Sitting of 3 May 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Forest of Dean Turnpike Trust, nominated; East India (Hyderabad Deccan Mining Company), appointed and nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—
National Defence* [235].
Select Committee—Burgh Police and Health (Scotland)* [118], nominated.
Committee—Local Government (England and Wales) (Electors) [181]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Customs and Inland Revenue* [202].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Land Law (Ireland) Act (1887) Amendment [207], and passed.

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to indisposition:—
Whereupon Mr. Courtney, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table; and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

QUESTIONS.

  LAND COMMISSION COURTS (IRELAND) —JUDICIAL RENTS—ARREARS.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, How many cases of application for judicial rent were undisposed of in the Land Courts in Ireland on the 1st of May, 1887, and the 1st of May, 1888, respectively?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): Sir, the Land Commissioners state that on the 1st of May, 1887, the numbers of fair rent applications undisposed of were in the Land Commission Court 11,773, and in the Civil Bill Court 1,757; on the 1st of May, 1888, the numbers were 63,087 and 4,246 respectively.

  LAND PURCHASE ACT, 1885—PAYMENT OF INSTALMENTS.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What amount of instalments of the purchase money under "The
  1208
  Land Purchase Act, 1885," which fell due on the 1st of November, 1887, remained unpaid on the 1st of May, 1888; and, what amount of instalments of purchase money fell due on the 1st of May, 1888, and what amount of this was not paid on that day?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The total amount of interest and instalments which accrued due in respect of advances under the Purchase of Land Act (Ireland), 1885, from the passing of the Act to the 1st of November, 1887, was £50,910, and of this amount there remained unpaid on the 1st of May, 1888, the sum of £1,281. The amount of interest and instalments which fell due on the 1st of May, 1888, was £39,720; but as these instalments have only just become due, and are collected by means of receivable orders payable through local banks, and not yet returnable, it is impossible to give any satisfactory answer to the hon. Member's second Question.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—JUDICIAL RENTS—RETURNS.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the fact that the Returns of Judicial Rents fixed in Ireland are arranged according to counties, and by years ending in August, whereas in the order of the Land Commission varying judicial rents according to the Act of 1887 the areas chosen are Poor Law Unions, and the years commence with the 1st of January and end with the 31st of December, and that consequently, it is impossible to ascertain what the precise effect of the Rent varying Clause of the Land Act of 1887 has been, he will grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Meath (Mr. Mahony) for Friday the 4th of May?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform me that the books of rents fixed by the Land Commission and Civil Bill Courts, as also the books in which originating declarations and agreements are entered, are kept according to counties, not Poor Law Unions. To prepare the Return asked for would, therefore, in-

  1209
  volve an inspection of each one of 94,469 agreements, and the division of the entire 194,132 judicial rents into Poor Law Unions, and subsequently making schedules, totals, and percentage calculations. They state that this could only be done by largely augmenting their staff for five or six months, entailing considerable expense, and causing a serious interruption to their regular business. In these circumstances, the Government cannot undertake to grant the Return in question.

  LOTTERIES ACT—THE CHURCH CON SERVATIVE CLUB.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is now aware that the Church Conservative Club, some time last month, issued a list of 103 prizes, varying in value from £15 to 2s. actually drawn in the lottery previously advertised by that Club; whether the numbers of the tickets drawn include one numbered 281,879; whether he has received any Report from the Director of Public Prosecutions, or from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, or from the Chief Constable, as to any action taken in the matter; and, whether he will lay the Correspondence upon the table?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, he had no specific information as to the facts contained in the first part of the Question; but he had that morning received a letter from the Chief Constable of Lancashire, stating that proceedings had been taken before the magistrates against the Church Conservative Club on a charge of drawing a lottery. He had already informed the House of the action taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The correspondence that had taken place contained confidential matter, and he must decline to place it on the Table.

  REGISTRY AND INSPECTION OF LAND BOILERS—REPORT TO THE BOARD OF TRADE.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of one of the Assistant Secretaries to the Board of Trade on the subject of Registry and
  1210
  Inspection of Land Boilers, and especially to the following paragraph on page 19:—
  "Although it was not deemed to be necessary to encumber the draft Boiler Registry and Inspection Bill with clauses on the subject, I think this question of properly qualified attendants may well be considered with those of inspection and registration of boilers. It would be well to secure, as far as possible, that the boilers are properly constructed and kept in good order; but if they are entrusted to careless and incompetent men disasters must happen. I must, however, in fairness, add that in most of the cases of explosion the boiler attendants have not been at fault;"
  and, whether the Government will consider the recommendation of so great an authority with a view to legislation on the subject?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I am aware of the Report relating to the Registry and Inspection of Land Boilers to which the hon. Member refers, and would call his attention to that part of his quotation which states that in most of the cases of explosion the attendants have not been at fault. The Government are not prepared to undertake legislation of the kind desired by the hon. Member.

  METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— HYDE PARK CORNER.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether Her Majesty's Government have in contemplation any arrangement to supply the blank on the flat top of the Arch south of Hyde Park Corner caused by the deposition of the late Duke of Wellington; or, if not, whether they will restore the Duke?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The Government do not intend to propose any Estimate for supplying the blank on the top of the Arch south of Hyde Park Corner. The House will probably remember that a Committee was formed some time ago under the presidency of the Prince of Wales, and a considerable sum was subscribed in answer to the appeal which His Royal Highness, acting with great public spirit, had made for the purpose of ornamenting the vacant spaces created by the improvements at Hyde Park Corner. Under the direction of this Committee, the new statue of the Duke of Welling-

  1211
  ton by Mr. Boehm, with a handsome pedestal, will be placed opposite Apsley House in the course of the Autumn of this year; and the remainder of the money subscribed for the purpose will be applied to further beautifying the open spaces. But the funds at present at the disposal of His Royal Highness do not admit of his undertaking to place a suitable work of art on the summit of the Arch, involving probably an outlay of more than £20,000. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member that the old statue of the Duke should be restored, I am afraid it cannot be entertained; it stands at present at Aldershot on a very appropriate site. It cost over £3,000 to take it there, and I am not prepared to pay as much more for getting it back.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to give Notice that on an early day I will call attention to the distressing results that followed the rash removal of an old landmark dear to the inhabitants of London.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—GALWAY HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. H. CAMPBELL(for Mr. PINKERTON)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the Secretary of the Board of Works has refused to sanction the payment of accounts presented by Messrs. Lydon, Brothers, of Galway, for iron work done for the Galway Harbour Commissioners, although the accounts were passed by the Engineer and Chairman; and, why no reply was given to letters demanding payment?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I am informed that this claim was only received yesterday at the Board of Works from the Secretary to the Harbour Commissioners, and will be dealt with in due course. The Board, as receiver over the harbour, cannot discharge any such claim except upon the certificate of the Harbour Commissioners.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES)——WRIGHT, A CONVICT IN PORTSMOUTH PRISON.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, For what offence a convict, named Wright, confined in Portsmouth Prison, was in irons at the
  1212
  time when, as alleged, he recently assaulted Chief Warder George; upon how many occasions, and during what number of hours in the aggregate, has Wright been in irons since the 1st of January last; and, what other punishments (if any) have been inflicted on Wright since that date?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): This convict was in irons for having made a savage attack with a knife upon another convict. This is the only occasion on which he has been in irons since the 1st of January. He has been in irons since the 21st of March—that is, 42 days, or 1,008 hours. Since the same date he has been twice punished by dietary punishment, and once by close confinement for three days.

