the fact that he was drunk and disorderly in his own yard. The allegations in the third paragraph are denied. Thomas Kennedy made the statement in Court referred to; but the police doubt its accuracy, for it was Kennedy's mother who had reported at the barrack that Hogan was drunk, and had assaulted Kennedy. The sergeant having asked Kennedy if he would prosecute for the assault, he refused. The sergeant then summoned him as a witness.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE(IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROCLAMA- TION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Report presented to Mr. Justice Johnson on the 5th instant by the Constabulary Authorities regarding the state of the County of Dublin; whether that Report is of an exceptional character, or is substantially identical with all previous Reports regarding the County of Dublin presented to the Judges on similar occasions for the past 10 years; and, whether that Report is the sole ground on which such an outbreak of crime in Dublin County as would justify the enforcement there of the first section of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act is anticipated by the Government; and, if not, on what other ground is such an anticipation entertained?
  MR. MURPHYalso asked, Whether, when the right hon. Gentleman decided to proclaim the City of Dublin under the section of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, he was aware of the condition of affairs reported to Mr. Justice Johnson, which that Judge described as satisfactory, adding that only 6 or 7 per cent of crime remained undetected; and, whether he will reconsider the question of applying the most stringent provision of the Act to that community?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I will answer both Questions at the same time. The answer I gave on Friday

  449
  was that there was nothing—and there is nothing—exceptional in the state of crime either in the City or in the County of Dublin; and it is not in consequence of the exceptional state of crime that the Government have proclaimed the City and County of Dublin under Section 1. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Murphy) that this provision is the most stringent provision of this Act; because the opinion has been expressed over and over again that it should be applied to the whole country as part of the ordinary law.
  MR. CLANCY: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he has not answered a single one of the three paragraphs in my Questions? He has left them completely unanswered.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought the information I gave the hon. Gentleman would have satisfied him; but as it does not, I may say that I will not lay on the Table a copy of the Report presented to Mr. Justice Johnson on the 5th instant. That Report was not of an exceptional character, and that Report is not the
  "Sole ground on which such an outbreak of crime in Dublin County as would justify the enforcement there of the first section of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act is anticipated by the Government."
  I have already stated, in answer to the Questions on Friday and to-day, that that is all the information I can give the House as to the grounds upon which the Government have acted.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): The right hon. Gentleman justified the application of Section 1 to the County Dublin not by the existing state of facts, but by some apprehension of what may happen. I wish to ask him whether the Report of the Constabulary Authorities to Mr. Justice Johnson affords any ground for anticipating an outbreak of crime; and, also, whether it is not the fact that the percentage of undetected crime in the City of Dublin is only 6 per cent, which is less than the average of any other town in the Kingdom; and, does that circumstance afford any ground for the apprehensions of the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood the purport of my answer. I did not state that it was in consequence of an outbreak of crime which the Govern-
  450
  ment anticipated that the Government had taken this step; and, as to the second Question, I would point out that it is not the amount of undetected crime that is the justification, or need be the justification, of using this section. The sole justification required by the Government is whether, in their opinion, the application of the section may not lead to the detection of crime which would otherwise remain undiscovered.

  MORTMAIN—ISSUE OF LICENCES.
  MR. WARMINGTONasked Mr. Attorney General, What is the number of the general, and what is the number of the special or conditional, licences in mortmain granted by the Crown since January 1, 1868; how many forfeitures have accrued to the Crown in the like period by reason of grants or conveyances in mortmain without licence; what steps have been taken to enforce observance of the conditions contained in the licences granted during the like period; and, during the like period, have any proceedings, and, if so, with what result, been taken on behalf of the Crown for breach of the conditions contained in any such licence?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): The time which has elapsed since this Question appeared on the Paper has not been sufficient to obtain all the particulars for which the hon. and learned Member has asked. But I believe that since the date referred to 37 licences have been granted by the Crown; and, in addition, a considerable number of Charters, containing clauses giving such licences. I have not yet been able to ascertain whether any proceedings have been taken since that date. There have not, as far as I know, been any forfeitures.

  THE QUEEN'S PRINTERS AND OTHERS—THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.
  MR. WARDLEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that the issue of incorrect versions by the Queen's Printers and other privileged presses enjoying a monopoly of the right of printing the Book of Common Prayer was complained of in 1868 by the Committee of the Convocation of Canterbury, has led to the appointment of a Committee by the

  451
  Convocation of York during the present year, and was alluded to in 1870 by the Royal Commission on Ritual in their Fourth Report; whether the terms of the Royal Letters Patent, granted to the privileged printers, provide for such irregularities being punished; and, if not, in what way can they be legally corrected; and, whether, in face of the fact that not one single correctly printed copy of the Statutory Prayer Book is now procurable (while the much bulkier "authorized" version of the Bible is printed with admirable fidelity), the Gcvernment are prepared to throw open the printing of the Prayer Book to public competition, or else to authorize Her Majesty's Attorney General to take proceedings to remedy the abuse alleged to exist?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I believe that it is a fact that in the versions of the Book of Common Prayer printed by the Queen's Printers and the other authorized presses certain minor variations from the Prayer Book annexed to the Act 13 & 14 Charles II., c. 4, exist. This fact was referred to, as the hon. Member states, in the Report of the Committee of the Convocation of Canterbury in 1868; but the variations in question were apparently not of sufficient importance to justify any action. On the contrary, I find in the Report the following words:—
  "Most of the variations.…are, in fact, improvements in regard to accuracy and to sense; nor could greater care and fidelity be reasonably expected than have grown up in the present century. In all ordinary particulars the Prayer Book as now printed is what the compilers would have wished to make it if their task had fallen to them in the present day."
  It is a curious fact that the Prayer Book annexed to the Act, and the various sealed books which are deposited in accordance with the Act in Cathedrals, at the Courts at Westminster, and the Tower, differ in several matters of detail. I believe that the Letters Patent do not contain any special provisions with regard to such irregularities. In my opinion, although the matter is not strictly for me, it is not desirable that the printing of the Prayer Book should be thrown open for public competition; but I am able to inform the hon. Member that the Queen's Printers and the authorized presses last month determined to print an exact copy of the
  452
  Prayer Book annexed to the Act, the publication of which will be duly announced.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SMALL HOLDINGS BILL.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government are able to give any facilities for the completion of the discussion on the Small Holdings Bill, which was adjourned on Wednesday, May 10; and, if not, whether, in view of the general expression of opinion in favour of an increase in the number of cultivating owners of land, the Government will agree to the immediate appointment of a Select Committee to consider by what means, either in connection with Local Government or otherwise, this object can most effectually be accomplished; how far the practice of small ownership and cultivation has diminished in this country; and, whether there is any evidence to show whether such diminution is due to legislation?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government regret that, having regard to the present state of Business in this House, they are unable to afford facilities for the further discussion of the Small Holdings Bill; but they will willingly co-operate in the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the question of small holdings, and especially the points to which the right hon. Member calls attention.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON CIVIL ESTAB-LISHMENTS.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Treasury have taken any steps towards generally carrying into effect the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments as regards the placing of the establishments on a seven-hour scale of service; and, whether any Department has recently applied for a large increase of staff; and, if so, whether the Treasury will place the Lower Division clerks in that Department on the seven-hour scale, and thus carry out their intention, as expressed in Parliamentary Paper No, 227 (1884)—namely,

  453
  "That this change it is the intention of my Lords to encourage wherever the increase of work justifies it,"
  or an equivalent reduction can be made in the numbers employed?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The question as to the establishment of the seven hour scale of service in the Civil Establishments is one that has not been lost sight of by the Treasury, and considerable progress has been made in that direction, and will continue to be made when circumstances will permit. When any large increase of staff is applied for by a Department, the Treasury carefully bear in mind the seven-hour system of employment.

  THE NAVAL AND MILITARY DEPART-MENTS—COMPOSITION OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the dissatisfaction generally felt by the Services in the United Kingdom at the composition of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into their administration, he will recommend the addition of one Admiral and one General to the Commission?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It has not before been brought to the notice of the Government that the Services have expressed dissatisfaction with the names of Lieutenant General Brackenbury, Rear Admiral Sir F. W. Richards, Captain W. H. Hall, R.N., and Major G. S. Clarke, R.E., who are respectively Members and Secretaries of the Royal Commission. But the Government will consider the expediency of adding the names of another General and Admiral, and will communicate the fact to the House.

  THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES— CHINESE IMMIGRANTS.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government would consider the advisability of carrying out as fully as possible the wishes of the Australian people in connection with the Chinese question; and, also, whether Her Majesty's Government would consider seriously the desirability of adopting the suggestion
  454
  unanimously agreed to by the Conference of the Australian Colonies, to the effect that it would be advisable for the Imperial Government to enter into diplomatic negotiations with the Chinese Government, in order that a Treaty might be concluded between this country and China for a satisfactory settlement of the difficult question of the wholesale emigration of Chinese to the Australian Colonies?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The suggestions and recommendations made by the Australasian Conference with regard to the Chinese labour question are receiving the fullest and most careful attention of the Government.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)— ARREST OF JOHN MARA.
  In reply to Mr. CAINE (Barrow-in-Furness),
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, that John Mara, who was charged before Mr. Newton at Marlborough Street Police Court with attempted pocket picking, was remanded twice, not three times. The evidence to which reference was made was forthcoming on Saturday last. The magistrate informed him that the prisoner was remanded, in the first instance, in order to ascertain if anything was known of him by the warders and detectives who visited the prison for the purpose—a course which was not unusual; in the second instance, because the magistrate at the close of that day's examination was informed for the first time that the evidence of two other detectives could be obtained whose examination was desired by the prisoner's solicitor. He was also informed by the magistrate that Story did not state that he was present in the Court on Monday, the 11th. He had been present, but had gone away, not knowing he would be wanted. Gregory did say that he was on special duty on the 4th; but he had not had time to ascertain what that special duty was. Detective Mott did not require 14 days to produce two witnesses. Inquiry was now being made into the treatment of Mara in Holloway. The Prison Rules

  455
  declared that criminal prisoners before trial might, if they desired it, wear the prison dress; and they should be required to do so if their own clothes were insufficient or unfit for use, or had to be preserved for the purposes of justice. But the dress was of a different kind from the dress of a convicted prisoner. It was not usual for prisoners under remand to sleep on plank beds without a mattress. He was informed by the magistrate that the extent of the charge was, for the first time, made known to him at the close of the prosecution on Saturday, and, therefore, bail was taken. Up till then he did not know whether the case might not turn out to be a felony.
  MR. CAINEgave Notice that he would take the earliest possible opportunity of moving a Resolution respecting the conduct of business at Marlborough Street Police Court.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked, Whether the Votes would be taken in their order on Thursday?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): My right hon. Friend has already stated that Vote 12 will be taken.

  EAST INDIA (MR. WILLIAM TAYLER, OF PATNA).
  Address for—
  "Copies of a Minute by His Excellency the Governor General of India, dated the 5th day of February 1859;"
  "Of a Letter from the Governor of India to the Governor of Bengal, dated the 4th day of March 1859;"
  "Of a Letter from the Governor of Bengal to Mr. William Tayler, dated the 12th day of March 1859;"
  "And, of a Letter from the Governor of Bengal to the Governor of India, dated 6th April 1859, with enclosure."—(Sir John Gorst.)
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been drawn to three letters in The Times and one in The Morning Post of that day absolutely denying that Mr. William Tayler, ex-Commissioner of Patna, had been offered an inquiry into his conduct in 1859, and had declined that offer; and whether, as that statement materially affected the Divi-
  456
  sion on that question prejudicially to Mr. Tayler's interests, he was prepared to Mr. Tayler's interests, he was prepared to lay on the Table of the House copies of the whole Correspondence pro and con on which he based that statement, including Mr. Samuells' letter containing offensive imputations against Mr. Taylor, which he subsequently entirely withdrew, and which withdrawal caused Mr. Taylor to say that he did not think it necessary to pursue the matter further; also, whether he would lay on the Table copies of Mr. Taylor's two letters of September, 1856, in which he not only invited, but urgently requested, a judicial investigation into his conduct?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST), in reply, said, that the statement he made on Friday was that Mr. Tayler was offered an inquiry into the correctness of Lord Canning's belief that in the course of Mr. Tayler's proceedings at Patna men were condemned and executed upon insufficient evidence. The Papers which the House had just ordered to be laid on the Table would amply justify that statement. The Papers which the hon. and gallant Baronet required were already before Parliament, with the exception of the letters of September, 1856, for which search would be made in the India Office.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE BANN, BAR-ROW, AND SHANNON DRAINAGE BILLS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, in reference to the introduction of the Irish Drainage Bills, for some time on the Paper, Whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was aware that at this moment one of the largest floods known for the last 20 years was covering the land near the river between Monasterevan and Athy; and, whether he was aware that all the small landholders would lose the whole of the potato crops, and that the other crops would be so injured by the water that they could not be used; and, whether he would take steps to bring in these Bills at an early date?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have already often expressed to the House my great desire to bring in these Bills at the earliest possible opportunity; but

  457
  I may remind the hon. Gentleman that no expedition on our part would have saved the tenants who are now suffering from the action of floods. If they were saved it would have had to be done by action taken three or four years ago.

MOTION
  DEATH OF THE GERMAN EMPEROR

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Sir, I rise to propose a Motion in accordance with the duty and privilege of this House at all times to express its own sympathy and the sympathy of the people of the United Kingdom in all the joys and sorrows of the Sovereign who, as Queen of this Empire, reigns not alone over vast territories, but I am able to say with confidence in the hearts and affections of Her people. The occasion on which the House is invited now to express its sorrow and concern is one of peculiar and certainly of most tragic interest. It was scarcely a year ago that the Crown Prince of Germany received the cordial and hearty welcome of this country, as a son-in-law of the Queen, and the Heir to the Throne of a great and friendly Empire, when he came here to take part in the rejoicings of the people on the completion of 50 years of the reign of a just, a wise, and Constitutional Sovereign. It was then known to many that he was suffering from a painful and distressing malady, which occasioned the greatest concern to all who were acquainted with or suspected its character. But His Imperial Highness, notwithstanding his illness, took part in public ceremonials, and especially on the occasion of the great Procession and Thanksgiving Service on the 21st of June, in which this House joined, exhibiting the deepest interest and taking a prominent and active part in the manifestations of joy and thankfulness in which the nation indulged. Physical weakness and suffering were never permitted by him to interfere with the discharge of his public or private duties. Gradually the disease gained upon him, but it never deprived him of his resolve to go through his daily task, and to devote the powers that remained to him and his unimpaired intellect to the ser-
    458
    vice of his country; and I venture to say that no more pathetic and touching spectacle of courage and fortitude has been witnessed by the world than that which he exhibited. As a Commander in the field he had displayed courage and capacity; he could face death with his men in battle, and he knew how to care for the wounded and the sick after the struggle, and to see that order was restored among the civil population. But these qualities are common as compared with the fortitude that enables a man, on whom a fatal disease has fastened, making slow but sure progress from day to day, cheerfully and uncomplainingly to endure long and grievous suffering, and to go about his daily work sustained in the discharge of his duty by the sense of devotion to his country. A few weeks ago Europe lamented the death of the great Ruler whose reign had been prolonged beyond the ordinary life of man, and whose people had become great and prosperous and united under his rule. Now we mourn the death of his son, who possessed qualities which we believe would, in no less a degree, have tended to secure the good government and prosperity of Germany and the peace of the world. It is fitting, Sir, that we should carry to the foot of the Throne the expression of a nation's sorrow at the loss which the Sovereign has sustained in her domestic relations at the premature death of one who, in every position which he filled, obtained admiration and affection; and we may venture to hope that the sympathy which we now offer to Her Majesty may be some consolation to those on whom bereavement has fallen so heavily. I have now to move an Address of Condolence to the Empress Victoria, and I shall do so in very few words, lest by any expression of mine I should jar on the sanctity of the grief of the widow. Thirty years ago, amid general rejoicing, the Princess Royal of England was married to Prince Frederick William of Prussia. It was a marriage which we knew at the time was founded upon affection, confidence, and esteem, and on a thorough knowledge of the character of her husband. It was not brought about by political considerations—although the people of this country rejoiced at a union between the reigning families of two great Kingdoms which had much in common, and whose

    459
    interests ought not at any time to be divergent—but we were assured that it proceeded from the purest impulse of natural affection, and the Princess Royal of England has had the happiness in her married life which was permitted to our widowed Queen in hers. The virtues and the results have been the same, and the people of England have watched with affection and pride the happy domestic life and the recent discharge of public duties, which have been imperious and exacting in their character, in the intervals permitted to the wife and the sick nurse. Sir, we desire to convey the expression of our deepest sympathy to the Empress in her sorrow—a sympathy which is extended to the people who are bereaved of a Sovereign whom they loved and trusted. I venture, Sir, to move the Address, which is—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to express the deep concern and sorrow of this House at the great loss which Her Majesty has sustained by the death of His Imperial Majesty Frederick William, German Emperor, King of Prussia, and to condole with Her Majesty on this melancholy occasion, and to pray Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty, the present Emperor, the profound sympathy of this House with the Imperial and Royal Family, and with the Government and People of Germany. To assure Her Majesty that this House will ever feel the warmest interest in whatever concerns Her Majesty's domestic relations, and to declare the ardent wishes of this House for the happiness of Her Majesty and of Her Family. That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by such Members of this House as are of Her Majesty's Privy Council. That this House doth condole with Her Imperial Majesty Victoria, German Empress, Queen of Prussia, Princess Royal of Great Britain and Ireland, on the great loss which she has sustained by the death of His Imperial Majesty. That a Message of Condolence be sent to Her Imperial Majesty, and that Mr. Speaker do communicate the said Message to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin, with a request that he will attend the Empress Victoria for the purpose of conveying it to Her Imperial Majesty."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Sir, I rise for the purpose of seconding the Address which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in terms so just and appropriate. With regard to the Joint Address to which we are asked to give our assent, I observe it is proposed we should express to Her Majesty and to the German Empress our share in the sorrow at the loss they have sustained, and that we should likewise convey to the German Empress the ex-
    460
    pression of our sympathy with her in the trial, which is probably the greatest which can in any instance happen to a human being, and which in her case has been enhanced, and, I may say, illustrated, by a devotion, a courage, and a patience during the trial, fluctuations, suspense, and pain of 12 months—a devotion second only to that of her illustrious husband. I am sure that every man among us feels that on this occasion we are discharging very much more than a formal duty; and, in truth, if we did not entertain that sentiment, we should differ from the whole of Europe and the entire civilized world. With regard to the event which has just taken place, and the survivors of that event, in the whole course of the experience with which we have been made familiar from day to day, we have followed them with a pitying as well as an admiring sorrow. I greatly doubt whether there ever has been a case in which one so exalted in rank and station as was the Crown Prince of Germany, and subsequently the German Emperor, has had such claims—I will not say merely upon the admiration, but upon the sympathy and pity of the world. Sir, it is touching to reflect on the enhancements of that great trial—the circumstances under which it occurred, the peculiar slowness and subtlety of the disease, the extreme and extraordinary strength of constitution of the sufferer, and the great advance in the resources of medical science which enabled its most skilful Professors to procure for the illustrious Prince a considerable but ineffectual and unavailing prolongation of life—and that prolongation we fondly hoped might be the precursor of recovery, but was in truth an addition to his suffering. Our recollections of the Emperor Frederick reach back for a long period of years, for it was in the first period of his happy marriage that he made a deep impression upon the minds of the people of England, and they felt that their interest in him was a personal interest, not only because of his association with our beloved Sovereign, but also on account of the qualities which he displayed in early life—the high intelligence, the wonderful simplicity and gentleness of character, the kindliness which laid him open to the access of all men; and those qualities as time went on were destined to be followed up by fresh displays of the

    461
    highest qualities I have stated. When he came back to this country after the War of 1870, it was impossible not to be profoundly struck with the fact that, after he had shown that in skill and valour he was worthy to take his place among the heroes of the world, he still displayed in a peculiar degree all the modesty of his youth. It seemed as if all were conscious of these facts but himself. His character remained precisely the same in its unassuming gentleness, and in its total absence of pretension, as it had been before he had had an opportunity of manifesting to the world the claims he had so well entitled to make upon its admiration. Sir, there may be a disposition to regret that the Reign of the Emperor Frederick was too short for the display of the qualities of the Ruler; but there is another view which, I think, will change that regret into thankfulness. The circumstances attending his ascent to the Throne made him still more conspicuous to the eyes of the world, and, I have no doubt, caused a yet deeper impression of the invaluable qualities of his mind and character to be made both upon the German people and upon mankind at large. It may well be said of him that in the course of a short time on the Throne he fulfilled a long time, for there was not an expectation, however fond, that had been entertained before he became Emperor which was not fully realized by all who heard of his daily share in the labours of the State, and the wise and comprehensive manifestation of his views on the condition of Europe, which were at the very earliest date made known to the German nation and to the nations around him. Sir, we have to hope that so far as human sorrow can be alleviated either by the expression of sympathy, or by glorious recollections, or yet by more glorious hopes—all that consolation will be enjoyed by those who are now mourning over the death of the German Emperor. But one wish, I think, remains to us, and it is this—that the recollection of his great qualities, of his singular union of wisdom with virtue and valour, that his known attachment to the liberties of his country and his respect for its Constitution, which made him so secure a guardian of the privileges of the people no less than of the honour of the Throne, and that all the winning personal qualities
    462
    which in him showed forth that most beautiful and appropriate of all associations, the extreme of gentleness with the highest manhood; and, again, that the holy fortitude to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred which he had displayed upon the bed of suffering, a fortitude greater in degree than that of many a soldier, and, perhaps, of many a martyr—these recollections constitute a great and noble inheritance to the German people; and we trust that that great nation, through long periods of strength, prosperity, and virtue, will cherish the recollection that the Emperor whom they have lost was among the most precious possessions that can accrue to the lot of any people upon earth.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not rise, Sir, for the purpose of adding anything to what has been said. I only rise to say that, notwithstanding any political differences which may unhappily exist among Gentlemen who sit upon this side of the House, I can assure the House, and I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian that I—and I think I may speak for every one of those with whom I am in the habit of acting—entirely and fully concur in every word which has fallen from my right hon. Friend; and, further, that we thank him for the eloquent expression he has given of the thoughts and sentiments which prevail in every part of this House on this sad occasion.
    Resolved Nemine Contradicente, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to express the deep concern and sorrow of this House at the great loss which Her Majesty has sustained by the death of His Imperial Majesty Frederick William, German Emperor King of Prussia, and to condole with Her Majesty on this melancholy occasion, and to pray Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty, the present Emperor, the profound sympathy of this House with the Imperial and Royal Family, and with the Government, and people of Germany.
    To assure Her Majesty that this House will ever feel the warmest interest in whatever concerns Her Majesty's domestic relations, and to declare the ardent wishes of this House for the happiness of Her Majesty and of Her Family.
    Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by such Members of this House as are of Her Majesty's Privy Council.
    Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That this House doth condole with Her Imperial Majesty Victoria, German Empress, Queen of Prussia, Princess Royal of Great Britain and Ireland,

    463
    on the great loss which she has sustained by the death of His Imperial Majesty.
    Ordered, That a Message of Condolence be sent to Her Imperial Majesty, and that Mr. Speaker do communicate the said Message to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin, with a request that he will attend the Empress Victoria for the purpose of conveying it to Her Imperial Majesty.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

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

    COMMITTEE. [SEVENTH NIGHT.]
    [Progress 15th June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    COMMITTEE. [SEVENTH NIGHT.]