  BOARD OF TRADE—WORKING OF RAILWAYS.
  MR. KIMBERasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will be prepared, on the 8th of May, on the occasion of the Motion of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing), on the subject of the safe working of railways, or sooner, to inform the House whether the smaller and branch railways have yet been called upon to adopt, or have adopted, the same automatic brake as is in use by the leading trunk lines of this country, and whether such brake is capable of universal coupling with any other rolling stock, so as to insure safe interchange of traffic with all other railways; and, whether he has, or can obtain, any Reports of the results of the working of automatic brakes on the Indian Railways?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Board of Trade have no power to call upon the Railway Companies to adopt any particular brake; but the Circular of the 30th of August, 1877, setting out the conditions which, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, brakes should fulfil, was sent to the small as well as to the great Companies. And the half-yearly Return presented to Parliament in accordance with the Act of 1878 deals with the brakes of all the Companies. The Board of Trade have no information as regards the working of automatic brakes in India, but will communicate with the India Office. I am, however,

  1213
  informed that such brakes are only used in India to a very limited extent.

  COMMONS (METROPOLIS)—WANDS WORTH COMMON—THE PATRIOTIC FUND COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. KIMBERasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, as representing the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the Board have received and considered a letter from the Wandsworth Common Protection Association, respecting the damage now being done to the Common by the vehicular traffic of the carman and contractor tenant of the Patriotic Fund Commissioners, and with what result; is the action at law still pending between the Board, as Conservators of the Common, and the Commissioners, at what stage is it at this moment, and what are the actual issues to be tried in it; is there any way which the Board can devise for settling this dispute, and terminating the damage, otherwise than by litigation, between two Public Bodies both using public funds; and, is it a fact that, if the Patriotic Fund Commissioners succeed in the litigation, the effect will be that 19½ acres of land of the Common, which are admitted by the Commissioners not to be required for the purposes of their Trust, may remain a market garden for 42 years. and be a means of perpetuating the damage to the Common and annoyance and deprivation to the public using the Common?
  MR. TATTON-EGERTONin reply, said, that the Metropolitan Board of Works had received, and were considering, a letter from the Wandsworth Common Protection Society on the subject referred to, and the writer had been informed that it would receive due consideration. The action, it was hoped, might be averted if the negotiations were brought to a satisfactory conclusion. As to the last paragraph of the Question, the Metropolitan Board of Works were not in possession of the terms of the agreement between the Patriotic Fund Commissioners and their tenant.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Commissioners have not granted any lease in the case in question for a period exceeding 21 years, nor do they stand committed to any renewal of the lease at its expiry. It is
  1214
  understood that the tenant is managing Director of a Company which carries on the work of carmen; but such a position has no connection with his tenancy of ground belonging to the Commissioners, nor could he, under the terms of his tenancy, make his land or farm buildings available for such purpose. Communications are at present taking place in a friendly spirit between the Commissioners and the Metropolitan Board of Works relative to a question of right of way on Wandsworth Common. Matters of such a character are managed by the Executive and Finance Committee of the Fund under the orders of the Commissioners.

  ADMIRALTY—No. 35 FIRST CLASS TORPEDO BOAT.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, In what condition No. 35 First Class Torpedo Boat was allowed to leave Portsmouth; whether extensive leaks manifested themselves, as stated in The Times of the 23rd of April, in the wake of the crew's living compartment, and also in the condenser and collision compartments, eight inches of water being made in one night; whether hand pumps, through defects, ceased to operate, and the steam ejector was obliged to be used, with deleterious results to the boilers; whether, if these statements are correct, he can give any explanation as to who was responsible for such a state of affairs, and what steps will be taken to prevent their occurrence in the future; and, whether similar weakness exists in other service torpedo boats unfitting them to withstand the strains of their engines and the force of the sea?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): No. 35 Torpedo Boat was perfectly sound when she left England. She had been carefully examined on the slip before launching, and neither on launching, or during the steam trials to which she was subjected before leaving, did she show any signs of leaking or any weakness. Two days after leaving Devonport she developed a leak, and it was ascertained that one rivet had gone, and that 11 others were leaking. The fact that she had been perfectly tight up to this time points to the conclusion that some special circumstance, such as an unusually heavy blow from the sea

  1215
  when being driven in the Bay of Biscay or collision with some floating material, must have caused the leakage. The hand pump did not work satisfactorily, and the steam ejector had to be used; but without, so far as has been ascertained, any injurious effect on the boiler. Everything was done at the Dockyard to secure that the boats were in all respects complete and fit for sea. There is no reason to suppose that the service torpedo boats are weak or unfit to perform the service for which they were constructed.

  ADMIRALTY (SHIPS)—SPECIAL TESTS OF SPEED.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What experiments have been made since his reply on the subject last year in the direction of continuous steaming for lengthened periods with vessels of different classes in Her Majesty's Navy; and with what results?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The continuous steaming trials referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and which are ordered to be carried out in all ships after commissioning, have taken place in 10 ships of various classes, the result in all cases being quite satisfactory.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE TYRONE MILITIA.
  MR. LEAHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware the training of the Tyrone Militia will begin on the 6th of June, and last for 27 days; and, whether Colonel L. M. Buchanan and Major R. A. Miller of that regiment are also respectively Clerk of the Peace and Registrar of the County Court, which will be sitting at Dungannon on the 19th of June, Strabane 26th of June, Clogher 29th of June, Omagh 2nd of July, and how do they propose discharging their civil duties for three Divisions of the county, and also attend to their military responsibility during the time of training?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he understood that on this occasion Colonel Buchanan would exercise his statutory right of getting his duties discharged by deputy. Major Miller
  1216
  purposed to apply for military leave for a few days, on the ground that his duties as Registrar would clash with his regimental duties.

  INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX—EXEMPTION OF CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
  MR. LOCKWOODasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the action of the Income Tax Commissioners, who have refused to allow exemption in the payment of Income Tax to certain Charitable Educational Institutions, which Institutions have formerly been allowed such exemption; whether such alteration is in accordance with the opinion of the Legal Advisers of the Department; and, whether, having regard to the fact that Public Schools, such as Eton, are exempted from the payment of Income Tax, he is prepared to recommend to the Income Tax Commissioners that the exemption formerly allowed to all Charitable Educational Institutions be continued, and thus accord the same privilege to the Schools or Colleges of the poorer classes as is enjoyed by those of the richer?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The action of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax in refusing to allow the exemption in question is in accordance, not only with the opinion of the Legal Advisers of the Department, but also with a recent judicial decision. The statutory exemption granted to public schools under Schedule A of the Income Tax Acts is not restricted to the schools of the richer classes, but is enjoyed by all public schools of all classes alike.

  ARMY (INDIA)—AGREEMENT AS TO HOME EFFECTIVE CHARGES.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an agreement has yet been arrived at between the War Office and the India Office as to the basis on which the Indian Government should pay for Home effective charges, or whether it is the fact that no definite arrangement on this point exists as to the future, and that even the accounts of the last six years remain open and without any

  1217
  decision having been come to on this subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE), in reply, said, an agreement had not yet been arrived at on the extremely difficult subject of the payment of Home Charges by India; but an early settlement was anticipated by the Committee under the Presidency of the Earl of Northbrook. The main charge has been agreed upon up to the 31st of March, 1885; but the payment of deferred pay for the three years then ending had still to be adjusted. The special claims now under consideration were those for exceptional years during which large reinforcements were sent to India.
  MR. HANBURYgave Notice that on the Motion to into Committee on the Indian Budget he would call attention to the extravagant nature of many of the Indian Home Charges.

  WAR OFFICE—MAJOR TEMPLER.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, On whose advice and responsibility it was decided not to hold a preliminary inquiry in the case of Major Templer; who is responsible for the employment of Detective Straid, who is stated in sworn affidavits to have endeavoured to collect evidence as to identity by bribes, and generally for the manner in which evidence was collected; who presented the evidence so collected to the Deputy Judge Advocate General for his opinion as to a primâ facie case; who is responsible for the General Regulations dealing with the admission of foreigners and other privileged persons to inspect Government arsenals and works, and for the Special Regulations or Orders, if any, under which the balloon arrangements were shown to Italian officers in Egypt by Major Whistler Smith, and at Chatham by Major Elsdale; what is the post to which Major Elsdale has been transferred; out of what moneys is the compensation to Major Templer to be paid; and, whether any portion of it is to be paid by those officials responsible for the blunder?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): A preliminary inquiry was held to ascertain if there were primâ facie grounds for further proceedings. A formal Court
  1218
  of Inquiry was, from the circumstances, considered useless; and the only inquiry which could be satisfactory to the Department, and to the accused officer at the same time, was held to be a court martial, taking evidence on oath. Detective Straid was employed under the orders of the Director of Criminal Prosecutions, and the evidence generally was collected by the Legal Department of the Treasury. All the correspondence on the subject, with the statements of witnesses who were prepared to testify, was referred to the Deputy Judge Advocate General by the Adjutant General's Department at the War Office. The Secretary of State is responsible generally for the Rules under which foreigners are admitted to Government works. There were not any Special Regulations under which the Italian officers were admitted to view military balloons. Major Elsdale has been transferred to ordinary corps duty. With reference to the last two paragraphs of the Question, it is not contemplated to pay compensation to Major Templer; but his costs will be paid, and the money will be provided in Votes 3 and 10.
  MR. HANBURY: May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman means by the Secretary of State being responsible generally for these Regulations?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he meant that when Regulations for the admission of foreigners were made by a Government Department they were submitted for the approval of the Secretary of State.
  MR. ANDERSONasked, by whom the preliminary inquiry was held; and whether, before any arrest was ordered, any communication was made to Major Templer by the War Office or any other Department asking him to explain the circumstances of the charge against him?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he would rather that Notice was given of the Question. Of course, the preliminary inquiry was made by the Military Authorities at the War Office.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE ARMAGH MILITIA.
  MR. NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the War Office Authorities to send the Armagh Militia to Holywood, County Down, for training

  1219
  and rifle practice in May next; whether the cost of conveyance, &c., will be about £500; or, if not, how much; and, whether the Armagh Town Commissioners have offered to provide, and have actually secured, a suitable rifle range at Armagh at a cost of £80; and, if so, will the War Office Authorities reconsider their decision, in view of the saving to be effected by allowing the Militia to remain in Armagh for training, &c. as usual?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Armagh Militia will proceed to Holywood for training and musketry, at a cost of £258 for conveyance both ways. The Armagh Town Commissioners are in negotiation for a plot of ground which would be suitable for the purpose, but it is not understood that the matter is settled; and, in any case, the land could not be got ready for the present training.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—SEC. 7—NOTICES OF EVICTION BY REGISTERED LETTER.
  MR. NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that landlords in Ireland are using the power given them as to notices of eviction by registered letter, under the 7th section of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," for the purpose of compelling their tenants to purchase their holdings at extravagant prices; whether he can state if it is a fact that two tenants, named Peter Marron and Owen Byrne, of Tully parish and County of Louth, on the estate of Mr. Arthur J. Hamill, were upwards of six months sued by ejectment process and decreed for nonpayment of arrears of old rent; whether these tenants, with others on same estate, had fair rents fixed by the Court, and the old rents were reduced from 40 to 50 per cent; whether notices of eviction were served in the above two cases, and the six months having elapsed, and the tenants having been unable to pay the old exorbitant rents and costs claimed in the notices, the landlord has obliged them to enter into agreements for purchase of their holdings at 25 years' purchase; and, whether the Land Commission will in such cases sanction sales so brought about?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am not aware that landlords in Ireland are acting as alleged in the first paragraph of this Question. The Land Commissioners inform me that Marron had a fair rent fixed in May last, at a reduction of nearly 50 per cent, but that Byrne's application to have a fair rent fixed still awaits a hearing. They further state that no application has been received from either of those men under the Land Purchase Act. The Commissioners have repeatedly intimated that, having to administer an Act whose operations are founded on the free contracts of the parties, they would be wholly opposed to any coercion being exercised to induce either tenants or landlords to enter into such contracts.

  POST OFFICE EMPLOYES MUTUAL GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION (LIMITED).
  MR. LAWSONasked the Postmaster General, Whether the Post Office Employés Mutual Guarantee Association (Limited) is conducted upon compulsory or voluntary principles; if Mr. Freeling Lawrence, a chief clerk in the Secretary's Department, is correctly reported to have said at the annual meeting, in praise of the Local Postmasters, that they were putting not only their clerks and telegraphists, but also their postmen, under bond; if so, whether this is a fact, and how far such Postmasters are justified in requiring safeguards from officers of the Established Staff not required at the outset of their official career; and, whether a clerk taking temporary charge of an office in the Metropolitan District has to pay the full amount required from the permanent holder of the post, or whether the latter's payment covers the responsibility of his substitute; and, if not, what is the reason?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The Association to which the hon. Member refers, and which has been formed by the staff solely for their own advantage, is conducted on voluntary principles. I understand that the words attributed to the Chairman of the Association are substantially correct. In some cases it may be necessary to take security from postmen, and such has been the practice

  1221
  to a limited extent for some years. Each case must, however, be decided on its merits. I have no wish or intention to extend the practice unnecessarily; and it is open to any postman who is asked to give security to appeal, through his superior officer, to me, when I should investigate the case. No such appeal has been made to me. I have recently sanctioned an arrangement which will meet the point raised in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, without hardship to clerks taking temporary charge of offices, and which will fully protect the Revenue.