      COUNTY COUNCILS.
      Powers of County Council.
      Clause 3 (Transfer to county council of administrative business of quarter sessions).
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 18, to leave out from the word "subject" to the end of paragraph (iv.)—(Mr.Conybeare.)
      Question, "That the words 'subject as to the use of buildings by the quarter sessions and the justices' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
      MR. DUGDALE, in moving an Amendment, in line 19, after "justices," insert—
      "To the right of the quarter sessions, and of any committee appointed by the quarter sessions, to use and occupy the shire halls, county halls, assize courts, and judges' lodgings as heretofore,"
      said, he wished to explain that his object was to make it clear on the face of the Bill that any committee appointed by the Quarter Sessions should have the same right to use the Shire Halls, Assize Courts, and Judges' lodgings, as existed at the present time. Hon. Members were aware that committees appointed by the Quarter Sessions very often sat when the Court of Quarter Sessions was not sitting, and they were allowed the use of the Judges' lodgings whenever they required the accommodation. He asked
      464
      his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) to accept the Amendment, for the purpose of making it clear that that right was not interfered with.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 3, line 19, after the word "justices," to insert the words "to the right of the quarter sessions, and of any committee appointed by the quarter sessions, to use and occupy the shire halls, county halls, assize courts, and judges' lodgings as heretofore."—(Mr. Dugdale.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he must ask his hon. and learned Friend not to press the Amendment, because he thought it would be found, on looking at Sub-section (iv.), that everything desired by the Amendment was already secured. The sub-section transferred to the Council of each county—
      "Shire halls, county halls, assize courts, judges' lodgings, lock-up houses, court houses, justices' rooms, police stations, and county buildings, works, and property, 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 the county councils."
      In the event of any dispute arising upon this particular question, reference was to be made to the Home Secretary.
      DUGDALEsaid, he was satisfied with the explanation of his right hon. Friend, and would not press the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. DUGDALE, in moving, in page 3, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (vi.) which transferred to the County Council—
      "The hearing of appeals relating to the licensing of gang-masters and to the granting of certificates to pawnbrokers,"
      said, that the hearing of appeals was a judicial matter, and ought not to be dealt with by the County Council.
      Amendment proposed, to leave out paragraph (vi.)—(Mr. Dugdale.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was, upon the whole, inclined to agree with the argument of his hon. and learned Friend

      465
      that the hearing of appeals was rather more in the nature of judicial than of administrative work, and that the powers at present exercised by the magistrates was that of hearing the evidence on oath. Under those circumstances, believing his hon. and learned Friend's contention to be right, and that it was really a judicial matter, he would accept the Amendment.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he did not think it at all satisfactory that this sub-section of the clause should be left out in this summary manner, nor did he think that the fact that the hearing of appeals might in some degree partake of a judicial character constituted any sufficient reason for relieving the County Council of this right. He was prepared to support any hon. Member on that side of the House in resisting the Amendment.
      MR. FIRTHsaid, that appeals arose, to a large extent, out of questions of fact, and he did not think that they should lessen the power of a County Council. He, therefore, regretted very much that the Government had shown a disposition to give way on a matter of that kind.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Firth) was correct in stating that there were many questions of fact connected with the granting of licences; but he would also be aware that one of the reasons of with holding a licence was the personal character of the individual who applied for it, and that question could not be inquired into without the administration of an oath. The County Council had no authority to administer an oath, and, in his opinion, that rendered these appeals a judicial rather than an administrative matter.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that the Municipal Councils were at present entrusted with some licensing powers.
      MR. DUGDALEsaid, that appeals against the refusal to grant licences had always been held to be a judicial matter, and were provided for both by the Pawnbrokers and Agricultural Acts. The ordinary procedure was taken in the Court of Quarter Sessions, recognizances were entered into by the persons appealing to be paid the cost of the appeal, and it was impossible to say that
      466
      appeals of this character could be regarded as administrative business.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, he thought that no sufficient reason had been assigned by the President of the Local Government Board for his own change of opinion.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 171; Noes 246: Majority 75.—(Div. List, No. 158.)
      MR. BROADHURST, in moving, in page 3, line 28, leave out the word "pauper" in Sub-section (vii.), said, the sub-section transferred to the County Councils—
      "The provision, enlargement, maintenance, management, and visitation of, and other dealing with asylums for pauper lunatics."
      He did not see that the Amendment would interfere in any respect with the meaning of the sub-section. That was not his object; but that was the first place in the Bill in which the word "pauper" occurred, and he thought it was proper to make a proposal to change the word "pauper" into some other word. The suggestion he would make was that they should omit the word "pauper" wherever it appeared in the Bill, and should insert some such words as "industrial pensioner." [Laughter.] He would state his reasons briefly for making the proposal. The term "pauper," which, no doubt, was a very correct one as introduced by its user, had become associated in the minds of the great mass of the people with parish relief in a manner that made its employment a very offensive term. They all knew that it was used in a manner to reflect discredit and, in many cases, shame upon the person who was under the necessity of asking for parish relief. His contention was, that a man who had pursued an honest and laborous life, and had worked for a wage, and found it impossible to make provision for old age, ought to be maintained by the country which he had enriched by his labour, without being, at the same time, associated with a most objectionable epithet. That was the object he had in view, and he was sure that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House would withdraw the laugh of derision with which they had greeted his original mention of the term "industrial pen-

      467
      sioner." He wished to mention a particular case which was brought home to his mind, and which occurred in a great agricultural district. Passing along the road one day, he came across a poor blind man seated on the road side. Entering into conversation with him, he learned that for 40 years the man had worked on a farm doing all the important duties attached to a farm labourer for a very low wage—indeed, so low that it rendered it impossible for the man to make provision against sickness, to say nothing of old age, or of injury such as he had met with. In the course of his labours he was the victim of an accident which disabled him for life, and this man, after 40 years' daily labour on the farm on which he had been employed as man and boy, was turned adrift, without one penny of compensation, or the slightest consideration, by the person by whom he had been employed, and sentenced to spend the remainder of his life, not only under the terrible affliction of the loss of eyesight, which no one could help, but with the additional pain and humiliation of having to live on 2s. a-week and a stone of flour, doled out to him with a grudging hand by the parish authorities, his wife having to walk miles in order to bring that allowance home to his little cottage. What he asked was that the offensive term "pauper" should not be applied to a case like that. There was no more honourable man in Great Britain, and none more worthy of respect and sympathy, than this aged farm labourer, and yet there he was, with his wife, living a hard and lonely life, stigmatized by the objectionable phrase of a "pauper," when he was well entitled to all that could be provided for him in a country which he had laboured to enrich. He mentioned that special case, not because it was singular in its incidents, but because it illustrated hundreds and thousands of other cases that had occurred, and would occur again. He maintained that all persons who laboured for a wage so low that it was quite impossible for them to make provision for their after-life should be maintained by the country without the slightest stigma attaching to them by the use of the offensive term "pauper" as it was commonly applied. He was sure that this was a matter which would
      468
      receive the sympathy of every hon. Member of that House. Perhaps there might be some difficulty in changing the term "pauper" into that of "industrial pensioner." He was not prepared to deny the difficulty; on the contrary, he believed that it would be very great indeed; but as this was the first case in which the term occurred in this Bill, he thought that unless he made known his desire in this particular instance, if he attempted to move a new term later on, he might be ruled out of Order, because the use of the term would then have become part and parcel of the Bill. He saw one of the hon. Members for the City of Norwich present, and he might say that the case to which he had referred came under his notice within a very short distance of the hon. Gentleman's home, so that probably the hon. Member was acquainted with it as well as he was. He was therefore satisfied that the hon. Member, with his high character of great kindliness, would come to his assistance in the effort he was making to show some consideration for the deserving poor of the country. He was of opinion that under no circumstances and in no condition should labouring men have applied to them this offensive term in their old age, and he trusted that hon. Members on both sides of the House would come to his assistance and help him in substituting some other phrase or some other term for the offensive one which he proposed to omit. He had endeavoured to put in the fewest words possible his objection to this term, and all he desired was that the President of the Local Government Board should see his way to the insertion of some other term which would meet the case, and then, in the course of time, opportunities might be afforded for eliminating the word from other measures. That, however, could be provided for in the present clause, by stating that the term he suggested should be used in all other cases in which the term "pauper" occurred.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had not understood the purport of the Amendment when the hon. Member rose to move it, but it was clearly a proposal outside the scope of the Bill. It would clearly not be in Order to strike out the

      469
      word in this sub-section, because the effect would be to transfer to the County Councils the management and visitation of all lunatic asylums.
      MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he wished to understand whether the Chairman ruled that he could not proceed further with the Amendment, but that any alteration must be effected by new legislation? If that were so, he begged to give Notice that, as soon as possible, he would bring in a Bill.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, the same remark would apply to the next Amendment which appeared on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), and which was as follows:—
      "The purchase or otherwise freeing from tolls of any markets, the tolls, rents, or profits from which at present belong to private persons, and the making of bye-laws for the regulation and control of all markets thus purchased or acquired: Provided that, in the case of markets belonging to any borough or municipality, the corporation or town council of such borough or municipality shall have the power of making such bye-laws."
      MR. CONYBEAREasked, on the point of Order, whether it would be possible for him to place the Amendment down for a subsequent clause?
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was quite in Order to put it down for a new clause, for, although he was not aware of the fact, it might be found to relate to some subsequent clause.
      MR. PICKERSGILL, in moving, in line 31, after "industrial schools," to add "and the visitation of prisons," explained that the object of the Amendment was to transfer the duties connected with the visitation of prisons from the Visiting Committee of Quarter Sessions to the new County Councils. At present the Quarter Sessions were empowered to appoint a Committee from their own Body to visit the prisons, and the object of the Amendment was to take away that power from the Quarter Sessions and to give it to the County Councils. Since the Prisons' Act of 1877, the powers of the Visiting Committee had been a mere shadow of those which they formerly enjoyed, and practically the powers of the Committee were limited now to reporting to the Home Office and making recommendations. The value of a
      470
      Visiting Committee was that it threw a little light upon the internal arrangement of the prisons, and acquainted the outer world with what went on. He had no desire to increase the powers at present enjoyed by the Visiting Committee, nor was it any part of his case that the magistrates did improperly discharge their functions in that respect. He asked for this transfer for the same reason which formed the basis of the Bill—namely, that more confidence was likely to be reposed in elected representatives than in a Visiting Committee appointed by the magistrates. Perhaps he might be permitted to say that there seemed to be at the present moment a growing distrust and suspicion in regard to our prison discipline. The idea prevailed that the prison discipline was cruel and oppressive; that in many cases it had broken down the constitution of persons sent to prison for short terms of imprisonment for comparatively venial crimes; and that it had more or less indirectly produced fatal results. It was their desire that a popularly elected Body should have the power of inquiring into the management of their prisons, and reforming any abuses which might be proved to exist. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 31, after the word "schools," to add the words "and the visitation of prisons."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member were deserving of consideration; but he would point out that they had no application to the present clause. The administration of prisons was entirely in the hands of the Prison Commission, governed by rules framed by successive Secretaries of State. It was not left either to Prison Committees or to the Governors of prisons. The question of prison discipline was one of great difficulty and anxiety. Possibly it might be a serious question whether the present system was not too severe, having regard to the health of the prisoners as well as their reformation. Perhaps the question was one that was eminently worthy of consideration, and

      471
      ought to be reviewed from time to time; but he would point out that, at present, they could absolutely do nothing. They had no control over the prison rules, or any functions in connection with the administration of prisons generally. The functions of the Prison Committee were mainly judicial. The clause merely affected the transfer of powers, and did not affect the law. If the hon. Member would look at Sections 12 and 14 of the Prisons Act of 1877 he would find that Parliament intended to limit the punishing power of the Governor over a refractory and insubordinate prisoner, and to leave the ultimate decision in such a case to the Visiting Justices. That was an important question, and would be much more properly left in the hands of the Justices, who were accustomed to deal with matters of punishment, rather than to leave it to the County Councils, who could not be so well fitted as a body of Justices chosen for the purpose. Even in a borough, as the hon. Member was aware, it was not the Town Council who appointed the Visiting Committee for the prisons, but the borough Justices.
      MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he was quite aware that the Justices had no control over the discipline; but he understood that it was part of their duty and practice to make reports and recommendations to the Home Office; and it seemed to him that the making of such reports and recommendations would be more properly in the hands of the representatives of the people than in those of mere nominees of the magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had pointed out a difficulty in regard to the duty imposed upon the Judges in their being empowered to inflict corporal punishment on refractory and insubordinate prisoners. He would suggest therefore, by way of compromise, what he thought would meet the difficulty pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—namely, that they should follow the analogy contained in this very Bill in regard to pauper lunatic asylums in the 7th clause, by which the management of such asylums was in the first place vested in the County Councils, but by the 7th clause power was reserved to appoint a Visiting Committee. He thought there ought to be some reciprocity. If the arrangement to which he had referred in regard to
      472
      pauper lunatic asylums were reasonable and satisfactory, it seemed to him that while the control of the prisons was vested in the Home Office, it was only reasonable to give to the County Councils a concurrent right of visitation with the Justices.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was afraid that it was not possible to accept the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had pointed out very clearly that there were certain duties imposed upon the Justices with respect of the visitation of prisons, and that certain powers were placed in their hands which were of an important character. He understood the hon. Gentleman to suggest that these powers should not be obligatory, but permissive. The Government did not think that that would be satisfactorily carrying out the provisions of the existing law. As his right hon. Friend had pointed out, this Bill did not propose to alter the existing law, and therefore it was desirable to adhere to the clause as it stood.
      MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman properly understood the suggestion he had made. The idea was to give to the County Councils a concurrent right of visitation with the Justices.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that nobody could say that the existing law had not been properly and efficiently administered. He therefore could not accept the suggestion, and the Amendment was really beyond the scope of the clause.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that revelations were constantly taking place, not only in regard to Irish prisons, but to English prisons also. A great deal of monstrous brutality had been shown to exist in our present system, and as a matter of policy, if upon no other ground, the citizens of this country represented by the County Councils should know something as to the condition of the prisons and the methods of treatment adopted in them. He was not prepared to discuss now whether the Penal Code ought to be amended, or whether a change should be introduced into the whole system on which the treatment of our prisoners was based. We had embodied in the law the system of visitation by Justices, because it was considered a wholesome corrective against any evils which might possibly have

      473
      crept into the administration of our prison discipline. He was not asserting that the Justices of the Peace had failed in their duty, or that the County Councils should have a concurrent power of visitation on account of any dereliction of duty on the part of the Justices of the Peace; but he considered it desirable that the County Councils should have the power to appoint members of their Body to visit the prisons and see what took place in them. Presumably the burden of maintaining the prisons rested on the shoulders of the ratepayers, and through their popularly constituted representatives in the County Councils they ought to have some control over what went on, consistently with a fair view of humanity and justice. It did not seem to him to be any reason for refusing the Amendment, because it went beyond the particular proposal contained in the section. There were grounds of humanity on which this small concession to the public opinion of the country ought to be made. All he could say was that if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary did not believe the statements which were made as to the inhuman manner in which the prisoners were treated, they would have cause to change their opinion before very long. He regarded the Amendment as a very reasonable one, and trusted that the Committee would accept it.
      MR. WHARTONsaid, the facts of the case did not bear out the statement which had just been made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. The Court of Quarter Sessions of which he was a member always gave the jury an opportunity of inspecting the prisons, and he had never heard of a single complaint.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had only to look at the newspapers in order to see the evidence on which he based his plan.
      MR. HASTINGSsaid, the argument was that the County Councils ought to be able to send special representatives to visit the prisoners, because the burden of maintaining the prisons fell upon the ratepayers. Now, it did not fall upon the ratepayers at all; for since the Prisons' Act was passed the expense of maintaining the prisons was provided by a Vote in that House.
      474
      Therefore the ratepayers of the county had no ground for interference. It would be just as reasonable to propose that the County Councils should have power to send representatives to inspect the convict prisons, which were similarly supported by the Imperial Exchequer. He might also point out, as had been clearly stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, who moved the Amendment, was entirely mistaken as to the functions of the Visiting Committee. The hon. Member said the functions were not in any way judicial. Now, as a matter of fact, they were altogether judicial. He had been Chairman of the Visiting Committee of the county of Worcestershire ever since the Prison Act passed, and he was bound to say that all the duties that Committee performed inside the prisons were entirely judicial. All complaints were judicially investigated, and, if necessary, witnesses were heard on oath. With very slight exceptions, all the powers exercised in the prisons respecting punishment were administered by the Visiting Committee, who only gave their judgment after having heard evidence on oath. So far from the ratepayers having anything to do with the matter, they had been relieved altogether from the burden of maintaining prisons since the passing of the Prisons Act.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that if he had any doubt whether he should support the Amendment that doubt had been removed by the speech which had just been delivered. He had some little doubt at first whether these words ought to be inserted, but now he had none. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that nobody asked to have the judicial duties of the magistrates transferred to the County Councils. The whole of the clause was governed by the first three or four lines, which said—
      "There shall be transferred to the council of each county, on and after the appointed day, the administrative business of the justices of the county in quarter sessions or any committee appointed by the quarter sessions assembled, that is to say, all business done by the quarter sessions, in respect of the several matters following—namely,"
      and so on. All the judicial business was reserved to the Visiting Justices, and

      475
      the administrative business was handed over to the County Councils. There was evidently a desire, however, to limit the transfer of administrative duties to the new County Councils as far as possible. It was the old story. They wanted to get rid of the County Councils by giving them nothing to do, and by making them subordinate to the Justices. He thought that the sooner they came to close quarters with that principle the better. The true principle of the Bill was that not on the ground of misconduct, or of incompetency, or of inefficiency, but on the ground of public policy, it was desirable to transfer to a popular Body, elected by the county, duties hitherto discharged by the magistrates. They must accept that position all through. Nobody objected to the Justices having power to inflict punishment on prisoners confined in the county prisons; but the duties of the Visiting Committee, which Lord Cross carefully considered when he transferred the jurisdiction from the Local Authorities to the Crown, ought to be placed in the hands of the County Councils. What were those duties? They were to visit the prisons frequently, to report on any matters that might require a report, to take cognizance of any matters of pressing necessity, and to enter any observations they might consider desirable as to the condition of the prisons and abuses in the visitors' book kept by the gaoler. He was not going into the question raised by his hon. Friend below the Gangway, as this was not a proper time to discuss our prison administration. His own opinion was that it was unnecessarily severe, and he believed that when Parliament had time to consider it, it would be inclined to reform the present system of administration. Certainly on the other side of the water there were tendencies to great severity in their prison life. Hitherto, Amendments had been opposed because they might possibly introduce a dangerous principle when they came to be applied to Ireland; but he advocated this Amendment because it would be advantageous when it came to be applied to Ireland. He thought it was most desirable that people elected by a popular Body should be able to enter the Irish prisons and ascertain what went on there. Without desiring to cast any reflection upon the English magistrates,
      476
      who certainly discharged their duty very differently from the magistrates of Ireland, he thought it was desirable that the principle of popular representation should be applied to the inspection of prisons, so that they might secure the proper administration of justice, and prevent any unnecessary severity being inflicted in carrying out the law. Therefore, if his hon. Friend went to a Division he should support him, although it might be necessary to introduce some other words into the Amendment.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, lie should certainly feel bound to support the Amendment. He attached enormous importance to a visitation on the part of persons who might be taken to represent the public interest in the prisons. He had felt that very much himself when he was at the Home Office, and had done everything he could to strengthen the case of the Visiting Justices, as he believed they had invariably acknowledged; but there was no judicial function in these visitations of prisons any more than there was in the visitation of asylums. The magistrates had a great deal to do in committing persons to asylums as well as to prisons, and he could not see any reason why the visitation of prisons should not be left in the hands of a Committee of the County Council. It was highly desirable that the public should have the means of knowledge as to the administration of prison discipline, and that would be felt as a protection both to the Government and to the public. He had always thought it an enormous danger, when the prisons were originally transferred to the Government, that there might arise in the mind of the public a supposition of undue severity or injustice being exercised in the prison administration. He was sorry to see that there was a disposition on the part of the Committee to distrust the County Councils. All the attempts to eviscerate this clause and to diminish the power of the Council arose from a jealousy of the Council, and he was afraid that hon. Gentlemen opposite were going to take enormous pains to create a Body at a great expenditure which, after all, would have little or nothing to do. There seemed to be a disposition to take out one power after another. The licensing power had already been struck out. Sub-section 6 had just gone. He did

      477
      not know why or wherefore they could object to entrust so small a power to the Body they were creating. It appeared to him that when the Bill left the House it would be little more than an old turnpike trust. If hon. Members would take the pains to look at the Bill and see what the Council would have to do when it was created, they would find that it would have to look after the main roads and the county bridges; that it would be a Visiting Committee, as far as the asylums were concerned; and that it would have a certain power with reference to wild birds and contagious diseases in animals. Those were the whole of the functions of this great measure of local government which they were creating for England. They omitted everything relating to licensing, and they objected to entrust the Councils with the power of visiting the prisons. What, then, did they leave for the County Councils to do? He would like every hon. Member to look into the Bill, and see what these Councils would have to do when they were created. The duty of interposing between the public and the Government in regard to the administration of prison discipline was one of the most proper functions which could be conferred upon the County Councils, and if it were only upon the ground that the Amendment would give the County Councils something to do he would support it. Hon. Members ought to take care that they did not bring this great Body into contempt.
      MR. MATTHEWSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made what he might call a second reading speech. It showed, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had very improperly read the Bill; that he had not read the Amendment at all; and that he had entirely forgotten the provisions of the Prisons Act, because he had added something to it which did not exist.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had been speaking of the last Amendment which the Government had struck out.
      MR. MATTHEWSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was certainly out of Order in discussing an Amendment which had been disposed of.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that what he had said was that the Government had eviscerated the Bill by
      478
      striking out a portion of the powers they were prepared originally to grant.
      MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that this was a proposition to take away from the Visiting Justices functions which they performed under the Prisons Act, and to transfer them to the County Councils. The right hon. Gentleman said that those functions were not judicial; but he must have forgotten the provisions of the Prisons Act. Those functions are peculiarly judicial, seeing that they relate to the punishment of prisoners. The Prisons Act of 1855 empowered the Justices to take evidence upon oath, and determine concerning any report made to them that a prisoner had been guilty of any particular offence against prison discipline. Rule 59 provided that no prisoner was to be put in irons, or to be put into mechanical restraint unless the particulars were at once entered, and no prisoner was to be confined for more than 24 hours in a separate cell unless the time during which he was to be confined separately was specified by the magistrates. Moreover, the Visiting Committee of Justices were empowered to take cognizance of any matters of pressing necessity not within the power of their commission as Justices, and to perform such duties as they might be required to perform. The members of the County Council could not perform those functions, because they were not members of the Commission of the Peace. Under another provision of the Prisons Act of 1877, the Visiting Committee could not punish an offender except by an order of two Justices of the Peace, and after an inquiry upon oath. That was altogether a judicial function. There was no power whatever on the part of the members of County Councils to administer an oath. The power to administer an oath was given to the Justices simply because they held the Commission of the Peace. It might be that some powers of visiting the prisons could be usefully conferred on the County Council; but it must be entirely apart from the judicial functions which the Prisons Act empowered the Justices to perform.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that that was the main duty which the Visiting Committee would have to perform.
      MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that he was aware that it was one duty, and that

      479
      words to that effect were inserted in the Act of 1877 as a sop to the magistrates when the principal part of their control was taken away.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he should like to meet the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary if he was disposed to consider favourably the transfer of any part of the visiting powers to the Council, which, after all, composed nine-tenths of the work. He would be satisfied if the corrective powers were retained in the hands of the magistrates, and the general visiting functions were transferred to the County Councils. He should be very well satisfied with an arrangement of that kind, and on that footing he would assent to the retention of the corrective power of punishment in the hands of the magistrates.
      MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMsaid, he wished to make an observation from the point of view of a practical man. When the prisoners were walking round and round the prison yard, and visitors appeared at the door, the prisoners were ordered to halt, so that any man who had a complaint to prefer might come forward. He believed that a prisoner, if he had legitimate cause of complaint—which sometimes might arise, even in an English prison—would be much more likely to come forward and report the views to a member of a popularly elected Council than to a Justice of the Peace, who was appointed from a class which, rightly or wrongly, he had been taught to consider in direct opposition to his own. Therefore, he hoped his hon. Friend would take the sense of the House by pressing the Amendment to a Division.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to say one word in answer to the statement which had just been made. He had been a visiting magistrate for many years, and he had invariably carried out this rule—that whenever he entered the cell with a brother magistrate to listen to the complaints of a prisoner no official should be allowed to be present. He believed that that was the usual practice that prevailed, and though the management of the gaols had been taken away from the magistrates, and vested in the Government, the visiting magistrates never neglected their duty of
      480
      visiting, and inquiring carefully into any complaints the prisoners had to make.
      MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMsaid, he did not wish to impugn the statement of the hon. and gallant Baronet, but he thought that if inquiry were made into the matter it would be found that the course he had referred to was not invariably pursued.
      VISCOUNT WOLMER (Hants,)said, he desired to express his concurrence with the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had made as to the great importance of transferring, wherever it could be done properly, the functions of the magistrates to the County Councils. He sincerely trusted that the Government, although unable to accept this particular Amendment, would consent to transfer to the County Councils the general visiting functions, while retaining the judicial functions in the hands of the Justices. He believed that such a provision would tend to increase the importance of the County Councils.
      MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to an extremely important precedent on this point—namely, the precedent of the Visiting Committee appointed under the Scotch Prisons Act of 1877. By that Act, which was modelled upon the English Act, the Visiting Committee need not be Justices. The section provided that a Visiting Committee should be appointed for every prison under the Act, and that it should consist of a certain number of persons being Commissioners of Supply and Justices of the Peace. Now, what were the Commissioners of Supply? They were exactly the same order of persons, and entrusted with very much the same functions, as the County Councils now proposed to be constituted.
      MR. P. J. POWERsaid, he maintained that it should be an important part of the new Body about to be created to administer the business of the county and visit the prisons, in order that they might, without the presence of the officials, ascertain what the treatment of the prisoners was. If it were necessary, he could point out various abuses of which he knew something personally. The administration

      481
      of the present system was simply delegated to nominees of the Government. He was anxious that the duties should be transferred to persons who were responsible to the people, and on those grounds he hoped his hon. Friend would press the Amendment.
      MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he simply rose to say that he cordially accepted the suggestion which had been made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would give a distinct pledge that on a subsequent part of the Bill he would introduce words that would have the effect of transferring to the County Councils the visiting powers, properly so called, of the Justices, reserving to the Justices the judicial functions in regard to the infliction of punishment, he would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment. But if a distinct pledge of that kind was not given he was afraid that it would be necessary to carry the Amendment to a Division.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that he could not give any such pledge to the hon. Gentleman. The precedent quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) was not exactly on all fours, because the power of a Visiting Committee in England wore not the same as those in Scotland. So far as he could say, no judicial powers were exercised by Visiting Committees in Scotland at all. If the Government were to retain the judicial powers in the hands of the Justices and to transfer the other powers to the County Councils, the effect would be to set up two Visiting Committees, which the Government did not think at all desirable. He was afraid, therefore, that he could not give the undertaking asked for by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green. The argument of the Government was that the powers conferred by Act of Parliament on the Justices were judicial, and they desired to retain in the hands of the Justices the judicial functions now exercised by them.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, they had been discussing a question on the larger issue, whether all the administration as to lunatic asylums and prisons should not be subjected to the visitation and supervision, not only of the county
      482
      magistrates, but of the members of the County Council. He entertained a strong opinion upon that subject; and either on the present, or some other occasion, he hoped that some proposal would be made in regard to it which would be pressed to a Division. His own opinion was that there was no necessity to wait for another opportunity, but that this was the right occasion to raise the discussion if it were considered desirable. It was admitted that some of the functions of the Visiting Justices were not judicial, and might be performed by persons who were not Justices of the Peace; for instance, the 4th section of the Prisons Act required a report to be sent in as to the condition of the prisons, and also as to any repairs that might be necessary. Surely it was not necessary that a Visiting Committee should have the powers of Justices of the Peace in order to present a report in cases of that kind. He maintained that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was perfectly right in its present form. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board gave it as a reason why they ought not to accept the Amendment that it was not desired that they should have two Bodies possessing administrative functions; but the Committee had already provided that that was to be the case in regard to the lunatic asylums.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was not desirable to lay down that principle as a general proposition.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to lay down as a general proposition that the institutions in a county should not be visited by more than one Committee, but he now appeared to confine himself to the case of prisons. He and his hon. Friends on that side of the House were not satisfied that prisoners in a county should be visited simply by the Justices; and they demanded that they should be visited also by the representatives of the people—that not only the Justices, but the delegates of the people at large should be admitted within the precincts of the prisons. This Bill, in reference to lunatic asylums, transferred certain administrative functions from the Quarter Sessions to the County Councils; and in the 6th clause it reserved the right of the Quarter Sessions to appoint a Visit-

      483
      ing Committee also. He saw no reason why the same principles which prevailed as to asylums should not obtain with regard to prisons; and if his hon. Friend went to a Division he should have great satisfaction in voting with him.
      MR. BRUNNERasked if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board meant to tell the Committee that there was no administrative business in connection with the prisons which would concern the County Councils? Surely, the matter of repairs referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax formed part of the administrative business. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, to allow the Amendment to be passed, for this reason—that the present management of our prisons was very far from what it ought to be. He was convinced that many prisoners were at the present moment unwisely treated, and that they were teaching the people whom they put in prison to hate work. Most of those who are in prison went there because they did not like work, and the prison rules taught them to hate it.
      MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, he was afraid that they were engaged in the erection of machinery which, after they had created it, would have very little work to do. Nearly all the improvements in prison discipline had come not from the prison magistrates, but had come from persons outside, such as the Howard Society. He cordially supported the Amendment.
      MR. WARMINGTONsaid, no one could dispute that the Visiting Committee had double functions to discharge. What was desired was that the representatives of the people should perform those functions which were strictly called judicial, and that members of the Council elected by the people should be able to go and inspect the prisons, confer with the prisoners, and receive complaints and make a report and entries in the visiting book. That was all that was intended by the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and there was no desire that the judicial functions performed by the magistrates should be transferred by the County Councils.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 187; Noes 259: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 159.)
      MR. BARING, in moving the following Amendment, in page 3, line 37, at end, to insert "except the clerk of the peace and every clerk to justices in petty sessions," said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had been kind enough to inform him that the question to which this Amendment related was settled by Clauses 82 and 83. He (Mr. Baring) had read those clauses with considerable care, and, as far as he was able to understand them, though he might possibly be wrong in his interpretation of them, they referred merely to the payment of the fees, whereas the present clause related to the fixing of the fees. If he was wrong in this view, he should, of course, have nothing to do but withdraw the Amendment; but he desired to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say upon the subject.
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 37, at end, to insert the words "except the clerk of the peace and every clerk to justices in petty sessions."—(Mr.Baring.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that Clauses 82 and 83 appeared to go beyond his hon. Friend's proposal. The words of Clause 82 were—
      "For the purpose of the enactments relating to such salary and fees, the standing joint committee of the county council and the quarter sessions shall be substituted for the quarter sessions and the local authority respectively."
      In reference to clerks of Petty Sessions, the 83rd clause provided that—
      "In the enactments relating to such salaries and fees the said standing joint committee shall be substituted for the quarter sessions and the local authority respectively."
      He was advised that it was not necessary to insert his hon. Friend's Amendment, because its object was fully covered by these words. If, however, that turned out to be not the case, he would take care, on Report, to amend the clause.
      SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid, the fees paid to Clerks of the Peace and Clerks of Petty

      485
      Sessions were judicial fees, and the Quarter Session Court was, by Statute, authorized and obliged to draw up scales of the amounts to be paid. The amounts of such fees ought to be left to the determination of the Court of Quarter Sessions.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would be content to accept the assurance that if Clauses 82 and 83 did not carry out that which was the hon. Gentleman's intention and his own, he would take care to put the matter right on Report.
      MR. BARINGasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. BRUNNERsaid, he wished to move the insertion of the words "chief constable" after the word "of," in line 39. He was very anxious to see good relations maintained between the people and those who had authority over them; and he, therefore, desired that the determination of the Chief Constable's salary should be placed in the hands of the County Councils.
      MR. CHAPLIN: Mr. Chairman, I rise to Order. I wish to know, Sir, whether the question which the hon. Member is now raising was not settled by the Division taken on Friday upon the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage)?
      THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment then moved embraced both the appointment of the Chief Constable and the control of the police. I think that, technically, this Amendment may be moved again; but I do not think the hon. Member is exercising a very wise discretion in proposing it.
      MR. BRUNNERsaid, he thought the discretion to which the hon. Gentleman the Chairman referred was not altogether in his own hands. He was very desirous that the salaries of all the officials should be left to the determination of the Council, because he thought that in all Departments of the Public Service taxation and representation should go together. He was not going to speak at length on the subject, and had only a few more words to say about it. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to consider whether he could not, by introducing a fresh provision some-
      486
      where in the Bill, encourage County Councils to appoint bankers as their treasurers. Bankers would undertake the work of treasurers without payment, and they would perform the duties appertaining to that office with efficiency, and in a very business-like manner. He might remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he knew well, that a very large number of Local Authorities now employed bankers as their treasurers.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
      MR. BRUNNERsaid, he had nothing more to say about the Amendment, and he commended it to the Committee as one that they would do wisely to adopt.
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 39, after the word "of," to insert the words "Chief Constable."—(MR. Brunner.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he only wished to say one word about the Amendment, as, after what the Chairman had said, he did not think it would be wise to continue the discussion. The Committee had undoubtedly considered the question in connection with the police already, and had taken a Division upon it. He thought that the argument in favour of rejecting this Amendment was much stronger now than it was before the Division was taken on Friday evening.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he wished to point out that the discussion on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) respecting the police had not nearly concluded when the Division was taken on Friday evening. He would not venture upon forbidden ground; but he thought that everybody who was present during the last hour of the discussion on Friday would agree with him that it was through the excessive impatience of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the discussion was curtailed. Many of those who had wished to address the Committee on Friday felt that they were entitled to say something on the subject now. But, whether they did so or not, the mere fact that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby was rejected on Friday could not be held to exclude all discussion on the question of the police.