  LAW AND POLICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—SALE OF INDECENT LITERATURE.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to an article in The British Weekly, of the 16th of March, wherein it is stated that—
  "There is a grossly indecent literature published in London, but this, as a rule, is very expensive, and only within the reach of wealthy sensualists. A 5s. magazine was till recently published monthly, in which was one coloured picture and vilely indecent letterpress. … What is alarming under this head is the portentous development of translations from French novels. …. The most respectable journals have inserted, and still insert, advertisements of these books. …. When these books first appeared, in a somewhat expensive form, some well-known City bookshops practically did business for a time in nothing else. Now they are being reprinted in cheap forms, and in a little time, we have no doubt, they will be universally circulated over Britain. …. It is significant that they are to be had in the most respectable booksellers' shops;"
  and, whether he is prepared to take adequate steps for the suppression of the sale of such indecent and corrupting literature?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, he had consulted the Commissioner of the City Police, and was informed by him that since July last, when the hon. Member asked a similar Question, he had been unable to discover any new publication, or any circulation, that could legitimately be the subject of prosecution. The police of the City and of the Metropolis were fully alive to their duty in this respect; and, under the existing law, they had obtained convictions in a considerable
  1222
  number of cases. If the hon. Member would direct his (Mr. Matthews') attention to any particular case he would do all in his power to secure an enforcement of the law.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE LICENSING CLAUSES—COMPENSATION.
  MR. BONSORasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, instead of making the compensation of licence-holders a charge upon the County Rates, he will accept an Amendment to the Local Government Bill authorizing the County Council to allocate to a fund to be used exclusively for the purpose of compensating licence-holders, who are deprived of their licences under Clause 13, the additions which may be made to the existing Licence Duties?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The suggestion as to the allocation of the increased Licence Duties which may be levied is one which deserves consideration; and if an Amendment is moved to the effect referred to, I will undertake that it shall be fully considered by the Government.

  ARMY (INDIA)—LICENSING OF IMMORALITY.
  MR. S. WILLIAMSONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has yet received the further information regarding licensed prostitution, which he promised to obtain; whether his attention has been called to further details of the working of the Government system of licensed prostitution recently published by Mr. Dyer; whether, in view of the fact that these statements are substantiated by the publication of official documents, the Government has sufficient evidence to warrant its immediate suppression, as indicated by the Under Secretary; and, whether the Government will undertake that no alternative system shall be permitted to be carried out "regimentally," or otherwise, under evasive Regulations, as suggested by the Quartermaster General of India's Circular Memorandum of the 17th of June, 1886?
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMasked, whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that Commanding

  1223
  Officers, in accordance with "a Circular Memorandum, dated from the Office of Quartermaster General in India, No. 21, 17th June, 1886, addressed to General Officers commanding Divisions and Districts," and signed E. F. Chapman, Major General, have from time to time sent requisitions, addressed to Cantonment Magistrates, for the supply of "young and attractive women," to serve as licensed prostitutes in the military camps of India; whether Her Majesty's Government is prepared to relieve British Magistrates from the obligation of complying with such requisitions; whether it is a fact that venereal disease among the troops has increased under the existing system; and, whether the Government will promise to take steps to at once free this country and the Government of India from complicity in a system so opposed to the spirit of recent legislation adopted by this House?
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the hon. Gentleman, whether his attention has been called to a paper, purporting to be a copy of a Memorandum issued from the Office of the Quartermaster General in India, relating to the subject of prostitution; and, whether he is in a position to state if such a document, or any document substantially of that character, has been issued from that or any other Government Office?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Secretary of State has not received, and has not had time to receive, an answer from the Government of India. He has nothing to add at present to the statement on this subject already made several times to the House—namely, that the Secretary of State is causing full inquiry to be made into these allegations, and that he has taken measures that if such practices as those described exist they shall be stopped forthwith.
  MR. STANSFELDasked, when the hon. Gentleman would be able to state the intentions of the Government on the subject of carrying out in India the Resolution of the House of Commons of some Sessions ago against the compulsory examination of women?
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMasked, whether, in "another place," an answer had not been given that the result of the inquiries made was at present in the hands of the Governor General of India;
  1224
  and, if that were not so, the hon. Gentleman would not think it worth while to telegraph to India to know whether so serious an allegation were true or false?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I think hon. Members will see that after the statement I have made it would be highly unbecoming to make any further statements to-night.
  MR. STANSFELD: I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to make the statement to-night; but when he will be prepared to state the intentions of the Government.
  MR. S. WILLIAMSONsaid, that the first Question he put on this disagree. able subject was on the 24th of February. A long time had elapsed since then, and on ordinary matters of business they could get an answer from India in six hours. He sincerely hoped that before the Whitsuntide Holidays they would get an answer.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!

  STATE OF IRELAND—WEXFORD QUARTER SESSIONS.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as reported in the newspapers, that at the recent Wexford Quarter Sessions, Judge Darley was presented by the Sub-Sheriff with a pair of white gloves, there being no criminal business to go before him, and that the Judge congratulated the Grand Jury on the peaceable state of the county, and stated that in other parts of the county he had also received white gloves for the same reason; whether the districts referred to are districts in which the National League has been suppressed, or which have been proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant; and, if so, whether he will consider the propriety of withdrawing the proclamations of these districts; and whether he will cause a Return to be presented to Parliament, showing the number of cases during. the past year and a-half in which Judges have been so presented with white gloves on account of the absence of crime?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It is not the case that Judge Darley was presented with white gloves at the recent Wexford Quarter Sessions. As a matter of fact, there were criminal cases to be

  1225
  tried. It appears that at New Ross, the County Court Judge was presented with white gloves, and he congratulated the Grand Jury on the then peaceable state of the county. The hon. Member seems to exaggerate the significance of this event; since the number of criminal cases tried at Quarter Sessions depends not merely on the amount of crime in the district, but also on the number of cases which fall to be tried by other tribunals.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the Question whether the district is proclaimed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Wexford is proclaimed under certain sections of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE LXI.—ARMENIA.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the telegrams from Constantinople which appeared in the newspapers on Monday the 30th of April, summarizing the remonstrances addressed by the Armenian Patriarch to the Ottoman Porte, on the subject of various acts of oppression and persecution committed on the Armenian subjects of the Sultan and violations of the privileges hitherto enjoyed by the Armenian churches; and, whether, if these remonstrances are correctly reported, and there is reason to believe that the acts complained of have been committed, Her Majesty's Government will, considering the serious consequences which may follow from prolonged irritation on the part of the Armenian Church and people, and having regard to the obligations undertaken in Article LXI. of the Treaty of Berlin, use their influence with the Porte to obtain a redress of these grievances, and a discontinuance of the persecutions practised on the Armenian Christians?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGAISSON): Her Majesty's Government are aware of the reports of grievances complained of by Armenian subjects of the Imperial Ottoman Government, but they are not at present in a position to judge of the accuracy of the statements referred to. They have
  1226
  no rights in respect to this matter under the Treaty of Berlin, except in conjunction with the other Signatory Powers. But their influence will be constantly used to procure the redress of any ascertained grievances, under whatever conditions of time and opportunity shall seem to our agents on the spot to promise the best prospect of success.
  MR. BRYCEasked, whether the Government would take steps to ascertain if the facts were as stated?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, Her Majesty's Representatives would, no doubt, report on the subject.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he would repeat the Question.

  INLAND REVENUE—A STAMPING OFFICE IN GLASGOW.
  MR.HOZIERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether arrangements can be made for the establishment of an Inland Revenue Stamping Office in Glasgow, so that the stamping of marine and life policies of insurance, mercantile bills of exchange, and share transfers may be effected there, instead of its being necessary, as at present, to send the papers to Edinburgh; or, whether, as an alternative, adhesive stamps may in future be used on the condition that the user is bound to deface them as in the case of receipt stamps?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): On the 1st of this month the Inland Revenue commenced the stamping of certain documents, including policies of insurance and share transfers, at Liverpool. By the experiment thus made the Board will be enabled, within a reasonable period, to judge whether these facilities should be extended to any other large towns, and Glasgow will be the first to be considered.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS—THE ROYAL COMMISSION—ATTENDANTS AT THE SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
  MR. WHITMOREasked the hon. Baronet the Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire, as Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service Establishments, Whether, before the issue of its Second Report, the Commission will take evidence

  1227
  as to the alleged grievances of the attendants and messengers at the South Kensington Museum?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: We had hoped to be able to take up the Education and Science and Art Departments during this stage of our proceedings; and, though the remedy of grievances is not the main object of our inquiry, we should then have dealt, in accordance with our usual procedure, with the case of the classes referred to in my hon. Friend's Question. But I am afraid I must state that we have found it impossible to do so before the presentation of our now pending Report.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE SHERIFF OF DONEGAL—APPOINTMENT OF—WASON.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a man, named Wason, was, on the prosecution of Mr. Attorney General, last year convicted of extortion, in connection with the execution of decrees for rent, and sentenced to four months' imprisonment; whether the present Sheriff of Donegal has appointed this same man as his bailiff, to execute writs and decrees in the district of Dunfanaghy; and, whether the Government intend to allow it?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he found the facts were as stated in the Question. It was in the discretion of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, under his statutable power, to make an order preventing a bailiff from acting in his district.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether the Government proposed to get rid of this bailiff?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the matter lay in the hands of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions.

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—ARTIFICIAL REARING OF SEA FISH.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the great success attending the hatching and rearing of sea fish by the Governments of the United States and Norway; whether the Government are
  1228
  prepared to recommend the establishment of hatching and rearing stations in Scotland, for the purpose of increasing by artificial means the supply of sea fish and lobsters; and, if so, whether he will consider the suitability of the Moray Firth or the Cromarty Firth for such an experiment station; would the cost of such a station, with all the necessary appliances, exceed £1,000, or some such sum; and will the Government recommend a Supplementary Vote for this purpose?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD),in reply, said, he was sorry again to ask the hon. Member to postpone the Question, as the information which he had applied for had not vet reached him.
  In reply to a further inquiry by Mr. ANDERSON,
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, the hon. Member could not regret more than he did the delay in obtaining the information necessary to supply a satisfactory answer. He could not account for it at present. If his hon. Friend would put his Question down for Monday, he would undertake, by the most active means, to secure the information.

  METROPOLIS—THE ROMAN WALL.
  MR. BRYCEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the discovery of a large fragment of the ancient Roman Wall of London on a piece of ground acquired by the Government for the purposes of the enlargement of the General Post Office in St. Martin's-le-Grand; and, whether, considering that this is believed to be the largest piece of the Roman Wall of London still in existence, and is in a good state of preservation, he will consider the propriety of preventing it from being either destroyed or so covered up by new buildings as to be no longer visible?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): In clearing the site for the new Post Office at St. Martin's-le-Grand we came upon what I believe is the best specimen yet discovered of the old Roman Wall of London. On one side its face is covered by a disused graveyard, now made into a recreation ground; the other face was

  1229
  laid bare by our workmen in preparing the foundations for the new Post Office buildings. Of course, we treated our discovery very carefully, and many parts of the wall (exposed altogether for a length of about 100 feet) are in an excellent state of preservation; in other parts we found that the old wall had in former times been much interfered with, large gaps having been cut through it and brickwork inserted. I have been inquiring how far it will be possible to preserve what remains of the Roman work; and I am glad to say that by a Report which I have to-day received it appears that this can be done by a very slight alteration of the plans of our new buildings, so that the whole of this part of the old Roman Wall shall remain undisturbed and complete as it is to-day, and exposed in sections visible for inspection and study by antiquaries. I shall submit this Report to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General, and I have no doubt it will meet with his approval.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION) ACT— VALUATION OF ANNUITIES.
  MR. KERANSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, having regard to the fact that interest upon Consols New and Reduced Annuities has now been reduced to £2 15 s. per cent, it will he necessary to introduce legislative measures dealing with the valuation of annuities under the Schedule to the Act entitled 16 & 17 Vict. c. 51?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): As the hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware, the valuation in the tables annexed to that Act is based upon a rate of interest of 4 per cent, so that there has always been a difference in favour of the annuitant between this rate and that at which the State can borrow. This difference has, of course, been increased by the recent reduction of interest on the National Debt, and it is a fair question whether the time has not come for diminishing it. This subject is engaging my attention, with many others arising out of the conversion; but the calculations involved in a revaluation of the annuities are so complicated that I cannot hope to be able to deal with it in the course of the present Session.

  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES ACT, 1862— LIQUIDATIONS, &C.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAINasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether a Return can be given showing the number of liquidations of Joint Stock Companies instituted or carried on in the Court of Chancery since the Act of 1862 came into operation; the amount of assets in each case, distinguishing between the property of the Company and calls made on contributories; the amount paid in dividends to creditors in each case; the amount paid in costs in each case, distinguishing the remuneration paid to the liquidator from other costs; and the number of such liquidations still unclosed?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): It would, I understand, be impossible, without very great expense and labour, to give the whole of the information asked for by the right hon. Gentleman. The Board of Trade are, however, in communication with the Lord Chancellor, with a view to ascertaining whether it would be possible to supply a portion of the information required.