      487
      An Amendment on the subject was to be moved on the 7th clause, and he hoped that it would not be ruled out of Order when reached. As to the present Amendment, he should like to emphasize what his hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner) had stated as to the importance of maintaining the principle that the elected representatives of the people on the Council Councils should have the control of the appointment and the fixing of the salary of the Chief Constable. It would not be denied that the office of Chief Constable was an exceedingly important one, and that that functionary had the chief control of the police, although the decision of certain questions respecting the regulation and efficiency of the police was assigned by the Bill to various authorities. The Joint Committee would have a great deal to say about the management and control of the police, but the Local Government Board or the Home Office, or some central authority, would also, to a large extent, look after the efficiency of the force. Those who sat on the Opposition side of the House felt very strongly that the control of the police, as far as the appointment, pay, and removal of the Chief Constable were concerned, should be in the hands not of a Joint Committee of irresponsible men, but of the elected representatives of the people on the County Council. On this point, he might allude to the difficulties that had arisen lately within a stone's throw of that House in connection with the treatment of the public by the police of the Metropolis. From what he had soon of the temper of the people, he thought that more mischief had been done by the action of the Government and the police in connection with meetings in Trafalgar Square than had been created during the whole time that had elapsed since the Hyde Park riots a good many years ago. Wherever one went in the Metropolis to-day, one found in existence a feeling of exasperation against the police. It was a very great pity that it was so, but this kind of feeling would always be aroused whenever, by the timidity of a mischievous official like the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), police were directed to trample upon the people. He had taken the trouble to go among the people with the object of ascertaining their
      488
      feelings on the subject, and he could only say that there was such a feeling of exasperation as it was very dangerous ever to arouse among the populace against the constituted authorities. He would endeavour to illustrate the principle he was fighting for by referring to another case, drawn not from the Metropolis, but from the county with which he had the honour to be connected. He would not refer to the riots which occurred in 1885 in the St. Austell Division, as he preferred to leave the hon. Member for that Division (Mr. W. A. M'Arthur) to deal with them, if he chose to do so. He would, however, allude to the difficulties which occurred in the capital of the Division he represented, the Town of Camborne, some years back. At that time there was exactly the same maltreatment of the people by the police as had been witnessed in the Metropolis within the last few months. In Camborne the police did not, perhaps, ride down the people and massacre them—
      MR. W. BECKETT (Notts,): Mr. Chairman, I rise to Order. I beg to ask whether these remarks are in Order?
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is, I believe, coming to the Question. I believe he is merely giving an illustration of his argument.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he was sorry that the hon. Member opposite had not listened to him with sufficient attention to enable him to follow his argument. He had laid down the principle that the control of the police, as far as the appointment of the Chief Constable was concerned, should be in the hands of the elected members of the County Council, and he was giving, as his reason for advocating that principle, facts which many hon. Members might choose to deny, but which were within the knowledge of some of them at any rate. The first series of facts were those connected with Trafalgar Square, and the second series related to his own constituency, Surely a Member of that House had a right to speak about what had happened in his own constituency. On the occasion to which he was referring in Camborne, the police behaved with exceeding roughness, harshness, and brutality to the people. The consequence was that there were riots in Camborne, as there would always be in a place where the people

      489
      were treated with injustice, and where a feeling of indignation and exasperation was aroused. For his own part, he wished to see maintained the respect which the people of this country always held for the constituted authorities. That respect was being slowly sapped and undermined by the action of the present Government. It was to a great extent undermined by the action of the police at Camborne on the occasion to which he was referring. The police used to go about the streets and deliberately hustle the poor men with the view of raising a charge against them of being drunk and of putting them into the lock-up. This occurred repeatedly, and the result was that riots took place. The consequence was that the Chief Constable of the county, who was not a brave man, took to his heels, and, he believed, had never shown his face in Camborne since. He would give the Committee one more illustration, and he thought it a very pertinent and important one, of what was likely to happen in Devon under this Bill. The measure proposed to turn into separate counties all boroughs in which the population amounted to or exceeded 50,000. The result would be that Devonport and Plymouth would each become counties in themselves, whilst Stonehouse would still form part of the County of Devon. Devonport and Stonehouse formed one borough for Parliamentary purposes, but were divided for local purposes. In Stonehouse the police were under the control of the irresponsible magistracy of the county, whilst in Devonport theywere under the management of the Municipal Authorities. The residents of Stonehouse and Devonport respectively said that there was all the difference in the world between the treatment and their treatment in the other.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been allowed great latitude. He is not at all speaking to this special Amendment, which in itself is only technical.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he did not wish for a moment to transgress the Chairman's ruling, or to pursue the matter further. He might, perhaps, have some other opportunity of referring to the subject. He was only anxious to impress upon the Committee the importance of maintaining the prin-
      490
      ciple that the police should be controlled by the representatives of the people. If the people controlled their Chief Constable, they could, at any rate, indirectly control their police. The Members of the Opposition were satisfied that they were doing their duty in taking their stand upon that principle. No doubt the Supporters of the Government would over-rule them if they went to a Division; but he thought that the people of the country would approve their action in having insisted upon giving to the people the control of the police.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.)said, that, as he understood the Bill, the control of the police was to be vested jointly in the Justices and the County Councils, but that the Justices were to appoint and the Council was to pay the Chief Constable. This seemed to him to be a very inconvenient arrangement. In his opinion, if the County Council was to pay for the police officers, it was most reasonable that it should appoint them. The joint committee would have a very inefficient control over the police if the appointment of the Chief Constable rested solely with the Justices. He thought that the appointment of the Chief Constable should rest with the County Council alone, although he admitted that the Committee had already accepted what he regarded as the bad system of joint control.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was rather disposed to suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner) that he should not insist upon carrying his Amendment to a Division. His reasons for saying so were these. Practically speaking, the Committee had decided not to transfer to the County Council the appointment of the Chief of the people by the police in one place Constable; but the Committee had not decided anything with regard to his salary. Whatever reasons there might be in the minds of hon. Members in regard to leaving to the County Council the appointment of Chief Constable, those reasons did not necessarily apply to the payment of the salary, and it was inconsistent to leave the payment of the salary to the County Council and not to leave it the right of determining the duty which was connected with the payment of that salary. This being so, he intended to move the addition of these words to the sub-section—"and the de-

      491
      termination of the salary of the Chief Constable." This would, of course, raise the question of the right of the County Council to determine the salary.
      MR. BRUNNERsaid, he did not clearly understand whether his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) would move the addition of the words he had mentioned if he (Mr. Brunner) withdrew his Amendments?
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, that he did propose to move the addition of those words.
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, that as he had proposed the Amendment on Friday, he wished to say that he thought his proposal had then been thoroughly threshed out. He did not see how they were to carry on the Business of that House unless they loyally accepted the decisions which, after full discussion, had been arrived at. Therefore, although he hoped that before many years were over the decision of Friday evening would be reversed, he could not support the Amendment now suggested.
      MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMsaid, he hoped the Committee, by refusing to accept this Amendment, would show the people of the country for a second time that they regarded them as either idiots or dangerous wild beasts, who were not fit to be trusted with the control of their own police.
      MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he thought that possibly his right hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had misunderstood the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). In the Amendment moved on Friday there was no question of salary.
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, that his Amendment included the words "the appointment," which naturally included "salary." [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, that was how he understood his Amendment, which also provided for "the control and the dismissal." In moving the Amendment he had intended to give the County Council full control over the police and the Chief Constable. As the majority had been against him, he accepted the decision of the Committee in good faith.
      MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, his right hon. Friend was perfectly at liberty to accept the decision arrived at on Friday in any sense he pleased, but he must
      492
      allow other Members to construe the word "appointment" in the sense in which it was ordinarily used. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would hardly contend that the word "appointment" included the fixing of the salary. The Lord Chancellor made many appointments in the course of the year, but he had nothing to do with the fixing of the salary that was attached to those appointments. He did not think the Committee could be justly accused of refusing to accept the decision come to on Friday evening if it adopted the intended proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that what he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax to suggest was, that the Committee, having negatived the proposal to place the appointment of the Chief Constable in the hands of the County Council, should now accept an Amendment which would put the question of the salary of the Chief Constable in the hands of the County Council. Surely this would be absurd. Under Clause 29 of the Bill matters connected with the salary and the payment of the police force would be placed in the hands of the joint committee; and, looking at the fact that the Committee had practically determined that the control and administration of the police should be in the hands of the joint committee, the Government considered that all questions affecting the pay of the police should also be left to the decision of the joint committee.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that the Committee had not yet come to the decision which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) said they had arrived at. When the right Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) said that the "appointment" included the "salary," he must have forgotten what was the case with reference to boroughs. In the boroughs, whilst the appointment and control of the Chief Constable rested with the Watch Committee, the pay of the Chief Constable rested with the Council. The question of the pay of the Chief Constable was one of great importance, and the Committee could not, he thought, in any way more emphatically show its distrust of the new Councils than by depriving them of the power of the

      493
      purse. As to the question of whether the pay of the Chief Constable could be regarded as distinct from the decision arrived at on Friday, he might at once tell the Government that when the clause dealing with the appointment of the joint committee came up for consideration, he should certainly, if no one else did, take the sense of the Committee on the question of whether the joint committee should or should not have full control of the Chief Constable as of all other constables. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner) would withdraw his Amendment, as it was really in conflict with the decision arrived at by the Committee on Friday. The proposed Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) would then, in due time, raise the question whether the amount of the salary should not be fixed by the Body which raised the rates.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he wished to ask forthe Chairman's ruling on another point of Order. Supposing that the Amendment were not withdrawn, and were agreed to by the Committee, the determination of the salary of the Chief Constable would be transferred to the new Council. That was precisely the proposal that was negatived on Friday, and he wished to know what would be the position of the question under the Bill? Would the appointment of Chief Constable remain as at present intended, or would it also be transferred to the new Council?
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, that if the Amendment were carried the determination of the salary of the Chief Constable would undoubtedly be vested in the new Council. The decision of Friday last negatived that proposal, not by itself, but by associating it with the proposal that the control of the police should be placed in the hands of the Council. The Amendment was not entirely inconsistent with the decision not to allow the appointment of the Chief Constable to be under the control of the County Council.
      MR. BRUNNERasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. BRUNNERsaid, it was provided in the Bill that the Clerk of the Peace should be the Clerk of the County Council, and that seemed to him a ter-
      494
      rible infringement of that very good rule, that taxation and representation should go together. Surely the appointment and removal of the Clerk of the Peace, if he was to be the servant of the County Council, should be in the hands of the County Council. With regard to Clerks of Justices, he did not know that he had very much to say; but he felt very strongly upon the appointment, removal, and determination of the salary of the Clerk of the Peace; he was an officer in whom he took a great deal of interest just now.
      Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 2, to leave out from "other than the clerk of the peace and the clerk of the justices."—(Mr. Brunner.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Clerk of the Peace would be the joint officer of the County Council and Quarter Sessions, and it was desirable, indeed he thought necessary, that his appointment should rest with the Committee composed of half from the Justices and half from the County Council, and which was provided for in Clause 83, So long as the Clerk of the Justices remained the servant of the Justices his appointment remained with the Justices, but so far as his salary was concerned it would be determined by the joint committee. Surely the hon. Member would not advocate that the joint officer should not be under the control of the joint committee?
      MR. BRUNNERsaid, he merely wished that the question of salary should be determined by the representatives of the people who paid the money.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, it was quite true that the proposal in the Bill was that the Clerk of the Peace should be the joint officer of the irresponsible body of magistrates and of the County Council, and he held it to be a most mischievous proposal. The Clerk of the County Council should be under the control of the Council, just as the Town Clerk was the servant of a Town Council. He altogether objected to this joint officer. The officer would probably have more than enough to do with his joint duty than he could do well, and his work would be done badly for both his masters. He (Mr. Cony beare) was animated by a desire that these new Councils

      495
      should have full authority in matters entrusted to them; but the Government were too ready to listen to any suggestion from their Supporters in the direction of emasculating the Bill and making the authority of the Council more shadowy. In every possible way hon. Members showed their distrust of the new Authority, and every attempt to take away the functions and duties of the Council, every limitation of a right the Council might naturally aspire to, would tend to make it impotent and worthless, and a Body that would certainly not attract those men of honour, virtue, and probity, of whom so much had been said. The ratepayers felt strongly that they ought to have control over the salaries of the officers they paid. It was all very well to say this officer would be the Clerk of Quarter Sessions, but he would be paid from the rates, and it was for the ratepayers, through their representatives, to say what he should be paid, not an irresponsible body of magistrates. Beyond that, the Council ought to have full control over their officer. He would have to be constantly in attendance, and would probably take the minutes of proceedings. How would the House of Commons treat a suggestion that the House of Lords should have any control over the payment of the House of Commons clerks?
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 191; Noes 130; Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 160.)
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had now to move an Amendment at the end in reference to the salary of the Chief Constable. He would not labour the point, but simply say the position he took up was that all the salaries payable out of the County rates should be determined by the County Council.
      Amendment proposed in page 4, line 2, after the word "justices," to insert the words "and the determination of the salary of the Chief Constable."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. CONYBEARE, in reference to what had been said, that appointment and removal necessarily included the
      496
      determination of salary, said it would be in the recollection of the Committee that the Government last year made an appointment to a particular office without determining any salary at all. The late Colonel King-Harman was appointed without any salary, and there was a precedent then for considering separately from the question of appointment, the question of determining salary.
      MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he understood the argument against this proposal to be that those who had appointment and control should have the fixing of the salary. But if that were allowed, it would be the Justices not the joint committee who would fix the salary of the Chief Constable? But he asked, how was it proposed to fix the salary? The argument for the Amendment was simply that those who raised the rates should have the spending of them. That was the whole point and merit of the Bill, that it put the raising and spending of the rates in representative hands. Apart altogether from the vexed question of the control of the police, this question of determining salary should be placed in the hands of the elective Council.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, it might or might not be right to give to Quarter Sessions the appointment of Chief Constable, that was a matter not now under discussion; but it was the proposal of the Government in the Bill, and the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman meant that the Body that was to have tho appointment of the Chief Constable was to have no voice in the fixing of that officer's remuneration. That was a doctrine the Government did not assent to. If it was right that the appointment should rest with Quarter Sessions, as it did, it was evident that to adopt the Amendment might load to a conflict between Quarter Sessions and the County Council, and which might result in the Council making such arrangements as would entirely defeat the object of the Bill in leaving the appointment of Chief Constable with the Quarter Sessions. He was not contending now that the appointment should remain with Quarter Sessions; that would be decided presently. All he said was that was the arrangement in the Bill, and he could not consent to taking from the Body

      497
      having the appointment all voice in fixing the salary.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed altogether oblivious of a fact that should be familiar to his Parliamentary and official experience. The House of Commons did not appoint civil servants or officers in the Army and Navy, yet the House of Commons determined what pay they should receive. He urged that in these financial matters, the County Council should be supreme. The representative body ought to have the right of determining the salaries to be paid from the county rates, and on that he should divide.
      MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, he might remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) that all the occupants of the Government Bench received such remuneration as it pleased the House to vote, but only two official appointments were vested in the House—that of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker; all the other appointments were not in the hands of the House, though the House fixed the salaries. There could not be a more pertinent example opposed to the contention of the President of the Local Government Board.
      MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, that was an argument that cut away the ground from the right hon. Gentleman's position. The representatives of those who raised the rates should have control of expenditure, and that was the principle that in the end must be recognized.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 161: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 161.)
      MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, the clause as it now stood provided that among the powers of the County Councils there should be the determination of the coroner's salary, and the division of the county into coroners' districts. His Amendment provided that the County Council should also have "the assignment of such districts."
      Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 6, after the word "district," insert the words "and the assignment of such districts."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 9, after the word "election," insert the words "the place of holding courts for the revision of the lists of voters."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      MR. BRUNNERproposed to insert, after the words just inserted, the words, "Provided that no selected Councillors shall have a veto in respect of such matters." He desired that the County Council should be, like Cæsar's wife, above suspicion. There was, unfortunately, a feeling widely prevalent that men who did not owe their position to free election by their fellows, were not so fully to be trusted in such matters as the County Councils would have to deal with, as they ought to be. Personally, he did not suppose for a moment that the selected Councillors would do anything to secure a Party triumph. He had never found amongst the Justices of Cheshire an inclination to snatch a Party advantage in the settlement of affairs; but it was simply because he desired there should be no possible suspicion that a Party advantage was attempted, that he proposed that the selected Councillors should not have a vote in respect of such matters.
      Amendment proposed, after the words last inserted, to insert the words "provided that no selected Councillors shall have a vote in respect of such matters."—(Mr. Brunner.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Government could not accept the Amendment, as it was quite impossible to put the Aldermen in an inferior position to any other members of the Council.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the right hon. Gentleman forgot that the First Lord of the Treasury had given a sort of undertaking that the question of Aldermen would be re-considered.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)begged that the hon. Gentleman would not misrepresent him. He distinctly stated, in reply to a question put to him, that they saw no reason to re-consider the question.
      MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, there was one argument which might be used

      499
      with advantage. The House of Lords stood in a similar position to the House of Commons as the selected Councillors would stand to the elected Councillors. The House of Lords were not allowed any control over the money of the State. He thought the same principle might with advantage be followed in the case of selected and elected Councillors.
      Question put, and negatived.
      MR. C. HALLsaid, the object of the Amendment which stood in his name was simply to enable the County Council to take advantage of the Local Stamp Act, if they should think fit. By that Act the Justices had the power to receive the fees for contentious and non-contentious business under the Local Stamp Act if they thought fit, and a great many Justices had taken advantage of that Act, and now did their work entirely by means of stamps. If this Amendment were carried, it would be open to the County Council to adopt the Act, and so be able to carry on their business in the same way as tho Justices had done.
      Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 14, after the word "meters," to insert the words "and of the Local Stamp Act."—(Mr. C. Hall.)
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      MR. FIRTHsaid, he would like to know whether this sub-section was intended to apply to London, and whether it was proposed to consider all the propositions affecting London separately.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that all these clauses applied to County Councils set up, and in that case applied to London. But it was quite open for them when they came to London, to consider the peculiar circumstances of London, and make special provisions.
      MR. BRUNNERproposed an Amendment, to leave out the words from "the confirmation" in line 23, to "and ten" in line 26. It seemed to him that the County Council was entirely unfitted to deal with the rules of loan societies. Loan societies were by no means confined to counties. He knew loan societies whose action extended over the whole country, and, therefore, he hoped that the words he proposed to omit would not be allowed to remain in the Bill.
      Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 23, to leave out the words from "the confirmation" to the words "and ten" in line 26, inclusive.—(Mr. Brunner.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not see any reason why these duties should be withdrawn from the County Council, who he thought would be quite able to undertake them.
      MR. BRUNNERasked, to whom was the confirmation of loan societies' rules to be left. Loan societies had offices in many counties, and how was it to be decided which County Council should confirm the rules? He thought the matter had better be left as it was, or that the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether he had better not take it out of the hands of the Quarter Sessions and keep it in his own hands.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that that was a separate matter. This seemed to him one of those administrative matters which ought to be transferred to the County Council.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      MR. FIRTHsaid, that they had now reached Sub-section XVI., would the right hon. Gentleman tell them what the sub-section referred to?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that until they progressed with the Bill and absolutely resolved what business should be transferred, it was impossible to say what the sub-section referred to.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that they were asked, in fact, to give the Government a blank cheque. He understood that his Amendment, which came next, the Chairman had ruled out of Order. He presumed that most of the Amendments which stood in his name, followed the ruling on Amendment No. 15, earlier in the evening; but what he wished to ask, as a matter of Order, was whether it was possible to move a distinct addition to the clause, to the effect that powers other than those enumerated in the clause should be vested in the County Council. As a matter of fact, there was no Sub-section (2). What he proposed was that there should be a Sub-section (2). His Amendment was that "the County Council shall also have powers to deal with the following matters,

      501
      namely," and then followed a list of duties. He submitted that the Amendment could scarcely be ruled out of Order on the ground that the powers enumerated were new powers, that not being powers belonging to the Quarter Sessions they could not be transferred. That might not be the proper place to insert the Amendment; but he submitted that the Amendment was really a substantial Amendment, by which it was proposed to extend the clause by the addition of a fresh sub-section containing further new powers which he desired to see added to the powers of the County Council.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had not in the least limited the power to endow the Council with powers. What he had said was that this Amendment could not be moved upon this clause, as this clause dealt only with the transference of powers.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he did not want to argue the case. He wished it to be perfectly clear that as he read the clause the 1st sub-section referred to the transference of powers, and he desired to add a sub-section giving the County Council additional powers.
      MR. FIRTHasked, if it would not be possible to add at the end of the clause words providing that there should also be given to the County Council certain powers enumerated?
      THE CHAIRMAN: No; it would be quite inconsistent with the practice.
      MR. CONYBEARE: I will move the Amendment later on.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 4, at end to add the following subsection:—(xvii.) "There shall also be transferred to the county council all powers now vested in the court of quarter sessions, or any committee of justices, to acquire or provide shire halls, county halls, lunatic asylums, judges' lodgings, assize courts, lock up houses, court houses, justices' rooms, police stations, or other county buildings or works.—(Baron Dimsdale.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could assure his hon. Friend that what he desired was fully provided for by Sub-sections 4 and 7 of this clause. The hon. Gentleman was afraid that the powers transferred would not enable the County Council to erect the various buildings which he specified in his Amendment. There could be no question about the
      502
      fact that the Quarter Sessions had power at present to erect buildings, and it was perfectly clear that the powers of the Quarter Sessions with reference to buildings would be transferred by the clause to the County Council.
      BARON DIMSDALEsaid, that all he wanted to do was to make it clear that the County Council would have the power to provide the buildings required.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he dissented from the interpretation the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) had put on this clause. At the commencement of the discussion on the clause, he called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the slipshod manner in which the clause was drawn, and further consideration of the clause confirmed him in his opinion. With all respect to the President of the Local Government Board, he ventured to say there was a question as to whether the powers of Quarter Sessions in respect to shire halls and so forth were transferred to the County Councils. Surely it would be better to put the matter beyond all doubt. The right hon. Gentleman said he meant the County Council to have these powers. There was a doubt in the matter, then why reject this Amendment?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman drew his attention to the language of the clause a few days ago, and he undertook that, before Report, the language of which he complained should be reconsidered. He agreed that, if necessary, an Amendment should be placed on the Paper dealing with the matter. It seemed to him that having, in the sub-section, dealt with all the questions of buildings, it would be inconvenient to put in another sub-section dealing with similar matters. It was in the first words of the clause that an Amendment was required, if it was required at all, and he had undertaken that the matter should be considered.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, that a short time ago the First Lord of the Treasury made a statement with reference to the appointment of Aldermen and the period for which Councillors should be elected.