  WAR OFFICE—ARMY QUARTER MASTERS AND RIDINGMASTERS.
  SIR WILLIAM CROSSMANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is his intention to make further inquiries, by means of a Departmental Committee or otherwise, as to any disadvantages under which Army Quartermasters and Ridingmasters consider that they labour?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): In 1886 the alleged grievances of the Ridingmasters and Quartermasters were very carefully considered by a small Departmental Committee. This Committee came to the conclusion that several of the points put forward as grievances were not grievances at all, and they were unable, in consequence, to recommend any change concerning them. But they also made certain recommendations in favour of these officers. All these latter recommendations were adopted, and have had the effect of distinctly improving the conditions of service of Quartermasters and Ridingmasters. Since the War-

  1231
  rant on this subject was published, in 1886, these officers have carried on what appears little less than an organized agitation, by means of letters to papers, printed circulars to Members of Parliament, and the like, for these concessions, which the Committee reported they had no ground for claiming. This agitation appears to me to speak very badly for the discipline of those by whom it is promoted. I have only to say that I think it would be most detrimental to the Army if applications which had been refused on their merits were granted to outside pressure. I can hold out no hope of this taking place in the present instance.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—IMPRISONMENT OF MRS. MARIA DAVIES FOR CONTEMPT.
  MR. CONYBEABEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the case, as reported in The Daily News of the 30th of April, of Mrs. Maria Davies, who, having been sent to prison 16 months ago by Baron Huddleston and Mr. Justice Manisty because she disobeyed an injunction of the Court, was on Saturday again brought up before the Court, and committed again to gaol for an indefinite period for contempt of Court; whether it is the fact that such alleged contempt consisted in the prisoner declaring that she must bring her action to try her right to what she considered her home; whether the Judges ordered that the process of contempt must go on, for how long they could not state; and, whether, as one of the Judges said the prisoner's conduct amounted to a misdemeanour, and the other stated that her punishment had been certainly adequate to a serious misdemeanour, the Government will advise the Crown to exercise the prerogative of mercy in this case, as the prisoner appears to have been already sufficiently punished by her prolonged imprisonment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, he had seen a newspaper report of the case, from which it appeared that the alleged contempt consisted in refusing to abstain from attempts to take forcible possession of property which had been legally decided to belong to another. Mrs. Davies had only to purge her con-
  1232
  tempt of Court, and abstain from unlawful molestation of innocent parties, and she became free. The Secretary of State would not advise the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in this case, even presuming that it fell within that prerogative.
  MR. CONYBEARE: What I want to know is, whether the prisoner is to be kept in prison for the rest of her days?
  [No reply.]

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS— —THE ROYAL COMMISSION—PRO TECTION OF WITNESSES.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the hon. Baronet the Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire, Whether he is aware of representations having been made to the Secretary of the Civil Establishments Commission by a writer in the Customs Department, who recently appeared as a witness before the Commission, to the effect that he has since been called to account by the Customs Authorities in respect of his evidence; whether he actually received notice of discharge from the Service; and, whether the Commission are in a position to protect the witnesses who may come before them?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir; representations were made to our Secretary by a writer in the Customs Department that he had got into difficulties with the Board, and that those difficulties had some connection with evidence which he had given before the Commission. I understand that he did receive notice of discharge. I am glad, however, to be able to state that the difficulties in question have been removed, and that the notice of discharge did not take effect. As to whether the Commission are in a position to protect the witnesses who may come before them, I am happy to be able to assure the hon. Member and the Service generally that no occasion for such protection has arisen during the course of our inquiry, nor did this particular case reach the stage of intervention by the Commission. Unquestionably, however, it is our recognized duty to protect all witnesses in the free expression of their opinions; and we shall do all that is in cur power in this direction if, unhappily, the necessity should arise.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether to members of the Civil Service who might offer evidence, and thus expose themselves to severe punishment for a trivial official delinquency, he would guarantee an appeal to the Treasury for protection?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I can assure the hon. Member that Civil servants will always find in the Treasury an authority capable of sustaining any rights they may possess.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: And willing?

  LIGHTHOUSES AND LIGHTSHIPS—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION—TORY ISLAND.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Government intend to introduce, without delay, a measure enabling "Lloyd's," or any other Incorporated Body, to connect lighthouses and lightships with the mainland by submarine telegraphs, at the cost of any such Body and under Regulations to be sanctioned by the Board of Trade, and for such purposes to incorporate or extend the powers, for compulsory user or purchase of lands, of the Lands Clauses Acts; and, what steps are being taken to connect the improved lights on Tory Island (on the extreme north-west corner of Ireland) with signal stations on the mainland of Ireland?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): A Bill to confer powers on Lloyd's to take lands for signal stations and to maintain telegraphic communication with such stations was introduced in the other House on Tuesday last. I received information last week from Lloyd's that the question of connecting their signal station on Tory Island with the mainland by telegraphic cable is now being seriously considered by them.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE CART AND WHEEL TAX.
  MR. ERNEST SPENCERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether steam rollers, watering carts, and other vehicles owned by a Corporation, and used solely for public purposes, will be exempted from the proposed tax upon carts and wheels?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): It is assumed that the steam rollers, watering carts, and other vehicles referred to in the Question will be used solely for local public purposes. There is no specific exemption of such vehicles in the Bill; but they will not be regarded as subject to charge.

  ISLANDS OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC—SAMOA—CONVENTION OF 1881.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Convention of 1881 between Great Britain, Germany, and the United States of America with regard to Samoa has ceased to exist; if so, what has taken its place; and, whether the Government intend to recognize Tamasese as King of Samoa?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): There was no such Convention contracted in 1881. A Convention was concluded in 1879 between Great Britain and Samoa, to which Germany and the United States subsequently became parties, providing for good order in the district of Apia, and for the maintenance of neutrality in case of internal disturbances; and a further Convention between the same Powers in 1883 continuing the last. The German Government have announced their withdrawal from that Convention; and Her Majesty's Government have assented to the district of Apia being replaced under the control of the Samoan Government, subject to the rights of the Treaty Powers.

  HIS HOLINESS THE POPE—THE JUBILEE MISSION OF THE DUKE OF NORFOLK.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communications, direct or indirect, written or oral, have been interchanged between Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Duke of Norfolk, either immediately before or during or after the Jubilee Mission of the latter to His Holiness the Pope in regard to the relations of the Holy See with Ireland, or with any other portion of the United Kingdom; and, whether any

  1235
  communications, direct or indirect, written or oral, have been interchanged between Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and any Catholic Bishop or Bishops upon the same subject within the last 12 months?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No official communications on any political subject connected with Ireland have passed between the Foreign Office and the Duke of Norfolk or any Catholic Bishop.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me in saying that that is not exactly what I asked. I asked whether there had been any communications, direct or indirect, written or oral, interchanged between Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Duke of Norfolk? I perhaps may be allowed to say I called it Secretary of State; but I will add, "in his capacity as Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs." That is quite a different Question.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: If the hon. Member asks me whether any private communications have passed—[Mr. LABOUCHERE: I did not say private.]—between Lord Salisbury and the Duke of Norfolk, all I can say is that I believe they are on terms of private friendship, and it is probable that they have often talked together about Ireland; but I have no information upon that subject.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Do I understand that Lord Salisbury and the Duke of Norfolk have had many private communications upon the subject which I have stated in the Question?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: No, Sir; I have no information on the point at all.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether any unofficial communications of a political character took place between Her Majesty's Government and the Pope?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I must ask for Notice of Questions of this kind.