      503
      He (Mr. Stansfeld) was not in the House at the time the right hon. Gentleman made that statement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) was present; but he was not sure he had a correct impression of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. W. H. Smith's) undertaking.
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that what he had undertaken with regard to a former clause was, to consider whether the length of the tenure of office of the members of the County Council should be three years or six years, one-third of the number retiring, in the latter case, every two years. He had not, however, undertaken to re-consider the question of the appointment of Aldermen.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERthought there was some slight misapprehension. If he recollected aright, he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) got up and said it was a part of his proposal that the question of the Aldermen should be reconsidered. The Committee had already decided that there should be Aldermen. Then they negatived the election for six years, and decided that the elections should be triennial. Thereupon, he suggested that they might get rid of the Aldermen, and make the election of Councillors extend over a longer period. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not misrepresent any understanding he had ever given. He understood the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the whole question.
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had not the slightest fault to find with the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought it would be in the right hon. Gentleman's recollection that he (Mr. W. H. Smith) distinctly stated that he could not undertake to enter into any engagement to reconsider the question of the appointment of Aldermen.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to enter into any undertaking. It was entirely a matter for reconsideration.
      MR. DIXONsaid, he was in the House at the time, and he entirely agreed with the interpretation which had been placed by the First Lord of the Treasury upon the undertaking he had given, and that it did not apply to Aldermen.
      MR. BRUNNERsaid, he desired again to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, whether he would not, in some part of the Bill, insert words which would be an encouragement to County Councils to appoint bankers as their treasurers. Bankers did their work as treasurers of Local Authorities extremely well, and they did it without salary. It seemed to him that there were excellent reasons for offering encouragement to County Councils to appoint bankers as their treasurers. The County Treasurer of Cheshire received £400 a-year. To his (Mr. Brunner's) mind, the work would be done very much better by a bank, and without any payment at all. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give him some assurance he would consider the matter in a favourable spirit; otherwise he would feel bound to frame some words to carry out what he wished.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman the Government would give full consideration to any Amendment he might prepare, but the matter he had now raised was not at all germane to the present clause. Personally, he felt reluctant to impose any restrictions in the matter.
      MR. BRUNNERsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he did not go beyond encouragement.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause 4 (Transfer to County Council of certain powers of Justices out of Session).
      MR. STANSFELDbegged to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Woodall).
      Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 32, after the words "stage plays," to insert the words "elsewhere than within boroughs."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr.RITCHIE)said, he must ask the Committee not to assent to this Amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman knew boroughs were of all sorts and sizes. All boroughs with over 50,000 inhabitants were to be

      505
      created counties in themselves for the purposes of the Bill. There were a large number of urban districts which were larger than some boroughs; and it was quite clear that if the Amendment were carried, they would have some right to feel aggrieved. It must be borne in mind that full power was to be given to the County Council to delegate any powers of this kind to the District Councils, and he had no doubt that the County Councils would largely avail themselves of the power where the boroughs were of sufficient importance.
      MR. FIRTHsaid, he must suppose the President of the Local Government Board intended the clause as it stood to apply to London. There was a new clause on the Paper which would take the power away, and he desired to understand clearly that that power would not be taken away. He was in favour of the clause as it stood. This was a very serious change in so far as it affected London. It was a change which was wanted, and the representatives of London quite approved of it. The Government had dropped so many things that one would like to know if they proposed to drop this.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, that by the Bill, as it at present stood, these powers would be conferred on the County Council of London.
      MR. HALLEY STEWARTasked if the Government would accept the suggestion that boroughs of a certain size should have these powers. He understood the right hon. Gentleman objected mainly to the power being conferred on small boroughs, say, of 500 or 600 or 700 inhabitants. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He knew there were some ancient boroughs with fewer than 1,000 inhabitants. Would the President of the Local Government Board consent that boroughs with 5,000 inhabitants at the last Census should have these powers?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not think they ought to be asked to go further than they had gone in the Bill. The Bill gave to the County Councils full power of delegation, and the Government had every confidence that the Body they were creating would take into consideration ail the circumstances of the various districts, and judge for themselves as to the districts which
      506
      might properly be entrusted with these powers.
      MR. STANSFELDasked permission to withdraw the Amendment.
      MR. BRUNNERsaid, he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should give this power to the County Council if he hoped that they would not use it, but give it to the District Councils. It was a pity not to give the power to the District Councils direct.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      BARON DIAISDALEmove to insert after the word "plays," in line 32, the words "other than licences for the performance of stage plays by travelling troupes." It was unreasonable to suppose that the County Council, or even a Committee of the Council, should assemble when a troupe coming into a town wanted a licence. Considering the difficulties in the case, it would be as well to reserve the power of granting such licences to the magistrates. The magistrates were always at hand, and could be got together to grant any licence of the kind.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 4, line 32, after the word "plays," to insert the words "other than licences for the performance of stage plays by travelling troupes."—(Baron Dinisdale.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought it would be advisable to leave the clause as it stood. His hon. Friend was probably aware that it was usually the buildings in which travelling troupes performed which were licensed, and not the troupes themselves. This was just one of those matters which ought to be dealt with by the County Council. That Body could, of course, delegate the power to the Justices if they liked, or to the District Councils. He felt perfectly certain they could rely on County Councils taking measures to prevent any inconvenience arising in reference to such matters.
      MR. BRUNNERbegged the right hon. Gentleman to leave this power where it was now—in the hands of the Justices. The right hon. Gentleman thought the County Council would be discreet enough to hand the power to the District Council. Why not leave it where it was? The present system was

      507
      extremely convenient. The people could go now to the Justices without trouble; whereas if the County Council did not go through the right about face which the right hon. Gentleman expected they would, the people who wanted a licence must go to the county town for it.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 5 (Reservation of business to quarter sessions).
      On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 36, leave out from "inoculation" to "rate or," in line 37.
      On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 38, after "Persons," to insert "against the basis or standard for the county rate, or."
      MR. ROUNDasked, if the preparation for the basis of the county rate would now be in the hands of the County Council?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): Certainly.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that as the right hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) was not present, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in the hon. Gentleman's name—namely, to insert after "All," in line 40, the word "judicial." The clause would then read—"All judicial business of the quarter sessions not transferred by this Act," and so on. He took it that the intention of the Government was that all the business of the Quarter Sessions, except judicial business, was to be transferred to the County Council. If that were the intention of the Government, they had better say so.
      Amendment proposed, in pago 4, line 40, after the word "all," to insert the word "judicial."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'judicial' be there inserted."
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not think it would be well to agree to the Amendment. The insertion of the word would hamper them very materially.
      Question put, and negatived.
      MR. ANDERSONbegged to move as an Amendment, to insert after "business," in line 40, the words "other than judicial business."
      THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman is out of Order. Any dealing with judicial business is entirely outside the scope of the Bill; that was ruled to be the case on the question of the Instructions to the Committee.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, line 2, at the end of the clause, to add the words, "Save as aforesaid all the business of Quarter Sessions shall be transferred to the County Council."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)said, he was afraid the Government could not accept this Amendment. The point had already been decided, or, at all events, considered in connection with another Amendment.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, he failed to see the objection to the Amendment. The words it was proposed to insert were—"Save as aforesaid all the business of Quarter Sessions shall be transferred to the County Council." The Amendment appeared to him to be entirely consistent with what they had done.
      SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, the insertion of those words might lead to great difficulty. At present the Quarter Sessions did certain business. It was proposd to transfer to the County Councils a certain portion of that business; the rest was to be left to the Quarter Sessions. It would not then be proper to put in general words, such as—"Save as aforesaid all the business of Quarter Session shall be transferred to the County Council." All business not transferred would remain with the Quarter Sessions. It would lead to great misunderstanding if they added the general words suggested.
      MR. ANDERSONsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General on the point. As he understood the matter, the object of the Bill was to transfer to the County Councils the county business which was not specially dealt with in the Bill. The Amendment was perfectly clear. It

      509
      was—"Save as aforesaid all the business of Quarter Sessions shall be transferred to the County Council." He thought the hon. and learned Attornoy General must have many instances in his mind in which it had been found exceedingly convenient to have general words of this kind. A general provision of the kind very often removed great difficulty, because if they did not have general words like those, they might have litigation as to whether particular powers had been transferred. He could see in the future litigation under the Bill, unless some such words as these were inserted.
      SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that a few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) moved, in the absence of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) to put in the word "judicial." If that word had been inserted the clause would have read—"All judicial business of the Quarter Sessions not transferred by this Act to the County Council shall be reserved to and transacted by the Quarter Sessions," and then this Proviso would have come in, "save, as aforesaid, all the business of Quarter Sessions shall be transferred to the County Council." The Committee negatived the proposal to insert the word "judicial," and, therefore, the clause stood "all business of the Quarter Sessions not transferred by this Act to the County Council, shall be reserved to and transacted by the Quarter Sessions." It would be quite wrong to put after those words a saving clause, which was only applicable if they had inserted the word "judicial."
      MR. ANDERSONsaid, that in that case he did not understand the ruling of the Chair, that the word "judicial" was outside the scope of the Bill. If that ruling was correct, the point taken by the hon. and learned Attorney General could not arise.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, that his ruling was that any attempt to deal with the judicial business of the Quarter Sessions would be outside the scope of the Bill. The insertion of the word "judicial," after all, would not have dealt with that judicial business; it would simply have left the matter where it was.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 165: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 162.)
      Question, "That Clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
      Clause 6 (Powers of quarter sessions as to visiting lunatic asylums).
      MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to this clause which he would briefly explain to the Committee. The object of the clause was to introduce the magisterial element into the visitation and overlooking of lunatic asylums. Well, the way in which this was provided for in the clause seemed likely to create friction, because it was suggested that the Court of Quarter Sessions should appoint a committee that should have certain powers in the matter so far as visiting and making remarks in the visitors' book, going over the asylums, and so forth; in fact, superintending the work that was entrusted to the County Council. That might—he did not say it would, but it might—lead to friction between the two Bodies—namely, the committee of the county magistrates, and the committee of the County Council. The County Council committee, it must be remembered, would, in all probability, have on it members of the magisterial Body. In all probability that committee would not be composed entirely of Councillors outside the Justices of the Peace, and magistrates would probably be placed on that committee. The magistrates might go on it as elected Councillors, or selected Councillors, and most probably would be represented in one way or the other on these asylum committees of the County Council. Well, it would be unwise to start a new committee in a county drawn largely from the same class as those who already formed the committee for the purpose of watching its operations. He felt strongly, at the same time, that the more lunatic asylums wore visited by people of respectability and authority the better, and, therefore, he would extend the power of inspecting them, and he would offer opportunities for as many surprise visits as possible, while avoiding the

      511
      inconvenience which must arise from a dual control. At present all the Guardians had a right to visit every patient who might be in a lunatic asylum coming from their own Union. Well, it seemed to him (Mr. Stanley Leighton) desirable to leave that power as it stood, and taking that as a precedent that they should give the Justices the power of visiting lunatic asylums in regard to anyone who might be in them from their own Petty Sessional Division. In many cases it would be remembered the magistrates were called upon to sign the certificate before a lunatic was sent to the asylum, and the consequence was that in many cases the magistrates would have already seen the lunatic, and would have signed the order for his committal or reception in the asylum; therefore, it appeared to him, that in order to avoid friction, and at the same time to secure the advantage, so far as possible, of public inspection to persons placed in lunatic asylums, they should accept the principle of the clause while they altered the form of it in the manner he suggested. He did not think the form in which his Amendment stood upon the Paper was quite correct. It required a little alteration, and, if the Government would accept it, he would modify it so that it would run in this way—
      "Every Justice of the Peace of any county shall have the same Power of visiting patients from his Petty Sessional Division as Members of Boards of Guardians have at the present time of visiting patients from their own Unions."
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 3, to leave out the words "The Quarter Sessions," in order to insert the words "Every Justice of the Peace."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr.RITCHIE)said, he was afraid the Government could not accept this Amendment. The hon. Member seemed to think, that if the Justices in Quarter Sessions appointed a Committee for the purpose of visiting those asylums it would lead to friction; but the hon. Member had failed to show why it would lead to friction, and he failed to show that this proposal
      512
      to enable every magistrate to visit an asylum in the county would lead to less friction. It seemed to him (Mr. Ritchie) that the proposal of the hon. Member would be extremely likely to lead to friction, if every magistrate in a county had a right to enter the lunatic asylums at any time he pleased. He thought the proposal in the Bill was a good one, because it was advisable that a judicial Body like the Quarter Sessions, which was a judicial Body, should have some power of visiting asylums with the view of seeing whether abuses of any kind existed, and if they thought circumstances necessitated it, have the power of recording their opinion as to the state of things there existing. That seemed to him a very desirable power to maintain in the hands of the magistrates, and therefore the Government had provided that it should be so retained, but they certainly thought that it would be very inadvisable to allow every magistrate as an individual, and not as a member of a committee, to visit asylums. The analogy of the Guardians mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was not exactly in point, because it seemed to him that the Boards of Guardians had a locus standi to visit in the asylums those paupers who were supported by the Unions of which they were Guardians. That argument would not apply to magistrates in every part of the county. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member would not think it necessary to press the Amendment.
      MR. WADDYsaid, that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stanley Leighton) was literally a single Motion, but, in reality, it would take a double form. The hon. Member proposed to leave out the words "The Quarter Sessions," in order to insert the words "Every Justice of the Peace," so as to enable him later on to move other words to the effect he had explained. He (Mr. Waddy) should like to see the words "The Quarter Sessions" left out, and he would support the hon. Member in that proposal; but those words were not sufficient to leave out. Many hon. Members would agree with him (Mr. Waddy) that it would be desirable to leave out the words "The Quarter Sessions of any county," in order to insert the words "The County Council," and then the clause would read—

      513
      "The County Council may from time to time appoint a Committee of their number, not exceeding 10, for the purpose of the visitation of the pauper lunatic asylums of the county;"
      and so on. He (Mr. Waddy) simply desired to indicate what he thought desirable, and did not move these words in any way as an Amendment. He would ask the Chairman his view of the matter as to whether the proper Motion would not be to leave out the words he had referred to instead of merely "The Quarter Sessions," so that he would be in a position to make his proposal if the hon. Member's Amendment were either abandoned or rejected.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member seems to be unaware that Sub-section 7 of Clause 3 is a provision giving County Councils power over the enlargement, management and visitation of asylums for pauper lunatics.
      MR. WADDYsaid, he was aware of that sub-section, but did not know that it would give to the County Council the same powers as they might have under Clause 6.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, as it was clear these asylums were transferred to the government of the County Council, it would be quite within the powers of the County Council to appoint a committee for the purpose of visiting such institutions.
      MR. WADDYsaid, that if that were so he would submit that nothing could be more absurd, even under the present Government, than to propose that there should be dual control of these asylums. They would have two Bodies to do the same thing. If the two Bodies were not to do the same thing, then, so far as one of them was concerned, the proposal would be a nuisance. If the work to be done under Clause 6 was the same as was proposed to be done under Sub-section 7 of Clause 3 it was an absurdity, and if not they ought to have a clear definition of the work to be done respectively by the one visiting Body and the other.
      SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid, he rose to support his hon. Friend in this Amendment. The Court of Quarter Sessions in his county held a very strong opinion as to the inexpediency of this particular clause, on the special grounds which had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government
      514
      Board—namely, that it would prove a great cause of friction in a county. This clause was put in on the analogy to the case of visitation of the county gaols—to enable the Quarter Sessions to appoint a Body for the purpose of visitation. But it should be remembered that the circumstances were different. In the case of the gaols the magistrates were an outside Body who had to inspect what the Government were doing inside, while, in the present case, the circumstances were quite different. He thought the clause was useless in the form in which it stood in the Bill, and he would himself propose, with the full approval of the Justices of his own county and of many other Courts of Quarter Sessions, to omit the whole section. However, pending the putting of the clause as a whole, he approved of the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Stanley Leighton). They were about to take a very important step in the administration of their county lunatic asylums. They were going to hand over to a Body, practically a changing one, on which there would, perhaps, be no experts in the management of lunatic asylums, the management of such asylums. This Body would be elected for triennial periods, and on it the welfare and happiness of so many unhappy creatures would depend. Now, supposing the committee of visitors of the County Lunatic Asylums had nothing to do but visit them, not so much would need to be said about the matter, but those were not their functions at all. It was quite a mistake to describe the visiting committee of a county lunatic asylum as a purely visiting committee. It was not a visiting committee at all; the committee were the actual managers of the asylum, and though they were appointed annually by the Court of Quarter Sessions in the month of January, yet he thought that any Court of Quarter Sessions would subject itself to serious censure indeed which ventured to change the Committee of Visitors in January and replace them by an entirely fresh Body. And yet that was what the Bill proposed to do. As to the magistrates themselves, they were to be congratulated upon the fact that they were to be released from the business of managing lunatic asylums. There could be no task more unpleasant, and more distasteful to perform, than that of visiting lunatic asylums. The

      515
      Visiting Committees had been gradually built up from the large Body of magisstrates of the country. They had grown up by slow degrees, and had become familiar with the working of these institutions—in fact, they had become what might be called experts. In his recollection, which went back for a good many years in this matter, lie had never known a chairman of the Visiting Committee of his county who would not have been able, if necessary, to go into the asylum and take entire charge of it if anything went wrong. How could the Government hope to establish committees of that kind if the committees were to be appointed triennially? Perhaps he was rather digressing from the particular subject of this Amendment, but he considered this matter so important that it was necessary the Committee should be fully acquainted with the whole nature of the case, and, as a matter of fact, he did not think it had fully appreciated the subject. The visitation of lunatic asylums was undoubtedly one of the most important functions that the Court of Quarter Sessions had to perform, and it would be one of the most important functions that the County Council would have to perform in the future. The House, therefore, was bound seriously to consider the importance of what it was doing by transferring this work from a Body of experts to this which was not an expert Body. Let them take, for instance, the appointment of a medical officer to one of those establishments. From time to time a number of juniors came before the Visiting Committee, who had to discharge the duty of selecting a fit person for the post of medical officer, and unless the committee had a knowledge—
      MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, he desired to ask the Chairman, whether the question the hon. Baronet was dealing with had not really been disposed of under Sub-section 7 of Clause 3?
      THE CHAIRMAN: The question of the management of lunatic asylums from the Quarter Sessions to the County Councils has already been disposed of. All that can be discussed here is the question of the appointment of a committee of the Quarter Sessions for the purpose of inspecting the asylums, and even that could not be discussed as a
      516
      whole, but only in so far as the particular Amendment before the Committee was concerned.
      SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid, he would not resume the kind of argument he was pursuing as to the importance of the duties that had to be performed by the Visiting Committees. He would merely now say that he entirely concurred with the Amendment which had been proposed, and disagreed with the theory of Clause 6 under which they would be setting up a committee of Quarter Sessions to criticize and inspect the manner in which their successors in the management of the lunatic asylums discharged their functions. He did not think the plan proposed by the clause would work happily at all. He did not think, however, that the interference of the magistrates, which would be involved in the acceptance of this Amendment, in the asylums under the management of the committee would be objectionable, because the magistrates would be limited to visiting patients who had come from their own particular neighbourhood, and whom they would desire to see. Notwithstanding all that had been said against the magistrates in the course of this discussion, the poor naturally turned to the Justices in their own neighbourhood in order to see that things went right. Only that morning he had seen a poor woman who had looked to him as mediator between her and her husband, who was, unfortunately, confined in one of these establishments. He was the frequent means of telling the woman how her husband was getting on. If the magistrates were divorced from this position they would not be conferring a boon upon the poor people of the counties, but on the contrary, would be doing them an injury. He, therefore, supported tho Amendment.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, it seemed to him that a good deal of the speech of the hon. Baronet was really a strong argument in support of this clause. He desired, however, to call attention to a remark made by the hon. and learned Member for the Brigg Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Waddy), who seemed to have lost sight of the object of these two clauses—Clause 3 and Clause 6. It had already been pointed out that Sub-section 7 of Clause 3 conferred the power of visitation upon

      517
      the County Councils. It, undoubtedly, gave the County Council power to appoint a committee to discharge certain functions in connection with asylums, but Clause 6 was to give the Quarter Sessions a power to appoint a committee to visit the asylums, and to enter in the visitors' book the result of their inspection as if they were members of the committee of visitors of the asylum. The object of the Amendment was to provide that the magistrates should have power to visit only those persons in the asylums who came from their own districts. The hon. Member (Mr. Stanley Leighton) in the Amendment recognized the desirability of allowing the Justices to visit in certain cases people put under restraint in these asylums. When it was admitted that it was desirable that there should be this class of inspection referred to by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, it certainly seemed to him (Sir Richard Webster) that there could be no reason for suddenly saying that the Quarter Sessions should not have the slightest influence or control over, or even power, of inspecting lunatic asylums. The hon. and learned Member for the Brigg Division (Mr. Waddy) had said, that either one Body would do something, and the other do nothing, or that both would do nothing, or that each of them would be a nuisance to the other. He (Sir Richard Webster) failed to see how it could be said that both Bodies would do nothing. They both would have power to visit—and here he would point out that this was only after all an optional clause; it was to provide that "the Quarter Sessions of any county may from time to time appoint a committee of their number," &c. It was considered further a most desirable thing to give the magistrates, who had great experience in matters of lunacy, power to see the functions granted under the Bill properly carried out. He did not see, merely because a new power was to be established, why the magistrates should not be able to see that the lunatics were properly cared for. If it were the fact, as was alleged in some quarters, that they could not transfer the power of managing a lunatic asylum to a worse Body than the County Council, there was all the more reason why they should have a Body of experience to
      518
      discharge the function of visitation, at any rate, for some time.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the answer to the remarks and arguments of those who opposed the Amendment was this, that, at any rate, a great number of those magistrates who were such excellent authorities on lunacy matters would be on the County Councils. Surely, the Government had expressed all through, by various arguments and limitations and restrictions and dodges of other kinds, sufficient distrust of the authorities they were constituting under the name of County Councils. They on that (the Opposition) side of the House had been implored by the Government day after day not to show their distrust of these worthy men, men of honour and virtue and respectability—these magistrates who had conducted themselves so well in the past—by suggesting that they could not do this, that they could not do that, and mainintained that this power and that that power should be left to them. He thought they had a right now to appeal to the Government to show some confidence in the new authorities they were setting up, the County Councils, and this appeal appeared to him to be all the more reasonable on the present occasion, because, presumably owing to the arrangements they had adopted in the course of this Bill, some at any rate of these magistrates would find places, if not as elected Councillors, at any rate as nominated Aldermen on the County Councils. That being so, nothing would be easier than for those who had this great experience in the treatment of lunatics to be appointed on the committees which the Councils would have the power, according to the Government, of appointing for the visitation of asylums. Surely they rely sufficiently upon the common sense of their countrymen to rest satisfied that the Councils would appoint upon these committees those members who were known as best qualified, by experience and so on, to deal with these asylums. He had sufficient confidence in the Councils to believe that they would not go and form these committees out of the least experienced and most unworthy members of their body, but that they would be careful to select those who had the most experience, and who, under the old

      519
      system of things, would have had the direct control and visitation of lunatic asylums. Another point which had been urged by the hon. Baronet the Member for Tewkesbury (Sir John Dorington) was, that the elected Council would be a most improper Body to have the control of this matter, of visiting lunatic asylums, because, as he said, that Body would be elected for three years. But there the hon. Baronet was wrong; such was not the scheme of the Government. The scheme of the Government was to have elections only every six years. If he was not misrepresenting the First Lord of the Treasury, according to that right hon. Gentleman's statement there wore to be a large number of nominated Aldermen, and, that being the case, it must be evident that the Council would not be a Council consisting of men here to-day and gone to-morrow. They would have Councils who would enjoy their functions for at any rate six years, and would contain a great many men who were nominated Aldermen, and whose positions were thereby assured. He would point to what had been the experience of Town Councils in this matter, when they were told that Members had been returned over and over again by the same constituencies for years and years. The right hon. Gentleman who usually sat with them below the Gangway was returned Mayor for Birmingham for six years, and it was said that he and some members of his family were still on the Birmingham Corporation. [Cries of "Question!"] This was the question, because it was contended by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Dorington) that these new Councils would be transient Bodies.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member's remarks were of a general character, dealing with the clause as a whole. It would be convenient if the hon. Member would confine himself to the special Amendment.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the special Amendment was to leave out the words, "The Quarter Sessions." He was meeting, or endeavouring to meet, arguments from the other side, but did not wish needlessly to trouble the Committee. It would be observed that the next Amendment on the Paper was one which had been already referred to by the hon. and learned Member for the Brigg Division
      520
      of Lincolnshire (Mr. Waddy)—namely, to insert "County Council" in place of the words "The Quarter Sessions of any county," and he (Mr. Conybeare) should like, with the permission of the Chairman, as it had been referred to, and as it might arise again, to say what would be the best course for him to adopt. He agreed entirely with the hon. Baronet opposite that the best course would be to leave out the clause altogether. It was intended to ask permission to substitute the words "County Council" for the words "The Quarter Sessions in any county," but he (Mr. Conybeare) thought, owing to the discussion which had already taken place, that probably the best course would be for him not to move the Amendment which stood in his name, which was, after the word "county" to insert the words "and the County Council," but when the time came, and the Question to add Clause 6 to the Bill was put, to follow the lead of the hon. Member for the Launceston Division of Cornwall (Mr. C. T. Dyke Acland) and vote against the addition of the clause altogether.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he should like to say one or two words on what really was a most important question. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board really appreciated how important this question was. The Government had decided to transfer to the County Councils the entire management of the lunatic asylums of the county; but it was now proposed that they should appoint a committee of the Quarter Sessions to visit the asylums whenever they pleased. Now, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) looked upon it in this light, that if the County Council was a fit and proper Body to have the management of lunatic asylums, they ought to have such management. He would put a parallel case, drawn from the experience of business men in this House, in order to bring the case fairly before the minds of hon. Members. Supposing a Member of this House had deposed a man from the function of managing his property or business, and had put another person in his place, would it be considered a proper thing to appoint the man so deposed to look after the man who had been appointed in his place? He was putting the case as

      521
      plainly as he could. He did not think there was any use or any necessity for appointing this double committee. As he had said, if the County Councils were to be trusted, it was no business of theirs to look after them. But there was a great deal to be said on the remark the hon. Baronet for the Tewkesbury Division of Gloucester (Sir John Dorington) had made with regard to individual magistrates inspecting those persons who were sent from their own particular Unions, and the certificate of whose detention they themselves might have had to sign. Individual magistrates might with advantage have conferred on them the right of going to the asylums in order to see that such persons received the treatment they deserved. That was a totally different matter altogether, and, therefore, whilst he did not approve of the clause as it stood, he thought there could be no objection to magistrates having the power to go to lunatic asylums in order to see certain individuals, and to ascertain for themselves whether or not they were receiving the sort of treatment they ought to receive.
      MR. BROADHURSTsaid, it was refreshing to the Committee to hear the hon. Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) and he (Mr. Broadhurst) was sure they were all deeply indebted to him for giving them a straightforward opinion from his side of the House as to the value of the County Councils and the concession proposed to be made to the magistrates in this clause. What they had anxiously listened for from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) was some statement as to the necessity for this clause at all. After they had passed Sub-section 7 of Clause 3, Clause 6, which was now occupying the time of the Committee, was not necessary, and he thought the Government would facilitate the progress of Business if they were to at once withdraw it. It was very interesting to hear from hon. Members opposite that they had no faith in County Councils, that they did not believe in elected Bodies, and that they did not think the County Council capable of discharging the duty of the visitation of pauper lunatic asylums. Surely that was an extraordinary opinion; but the Com-
      522
      mittee knew that it had now got an honest expression of the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter. He quite agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex that this clause was useless, and he was further of opinion that it was only retained as a sort of sop to the disestablished authorities in the county. To prevent confusion in the administration of an Act, if it ever became an Act, which they were not quite certain of yet, this clause should be removed from the Bill altogether. The Government ought to say what they meant. Let them say boldly that the county magistrates were in future to have no authority in this matter.
      MR. COMMINSsaid, that instead of removing the Clause from the Bill altogether, he thought an Amendment could be adopted which would make it a very good provision. He quite agreed with the arguments of the hon. Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that the appointment of a committee of the Court of Quarter Sessions would be really of no advantage whatever. The Court of Quarter Sessions, as they knew, consisted of many dozens of individuals who had the management of these asylums in their hands. If the management was taken out of their hands, he thought that, to give them the appointment of a committee to look after the thing afterwards, would be neither a blessing to them nor to anyone in the asylums. As was well known, lunatic asylums were places where persons were confined away from the eye of the public—where observation did not penetrate—and that, therefore, it was essential to appoint authorities outside to look after and inpect them. Every magistrate should have power to go into a lunatic asylum, and make an examination there of those persons who had been sent in from his own district, and whom he knew. The magistrate had now far more important powers than that. He could sign certificates sending people to these asylums. Why, then, should he not be able to follow them to the asylums, and see that they were properly treated there? He (Mr. Commies) could not see any objection to allowing the magistrate to go to the asylum; he could not see the inability of the magistrate to judge of the manner in which these people were treated. If

      523
      he was unable to form such judgment, he should not have power to send people to the asylums. As, however, a magistrate was a man who was likely to be interested in lunatics receiving proper treatment, and as, in all probability, by a person who would be acquainted with the friends of the patients, and who had known the patients when sane, for these and for a variety of reasons magistrates who might feel, and justly feel, towards lunatics a certain amount of interest, ought to have power to visit the asylums whenever they thought fit. It would be an advantage, it seemed to him (Mr. Commins), to alter the clause so as to enable magistrates to visit asylums in this way. The privilege would not be thrown away, as magistrates were likely to have a great deal of time on their hands now that they had been disestablished and had had a great many of their present magisterial functions taken from them.
      MR. NORRISsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was aware of the resolution come to on this subject by the Middlesex magistrates. Their resolution, in effect, was that the clause which enabled the Quarter Sessions to visit lunatic asylums should be expunged from the Bill, inasmuch as the asylums would be under the jurisdiction of the County Councils, and the Visiting Justices would have no such control. He (Mr. Norris) cordially assented to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member (Mr. Stanley Leighton), because he felt it was good that these asylums should be visited from time to time, and that too strict a watch could not be kept upon them. He did not, however, see the necessity for the nomination of two committees.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, it would appear from the discussion which had taken place that this Clause 6 had no friends. The Government had inserted it in the Bill because they thought it extremely desirable that the magistrates, who had the power of making orders by which individuals were placed in these asylums, should also have some responsibility attaching to them, by means of visitation, of seeing that the patients were properly cared for, and were not detained any longer than it was right they should be detained. However, it seemed
      524
      that the clause was not acceptable to the gentlemen who had hitherto performed the duties that they proposed to transfer to the County Councils. The Government, therefore, would not press it unduly upon the Committee. If the Amendment were withdrawn, they would withdraw the clause, and would consider between now and the Report stage whether it was necessary to make any further provision in the direction of this section. Probably it would not be necessary; but the matter should be considered, and, in the meantime, it would be well to withdraw the clause.
      MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman understood that it was not the Quarter Sessions that sent people to the asylums, but individual magistrates; and, therefore, it was individual magistrates, those who sent people to the lunatic asylums, who, according to the suggestion of the Amendment, were the people who ought to be allowed to visit the asylums in order to look after the patients. He trusted, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would be inclined to consider that point in his Amendment. If the Government were good enough to consider the question, he should have no desire to press the Amendment to a Division. He should be happy to withdraw the Amendment on the undertaking the right hon. Gentleman had given—namely, that the matter would be favourably considered by the Government.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
      Clause 7 (Powers as to Police).
      MR. T. E. ELLIS, in moving, in page 5, line 11, to omit the following words:—
      "Nothing in this Act shall affect the powers, duties, and liabilities of quarter sessions with respect to the appointment, control, and dismissal of chief constables, and the powers of quarter sessions under section seven of the County and Borough Police Act, 1856, to direct and require constables to perform any duties in addition to their ordinary duties, may be exercised both by quarter sessions and by the county council; but, subject as aforesaid,"
      said, he moved the Amendment for this reason that the Chief Constable was the pivot on which the whole management of the county police turned, and he thought it only natural that the authorities that had the control of the

      525
      police should also be the authorities to control the Chief Constable. He believed it to be reactionary and mischievous to exclude from the hands of the popular representatives the control of the police. The House had, however, decided that the County Council was not to have the sole control over the police; but he thought that the least that could be done would be to give the Body that did control the police also the control and dismissal of the Chief Constable. Therefore, in order that words might be inserted later on in the clause to give the control of the Chief Constable to the same Body which controlled the police, he begged to move that these words be omitted.
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 11, leave out from the word "nothing" to the word "aforesaid" in line 17, inclusive.—(Mr. T. E. Ellis).
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the proposal in the Bill was that the appointment of the Chief Constable should remain in the hands of the Quarter Sessions, and that the hon. Member wished to get rid of, his proposal being to transfer that appointment to the joint committees. Well, the proposal of the Government as to the appointment of the Chief Constable had been made in view of the fact that the Quarter Sessions of magistrates in counties were responsible for the peace of the county; and, that being so, they thought it right and proper—that responsibility being cast on their shoulders—that they should also have cast upon them the responsibility of the appointment of the executive officer over the police. He was aware that, so far as the control and administration of the police was concerned, it was proposed to vest it in a joint committee. He know also that that was a proposal objected to by many Members of the House, who thought that the entire control—not only the appointment of the Chief Constable, but the entire control of the police—should rest with the Quarter Sessions. Well, in his opinion, it was right and proper, having sot up a representative Body representing the ratepayers of the county,
      526
      that that Body should have a share with the Quarter Sessions, who had hitherto had the entire control of the administration of the police, and it was with that view that the Government had proposed this joint committee. But the responsibility for the peace of the county would continue to lie in the Quarter Sessions, and, therefore, they thought it necessary that adequate provision should be made for the proper exercise of that responsibility, and they had considered that if the appointment of the Chief Constable rested in other hands, adequate provision would not be made for the exercise of that responsibility which would be given by the proposal of the Government. Those were the reasons which guided the Government in the proposal they made in the Bill that the appointment of the Chief Constable should be with the Quarter Sessions.
      MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he thought that in this matter the Government seemed to be going from bad to worse. The control of the police was claimed, on that (the Opposition) side of the House, for the County Council; but now they learned by this clause, and by the attitude of the Government, that the control of the police was given only partly to the County Councils, and that the appointment of the Chief Constable was given wholly to the magistrates in Quarter Sessions. Now, he would venture to say that, under these circumstances, the control which was to be given to the joint committees over the police was a pure pretence. What had the joint committee of the County Council and the magistrates to do in the matter of this control of the police? Why, surely the Chief Constable was the person who would manage and direct and control the police. Whoever had the control of the Chief Constable in their hands would be the party controlling the whole police force. They were face to face with this fact, that the Front Bench on the other side were providing that in the future the control of the police should be exactly what it had been in the past. Arguments such as these were used in respect of the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department and some other Members on the other side of the House, who were in favour of the maintenance and control of the police being in the

      527
      hands, not of the joint Body, but exactly in those hands in which they were at present. Now the Committee saw how that was to be effected. It was to be effected by placing the control of the only person really responsible for the police in the hands of the Quarter Sessions. And so they were to perpetuate in a much stronger form all the evils of the absence of popular control over the police force. He said all the evils of the absence of popular control, but inasmuch as they at present had no Body in whose hands they could place the control of the police, there was an excuse for them; but under the provisions of this Bill they were providing for the establishment of a popularly elected local Governing Body, and by definitely refusing to hand over to that Body the management of the police they were landing themselves in a position which was far worse than they had over been in before. By giving this popularly elected Body a share in the control of the police and not a share in the control of the Chief Constable, they were creating opportunities for various troubles to arise. He looked forward in London to the effect of this proposal with the deepest distrust and alarm. There was in the past ample ground why in London they should have the police under the control of the Home Office or some other public Department, and why they should have the Chief Constable in London nominated by the Home Office or some other Government Department, because there had been no elected Body to nominate or control him; but though they were to have an elected Council the Government wore going to refuse to that Body by this Clause 7—by implication, at any rate, as they were going to refuse it to the rest of the County Councils, though they could raise that point, he was glad to say as to London—the control of the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable ought to re-echo the feelings of the population, he ought to be in sympathy with the views of the people, and ought not to be the representative of what in non-Parliamentary language were called "fads," as some of the nominated heads of the police were. He would merely point out as to this Amendment, and as to this clause, that the House was now called upon to vote on one of the most important matters in the Bill. It
      528
      was now about to vote in its most vital form, whether the people or the magistrates were to have the control of the police. He and his hon. Friends were opposed altogether to the admixture of the judicial and administrative functions, and they opposed everything but a popular control over the police being granted by the appointment of the Chief Constable being placed in the hands of the County Council. As they could not now, through what had already been passed in the Bill—at any rate till they got to the Report stage—raise the question again, except in the matter of London, whether or not the County Council was to have absolute control over the police, they contended that if the Government were going to give the joint committee such control, they entirely stultified that committee if they took away from them the power of appointing and controlling the Chief Constable.
      MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he hoped the Government would forgive him if he expressed some doubt as to the wisdom of their proposal in the particular clause under discussion. This proposal of the Bill had been discussed at great length by the Quarter Sessions of the West Riding in the county of York, and they had passed a resolution to the effect that the appointment of the Chief Constable in counties should rest with the standing joint committee. The discussion on that subject in the West Riding Quarter Sessions had been careful and prolonged, and the opinion arrived at was, it not actually unanimous—which he believed it was—at any rate that of a large majority. He thought that if they placed the appointment of the Chief Constable in the hands of one Body, and the control and management of the police in that of another, they would inevitably have mischief and friction. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that the Government held the magistrates responsible for the peace of the county; but it seemed to him (Mr. F. S. Powell) that that was a responsibility which could not be discharged with efficiency or fulness if that Body had the power of appointing the Chief Constable only, and not the power of appointing and controlling those who served under him. He thought that if this responsibility was to be complete, it should be vested

      529
      in one Body, which should be responsible for the whole organization of the police down to the lowest member of the force. Unless that were done there would be uncertainty and constant friction, and at a critical period in the history of the Council the possibility of anarchy and disturbance. He felt himself some doubt as to whether the Court of Quarter Sessions was the fittest Body upon whom the power of appointment of the Chief Constable could be conferred. The joint committees who were to have the control of the police would be comparatively small in numbers, whereas the Quarter Sessions were composed of large numbers. Now, as they increased the number of a Body who elected an officer, so they diminished the responsibility on the part of each gentleman who voted. Therefore, to place the appointment of the Chief Constable in the hands of the magistrates would be to diminish the prospect of having the best and most satisfactory appointment. Sometimes under the present system, when the appointment of a Chief Constable took place, magistrates appeared on the scene who had not been at the Court of Quarter Sessions for years. He felt great reluctance in being bound to oppose the proposal of the Government, made no doubt with great sincerity and earnestness; but he believed the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board desired Members on all sides of the House to exercise free judgment in criticizing the details of the measure. The observations which he had made were based upon the best consideration which he could give to the subject and the resolution of his Quarter Sessions in the West Riding of the county of York.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped the Government would take into consideration the observations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell). He (Sir William Harcourt) did not think this was a question which would involve much difference of opinion on either side of the House. The question was what was the best arrangement which could be adopted for the preservation of the peace of a county. Was it probable that the dual form of government which was proposed by Her Majesty's Government would be a good one. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local
      530
      Government Board knew very well that they (the Opposition) had not particularly favoured the appointment of these joint committees; but that matter did not enter into the present question. The joint committee, when it was once formed, was one Body and one government; but in the clause, as it stood, they were not only to have the joint committee consisting of two separate elements, but a totally different Body which was, in most material particulars, to exercise an influence entirely independent of the joint committee. In the old days, in time of war, it was not a very good thing to have a council in conflict with the commander of an army, and, generally speaking, operations of war were not well conducted under such circumstances. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider, assuming that the magistrates were to appoint a Chief Constable who was distasteful to the majority of the County Council, how the system would be likely to work. There would be a Chief Constable appointed who would be distasteful to the general body of the police. Supposing that the Chief Constable demanded a certain number of men, and the County Council were adverse to that Chief Constable, it was quite plain they might refuse the men, they might be at constant war with the Chief Constable at the head of the police, and the police would be perfectly well aware that they were serving two masters who: were in conflict one with the other. Was that likely to work well in the government of the police? He could not think it was. What was the reason they were to distrust the County Council and the joint committee they proposed to set up? They did not distrust similarly appointed Bodies in communities quite as liable to disturbance as any they could find in counties. Take great towns like Liverpool or Glasgow; they allowed the Watch Committee there to appoint the Chief Constable, and they took the municipal government of such places as their model for legislation, and they adhered to it on the whole very closely and very faithfully. What would Liverpool or Glasgow say if Parliament were to declare that the magistrates should appoint the Chief Constable and the Watch Committee should administer the police? Would such towns have stood it for a single moment? Was the peace not safe in the hands of the Watch

      531
      Committee? Why, then, were they to distrust the joint committee and the County Council which the Bill established? There was no doubt that the Justices were the conservators of the peace in counties; but so they were in boroughs, and if any disturbance arose the Justices had the right now to give orders to the police. In every borough in the country the Justices were the conservators of the peace; but it was not necessary on that account that they should have the appointment of the Chief Constable, and it seemed to him that if the Government would only adhere to the example they had taken as the model and framework of their Bill, they would do much more wisely than to set up this dual form of government, which was almost certain to lead to conflict between the two Bodies. If they could trust the County Council at all, let them trust it to this extent; if they did not trust it, let them not trust it under any circumstances. He earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) would listen to the advice which had been tendered to him by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell), who had just spoken, backed, as it was, by a very important opinion, the opinion of the Quarter Sessions in the West Riding of Yorkshire. He (Sir William Harcourt) did not know any Body which was capable of forming a sounder opinion on such a subject than the Quarter Sessions of the West Riding of Yorkshire; and if they were not jealous of this power, if they were willing to concede it, if they considered it was to the advantage of the organization of the police and of the administration of the police that this course should be taken, he could not see why the Government should be afraid in this matter to trust the joint committee who were to have the joint control of the police, the pay of the police, the determination of the numbers of the police, and, in fact, the general management of the police, and to place in their bands the nomination of the Chief Constable. As far as he could see, nothing but mischief would arise out of the arrangement proposed, and he hoped the Government would see fit to agree to the present Amendment.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman
      532
      (Sir William Harcourt), as he understood him, objected to the proposals of the Government because, while on the one hand the appointment of the Chief Constable was to be left in the hands of the Quarter Sessions, the control of the police and the management of the police was to be of a dual character. He was bound to say there was great force in the objections which the right hon. Gentleman raised; but he (Mr. Chaplin) adduced from his objections conclusions exactly opposite to those drawn by the right hon. Gentleman. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to desire that the appointment and control of the Chief Constable as well as the control of the police should be of the dual character which was contemplated by the Government.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. He did not raise the question of the dual position of the joint committee; he regarded that as a single Body and a single control, though he might have preferred a difference in the composition of it.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he quite understood the right hon. Gentleman's desire that the control of the Chief Constable and of the police should be in the hands of the Body which was contemplated by the Government, whether that be a dual Body, as he (Mr. Chaplin) thought, or a single Body, as the right hon.Gentleman considered it to be. He thought there was great objection to that proposal, and he adduced, as he said just now, conclusions exactly opposite to those of the right hon. Gentleman. What they ought to do in regard to this Amendment was to oppose it, so that when the proper time came for the discussion of the question, those Gentlemen who thought it right to do so could vote in favour of the whole control of the police, both of the Chief Constable and of the police force generally, being left in the hands in which it was at present.
      MR. WARMINGTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) did not seem to appreciate the effect of the Amendment. There was to be a dual control. The first point of his hon. Friend (Mr. T. E. Ellis) was that under the Bill the appointment of the Chief Constable was to be left to the Quarter Sessions entirely, and that, after the ap-

      533
      pointment of the Chief Constable had been so left, there was to be a perfect dual control; that the County Council and the Quarter Sessions were to have power over the direction and the requisition of constables to perform any particular duties in addition to or outside their ordinary duties. The Amendment proposed that there should not be reserved to Quarter Sessions the appointment of the head of the Police Force, and that there should not be left to the Quarter Sessions, as one independent Body, and that there should not be conferred upon the County Council, as another independent Body, power to direct the police constables to perform certain duties. The result of there being two independent Authorities would be what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) stated—namely, that there must be conflict between the two Bodies, the County Council and the Quarter Sessions in giving directions to policemen. As had been said from the opposite side, it did seem absurd that those who had to direct the actions of the privates in the Police Force were not to be persons who were to have the selection and appointment of the head who was to control the force.
      MR. WADDYsaid, he did not altogether agree with the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken (Mr. Warmington), and he must say that it appeared to him that the observations which were made a moment ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) were strictly logical and perfectly fair. The right hon. Gentleman took a perfectly intelligible and consistent view; he considered that the management of the police should be left entirely in the hands of the magistrates, and there was a great deal to be said in favour of such a view. But he (Mr. Waddy) and his hon. Friends took a view exactly the opposite; but it did appear to him that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, however much they might disagree with them, were perfectly fair and logical. What he (Mr. Waddy) desired to point out was that they had already agreed that in some form they must have dual control. They had given to the County Council the duty of raising the money for the payment of the police—they had
      534
      given to the County Council the power of the purse, in the 1st sub-section of Clause 3; and having done that, they were now about to say that the duty of raising the money for the police should be the duty of one Body, and that the patronage should be the share of another Body. He did not, for one moment, agree with some observations made, to the effect that they were simply going to give the power of appointing the Chief Constable to the magistrates, and the power of appointing the subordinate constables to the County Council. He did not think it for one moment, because, in point of practice, every one knew perfectly well that the constables would be appointed by the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable would receive their names, he would judge of their qualifications, he would make such recommendations as were necessary, and in 99 cases out of every 100, even if the Committee gave nominally the appointment to the County Council, really the nominations would rest with the Chief Constable, who was the nominee in reality of the magistrates. That was one result of pretending that this was a Liberal Bill, when in reality they were not giving in substance that which they were giving in form. One difficulty which would meet the Committee at every turn would be that the Government were trying to take back with one band that which they were pretending to give with the other. They were in reality about to throw on the County Council the liability of providing for the police, while they were giving the patronage of the police to someone else. They were raising a dual control of the very worst form with regard to that matter as to which, of all others, County Councils would be the most sensitive and the most anxious. If County Councils were not fit to take care of the police, the Government had better tear up this Bill altogether. If they could not trust them with power, let them say so at once. If they wanted to have a kind of imperium imperis, if they wanted to have set over the County Councils some Body which was to keep the County Council in order, and govern them in regard to these matters which were too good for the County Council to take care of, and too aristocratic to be placed in the hands of the County Council, let them say so at once. It was a pity the Government had not raised this

      535
      point in the way the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) had raised it; why should they not say at once—"We think that the whole of this matter should be left to the magistrates"? ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial Beneh.] Quite right, that was an honest way of dealing with it, and he was glad to hear the cheers. Let them go to the country when the right time came with this distinct issue. He quite agreed that that was fair fighting, that that was exactly the kind of thing one wanted, and which one did not always get. Nothing whatever would be more satisfactory to the Opposition than to have this issue raised clearly and completely—namely, that County Councils were not to have the control of the police. Whatever the Government did, he begged them not to pretend they were giving to the County Councils that which they were not—to pretend that they were giving to the County Council power when, at the same time, they were withholding from the County Council a power which gave them the grasp of the whole position.
      MR. M'LARENsaid, he thought his hon. Friend who moved this Amendment (Mr. T. E. Ellis) would have done better if he had divided it into two, and if it was still possible for the hon. Gentleman to do so he suggested he should take that course, and that the Amendment should stop at the word "constables" in the third line of the clause. [An hon. MEMBER: He has stopped there.] He (Mr. M'Laren) was glad that had been done; because, as the clause stood, so far from there being dual control of the police there were no less than three separate Bodies which were to control the police. He believed there was nothing that was felt more strongly in the country, and in the county districts which were now to have County Councils, than the question of the appointment of the Chief Constable. Those who were likely to be members of the County Councils resented very strongly that they were not to have the complete control of the police in their hands. They, perhaps, might be willing, as a matter of compromise, that a joint committee should be appointed as the clause provided for the control of the police; but with regard to the appointment of the Chief Constable they felt most strongly that, if the joint com-
      536
      mittee was not to have the appointment of that official, then the control of the police was very largely a sham, and that that portion of the joint committee which was composed of members of the County Council would really have nothing but a nominal interest in the matter, and the other section of the joint committee, that section which was appointed by the Quarter Sessions, would really have the practical control of the police. There did not seem to be any real reason why this joint committee should not have the appointment of the Chief Constable. Half of the joint committee, the permanent element, would represent the Quarter Sessions. It was not as if the whole matter was to be transferred to the County Councils, a Body of which there had been no experience as yet; but half of the joint committee was to consist of the very gentlemen who for years past had had the management of the police, and whose greater experience, stability, and permanency upon the joint committee would ensure to them a very large, and probably preponderating, weight in the appointment of the Chief Constable and in the general control of the police force. Therfore, considering the experience they would bring to bear upon the joint committee, as distinct from the comparative newness of the men who were elected, he thought they might with perfect safety agree to the Amendment of his hon. Friend. It was certain that the proposal of the Government could not be a final settlement; the question would be agitated by the County Councils, for the County Councils would not be content to leave the appointment of the Chief Constable, which really meant the control of the police, in any hands but their own.
      MR. FIRTHsaid, the difficulty there was in respect to this clause arose from the word "control." If the Quarter Sessions were to continue to control the Chief Constable, they must, he apprehended, also control the police. Supposing the Chief Constable determined to issue a proclamation, and the Quarter Sessions supported him in it, excluding the inhabitants of the county from some part of the county, and the County Council insisted that the people should have access to that part, would the Chief Constable be able to use the constables against the will of the County

      537
      Council? If so, this proposition was most absurd.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE)asked to be permitted to say a word or two in reference to the observations which had just fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Firth). His hon. and learned Friend suggested that the Chief Constable appointed by the Quarter Sessions might issue a proclamation prohibiting the people going into a particular part of a district. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew perfectly well that no Chief Constable had power to issue any such proclamation. It was quite a commonplace of law that no proclamation issued by a Chief Constable had any effect as a proclamation in making that illegal which would be otherwise legal. That question had never been disputed. One or two observations had been made in regard to this clause, and one or two speakers had wandered off and had denounced the Government for pretending to give that with one hand which they took away with the other. He ventured to say that there was no ground for that statement in regard to this clause, but that it really was one which should be dealt with in the method adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), who discussed this reasonably, as a somewhat difficult question for which a solution had to be found. One difficulty of the question had been indicated by a speech which was made in favour of the appointment of the Chief Constable being left to the elected Body, and it was said a person should be elected who was in sympathy with the feelings of the elected Body. He submitted that the question of the Chief Constable being in sympathy with the feelings of the elected Body had nothing to do with the discharge of his duties. In regard to the administration of the duties connected with the Criminal Law, it was the duty of the Chief Constable to use his best endeavours to put the Criminal Law in force, without regard to any question of what opinion any elected body might have regarding it. But in regard to the mere administrative part of the work of the police, that administrative part of the work would be controlled by the joint committee, which was contemplated in the second part of the clause.
      538
      It had been said that the Justices had the control to a certain extent, and, according to well defined limits, of all constables who were engaged in the administration of the Criminal Law; but the Quarter Sessions had now, and would have when this Bill was passed, the special duty of watching over the administration of the Criminal Law, and surely it was advisable that the Court of Quarter Sessions should have the power of controlling that officer, who would have to direct the duty and services of the police at large, in the administration of those practically judicial powers, the administration of the criminal law, which must belong to the Quarter Sessions, which is judicial, and not to the elected Body, which is administrative. It had been said that the Chief Constable might say he wanted a certain number of men, and that the elected Body might refuse to give them to him. That was quite possible, though he thought that elected Councils would not be very likely to refuse a responsible officer the services of sufficient numbers to execute the duties which were cast upon him; but, if that were so, the Chief Constable would have the duty of carrying out the administration of the Criminal Law with such means as were given to him. He (Sir Edward Clarke) submitted to the Committee that really the principal part of the duty of the police—that was to say, that part which was connected with the enforcement and administration of the law—would still be done under the control and direction of the Quarter Sessions, and, therefore, it was reasonable that the Quarter Sessions should have that security for the proper administration of law within the area for which it was responsible, which it would obtain by having the nomination and control of the Chief Constable.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he desired to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had had great experience in serving on Police Committees, as well as Gentlemen sitting upon the Opposition Benches, who were familiar with the working of Watch Committees—he wished to ask them, apart from all Party considerations, in regard to this question, how this clause would really work? How was it possible to administer the police force in the way which this clause pointed out? He could quite understand the views and policy

      539
      of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin); they were perfectly intelligible, they were justified by precedent, and he believed they would work admirably well in practice. The right hon. Gentleman would put the police under the complete control of one Body—namely, the Quarter Sessions, who had had that control previously, and there was no reason to believe that there would be any conflict in the work. He could quite understand the adoption of the principle advocated on the Opposition side of the House—namely, placing the police under Watch Committees appointed by the Councils. That also would work, and he believed it had worked, satisfactorily in towns. Now, let them see what the proposals of the Government amounted to, and how they would work. They had, first, one Body, which was to levy the police rate, which was to find the money, which was to be responsible for the financial departments of the police; and they had, secondly, another Body, which was to be composed partly of the elected Body and partly of the Justices, who were to have, to a certain extent, the control over the police, which at present was exercised by the Quarter Sessions. But that Body so constituted, novel in its conception, novel in its constitution, was nevertheless to find itself crippled in the exercise of its powers by being put in the position of having the Chief Constable absolutely independent of it. What control could the joint committee have over the police if the Chief Constable was able to set them at defiance, and to appeal to some other Body behind their backs? He put it to hon. Gentlemen who had any experience of work of the kind, whether such a system would work, whether a Chief Constable, who was like many other public officers, could be kept, he would not say, in a state of subordination, but in the state of discipline in which he ought as well as all other public servants to be, if one Body was to control the police force and another Body was to control the Chief Constable? Would they apply such a theory in the Army and Navy; could they point out any precedent in any department of English public life for such a one-sided, useless, and futile mode of controlling the police force. The right hon. Gentleman the President
      540
      of the Local Government Board said they should put the control of the police constable where the responsibility of the maintaining the peace lay; but that was just what they did not do in the case of the large towns. There the control of the Chief Constable and the responsibility of the peace had been permanently severed, and the right hon. Gentleman had no illustration to give that that severance had been productive of evil results. The hon. and learned Solicitor General was quite right when he said that the magistrates were responsible for the preservation of the peace. Let him (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) give an illustration which came to his own knowledge. When he had the honour of being the Mayor of the town which he now represented, a disturbance of the peace was apprehended, so great a disturbance that application was made to the Home Secretary to direct the commander of the Northern District to send a troop of soldiers into Wolverhampton. The magistrates met; the Town Council or the Watch Committee had nothing to do with the preservation of the peace. At that critical moment, the whole control of the police and of the Chief Constable was in the hands of the Mayor and the magistrates. They sat there during the greater part of the night, and they were responsible for preventing, and happily they did prevent, any outbreak. But there was no conflict, no difficulty in the management, either of the police or of the Chief Constable, although the Chief Constable was appointed by the elected Body and paid by the elected Body. The Committee had decided that this was to be handed over to the joint committee. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, it had decided it was not to be put in the hands of the County Council. He presumed the Government were going to stand to their proposal with reference to the joint committee; he presumed there would be no wobbling in that respect. He assumed that if the Government did stand firm, there could be no question that with the support they would receive from the Opposition side, the proposal for a joint committee would be carried. If the joint committee were appointed, and the Chief Constable placed in an absolutely independent position, there would certainly be a great deal of friction. After