  BANK ACT, 1844—ISSUE OF NOTES BY SCOTCH BANKS.
  MR. CALDWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the case that, owing to the separation of the Issue
  1236
  Department from the Banking Department of the Bank of England, under the Bank Act of 1844, there is held in trust for the repayment of the bank notes issued, Government Debt, other securities, gold coin and bullion to the value of the bank notes so issued, thus securing the holders of these notes against possible loss; whilst, in Scotland, owing to the want of separation of the Issue Department from the Banking Department, the holder of bank notes, in the event of bankruptcy of a Scotch bank, has no better security for repayment than any ordinary creditor of the bank?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said, he believed the matter was correctly stated in the Question; and he believed that what the hon. Member stated with regard to the Scotch banks was common knowledge as to the law on the subject.

  INDIA—THE NIZAM OF HYDERABAD.
  MR. LABCUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether a suggestion of an offer from the Nizam of Hyderabad of 60 lakhs of rupees for the frontier defences of India was brought under the notice of Her Majesty's Government, or of any Member of Her Majesty's Government, by Abdul Huk, when in London in the summer of 1887 as Jubilee Commissioner of H.H. the Nizam; whether any reply, verbal or in writing, was made to this suggestion; whether he is aware that Abdul Huk, on his return from London to Hyderabad, forwarded a draft letter containing the offer to Colonel Marshall, the British Private Secretary of the Nizam, and that he (Abdul Huk) stated that this draft had been written by a British Cabinet Minister; whether Colonel Marshall urged Sir Arman Jah, the Prime Minister of the Nizam, to adopt the proposal, and to submit it as his own to the Nizam; whether Sir Arman Jah, after some protest, presented the draft letter to His Highness, and at the same time intimated to him that the present was not the time for making the offer; whether eventually the draft letter was signed by His Highness, and Colonel Marshall took it to the Viceroy of India, together with a cheque signed by Abdul Huk, but unsigned by Sir Arman Jah, for 20 lakhs of rupees (the first yearly instalment) on the London

  1237
  and Provincial Bank; whether Sir Arman Jah, upon hearing of this cheque, protested that Abdul Huk had no right to give a cheque on property belonging to His Highness's Government, and deposited with the National Provincial Bank; whether the cheque was declined by the Viceroy, and the offer reserved for consideration; whether, if the Under Secretary of State for India is not sufficiently in possession of what took place in respect to this offer of His Highness to reply to these Questions, he will make inquiry in regard to them; whether any Despatches have been received from India in regard to the contemplated gift of the Nizam; and, if so, if he will lay them upon the Table of the House; whether he can state what are the functions of Colonel Marshall at Hyderabad, and if it is open to the Nizam to relieve him of those functions should His Highness deem it expedient to do so; and, whether he can inform the House if any decision has been arrived at in respect to the Nizam's offer?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): Paragraphs 1 and 2.—The suggestion in these Questions is absolutely devoid of foundation; paragraphs 3 to 9 relate to matters as to which the Secretary of State has no information or concern, and respecting which he thinks it unnecessary to ask for information. Paragraph 10.—No. Paragraph 11.—I described Colonel Marshall's position in an answer on April 26. As the Nizam asked for the loan of his services, his dismissal without reference to the Viceroy would be an act of discourtesy, of which it is inconceivable the Nizam would be guilty. Paragraph 12.—No.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—THE NEW LOAN.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the £E450,000 of the New Egyptian Loan, which £E450,000 it is stated is to provide for the continuation of the exchange of pensions against public lands or Domain lands, is to be issued at once; and, if so, what will become of this money, upon which the Egyptian Government will have to pay above 4½ per cent until such changes are made, or in the event of their never being made; whether the words—
  1238
  "The proceeds of the direct and indirect taxes of the City of Cairo, collected by the Daira Baladick, which are hypothecated to the payment of interest on the loan,"
  include local taxes for municipal purposes, as well as Imperial taxes; and, whether, in view of the fact that the loan is for £2,330,000, and is estimated to produce at the price of issue £2,186,050, whilst the proceeds of the loan to be handed over to the Egyptian Government are only £E2,000,000, he will state what is contemplated to be done with the difference, and to whom it is to go?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government have not sufficient information to reply to the first two Questions of the hon. Member. With regard to the third Question, we have not been informed of the exact terms on which the loan has been finally contracted for; but it appears by the Decree that two coupons of interest were to be deducted, which would account for £90,000, and bring up the net amount to about £2,150,000.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCE—COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND HOME MERCANTILE PORTS.
  CAPTAIN COLOMBasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Committee appointed to consider with him the plans proposed for the fortifications and armament of the Military and Home Mercantile Ports inquired into the strength and composition of the war fleets and distribution of the military ports of the Continental Powers; and into the sufficiency of our war Fleet to carry out now, in the event of war, the traditional naval policy of England by the prompt assertion on the outbreak of war, and the maintenance during war, of naval superiority off an enemy's port on the most effectual and certain means of securing the safety of our own; and, whether he will communicate to the House the terms of Reference or Instructions to this Committee, the titles of all documents, plans, and charts submitted for examination; the names and occupations of all persons who gave evidence; and, also a statement showing the number and duration of the sittings of the Committee?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE):

  1239
  The Committee, which rendered me such invaluable assistance in considering the defences of our ports, did inquire into the nature of the armament carried on board the ships of Foreign Powers, the object being to ascertain what defences were required against any probable attacks. They obtained evidence from many distinguished naval officers as to the dangers to be apprehended; but they had nothing whatever to do with any questions affecting our Fleet. If my hon. Friend will read the Report, he will find the terms of Reference to the Committee and the names of the most important witnesses examined. The Committee sat for more than 20 days.
  CAPTAIN COLOMBasked, whether the Committee had any information before them as to the number of the warships of Foreign Powers?
  MR. E. STANHOPEreplied that the number of foreign war-ships was not an essential part of the information placed before the Committee; but that they had before them some information upon the subject.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—INTER FERENCE WITH STALL-KEEPERS, &c.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether instructions have been given to the police not to interfere further with the stall-keepers in Crisp Street, Poplar, and other places in the East of London?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): It is not the practice of the police to interfere with stall-keepers unless there is grave obstruction and inconvenience to the public, and then proceedings are only by way of summons. The Commissioner of Police has informed the Vestry to this effect. So far as my memory serves me, the police interfered in this case because there was serious obstruction.
  MR. BUXTON: Are they going to interfere further in the matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: They are going to abide by the old practice they have always followed.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)—POLICE COURT FOR ST. PANCRAS.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the police
  1240
  magistrate for Marylebone frequently has 60 summonses to his Court in an
  afternoon; whether, on the average of cases heard during the time he sits, he can give more than three minutes to each case; whether these hours are from 3 to 5 p.m.; whether some persons have to come three miles from their homes to attend the Court; if he is aware that there is a widespread demand in St. Pancras for a separate Court; and, if, taking all the circumstances into consideration, he is prepared to give this borough, having a population of about 250,000, a Police Court for the transaction of its business?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the magistrate of the Marylebone Court that it is a very unusual occurrence to have 60 summonses in a day. The hours for hearing summonses are from 2 to 5. The most distant part of the district in St. Pancras is about three miles from the Court. I have no knowledge of any widespread demand for a separate Court in St. Pancras. The Court is a hard-worked one; but the magistrates tell me that they have had no difficulty in disposing of the business. I am not prepared to advise the establishment of a separate Police Court for St. Pancras.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—ELECTORAL DIVI SIONS, &c. (LANCASHIRE AND DEVON SHIRE).
  MR. H. GARDNERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will present to the House, before going into Commmittee on the Local Government Bill, a Return showing the Electoral Divisions, County Districts, Licensing Divisions, and particulars respecting all the other Divisions into which Lancashire will be distributed if the Bill passes in its present shape, and showing the areas, divisions, localities, and populations; and, whether he will consent to a similar Return in the case of Devonshire?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE), in reply, said, that, looking to the fact that the County Councils had to settle the matter, and not the Local Government Board, it would be obvious that it was impossible