      541
      all, the appointment of the Chief Constable was a question of patronage. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell), who spoke with authority as representing the unanimous opinion of the largest and most influential body of magistrates in England, in objecting to this clause alluded to the large number of gentlemen who gathered together in Town Councils on the question of the election of a Chief Constable. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) did not think that the appointment of such an officer by a contested election was the best mode of selection. He thought that a small committee was the very best Body by whom such an official could be appointed. One of the powers it would exercise with the greatest efficiency and satisfaction would be the choosing of a Chief Constable without all the unpleasantness of a popular election. He attached far more importance to the control and the dismissal of the Chief Constable than to the appointment. If they were to have a Chief Constable in thorough sympathy with the Council they must have that authority at one with itself. He asked the Committee to support the Amendment.
      MR. HOBHOUSEhoped the Government would re-consider their decision on this point. Their proposal for the appointment of the Chief Constable was quite inconsistent with the proposal for a joint committee, and was, indeed, destructive of the system. If the Chief Constable were to be appointed by the Justices alone, he would be put in a difficult position with regard to the joint committee, half of which would be Justices and half not, and he would probably regard the Justices on that committee with very different eyes to those with which he looked at the other members. In giving the joint committee nominal control of the police, and in giving Quarter Sessions the real appointment and control of the Chief Constable, they were giving but a shadow to the joint committee and reserving the substance for Quarter Sessions. He therefore appealed to the Government, if they wished to carry out their proposal—which was defensible and perfectly legitimate—for a joint committee, to surrender on this point.
      CAPTAIN COTTONsaid, he intended to support the Government in their proposal for a joint
      542
      committee, but he hoped the Government would see their way to lumping the whole police body, including the Chief Constable, under the joint committee.
      MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he failed to reconcile the decision at which the Government had arrived on this point with some of the declarations made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board at an earlier stage of that Bill. Unless his (Mr. James's) memory failed him, the right hon. Gentleman then insisted in more than one of his speeches, that he trusted the people—indeed he gave expression to that sentiment at least half-a-dozen times. But now he came to the question of trusting the people in a practical manner he stepped aside. Having presided for a good many years in a southern rural constituency, he (Mr. James) had had opportunities of watching the operations of a Police Committee, and he had himself been a member of such a committee in Quarter Sessions. The fault he found with the system was one to which there could be little objection. It appeared to him that the police had really not enough to do. In many cases their numbers might be considerably reduced, and without wishing to be offensive to hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would point out that the police in the country often acted during the winter as assistant game keepers, and in the summer amused themselves in disporting at cricket matches. Now, if the numbers of the police were to be diminished, and the patronage of the Chief Constable also diminished, there would be friction at once between the Joint Authority—the County Council and the magistrates—and it would make confusion worse confounded. If hon. Members opposite really trusted the people, he wished they would bring themselves to believe that the people were just as much interested in the maintenance of law and order as they themselves were. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in the early part of the evening said the County Councils would have very little to do. Well, he (Mr. James) was very much disposed to agree with him, and if they carried the clause in its present form and had a divided jurisdiction, he believed that not only would the County Council

      543
      have very little to do, but they would always be quarrelling amongst themselves like cats and dogs.
      MR. KENRICKsaid, he wished to point out, as Chairman of the Watch Committee in a great borough, that the control over the Chief Constable meant there, practically, the modelling and control of the police force. The force was exactly what the Chief Constable made it, in the same way that a school was what the headmaster made it. To give, then, the appointment of the Chief Constable to a Body other than that responsible for the force, would be to cause a great deal of friction. In Birmingham, the appointment and control of the Chief Constable meant really the control of the police force. As the Government had set up a joint and efficient committee he hoped they would give them real powers.
      MR. WHARTONsaid, he had served as Chairman of a Police Committee for nearly 20 years, and its action had simply been to advise the Chief Constable in matters relating to the administration and allocation of the force. Practically, the Chief Constable of a county filled the position of Colonel of a regiment, and he hoped that that would remain so. In all money matters, and on points as to the disposition of the force and the building of new police stations, he consulted with the Police Committee. That was especially so in his (Mr. Wharton's) own county, where they had a very large, dense, and shifting population. Men had frequently to be transferred from one portion of the county to another, and new police stations built. There seemed to be an idea amongst some Members of the Committee that the Police Committee had actual control over the police itself. That, however, was not the case in counties. There the control of the police force was in the hands of the Chief Constable. Hon. Members representing boroughs seemed to think the Chief Constable of the county and Head Constable of the borough held exactly the same kind of position. But that was not so; they were essentially different. In the borough, the Head Constable was under the command and control of the Watch Committee; in the county, the Chief Constable was, by Act of Parliament, the Watch Committee, and he was only advised by the Police
      544
      Committee on matters relating to the administration and disposition of the force. Now, he would have been well satisfied if the Government had seen fit in their Bill to leave to the county magistrates the control of the police which they already possessed. He had listened with great respect—as he always did—to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), who spoke with reference to what might happen in regard to trade organizations, and with respect to large gatherings of working men—say, in the North. Now, he did not want to rake up the past; but he remembered that on one occasion he saw the whole of a county in the hands of a miners' organization, and for one day the Miners' Union was fighting tooth and nail with the police. Six police stations were absolutely wrecked; 100 men were bleeding on that occasion, and one man was killed. The Durham police constituted as fine a force as ever existed, and they were looking to this House with great apprehension lest they should be transferred to other control. They were entitled to consideration. This ought not to be made a Party question, and he hoped the House would do its best, in the interests of the observance of the peace, to keep Party considerations out of it. Let the Committee consider well what they were about. Were they willing to transfer the police from the present administration to some new Body, as to whose future existence and success they know nothing?
      MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire,)said, he quite agreed that that was not a Party question. What they wanted to do was to ensure the best chances for selecting the best Chief Constable to manage the police. They all agreed that Quarter Sessions had shown great ability in the management of affairs; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether it was not a fact that the appointment of Chief Constables had been in the past the weak part of the management? Frequently, the appointment had been made practically by men who had taken no part whatever in the management of the county business; and he would ask, was not a good selection more likely to be made by a small committee than by the Court

      545
      of Quarter Sessions? In the past, it had been a question rather of personal influence than of selection; a large number of magistrates never took any part in the county business except when these appointments were to be filled, and the ruling power in making them was personal consideration.
      MR. W. BECKEPT (Notts,)said, he differed from the Government on this question, as he was not in favour of the appointment of the Chief Constable remaining in the hands of the Court of Quarter Sessions. He would tell the Committee what his experience had been. Some few years since the appointment of Chief Constable was vacant in the West Riding of Yorkshire, with which he was connected, and it was a matter of notoriety that, some weeks before it was filled up, candidates made it their business to go round to every member of Quarter Sessions. The result was that some gentlemen were weak-minded enough to promise their votes before-hand. Some, of course, were sufficiently strong-minded not to do so. Well, the gentleman who was eventually chosen was selected mainly because he was blessed with 13 children. He had no intention of casting any reflection on the gentleman appointed. Comparisons were odious; but he wished to point out the extreme inconvenience and great demoralization arising from such a mode of election. Therefore, he was not in favour of the appointment remaining in the hands of Quarter Sessions. Neither did he much care about its being in the hands of the joint committee; but he should infinitely prefer it to be vested in the Home Secretary, as, if that were the case, they would have a much better chance of getting good men appointed without regard to their domestic circumstances. A variety of county appointments were made by the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. As the less of two evils, he did not object to the appointment being made by a joint committee of the County Councils and the Magistrates, though he should prefer to place the duty on the Home Secretary; but nothing could be more objectionable than the present system of appointment by 200 to 300 magistrates. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax that there could be no objection to allowing the County Councils to fix the salary of the Chief Constable.
      VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he could not approve the proposal to vest these appointments in the Homo Secretary, and he sincerely hoped the Committee would weigh well the words which had fallen from the lips of his hon. Friend the Member for the Ripon Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Wharton), who implied that the control of the Chief Constable meant really the control of the police. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. W. Beckett) referred to what he considered to be a gross abuse in the case of a par-particular appointment. No doubt, such things did occur; but he would venture to remind the Committee that the clause provided for the appointment, control, and dismissal of the Chief Constable, and that, even if a mistake were made in the appointment, great harm was not necessarily done. What, however, would constitute a great evil would be if the Chief Constable did not consider himself secure in carrying out the duties laid upon him, as he would feel if he were liable to dismissal for doing what he believed to be his duty. It was just that danger which some of them feared might happen if the Chief Constable were under the control of and subject to dismissal by an elective Body. He hoped that hon. Members would fully realize what they were doing in voting for this particular Amendment, which referred to the question of the appointment of the Chief Constable. They were not dealing with the question of dual control; that point was entirely separate. He believed every Member of the Committee would feel the importance of leaving the appointment of the Chief Constable in the hands of the Court of Quarter Sessions, and he fully agreed with the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ripon Division that the control of that appointment meant the real control of the force. He should, therefore, vote for the proposal of the Government.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I should like to point out that the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis) moved to leave out certain words down to "aforesaid" in line 17. But, there being several other Amendments, I propose to put the words "nothing in that Act" shall stand part of the Clause. If I did not do that, the subsequent Amendments would be shut out.
      MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, the question really, then, was not the simple one put by the noble Viscount, but it was complicated by the question of dual control. Perhaps it would be better for his hon. Friend the Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis), with the permission of the Committee, to withdraw his Amendment, in order to facilitate a vote being taken on the more important question.
      MR. T. E. ELLIS: I moved to omit the words from "nothing" to "Chief Constable," in line 13.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I understood the hon. Member to move the Amendment on the Paper. If he withdraws that I will put the other.
      MR. BRUNNERsaid, he was afraid that Amendment would bar his Amendment.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, that if the Amendment to omit the words down to "Chief Constable" were put, it would prevent the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) being discussed.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Memler moved, and so I stated, to leave out the words from "nothing" to "aforesaid;" but I only propose to put it down to "Chief Constable," so as to enable the other Amendments to be discussed.
      MR. CHANNING: It might be a greater convenience to the Committee if the Amendment which stands in my name were now discussed.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 11, to leave out the words "nothing in this Act," &c., down to "the appointment of the Chief Constable."
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. ASQUITHsaid, the question really involved in the Amendment was the dual control of the police, and he ventured to submit to the Committee that it was impossible to discuss the proposal reserving to the Court of Quarter Sessions the power of appointing, controlling, and dismissing the Chief Constable, without considering what was necessarily involved in it—
      548
      namely, the whole question of the control and management of the police force. The Government proposal, as it stood, involved an extraordinary anomaly. It proposed that for the future the police should be paid by one Body, officered by another Body, and controlled by a third Body. When they came to examine it, he thought that the Committee would discover that the proposal of the Government was of a much simpler character. It really was that the police should be paid by an elective Body representing ratepayers, but that the whole control and management of the police should be vested in the magistrates sitting in Quarter Sessions. He was very glad to hear from the hon. Member for the Ripon Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Wharton), who spoke on that matter with the authority of great experience, such a candid and accurate statement of the real facts. He would like to call the attention of the Committee to the material parts of the Act of 1839, which regulated these matters, and which, even if this Bill were passed, would continue to regulate them. That Act, after providing that the Chief Constable should be appointed by the Justices in Quarter Sessions, laid it down that the Chief Constable should appoint other constables, and at his pleasure should dismiss all or any of them, and that he should have the general disposition and management of all constables so appointed, subject to such lawful orders as he might receive from the Justices generally in Quarter Sessions assembled. Very well. Hon. Gentlemen opposite need not be so apprehensive about the dual control given by the Bill, because, after all, the dual control was a mere sham, and nothing but a sham, seeing that the Government reserved to Quarter Sessions the powers they already possessed, and the Chief Constable would be enabled in the future to act as he now did, subject to the orders of the magistrates. It was most important that the Committee and the country should understand the real character of the proposal under consideration; and when they supported the Amendment of his hon. Friend to omit that part of the clause, they were really deciding the question which was at the root of the whole matter, and they were determining in whose hands the control and management of the police should be for all time

      549
      to come. Something had been said—he believed by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General—as to the importance and value of the police being subject to judicial authority. A certain amount of confusion of thought appeared to prevail on this matter. The management of the police by Quarter Sessions under the existing Acts was a thoroughly administrative function, and had nothing whatever to do with judicial authority. If the management of the police were transferred to the elected Councils, as they asked the Government to transfer it, the magistrates in Quarter Sessions, or rather the magistrates individually, would have precisely the same power as the Common Law gave them to call on any police constable in the county to execute the law and maintain order throughout the district. It was, therefore, wholly beside the mark to draw, as the hon. and learned Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton) did, on historical reminiscences as to disorders that existed in the county of Durham at one time. The fact was that in the future, as now, the Justices would be able to call on the police to assist them in the execution of the law, and all the Government were asked as to these elective Bodies was that as they had conceded to them the duty of providing the funds out of which the force was to be paid, so they should give them the administrative and executive powers which at present were vested in Quarter Sessions, and which had nothing whatever to do with judicial functions. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would support the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and remove this patent blot from the Bill.
      MR. E. B. HOAREsaid, he could not hope that the Government would attend to any words that might fall from him; but he could not help thinking that the position they were now in was very anomalous. There were three courses open to the Government. They could either hand over the police to the magistrates—as many persons on that (the Ministerial) side of the House thought they should—or hand them over to the County Councils—as hon. Gentlemen on the other side thought they should—or they could hand them over to joint committees, which was what they themselves wished to do. It did seem to him that if the Government were right in their proposal to hand the
      550
      police over to a joint committee, they should also hand over to that committee the control of the Chief Constable. If the Army were handed over, so, also, should the command of it be handed over. He spoke with some diffidence on the matter; but he felt that the position of the Government was so illogical that he could not help hoping that even now, at the eleventh hour, they would accede to the Amendment.
      MR. NORTONsaid, he thought the question should be allowed to stand over until the Committee had decided whether the control of the police should be placed in the hands of the county magistrates or in those of a joint committee.
      THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it seemed to him that there was a great deal in what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down to recommend it to the Committee. They had not yet decided whether any powers of control over the police were to be vested in a joint committee, and until that point had been decided he scarcely saw how they could decide on the matter now under discussion. He did not know how it could be done; but it certainly seemed to him desirable that the Committee should come to some decision as to the constitution of the joint committee to whom they were to refer certain powers for the management of the police. If the committee were properly constituted to control the police, it seemed to him only logical that the appointment of the Chief Constable should be placed in their hands. But until they had decided on the appointment of a joint committee, it certainly appeared rather difficult to decide the point they were now discussing.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the proper course would be to omit these words for the present. That would meet the views, certainly, of the majority of the House, because if the House were to decide against a joint committee, then the police would remain under the Quarter Sessions, and they would have the appointment of the Chief Constable, and the words under discussion would not be wanted at all. If the Committee, on the other hand, should determine in favour of the joint committee, that committee would have the control both of the police and the

      551
      Chief Constable. Whatever view they took of the matter, and whatever the view of the Committee might be, the question in debate would be settled by that decision. All, therefore, they had to do now was to omit these particular words, and then take the decision of the Committee on the question of the joint committee. The other matter would follow as a matter of course.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale. He had thought for some time that they were putting the cart before the horse in the discussion they were engaged in. But he did not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in his suggestion as to the way in which they ought to proceed. It seemed to him (Mr. Chaplin) that the best way for them to arrive at a decision as to whether or not the police were to be left in the hands of a joint committee would be for the Amendment to be withdrawn, and for a decision to be taken on the proposal of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). If that were settled in favour of the Amendment, then, in the next line of the clause, the question would follow as to whether or not the Chief Constables were to be dealt with in the same way. If this suggestion should find favour with the Committee, it certainly seemed to him a practical way of dealing with the subject.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he was afraid that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was hardly one which, according to the Rules of the Committee, they could adopt. It would not be possible to go back on the words already passed. He thought, however, that the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent (Mr. Norton) and his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) was one they ought to adopt, without in the slightest degree prejudicing the question before them. They should allow these words to go out for the present, and then, at once, proceed to the consideration of the more important question as to whether the control of the police was to be in the hands of the magistrates, or to be put in the hands of a joint committee. When
      552
      that question was decided, it would be quite in their power to decide afterwards the question they had been discussing.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that if that course were adopted, it would, perhaps, be as well to leave out more words than the immediate proposal contemplated.
      MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not withdraw his Amendment, because if these words were not omitted, and if afterwards they did not omit the rest of the clause, all these powers would remain in the hands of the Quarter Sessions as before; but if these were omitted, and they retained the rest of the clause, then it was quite clear they would have gained what was the obvious desire of the majority of the House—namely, a declaration that there should be one and the same control over the Chief Constable and the police. He, therefore, ventured to express a hope that the hon. Gentleman would continue to press his Amendment, so that it might be either carried or lost.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked how the Chairman would put the Question?
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Question would be put so as to safeguard the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex. If too many words were omitted, the hon. and gallant Baronet would not be able to move his Amendment in the special form in which it stood on the Paper, but would have to raise the question in some other form.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked whether the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) could not allow these words to be omitted, and then so contrive his Amendment afterwards as to render it admissible?
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, it appeared to him that ift he words were struck out it would be altogether impossible for him to raise the question at all, because the Committee would then have decided that the Chief Constable should not be in the hands of the magistrates, and they would also have decided that there should be a dual control. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby know perfectly well what these ques-

      553
      tions were, and that if a Member missed his opportunity of making a statement and taking a Division on that which he believed to be of the utmost importance in the interests of the country he might never obtain it again. His view was that the police should remain in the future as they had been in the past—in the hands of the magistrates. He had contended for that from the beginning—since he spoke on the second reading; and he had not deviated one hair's-breadth from his earliest declaration. So far as he knew, he had always had the courage of his opinions, most certainly when he believed it to be in the interests of his country. He should, therefore, like to have an opportunity of placing before the Committee the views he so strongly entertained on this question.
      MR. JAMES STUART: I rise to Order—
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he understood it to be the wish of the Committee that his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) should have an opportunity of raising the question in the most distinct form, and if he were unable to do so under the circumstances now stated, the best course would be to move to report Progress, in order that he might himself place on the Paper an Amendment to carry out the object he desired. The subject the hon. and gallant Baronet wished to deal with was, no doubt, a more important one than that now under consideration.
      MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he rose to a point of Order. He desired to point out that the hon. Gentleman who stood in the way of this Question being put could equally well get his point raised before the House by moving the rejection of the remainder of the clause. The hon. and gallant Member could add before the words "Chief Constable" words which would hand the rest of the police over to the control of the Quarter Sessions. If, after the Amendment before the Committee should have been passed, the hon. and gallant Baronet moved the rejection of the last part of the clause, he would, if he succeeded in his Motion, practically do the same thing as he desired to do by his present Amendment, for the control of the rest of the police would vest in the Quarter Sessions. He (Mr. James Stuart) therefore hoped that there would be no
      554
      adjournment of the debate now, and that they would be allowed to proceed to a Division on the question they had debated for a long time, and which was now ripe for decision.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he ventured to differ from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. As a matter of fact, the Committee had not debated for a single moment the question whether the police should be under the control of a joint committee. The question the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was asked to settle was the question as to the control of the magistrates. ["No, no!"] Yes; and, for his (Mr. Chaplin's) part, he sincerely hoped the hon. and gallant Baronet would accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. It seemed to him (Mr. Chaplin) that they had got into a very considerable muddle, and that it was very desirable that they should have a fresh and full opportunity of discussing this question of the police. In order that they might have that opportunity, he begged leave to move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed. He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) that they had got into a muddle at all. The House seemed to be entirely agreed on one point—namely, that the authority over the Chief Constable ought not to be separated from the Police Authority. They differed, no doubt, as to what the Police Authority ought to be; but they were all agreed that the appointment of the Chief Constable should rest with the Police Authority. Well, having now discussed the question of the Chief Constable for some time, all they had to do was to get that out of the way and leave the road clear for the discussion as to who was to be the Police Authority. There certainly was no desire to prevent the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex from raising the question in the clearest form, but it would be raised on subsequent words. All the hon. and gallant Baronet would have to do would be, when those words

      555
      came on, to oppose their addition to the clause. If that was so, why should they allow all the time they had devoted to the discussion of this particular point now before the Committee to be wasted?
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he believed the right hon. Gentleman was under a misconception when he said that the Committee were entirely agreed that whatever might be the authority for the control of the police the appointment of the Chief Constable should rest there. He did not agree with all that—that the matter was decided unanimously, or that they were anything like unanimous upon it. What he believed was that it was the expressed wish of the Committee that the question of who was to have the control of the police should be decided before that of who was to appoint the Chief Constable. ["No, no!"] That was the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), and it was supported by some of his (Mr. Ritchie's) hon. Friends behind him. The Government had thought that, on the whole, this was not an unreasonable proposition to make. The question then arose how it could best be done. It was suggested that the first words of the clause should be left out, on the clear understanding that, whatever the decision was which the Committee might arrive at as to the control of the police, the matter would be revived again in another form. That was the distinct understanding. Then they arrived at the question of the best mode of amending the clause so as to decide the question of controlling the police; and it was because there was some doubt as to the best means of doing that, that the Motion to report Progress was made. The Government would not consent to report Progress on the understanding that the same Body that had the control of the police was to have also the appointment of the Chief Constable; but only on the understanding that the question of the Body into whose hands the control of the police was to be given should be decided, so that the Committee might afterwards come to a conclusion as to the Body into whose hands should be committed the appointment of the Chief Constable.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

    CUSTOMS (WINE DUTY) BILL. [BILL 293.]
    (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jackson.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress 15th June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 4 (When claim to be made and proved, and on what value).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 4, to add—"The said Commissioners may require that no consignment or parcel of wine as to which a claim is made under this section shall include wine of different values."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. S. WILLIAMSON (, &c.)said, he would suggest that "invoice" would be a better term than "consignment."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he would be quite prepared to add the word "invoice."
    Amendment proposed, to amend the proposed Amendment, by adding after the word "parcel," the words "or invoice."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had given Notice of a Motion to omit the clause; but he had received an intimation from those who in this matter he represented that having regard to the fact that the principle of an ad valorem duty was established by the 3rd clause, objectionable and remarkable as that was, yet, it being established, they had requested him not to pursue any further his objection to the Bill. He should not, therefore, move any of the Motions for the omission of clauses standing in his name.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5 agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Power to buy for the Crown).
    MR. S. WILLIAMSON (, &c.)said, he thought that to make the

    557
    meaning quite clear, some words were required, so that the importer might not think the price meant exclusive of bottling and packing.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 15, after the word "gallon," to insert the words "including cost of bottling, packages, and all charges"—(Mr. S. Williamson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, this point had been carefully considered by the Legal Officers of the Customs, and they were of opinion that, as the clause stood, it quite conveyed what the hon. Member wished to accomplish, that seized goods included all packages; and the words proposed would rather tend to imply a doubt where no doubt in fact existed, and rather complicate than clear up matters.
    MR. S. WILLIAMSONsaid, that, though not quite satisfied, he was quite ready to withdraw his Amendment, deferring to legal opinion.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had no wish to oppose the clause; but he would renew his suggestion that when the Customs elected to buy goods valued for ad valorem duty they should do so with an addition of 10 per cent.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he was aware his right hon. Friend made the suggestion the other day; but he did not see why they should be influenced by the considerations then put forward, and that a man should pay an additional 10 per cent when the goods were of the declared value of 30 s. a-dozen. Surely it would be illogical to do so.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not press the matter; but the rule was that formerly in force here, and was universally in force in foreign countries.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, there was a distinction between a fixed duty as in this case and a fluctuating ad valorem duty, and in this case the value was more easily ascertained.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 7 agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Definition of market value).
    On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 25, after "wine," insert "purchased and;" in line 26, after "paid," insert "or contracted to be paid."
    MR. S. WILLIAMSON (, &c.)said, he had an Amendment to the clause, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an Amendment of the same import. Believing, however, that his own form of words was the better, he would move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 26, after the word "him," to insert the words "in bond, or the cost to him bottled in cases or packages, including freight and all foreign transit charges to place the wine in bond at the port of discharge."—(Mr. S. Williamson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, practically this Amendment would be accomplished by the words his right hon Friend proposed to insert subsequently. He would point out that if a case of wine imported by a private consumer was to be admitted at its market value in bond, it would not have been necessary to separate the two cases of wine imported by a consumer and by a merchant. But it was felt that in the ease of the consumer the invoice and documents would show exactly what he was to pay for it, and probably the cost so determined would be rather higher than the cost in bond as imported by a merchant or trader. The question had been carefully considered, and he was advised by the Legal Officers that the words after "Customs," "including freight and all other charges," would accomplish what the hon. Member desired.
    MR. S. WILLIAMSONsaid, he would admit the words were to the same import; but he thought his Amendment necessary, because, although there was the word "consumer," there was no guarantee that the consumer was not a small trader also. Still, he had no wish to press his Amendment.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he could assure the hon. Member that the words, "all

    559
    other charges," included the point he alluded to.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 30, after the word "Customs," to insert the words, "but including freight and all other charges."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 9 agreed to.
    Clause 10 (As to medicated wine).
    MR. S. WILLIAMSON (, &c.)said, he supposed that all wines taken for health were in a certain sense medical, but he proposed that wines of a special medical character should bear a descriptive label as such.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 4, after the word "wine," to insert the words "and labelled as such."—(Mr. S. Williamson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he thought the words proposed did make the intention more clear.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he did not object to the Amendment; but he thought his right hon. Friend ought to explain what these extraordinary compounds were—"wine of a character usually sold as medicated or medical wine." He had never heard of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might give some justification for introducing these compounds without the payment of duty. His own idea was that if he made an exception at all, he would subject these compounds to a double duty.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, his right hon. Friend need not be afraid that these wines would ever be put on the table, or consumed with pleasure by any person. They were not wines, but drugs. Practically they were certain decoctions
    560
    prescribed by doctors, and commonly known as medicated wines.
    MR. CHILDERSasked, were there really any such among sparkling wines?
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he was advised there was a small proportion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Commissioners of Customs to act under Treasury).
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, his impression was that the Customs always acted under the directions of the Treasury. What, then, was the object of the clause?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he really was unable to give a thorough explanation. If the right hon. Gentleman thought the clause would be better omitted, he had no objection; but, at the same time, the Solicitors to the Customs were very able men, and they suggested the clause. Still, he was bound to say he had no strong argument to support it.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, not knowing why the draftsman had inserted the clause, he could not take the responsibility of moving to omit it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would satisfy himself by the Report, that the words were necessary. If they were not necessary, their effect would probably be mischievous.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, it was true the Customs always acted under the control of the Commissioners of the Treasury; but he understood that, on several occasions when these words had not been inserted, the House had demanded that they should be. The words were inserted rather to meet what was believed to be the wish of the House than because there was really any necessity for them.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, the House had often made mistakes by the insertion of superfluous provisions in Bills. But he was content to let the matter rest until the Report stage.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would prefer not to leave anything over for Report, and the clause had better be omitted.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be omitted,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)—put, and agreed to.
    Clause 12 (Repeal) agreed to.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, the new clause he had to propose provided that in case an importer should be obliged to produce invoices, books, or documents in confirmation of his declaration of value, he should not be bound to produce such for the inspection of any Customs official who was also director, manager, or in any way engaged in the management of any co-operative association or firm dealing in wines and spirits. The object of the proposal was to meet the very natural feeling in the trade, that their books and trade transactions should not be submitted to a possible rival in trade. He would formally move the clause, though he would not press it now; but he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the grievance and the manner in which it could be met.
    New Clause (Importer not bound to produce invoice and documents to directors of co-operative stores,)—(Sir Robert Fowler,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he quite appreciated the object of his hon. Friend and of those who had set him in motion. There doubtless would be an impropriety if traders were obliged to exhibit their books and papers to the examination of possible rivals in trade. But he would go somewhat further, and say it was not a satisfactory position for an officer of the Customs to be an official in the management of co-operative stores. He would undertake to look into the matter; but he should be sorry to insert a clause of this character in the Bill, for it might fairly be regarded as a slur upon the Customs Service. He would like to take the opportunity to testify to the honesty and steady fidelity with which officers of the Customs Service discharged their duties; there was no branch of the Civil Service upon which more reliance could be placed. It would appear to cast an undeserved slur upon the Service, to insert these words in an Act of Parliament. He would, however, inquire, and see if by regulation it was expedient to remove
    562
    all possibility of officers being suspected of dealing with invoices, &c. for trade purposes.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES) BILL [Lords].
    (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

    [BILL 290.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, he did not know whether the House would be disposed to take the second reading of the Bill. It was prepared in accordance with the Report of the Select Committee of last Session which inquired into the means of saving life at sea. Shipowners, skippers, and seamen had framed and submitted to the Board of Trade suggestions for the preservation of life on passenger ships, and the outcome was the Bill, the principle of which, he believed, would recommend itself to the House. He should be happy to comply with the desire of hon. Members interested in the subject by referring the Bill to a Grand Committee, or taking the Committee in the House with full opportunity for discussion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Objection taken.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

MOTIONS.
  WAYS AND MEANS.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL.
    Resolution [15th June] reported and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Jackson.
    Bill presented, and read the first time,

    ALLOTMENTS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Major Rasch, Bill to amend "The Allotments Act, 1887," ordered to be brought in by Major Rasch, Sir Edward Birk-beck, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Round, Mr.

    563
    Story-Maskelyne, Colonel Gunter, Mr. Fulton, and Lord Henry Bentinck.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 299.]

    TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
    Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on (1) the administration of Trustee Savings Banks under "The Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863;" (2) the powers, duties, and liabilities of the Trustees, Managers, and Officers of Trustee Savings Banks; (3) the relations of Trustee Savings Banks to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and other Offices or Departments of the Government, so far as these relations affect the internal management of the affairs of the said Banks; and (4) the alleged assumption by certain Trustee Savings Banks of designations calculated to mislead depositors.
    Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members.
    The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. A. H. Acland, Mr. John Ellis, Dr. Clark, Mr. Howell, Mr. Kenrick, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Brodie Hoare, Mr. R. G. Mowbray, Sir John Dorington, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Bartley, Sir John Kennaway, Mr. William Redmond, and Mr. Hayden, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'olock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—North Sea Fisheries* (158); Limited Partnerships* (159); House of Lords (Life Peers)* (161); House of Lords (Discontinuance of Writs)* (162).
Second Reading—National Debt (Supplemental) (155).
Third Reading—Rochester Bishopric (98); Augmentation of Benefices Act Amendment (78), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Pier and Harbour* (135); Water* (137).
Committee—Elementary Education (Birmingham)* (101–160).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) (Ballymoney, &c.)* (97); Metropolitan Police* (134).
Third Reading—Public Health (Scotland) (Denny and Dunipace Water)* (136), and passed.

HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE LATE GERMAN EMPEROR.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY), who rose amid deep silence, the Mem-
  384
  bers of the House uncovering, said: My Lords, I rise to move that an Address be presented to Her Majesty expressive of the sympathy of this House at the great calamity under which She is suffering, and also that an Address be presented to Her Imperial Majesty the Empress of Germany expressing to Her Imperial Majesty our deep condolence. My Lords, we offer the expression of our sympathy and condolence, but there is no cause that we should enter largely into the grounds that move us, or dwell much upon the calamity that is leading us to this action; for the sorrow which is felt for the death of the Emperor of Germany, and the praises of his life, are in every mouth and are written in a thousand columns. My Lords, Her Majesty may well feel the deepest grief at the loss that has overtaken her. Grief at a bereavement, at a loss, is proportionate to the expectations that have been legitimately formed; and never were expectations formed more sanguinely, or with more apparent justification, than the expectations which attended the future career of the Emperor who is borne to his grave to-day. It seems as though there had been accumulated upon his head every possible qualification for a life of glorious, splendid, and peaceful usefulness. Great experience, true aptitude and courage in war, high reputation for culture and for knowledge in the arts of peace, a deep and well-understood sympathy for all the highest and best aspirations of his people, the support of a consort never surpassed in her ability or in her affection and constant enthusiasm for right—all these things seemed to fit him for a career of power and splendid capacity for good, a career that might well have been as prolonged as that of his illustrious father. All these expectations have been dashed by an inscrutable decree. We can only bow to it, and offer our deep sympathy to his Royal relatives for their lamentable loss, and to the Government and people of Germany for the bereavement of a ruler upon whom such high hopes were set. But even with his short reign he has left an example that we may cherish. He has shown under circumstances of singular trial the indomitable spirit by which his race has made the greatness of Germany and its own. He has

  385
  shown a steady courage which even the grip of a fell disease could never daunt, and a devotion to his duty in circumstances which would have led meaner natures to the abandonment of all hope. He died at his post with the devotion of a soldier, under circumstances which gave none of the encouragement that lightens the soldier's fall. He has left an example which may be of most precious value, not only to Sovereigns who may follow him, but to all sorts and conditions of men; and it is with a feeling that we are performing no act of mere formality in rendering homage to one of the highest and noblest natures that ever adorned a Throne that I move the Addresses that I have now the honour of laying on the Table.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise to second this Motion, but I can add nothing to the eloquent, pathetic, and unexaggerated remarks which have fallen from the noble Marquess. If it be true, as has been written, that—
  "Death loves a shining mark, a signal blow,"
  seldom has a more shining mark been presented at which death has struck such a blow. The late Emperor was a skilled and daring soldier. His bravery in the field was equalled by the serene courage with which he endured sufferings under most trying circumstances. Both in his military and in his civilian life a high sense of duty was his constant guide. To say of the departed great that they were without faults seems to be vulgar, unmeaning flattery, which cannot be quite true; and yet, having had opportunities during the last 37 years, in Germany, Prussia, and in this country, of closely observing the late Emperor, I could not, even if I wished, recall any defects which marred his straightforward, noble character. This is not an occasion on which to make any political allusions. In my position I could not make any with authority; but yet it is difficult not to give some expression to the general feeling as to the great loss that has accrued to Germany from a limit of some short 14 weeks having been assigned to the reign of this strong, upright, kind-hearted man—one who from his hereditary qualities, his early education, and his constant self-training had given such unusual, such certain promise of being a bene-
  386
  ficent Ruler of the great Empire to the creation of which he had so largely contributed. It is not easy to pay a greater tribute of praise to a Sovereign who has passed away than the intense regret which has been felt, not only in Germany, not only in this country, where there are reasons for it which it would be superfluous to repeat, not only in the United States, where so many of his countrymen reside, but in Italy, where till lately the German was not popular, in Russia, and especially in France, where there has been such a full acknowledgment of the merits of one who had lately been their successful but generous foe. May we not hope that this fact may lead to kindlier international feelings? Will your Lordships bear with me if I add that, while we greatly deplore the loss of this strong guarantee of European peace, it seems to me that there is no solid ground for the conviction expressed in some quarters as to the certain occurrence of a state of things which the late Emperor would have so deeply deplored? The noble Marquess has strongly expressed—it was impossible for him to express too strongly—the deep sympathy with which we approach our Queen on the loss of such a son-in-law, of one so near and dear to her. It is needless for him or for me to say that that feeling extends in the fullest degree to the Empress Victoria, Her Majesty's first-born child. The people of this country have followed with deep interest the career of Her Imperial Majesty. They have rejoiced at the 30 years of unmixed domestic happiness which she has enjoyed. They have been proud of the wide-world reputation which her character, her attainments, and her exceptional intellectual powers have created for her. They have been deeply touched by the courage, the dignity, and the devotion with which Her Imperial Majesty has tended the sick bed and the death bed of the remarkable man who appreciated and loved her so well, and they fervently trust that God will give her strength to bear the overwhelming blow that has befallen her. I beg to second the Motion.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to express the deep sorrow of this House at the great loss which Her Majesty has sustained by the death of His Imperial Majesty Frederick, German Emperor,

  387
  King of Prussia, and to condole with Her Majesty on this melancholy occasion;
  To assure Her Majesty that this House will ever feel the warmest interest in whatever concerns Her Majesty's domestic relations, and to declare the ardent wishes of this House for the happiness of Her Majesty and of Her family."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  On Question, agreed to, nemine dissentiente.
  Ordered, that the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That this House do condole with Her Imperial Majesty Victoria, German Empress, Queen of Prussia, Princess Royal of Great Britain and Ireland, on the great loss which she has sustained by the death of His Imperial Majesty."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  On Question, agreed to, nemine dissentiente.
  Ordered, that a message of condolence be sent to Her Imperial Majesty, and that the Lord Chancellor do communicate the said message to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin, with a request that he will attend the Empress Victoria for the purpose of conveying it to Her Imperial Majesty.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That this House desire to express their profound sympathy with the Imperial and Royal Family and with the Government and people of Germany."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  On Question, agreed to, nemine dissentiente.

HOUSE OF LORDS (LIFE PEERS) BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I rise to draw your attention to a subject which has already occupied your Lordships during the present Session—namely, the constitution of this House, and I am going to lay upon the Table a Bill with respect to it; but, warned by the fate of my Predecessors, my efforts will be exceedingly modest. I shall indulge in none of those far-reaching schemes whose ambitious character has been their destruction. The first provision to which I will call attention is the question of Life Peers. It is not a new one in this House. It has been considered on more than one occasion, and it is not new to
  388
  myself, for when I first came to the House, some 20 years ago, I had the honour of supporting Lord Russell in connection with a measure not very dissimilar from that which I shall propose this evening. The fate of that measure was curious. During the discussion there was no great difference of opinion as to the desirability of a moderate and carefully guarded power of creating Life Peers to be placed in the hands of the Ministry. But though the Bill, with expressions of good-will more or less accentuated, passed the second reading and afterwards through Committee, where it was modified, when it came to the third reading it was met by resistance on the part of the Chiefs of the Party then in Opposition. But the ground taken by the Opposition for resisting it at that time was not an objection to the principle of the measure, as may be seen by referring to the speech of Lord Cairns, who was then the Leader of the Opposition. His ground for resisting the Bill was that owing to delays which had occurred, and which appear to have arisen from a cause with which we are not familiar—namely, the enormous amount of Business which there was in the House at the time, the measure had been delayed until the end of the Summer, when there was no hope that it could pass through the House of Commons in the same Session. Lord Cairns took a strong objection at that time, an objection which he repeated three or four years ago, shortly before his death—to bringing forward a measure of this kind unless there was some very fair reason to hope that it could pass into law during the current Session. The only criticism that I really fear in bringing forward this measure is that some people may think that the time of its introduction infringes the rule which Lord Cairns sought to lay down; but I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury assures me that he can pass the Bill if it goes down to the House of Commons, and that considerations of mere time will not stand in its way. The great question in connection with all these Bills is the amount and nature of the restriction that should be placed upon the Ministers of the Crown in the exercise of the power of creating Life Peers. But for the necessity of some such restriction I do not think there ever would

  389
  have been any doubt or difficulty as to the adoption of the measure. In the earliest history of this House Life Peers were exceedingly common, and they continued to be made from time to time down to what we may call the end of the first stage in the history of the House of Lords, down to the end of the Wars of the Roses. You may take that to be a break, as it were, in the history of the House of Lords, because when they re-assembled after the battle of Bosworth there were found to be only 29 lay Peers in existence. Down to that time a considerable number of Life Peers were made; but there was this peculiarity about several of those creations—they were not made by the sole Prerogative of the Crown, but they were made in Parliament with the consent of Parliament, so that even then it was thought that the exercise of such a Prerogative ought not to proceed unchecked. That is the consideration to which we have to address ourselves to-day, and it has always been in my mind one of the most indispensable conditions of any legislation of this kind that the extent to which it should be exercised should be distinctly limited by Parliament beforehand. Otherwise the existence of the power might be fatal to the independence of your Lordships' House. If there was a power of creating Life Peers to an unlimited extent, the temptation would inevitably be too strong for some ambitious and imperious Minister, and he would attempt by such creations to force the decision of the House, as it was once forced in 1712. I know that the noble Earl opposite who leads the Opposition has said again and again that he does not understand why there is more necessity for restriction in the case of Life Peers than in the case of Hereditary Peers. It is very difficult to convey it to the noble Earl's mind if it does not occur to him instinctively, but I am quite sure that most of your Lordships will recognize that anybody would feel much more responsible in advising an unlimited creation of Hereditary Peers than in advising an unlimited creation of Life Peers. Not only would he feel much more responsibility, but he would have much more difficulty in inducing the Sovereign to accept his advice, and he would have much more difficulty in obtaining the support and approval of public opinion in such a
  390
  course. As your Lordships know, the creation of Hereditary Peers for the purpose of influencing the decision of the House of Lords has only been resorted to once. It was at the very commencement of our Parliamentary history, and it was done for the purpose of passing the Resolutions which were necessary in connection with the Treaty of Utrecht. Only 12 Peers were created, and yet, for creating those 12 Peers, among other things, Lord Oxford was impeached by the House of Commons as having done a thing which was derogatory to the honour of Parliament and fatal to the public interests. That was one of the chapters of the impeachment afterwards drawn against Lord Oxford. It was never done again, although it was threatened once on a memorable occasion. Lord Brougham has expressed his great doubt whether, if matters had come to an issue, that course would ultimately have been taken; and if my memory serves me right, the Duke of Richmond has stated that he had it from his father, who was in the Cabinet at the time, that he would never have consented to go to that extreme. It is, therefore, a measure from which Ministers have obviously flinched, and I am dwelling on the point for the purpose of reminding your Lordships that they have flinched from it, and that the threat of it has been very rare. I think I have seen it stated in a book of which, on account of its authority, I should always speak with great respect—I mean Professor Dicey's Constitutional Law—that it is settled Constitutional Law that when the House of Lords resists the House of Commons the vote of the former should be decided by the creation of Peerages; but I think that Constitutional Law requires general acceptance and the acceptance of both sides in politics: and I can safely say that no such doctrine has ever been accepted by the Conservative Party. I am dwelling upon this for the purpose of pointing out that Lord Brougham, who may be said to have been a good judge, stated that if it had been a question of the creation, not of Hereditary Peers, but of Life Peers, very much less difficulty would have existed, and much less apprehension would have been felt, and Ministers would have resolved upon the step with very much greater ease. I, therefore, think it ab-

  391
  solutely necessary that we should establish narrow limits within which this power should be exercised, for whatever the destiny of this House may be, whatever you may desire that it should do or not do, whatever powers it should wield, or character it should bear, I am sure that no man of common sense would ever wish that it should become the supple instrument of a Minister of the Crown. But I go further. I say nothing at present as to the number to which the creation of Life Peers should be restricted, but I think the creation ought to be restricted in point of nature and kind. Fears have been expressed that if unrestricted power of creating Life Peers were given to a Minister it might be used simply for the purpose of getting rid of applicants who could be got rid of in no other way, or for the purpose of disposing of Members of the other House whose presence was inconvenient. Now, I have the greatest possible respect for that Corporation generally represented by Lord Kintore. I have great respect for the valuable services they render to the country, but I am anxious to eliminate to the utmost possible degree their influence in the creation of any Life Peers for the future. If Life Peerages are to be a useful institution, they ought to have as little to do with the Whips as can be. I will state what the proposals are that we have to make. We propose that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty from time to time by Letters Patent to appoint a Peer during his life "any person qualified as shown hereinafter," and then come certain categories which I will read. Of these not more than three persons shall be appointed in any one calendar year. Either he must have been for not less than two years a Judge of the Superior Court in some part of the United Kingdom, or have served in Her Majesty's Naval Forces and have obtained the rank of Rear Admiral or higher rank, or he must have served in Her Majesty's Land Forces, and have attained to the rank of Major General or higher rank, or have been an Ambassador Extraordinary. These categories deal with the legal, military, naval, and diplomatic professions. With respect to the Civil Service there is a difference. There is no rank or mark like that of Ambassador, or Major General, or Rear Admiral which you can select as showing
  392
  their merit or their experience. But it appeared to us that the requisite security might be obtained by relying upon a Body whose constitution has received an expression of admiration from the noble Earl—I mean the Privy Council. I do not think Ministers are generally disposed to appoint unfit persons to the Privy Council, and I think we may say that if a man has been in the Civil Service of the Crown either in this Country or in the Colonies, and has afterwards been made a Privy Councillor, that he is a fit person for a Life Peerage; and, besides that, we propose that any person who may have been five years a Governor General or a Governor in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions out of the United Kingdom or a Lieutenant Governor in India shall be eligible. We further propose that Her Majesty shall have the power to appoint to be a Peer of Parliament any person on account of any special qualification other than one of those mentioned, provided that not more than two persons shall be so appointed during any one calendar year; and that a person shall not be appointed under this section until Her Majesty the Queen has, by a message to the House of Lords, stated Her Majesty's intention to appoint such person and the special qualification on account of which he is proposed to be appointed. That restriction has been introduced for the purpose of avoiding the danger which I distantly glanced at. That will make a power of creating five in all. We then add—
  "The number of Peers at any one time entitled in pursuance of this Act to vote shall not exceed 50, and it shall not be, lawful to make any appointment in pursuance of this Act which will make such number for the time being exceed 50."
  Of course, these numbers may be regarded as excessive; but I wish to point out that they are a maximum. I am not entering into any kind of engagement on the part of the present Government, still less on behalf of the Sovereign, that five Life Peers will be created every year. I have the greatest doubt whether the possibility of finding five proper persons for Life Peers every year will present itself with the facility that some people think. My noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Pembroke) said, in a recent debate, that he wanted us to create at once 200 Life

  393
  Peers; but the prospect filled one with alarm, and I do not think that the most inventive imagination will discover 200 fit candidates for an immediate Life Peerage. I consider five Life Peers a-year to be a maximum, and I do not believe that number will be filled up every year. Of course, it is a matter of speculation in what way they will be received. Some persons have suggested that they would feel themselves in a position of inferiority, which would hinder their usefulness in this House. I think we are dispensed from any apprehension of that kind by the position Life Peers have already obtained in this House. Their position is not only not one of inferiority, but in many cases it is so distinctly superior that I think we may set aside the fear that if the men are men of merit there is the slightest danger of anything of that kind. A totally opposite fear crossed my mind. Ultimately it may come to be thought that as Life Peers are created for merit that is recorded, and Hereditary Peers for merit that is not recorded, an Hereditary Peerage is a less desirable dignity of the two. But whatever may be the case, I am quite sure that when the Life Peers are properly selected they will not only find a hearty welcome, but a very attentive audience. I know that several noble Lords behind me will say in their hearts—"What necessity is there for any Life Peers at all?" I have never put forward Life Peerages as a great panacea; but I think they will be of use, and there are several reasons why. One which has been constantly suggested in previous debates was supported by a striking instance by the noble Earl who leads the other side. It is that it often happens that a man who would be very useful in this House and would contribute very much to its debates is unable to accept a Peerage because of the burden that a title would impose upon his descendants. Another reason why we should desire the presence of Life Peers is furnished by consideration for the work of the House itself. Some of your Lordships may ask—"Is not the work sufficiently well done at present?" I reply that that is a question that must admit of a double answer. In some respects, and on some subjects, the work of the House is admirably done. Nothing could be better attended to than legal matters in
  394
  this House. Nothing could be better as regards knowledge of the subject than the treatment of land questions in this House. Nothing can be better attended to than Church questions are in this House; but when we get outside these three categories I do not think that we are sufficiently well manned. We have some distinguished soldiers and sailors, and some soldiers, as we know, are not allowed to speak so often as we could wish. Still, on these subjects, I doubt whether the representation is sufficient to make our debates adequate, or the examination of measures which come under our consideration sufficient. But outside of these things, when you come to questions of finance, mercantile matters, engineering matters, and a number of other departments of thought and activity, they are hardly represented in this House at all. If the House should pass this measure, it will make the House more efficient for its debates in these respects. And there is another advantage which I think will commend itself to the noble Earl the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who first introduced this question in the present year. He indicated, in no obscure terms, that he thought the creation of Hereditary Peers had been too extensive in recent years, and he was rather inclined to suggest that it was the fault of those atrocious persons the Conservatives; but I think, if he will look back on the years that have passed since we last discussed this subject in 1867, he will find—it is my impression, at all events—that the largo creation of Hereditary Peers has not originated with the Conservatives. But detaching ourselves from all questions of individual responsibility, and merely asking ourselves what is better for the House and the country, I entirely agree with the noble Earl that the rate has been rather high. One of the hopes I have of this measure is that it will diminish the creation of Hereditary Peers, and in that case it will give more freedom and more elasticity to the Crown in the distribution of honours, as well as more fitness to the House for discharging its important duties. There is another subject which I have to call attention to. It is one that does not admit of much discussion. The noble Earl kindly spared us the difficulty of lengthy definition by introducing a phrase

  395
  which has been generally adopted, so that this has come to be known as the question of the black sheep. I doubt whether the evil is so great as it has been represented to be. I have not had the pleasure of meeting the black sheep supposed to be in every corner of the House; but, assuming that they are there, a step towards the removal of them will be taken by the passing of this Bill, for it will give the House a power which it does not now possess—that of expelling a Member. It can only have that power on the same conditions on which the House of Commons has it—that is to say, it must always remain with the constituent authority to restore a peccant Member of the House if it should seem good to it to do so. In our case, the constituent authority is the Crown, and, therefore, it must always remain in the power of the Crown to issue again a Writ of Summons, if it should be advised to do so, to the noble Lord who has been the subject of this operation. The Bill proposes that it shall be in the power of the Queen, on an Address presented by the House of Lords, praying that the Writ of Summons to every Peer named therein shall be cancelled, by Royal Sign Manual to direct that the said Writ shall be cancelled. Such cancelling will be good during tile currency of that Writ—that is, during the existing Parliament—and unless Her Majesty shall issue a special Order to the contrary, that Writ shall remain permanently cancelled. Of course, both for the purpose of repairing errors and of dealing with offences which do not seem to call for so much severity, power must be reserved to the Queen, under Constitutional advice, to re-issue at a later period of the Session the Writ of Summons which has been cancelled. That is merely giving to this House a power which the other House possesses. If it should be the pleasure of Parliament to give that power to this House, it will then be our duty, in the framing of our Standing Orders, to determine how that power shall be exercised, under what conditions, subject to what checks, and under such restrictions as shall prevent the possibility of injustice. I have to apologize, perhaps, that there is nothing more startling in my measures. They are simply designed for the purpose of strengthening the House of
  396
  Lords, and of giving it a power of removing that which is objectionable, and of adding to itself that which is powerful and strong, and of doing its duty better before the country. They are not designed for the purpose of introducing any new principle into the Constitution, or of heralding any revolutionary changes in a Body which has lasted so long and which has done so much service to the State.
  Bill to provide for the appointment of Peers of Parliament for life—Presented (The Marquess of SALISBURY).
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I do not know that it is necessary, or, indeed, respectful, to the economical measure which has been presented to us by the noble Marquess opposite, that we should inaugurate any debate upon it without further consideration. It is a modest measure, and it has been introduced by the noble Marquess in a singularly modest speech. He told us that the plans which were proposed to your Lordships by the noble Earl opposite and myself were killed by their own ambition. That is not my view of the subject at all. I do not know what my noble Friend's view may be; but my belief is that they were killed by the direct intervention of the noble Marquess. I share entirely the views and the extreme vigour with which the noble Marquess put before us the regret which he would feel if he ever thought this House should become the subtle instrument of a Minister of the Crown; but I am bound to say that, viewing the relations of Parties in this House, it cannot but be felt that this House—I do not doubt by sincere conviction—is infinitely too much on the side of the Minister of the Crown, and even of the noble Marquess himself. I do not say whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. That is not the point I am discussing at this moment. But what I have pointed out before to your Lordships is this—that the real danger to the House of Lords does not consist in the absence of five Life Peers appointed annually, or in the presence, the supposed presence, of what are called black sheep, who do not so often attend the House, but whose character, to some extent, invalidates the decisions of the House of Lords—the real danger, to my mind, has alway consisted in this—

  397
  that under certain conditions, which it is not very difficult to imagine, there might be an utter want of sympathy between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and the vast majority of the House of Commons might be entirely opposed to the vast majority of the House of Lords. Now, my Lords, recent events appear to show that that danger is not so remote as might be supposed; but, in any case, whether it be remote or not, the provisions of a wise Minister, I should have thought, would have been to guard against that, and not to attempt to deal with the House of Lords at all, unless he has some large, far-seeing, and exhaustive measure in view which would meet this very grave difficulty. Now, my Lords, as regards this particular measure which the noble Marquess has proposed this evening, while I do not think it respectful to deal with it on the present occasion; at the same time I do not see any great difficulty in doing so. It is not of that character as to offer insuperable obstacles to its discussion. But when you come to think that after the various Motions which have met with more or less favour at your Lordships' hands, after the very wide discussion in the Press and on the platforms, and after that most significant sign of all, the revolt of the eldest sons, when you come to think that the noble Marquess has nothing to propose but that a Rear Admiral shall be made a Life Peer, or that a Major General shall be made a Life Peer, or that a Privy Councillor shall be made a Life Peer, or that an Ambassador shall be made a Life Peer, one begins to feel that the subject is almost hopeless, and that it is hardly worth while proceeding with a reform of that character. I confess if I took into view simply the Bill proposed by the noble Marquess—speaking as an individual, for I have no notion whatever of the feelings of my noble Friends behind me—I should not care to see the Bill carried into effect. But with regard to another point, I confess that I should be inclined to give it my humble vote. My view is this—supporting it as well as I can—that when you once open the sluice-gate of reform into this House you will not be able to stop at this limited measure. I myself am not a very great believer in the remedy as
  398
  the noble Marquess proposes it; I think, as I have already indicated, that it may even tend to degrade the quality of the Hereditary Peers hereafter to be created; because I think that, when a man has been hereafter created a Hereditary Peer, the tendency of the cynical observer of the House of Lords—and I must say I rather put the noble Marquess himself in that category—would be to say that that Nobleman has been created a Peer because he did not come within the various categories of fitness for Life Peerages. And my fear is this, which I believe the noble Marquess also shares—that the Hereditary Peer may hereafter come to occupy a very subordinate position in relation to the distinguished men whom the noble Marquess proposes to introduce. I do not know whether 50 or 100, or even 200, distinguished men would come in under the clauses of this Bill; but, at the same time, I think that its operation will be, as I have already said, rather to degrade the hereditary character of this House than to improve it. Now, my Lords, there is another process. The first proposal in the Bill is to make an addition; but it also contemplates a process of subtraction. With regard to the process of addition, I think it will not be very operative; but as to the process of subtraction, I venture to affirm that it will be absolutely inoperative. Is it quite clear, to begin with, that this House has not the power of expelling any of its Members by Resolution? I do not care to discuss that point; but if it has not the power, is it the least likely that for petty offences which in many cases unfit a Peer, in the opinion of the public, for the exercise of his legislative functions, that you will be able to get a House together and get an authority to move a solemn Address to the Crown for the removal of a Peer? My Lords, I do not believe it for a moment. I believe your process of expurgation will be a dead letter. No one will dare to take upon himself the invidious functions of censor without authority or inducement. I am firmly convinced of this—that the only possible method by which you can exclude undeserving Peers from the House of Lords is the method proposed by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dun-raven) as well as by myself—a process

  399
  of delegation. My Lords, under these circumstances, I do not think I have anything further to add to the remarks I have ventured to make on this Bill. I shall give it my humble support, not because of the intrinsic virtues of the measure, but because I believe it to be a certain precedent for larger, and more extensive, and more operative proposals.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that he had deliberately abstained from taking part in the discussion of this subject during the past two years, because he had had great doubts as to the practical character of the measures brought forward, and he had desired to defer any observations he might have to make on so important a matter until some definite proposal had been submitted to their Lordships. He was one of the last survivors of those who more than 30 years ago proposed to revive Life Peerages. His noble Friend who led the official Opposition in that House the other day was reported to have said that if the measure which they then proposed had been allowed to take effect the agitation for an alteration in the constitution of the House would probably have been delayed some time. Speaking for himself, he was not now of opinion that that would have been the result. Whatever movement there might have been for an alteration in the constitution of that House, it was much more deeply seated than would have been satisfied by such a change as was then proposed. He did not know whether his noble Friend would contradict him, but he submitted that the Government of Lord Palmerston 30 years ago had more in view the strengthening of the judicial element of that House than anything else. Looking back to that time, he felt bound to say that he thought the Government of Lord Palmerston rushed into that measure hastily and without due consideration. He did not think that there was one Member of that Government who believed that there was any doubt as to the legal and Constitutional power they had to create Life Peerages. Lord Campbell laid it down that they had the power. It was a curious fact, and it formed a piece of political gossip at the time, that if Lord Wensleydale had been well enough to take his seat on the first night of the Session no question would have
  400
  been raised by the Law Peers. But as he was ill, he was compelled to delay taking his seat for three weeks or a month, and during that time the Law Peers got up the opposition. They did not fully consider—at least, speaking for himself, he did not fully consider—the influence which that measure would have on the independence of that House. His noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) had expressed doubt whether there would not be in the hands of the Ministry a much greater responsibility in that House if the creation of Life Peers were extended. For his own part, he could not help agreeing that the difficulty was very considerable. No doubt, there were other means at the disposal of a Minister; but, on the whole, he could not doubt that it would be more easy for an unscrupulous Minister to swamp that House if he had the unlimited power of creating Life Peers. If they were to continue to have two Houses of Parliament, he thought it should be agreed by all men that they ought to be independent of each other; that both Houses should have in their own sphere the character of independence of the Minister of the Crown, otherwise they could not perform their duty to the people. He agreed with the noble Marquess that there ought to be some limit on the creation of Life Peers; but this was not the proper time for discussing what should be the precise limit. He did not, however, understand the speech of the noble Earl who bad spoken last, because the noble Earl said he would vote for that measure, but that he thought it would degrade that House. He could not quite understand those two propositions. The noble Earl said the Bill would open the door through which other measures would come in afterwards for further reforms of that House. He hoped that the noble Earl did not mean that those other measures were also to have the character of tending to degrade that House, and that he would also vote for them.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he did not want his words to be misapprehended. He had said that he thought the proposed introduction of Life Peers might rather have a tendency to degrade the Hereditary Members, and that in that respect he shared the surmises of the noble Marquess himself. His other

  401
  argument was that that measure would open the sluice gate to other measures of reform.
  THE DUCK OF ARGYLL: The noble Earl said that the measure would tend to degrade the Hereditary Peers, but nevertheless he would vote for it. For himself, he did not believe that the creation of Life Peers would have any such effect. They would be regarded as other Members of the House were; they would be respected for their individual character and ability, and many of them were men of great ability and took an active part in the Business of the House. They had heard some able speeches from the noble Earl about the reform of the House of Lords—a subject which he must say he had treated with great ability, but at the same time with an ability which was consistent with the avoidance of committing himself to any definite scheme. The noble Earl told them that there was a danger of that House coming into collision with the other House of Parliament. Of course there was. That was a necessary danger attending any Constitution under which they had two Houses of Parliament. But he asked what his noble Friend was driving at in his speeches in that House and out of the House? He must say that he thought persons in the position of his noble Friend who had been Ministers of the Crown, and who hoped again to be Ministers of the Crown, should not throw the great institutions of this country at the heads of the people without any indication of the direction in which they themselves would wish their reforms to go. It was pretty plain what his noble Friend meant. He meant that there should continue to be a Second Chamber, as it was commonly called, but one that should always agree with the House of Commons and which should say "Ditto" to the House of Commons—a House of Lords whose voice was never to be heard except in the symphony of "Amen." If that was so, let him say it openly—let him tell them and tell the people that he wished to have a second House of Parliament that would never take an independent view of anything, and, therefore, would never be in danger of a possible collision with the House of Commons. They would then understand him. That reminded him of an incident which he witnessed a few years
  402
  ago. Some American steamers, as their Lordships might know, were like Noah's Ark, and covered like a house with a roof, and no passenger was allowed to go on to the top of that roof without the special leave of the captain. It happened to himself to be on board one of those steamers, and the captain invited him to go up and see the views from the top of the ship. An American lady was there also at the time. An essential part of the machinery of such a steamer which wished to avoid danger was a steam whistle; and on the occasion to which he referred the whistle being set going the lady put up both her hands to her ears to shut out the dreadful noise. The captain afterwards said to her—"I am very sorry, madam, to have inconvenienced you, but you will be glad to hear that our great inventor, Mr. Edison, is about to take out a new patent for a steam whistle that is to make no noise at all." "That would be delightful," she thought. Well, his noble Friend was a sort of political Mr. Edison, who would undertake to produce a House of Lords, which would never dissent from the House of Commons, would never cry "No," and would always say "Ditto" to that House. He could understand the doctrine that they should not have a House of Lords which would be in perpetual conflict and collision with the House of Commons. A greater calamity to the country could not well be conceived. He desired an Upper Chamber such as they had over had for 600, 700, or 800 years, which should be gifted with insight into the great political instincts of the English people, which should be able to detect the movements of political opinion that were really such, and to distinguish those movements and the conclusions to which they pointed from the movements of impulsive passion which might at some unhappy moment threaten disaster to the State. That must involve the danger of occasional difference with the other House of Parliament. That was the use of the House of Lords—that was the use of the Second Chamber; and without that danger there could be no such use. His noble Friend, in a speech made in the North of Scotland the other day, said that the reform of the House of Lords was not pre-eminently, but only partially a Party question, and he agreed in that. But his noble Friend

  403
  went on to say that the House of Lords was eminently obstructive of Liberal measures. He wanted to know what his noble Friend meant by "Liberal measures?" He supposed that he meant measures which emanated from the Party to which he belonged; and that the House of Lords ought never to dissent from measures proposed by the Party which he honoured with his Membership and adherence. Well, that was a very large order. But how far, he would ask, was it true that that House, in any large sense of the word, had been obstructive of the great changes which during the last half-century had been in the interests of the people? He himself had had the honour of being either a Member of that House or a close attendant on its debates as a boy on the steps of the Throne for very close on half-a-century—for 47 years; and he looked back to see what were the great movements of legislation in the interests of the people to which that House had been an obstruction. Besides many others of considerable importance, he found five or six changes which were considered almost revolutionary in their character. First of all, he found a series of measures, not promoted solely by the Liberal Party, but heralded and defended and promoted and patronized by one man who was throughout life more or less a Conservative—the late Lord Shaftesbury. Had the late Lord Shaftesbury any serious difficulty in carrying those measures through the House of Lords? No; the opposition offered to them in the House of Commons was much more serious than that offered in the House of Lords; and when they came to the House of Lords, although they were not received with enthusiasm—for that was not the special quality of their Lordships' House—they were passed with much less difficulty. He had no hesitation in saying that the Factory Acts were at that time considered to be measures of almost a revolutionary kind. They introduced an entirely new principle in our legislation—a principle full of doubt and difficulty even in the opinion of our most philanthropic and public men. Among the many measures which, during the last 50 years, had tended to prove the wisdom of Parliament and the political instincts of the British people, and which had tended to the happiness
  404
  of the working classes, none, in his opinion, stood before the Factory Acts. He came now to the next question, the abolition of Protection. Protection of native industries was dear to the hearts and convictions of the leading men on both sides of the House, and in both Houses of Parliament. He remembered very well when Lord Melbourne sat in the place now occupied by the noble Marquess, and seeing by his side old Lord Holland, whose form and features recalled to their Lordships the well-known form and features of the illustrious man who was a near relative of his and one of the greatest of our English statesmen. At that time there was but one Member of their Lordships' House who was in favour of the repeal of the Corn Laws. That was the late Lord Fitzwilliam. In a few short years the abolition of Protection was attained. The question was dealt with by the House of Commons under great difficulty, and under the pressure of circumstances connected with the potato famine in Ireland it was found impossible to resist the action of Sir Robert Peel. The question then came up to their Lordships' House against the individual convictions of the vast majority. There was no doubt about that; but their Lordships legislated on the question, and they submitted to the changes which they saw inevitable. The third question was the destruction of the Established Church in Ireland. If ever there was a measure which was odious to the feelings, the sentiments, and the convictions of a large part of their Lordships' House, it was the destruction of that Church. But their Lordships saw then, as the House of Commons had seen, that the time had come for the removal of that strange political anomaly. Instead of obstructing the measure, their Lordships' House made some alterations in it of a comparatively minor kind with regard to the interests of the clergy, and then allowed it to pass. He said, therefore, that in none of these cases was the assertion of the noble Earl true that the House of Lords had been an obstructive of Liberal measures. He came now to the question of the franchise. A large number of their Lordships were at that time in favour of the franchise, but he believed that if the Division had been taken as a more ques-

  405
  tion of philosophy, without reference to political circumstances, that extension would not have taken place. But that franchise measure was carried. He came now to the question of the redistribution of seats. Here they came to the last case on which there had been something like a serious danger of collision between the two Houses of Parliament. At that time he sat on the opposite Benches, but, though not in Office, he voted with Mr. Gladstone's Government against the postponement of the Franchise Bill for the purpose of seeing the Redistribution Bill. He voted against the postponement of that Bill because he had some personal confidence in the sense of responsibility under which his right hon. Friend Mr. Gladstone acted in regard to redistribution. He felt a tolerable confidence that Mr. Gladstone would not produce a Bill which at that time was called a "jerrymandering Bill." He must say, however, that he had no right to expect other men to have that personal respect and confidence which he felt in the right hon. Gentleman; and he was far from saying that the House of Lords was not right in asking that the two Bills should go forward together, or, at least, that the proposals of the one measure should be known before the other was passed. This question nearly led to a serious collision on account of the passionate manner in which Mr. Gladstone discussed it. He accused the House of Lords openly in many speeches of wishing to destroy the Franchise Bill through a demand for the Redistribution Bill. He believed that was an entirely erroneous view. He believed that the great majority of their Lordships were willing to vote for the Franchise Bill, and that its postponement until the Redistribution Bill was forthcoming was a really bonâ fide desire on their part to have the full scheme of reform before them. But how did that matter end? Of course, if their Lordships had to deal with passionate men, with Ministers who would not allow the great elements of the Constitution to have free play, with Ministers who were so passionate that they would not allow the Second Chamber to have a say in such matters as this, then there would always be friction. But the whole British Constitution turned on legal and Constitutional points. The danger of collision did not come from
  406
  their Lordships, who, while acting unfortunately, as he thought, at the moment, acted strictly within their Constitutional rights, and in the exercise of which their vote ought to have been respected. But how did this matter end? That House was firm, and it ended in a compromise. The two Parties met, and a Redistribution Bill was agreed upon. Could his noble Friend say that this was a case in which their Lordships' House obstructed a Liberal measure? It was a case in which the two Houses of Parliament, acting under a due sense of public duty, and acting to some extent on different opinions, procured a compromise which he believed would be happy in its results. His noble Friend spoke as if every measure of the Liberal Party should be received by their Lordships. Did his noble Friend remember the warning lately given to them by his illustrious Chief about the present state of the Liberal Party? His noble Friend had forgotten that. In the General Election of 1885 Mr. Gladstone said he had the honour of being at the head of the Liberal Party; he had long known it intimately; he had long known its virtues—he forgot the terms of the eulogium, but he remembered that it was very fine—and he warned the people of Mid Lothian that the Liberal Party was not to be trusted if it had to depend on the votes of the Irish Members. But what did the right hon. Gentleman do now? His right hon. Friend had fulfilled his own prophecy. The noble Earl forgot that by the confession of his Leader the portion of the Liberal Party which was under the influence and domination of Mr. Parnell was not in a position safely to represent the interests of the country. He was a thoroughly convinced Gladstonian on that point. But if that be the position of the Liberal Party at present by the confession and prophecy of its illustrious Chief, was it reasonable that his noble Friend should insist upon such a reform of the House of Lords that it should always accept whatever that section of the Liberal Party agreed upon? That apparently was the meaning of his noble Friend's language. He had spoken thus that evening because, having a full and anxious desire to see any changes made in their Lordships' House which should be in the direction of development and strengthening it for

  407
  the great purposes of the Constitution, he wished to know whether they did or did not recognize what those purposes were. He had read his noble Friend's speeches, and he had been amused and edified by their extremely dexterous character. But he repeated that the noble Earl had given no indication, even last week in the North of Scotland, of the purposes and direction in which he wished their Lordships to go. He had felt it to be a public duty to say so much on this the first opportunity he had had of addressing their Lordships on the subject. He would not now discuss the proposals of the noble Marquess, preferring to wait until they were before the House, when he hoped their Lordships would enter upon their discussion with the full desire to do what they could, even if it should be only, as his noble Friend said, a first step towards enlarging and strengthening the constitution of their Lordships' House.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he did not wish to say anything about the Bill at present, because he thought any observations could best be made on the second reading stage. He rose merely to express satisfaction that the Prime Minister had introduced a Bill of this character, though he confessed that his satisfaction was derived rather from a hope of favours to come than from a conviction that the Bill would solve the problem or satisfy the requirements of the case. He did not believe that the House could be reformed in the necessary direction by any creation of Life Peers. With regard to that part of the proposal of the noble Marquess which related to the exclusion from that House of the so-called "black sheep," he admitted that he did not exactly know to whom that expression referred; but, at all events, those who were indicated by it did not sit either upon the Front Bench beneath him or upon the Front Bench opposite, and, in fact, they were very few in number. He fully recognized, however, that the feeling created abroad by the presence of delinquents in that House could not be measured by the number of those delinquents, but must be gauged by the view that was taken of the matter by the country, and by the amount of prejudice which might be raised against the House by the fact of their presence in it. He, therefore, attached great importance to that pro-
  408
  vision in the Bill which gave powers to the Crown to cancel a Writ. Those powers ought to be exercised on the basis of attendance at the Sittings of the House, Rules being framed by their Lordships enforcing more regular attendance. He regretted that the noble Marquess, in introducing this measure, had given no indication that its provisions might be extended to the great Colonies and the Dependencies of the Crown.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas understood to say that he had already stated that the provisions of the Bill would extend to any person who had been the Governor General, and to any Civil servant who had served in the Colonies and who had been made a Privy Councillor.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he was glad to find that he had been in error upon this point. He did not think that any great advantage would be derived from conferring Life Peerages upon soldiers and sailors, seeing that both the Services were already well represented in that House. He had no desire upon that occasion to discuss the provisions or the merits of the Bill; but he might say that he did not agree with the noble Earl opposite in his estimate of the measure. He believed that the Bill, taken in conjunction with the results which might flow from the Commission which had been moved for the other day by the Lord Privy Seal, would prove a useful one. He did not suppose for a moment that it would meet all the requirements of the case, but he looked upon it with all the more favour because it appeared to carry out the view which the Prime Minister had emphasized so strongly the other day when he told their Lordships that he did not desire on the part of the Government to take up the non possumus position with regard to the reform of that House. He trusted that, a proposal for the reform of that House having been initiated by Her Majesty's Government, if this Bill should prove inadequate they would be willing to go a step further, and to supplement it by a fuller measure of reform.
  LORD NORTONsaid, that with reference to a remark which had fallen from the noble Lord opposite, to the effect that this Bill would not prevent collisions occurring between the two Houses of Parliament, he wished to ask him

  409
  whether he thought that any measure that could be passed would have the effect of preventing all possibility of collision between those Bodies? He did not suppose that the noble Earl opposite entertained such an idea, any more than that he entertained the idea attributed to him by the noble Duke opposite of of rendering that House a silent partner of the House of Commons, which should exist merely for the purpose of endorsing and registering the decrees of the other House. He desired to call the attention of their Lordships to the wide divergence in point of principle between the Bills which had been respectively introduced by the noble Earl opposite and by the noble Earl who had last spoken and that under discussion of the noble Marquess. The proposals of the noble Earls involved the introduction of a new principle into the essential constitution of this House—namely, that its Members sat by virtue of Crown appointments, whether hereditary or for life; whereas, by the proposal of the noble Marquess, that principle would be retained intact. Nearly all those who had thought upon this subject were agreed that it was necessary that there should be a Second Legislative Chamber in all free Constitutions, and there was high authority in favour of that view, the framers of the Constitution of the United States having come, after the ablest and most exhaustive discussion, to the conclusion that to have only one Chamber would be fatal to freedom and to the continuity and stability of government. They recognized, as their greatest difficulty, the desirability of the Second Chamber being of entirely different constitution. Those who proposed to make the House of Lords partially elective failed to appreciate the great advantage that the two Houses should be differently constituted. It was the dissimilarity of constitution which had given the House of Lords its peculiar usefulness in relation to the Commons. By long and historical prestige it had been rendered what it was impossible for new Constitution makers to create. If once we destroyed the special constitution of the House its inimitable service in our Legislature could never be regained. He had heard it said that there was no historical record in existence of the peculiar original constitution of this House; but no very deep historical re-
  410
  search was needed to establish the fact that the Barons, lay and spiritual—the one hereditary, the other for life—were an emanation from the Crown as the permanent branch of the Council of the Kingdom. They had found it desirable to separate themselves, in Edward the First's Reign, from the elective and continually changing portion of the Council, which consisted of delegates from shires and boroughs. It was a fallacy to suppose that popular election must, in accordance with some theoretic spirit of the age, be introduced into the constitution of every institution. Popular election, when in the hands of managers and Caucuses, ended less in popular representation than the constitution of this House. Election was not necessary to representation; and there might be too much of it for really popular interests. If such a principle were introduced into the composition of this House it would change it from being what it ought to be and was—a Supplemental Body, co-operating with the legislative action of the other House—into a more rival of the other House and looking always to the same agencies outside. On these grounds, he maintained the Bill of the noble Marquess was the only safe proposal that had been submitted to the House.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he was not at all alarmed by the suggestion which had been made that if this Bill passed it would not be final, but that something more might from time to time be done afterwards. When that something more was proposed the House would, of course, judge whether it would do good or evil. This was a subject as to which it was desirable to legislate from time to time upon matters which the House conceived to be practical, and which might be carried into effect consistently with the general principle of maintaining this House as an efficient Second Chamber. He was, therefore, not unwilling to contemplate the possibility of further measures. With regard to the Bill itself, he thought it was called for by the necessities of the country. He had been always one of those who thought that the House took a very strong measure when it laid down as a doctrine of Constitutional Law that the Crown, though it might create Life Peers, could not entitle them to seats in their Lordships' House, unless at the

  411
  same time there should be some sort of remainder by way of inheritance. That decision had been acquiesced in so long by the Crown and the country, as to make it now, practically, part of the Law of Parliament; but he thought it rendered necessary some such measure as this in order to get rid of the general exclusion of Life Peers, and, so far, he welcomed the measure of the noble Marquess. With regard to the limitations proposed by the noble Marquess, he concurred more distinctly in the limitation as to time than in that as to the maximum number. He quite agreed that there should be such a reasonable limit put to the number of Life Peers to be created within a definite space of time as would prevent an abuse of the power for the purpose of overturning instead of strengthening the Constitution. He had, however, more doubt of the limitation of the number to 50. He could not help thinking that it would not be a permanent limitation; he doubted whether it was desirable that it should be. If, as was not now proposed, but as might at some time be rendered necessary by the multiplication of Hereditary Peerages, the number of Peers who were to sit in the House and exercise legislative functions were limited, it was doubtful whether there would be any need for a definite limitation of the total number of Life Peers. The noble Marques proposed, in certain cases, to take power to recall, or not to issue, Writs to Peers who would otherwise have a right to sit in this House. That proposition appeared to him fairly to raise another question, on which his own opinion differed from that of many others. So far from considering that this House would lose strength, if those entitled to succeed to it wore permitted to retain the status of Commoners until they applied for Writs, he thought the contrary. He thought it would be of considerable advantage if a person to whom the right to succeed to a Peerage had come were not compelled to resign a seat in the House of Commons until he applied for a Writ to issue summoning him to the House of Lords. He could not think that would in any degree tend to weaken the House of Lords; and if it were not done, persons, who, being in the line of succession to a Peerage had attained a position of eminence and usefulness in
  412
  the other House of Parliament, might be dissatisfied with the hereditary part of the constitution of the House of Lords. His reasons for thinking that the House of Lords might gain more than it lost by such a change were, that, in the first place, it was most desirable that those who came to take a prominent part in the discussions of the House of Lords should have the opportunity of a good training in the House of Commons. They should accustom themselves to the prevalent tone and feeling of the constituencies and of the other House, and learn to understand and to be in sympathy with the views which prevailed there, and when they came to the House of Lords they should bring to it as much knowledge as possible of the other House and of its spirit and its way of doing Business. There had been cases where the necessity of a Member of the House of Commons leaving that House and entering the House of Lords on his succeeding to a Peerage had disturbed the whole political arrangements of the country. It was so when Lord Althorp became Lord Spencer, which caused almost a political revolution. Such cases might from time to time recur, and he thought it would be a great advantage if in these, and indeed in all cases, the successor to a Peerage might, at his option, remain a Commoner until he desired to take his seat in the House of Lords. It ought to be borne in mind that this was not a House in which young men, as a rule, took much part in the debates. Owing to what might be termed the absence of enthusiasm and the intermittent character of the debates, the younger Members of this House did not speak as often as the House of Commons would probably hear them if they sat in that House, and they had, therefore, not the same advantages in regard to preparation for the duties of a statesman as they would have if they remained longer in the House of Commons. Nor was it correct to say that if this choice were given, the most distinguished men to whom the right of Peerage came would always stay in the House of Commons. He believed that after they had acquired political influence and experience there, most of them would come to this House, when they could be of the greatest use to it. The late Lord Derby and Lord Russell came to this

  413
  House of their own free will, and men who had made their mark in the House of Commons, but who were getting on in years, constantly, of their own free will, left the House of Commons to become Members of that House. The House of Lords was very much in the position of a Senate, and into the character of a Senate the idea of seniority usually entered.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not rise to prolong this discussion, as it was somewhat inconvenient to discuss a Bill on the Motion for its first reading, and before the House had had an opportunity of studying the details. The discussion, however, he admitted, had led to some pertinent remarks from his noble Friend on that Bench and some interesting suggestions from the noble and learned Earl. He should not, on the present occasion, enter into the merits of the Bill, nor did he feel inclined to follow the example of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), who imagined a speech as having been delivered by a noble Lord on that Bench, and then proceeded to demolish it. The speech which the noble Duke attributed to his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) he had never heard delivered. The noble Duke attributed to the noble Earl a desire to make this Assembly subservient to the House of Commons. As far as he understood the arguments of his noble Friend the other day, it, on the contrary, appeared to be the object of his noble Friend to strengthen this House. The noble Earl very sensibly urged that every attempt should be made to bring the two Houses as much as possible into harmonious co-operation. He (Earl Granville) did not desire to go into the recent history of the House of Lords. It was not his business or wish to bring an indictment against it; but there were people who did wish to do so, and some remarks that had been made that evening would probably prompt those persons to show some recent instances in which certain measures certainly had been delayed by the House of Lords. Into this matter, however, he did not wish to enter; but he could not help referring to the attack made by the noble Duke against Mr. W. E. Gladstone, and the charge that Mr. W. E. Gladstone had some time ago stimulated the agitation against the House of Lords. No doubt, there was
  414
  such an agitation of which a political Leader possessing Mr. W. E. Gladstone's power might have taken advantage and carried to a turning point; but their Lordships would, he felt sure, remember how Mr. W. E. Gladstone, on the contrary, abstained from fanning that agitation and was careful to do all in his power to calm it.
  Bill read 1a. (No 161.)

  HOUSE OF LORDS (DISCONTINUANCE OF WRITS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to authorize the discontinuance in particular cases of the issue of writs of summons to the House of Lords—Was presented by The Marquess of Salisbury; read 1a. (No. 162.)

  LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to establish limited partnerships—Was presented by The Lord Bramwell; read 1a. (No. 159.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.