  1241
  for him to give a sketch model of any value whatever. The Electoral Divisions, except in the case of boroughs, would be determined by the Court of Quarter Sessions, and the Licensing Divisions would depend upon the Electoral Divisions.

  RAILWAYS—ACCIDENTS ON RAILWAYS, 1887—THE GENERAL REPORT.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Board of Trade, When the General Report upon the Accidents on the Railways of the United Kingdom during 1887, and the Returns of Accident and Casualties by the Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during 1887, with Reports of Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department, will be printed and issued to Members of this House?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Return of Accidents and Casualties by the Railway Companies for 1887 has been presented, and is in the hands of the printers. The General Report is in an advanced state of preparation. But the Returns of the numbers of passengers conveyed, which are necessary to the comparison between the numbers of persons conveyed and the numbers of those injured, have not yet been fully received.

  GOLD DISCOVERIES IN WALES.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can state approximately the amount of money spent by the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenue Commissioners in the discovery and working of gold in Wales, and of the amount of royalties derived from gold mining by private enterprize?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): No money has been spent by the Commissioners of Woods in the discovery and working of gold in Wales.
  MR. HOWELL(for Mr. WATT)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is now prepared to state what steps the Government propose to take with reference to recent discoveries of gold in Wales, so as to encourage the development of a new industry, and at the same time create what may become a considerable source of revenue to the nation?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The steps which it is proposed to take, and which, in fact, have been taken, with a view to the development of gold mining in Wales, are to grant licences to such persons as may be desirous to obtain them. The question as to the proportion or amount of the royalty is under the consideration of the Government; and they will do everything in their power to develop the resources of the mines.
  MR. HOWELLasked, whether the action of the Executive in the matter of royalties was not determined by statute? Had the Executive power to vary the statute?
  MR. W. H. SMITHremarked, that that was a question of law to which he could give no answer on the moment.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked, whether it would not be well to appoint a Committee to inquire into the working of the statute as it affected gold mining?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Government would take all the steps in the matter that might appear to them to be necessary.

  INDIA—ARMY RESERVE.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the advisability of enrolling, as a reserve for Indian employment, those British soldiers who have completed their term of service in India and have subsequently determined to settle in Australia?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): Nothing on this subject has reached the Secretary of State for India.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—THE LAW LORDS.
  MR. COGHILLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, in view of the very small number of days in the year that the Law Lords sit, he could provide for their being employed (when they are not sitting to hear Appeals in the House of Lords) in relieving the great accumulation of business in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice; and, whether he is aware that other Peers sit as frequently as the Law Lords for

  1243
  hearing Appeals in the House of Lords, without receiving any salary at all?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): In reply to my hon. and learned Friend, I cannot agree that the Lords of Appeal sit a very small number of days in the year. On the contrary, having regard to the appeals in the House of Lords and Privy Council—in both of which tribunals the Lords of Appeal sit—it would, in my opinion, be impossible, as well as inexpedient, that they should undertake any part of the business of the High Court of Justice. It is not the fact that any Peers sit as frequently as the Lords of Appeal to hear appeals without receiving any salary at all.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE JURY SYSTEM IN CIVIL CASES.
  MR. COGHILLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he will this Session introduce a Bill for taking, in Civil Cases, a verdict by the majority of the jurors, to put an end to the great dissatisfaction that is felt by the public at long and protracted legal proceedings so frequently terminating without any verdict being arrived at by the jury?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I cannot undertake to introduce a Bill to deal with the subject during the present Session.

  METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT—THE ST. JAMES'S VESTRY.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to a Resolution of St. James's Vestry, determining to expend the rates of that parish in publishing remarks on the administration and expenditure of the London School Board; and, whether any statutory authority exists in the Metropolis Local Management Act for such expenditure of rates by a Vestry?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): In answer to the hon. Member's Question, I beg to say that my attention has been called to the Resolution in question; and that, so far as I am at present aware, there does not exist in the Metropolis Local Management Act statutory authority for such an expenditure of the rates.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) ACT, 1885 —RETURN OF PROCEEDINGS.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will consent to the distribution among Members of the Return of Proceedings under "The Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1885," ordered on the Motion, in "another place," of Lord Fitzgerald?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): If the hon. Member will move for the Return it will be granted.

  INDIA—RAILWAYS—DOCK AND HARBOUR DUES—EXEMPTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government have come to any determination which he can communicate to the House with respect to the exemption from the payment of Dock and Harbour Dues, now claimed by the Government of India, on shipments of material intended for the construction, maintenance, or use of railways in India?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Secretary of State in Council for India has come to the determination that, in future, exemption from dock and harbour dues be not claimed on the following classes of goods shipped from Great Britain, or for ships carrying them, on account of the Government of India:—1, coal; 2, all rolling stock for railways; 3, permanent way for railways; 4, all goods manufactured in this country for use on railways, or being of such a nature that they cannot be used except for railway purposes.
  MR. SINCLAIRasked, whether the word "dues" was intended to include rates, and whether "coal" included coke?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have read from the text of the Resolution passed in the Indian Council; and I have no doubt whatever that "coal" would include "coke," and that "dues" would include "rates."

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. E. PEASEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he could give the House any information

  1245
  as to when the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill would be taken?
  MR. CAUSTONasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the possibility of fixing that Bill as the first Order of the Day on which it was put down?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have already stated that I will never undertake that a particular Bill shall be placed as the first Order on the Paper. I am not able to say when the Bill will be taken, possibly on Monday; but Notice of the arrangement will be given. I wish to take this opportunity of giving Notice that no Bill which stands on the Paper for Monday will be taken on that day, as it is essential that the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill and the Local Government (Electors) Bill shall be passed before other measures are proceeded with.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: What will the Business on Monday be? Perhaps, too, the right hon. Gentleman will now be able to give us some information with respect to the Whitsuntide Recess.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Whitsuntide Recess, I think, must depend in some measure on the progress of Business. I should prefer not to make any statement with regard to the holidays until we can look a little more into the future with regard to Business. The course I propose to take is this—I propose to ask the House to consider the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill this evening, to proceed then to the Committee on the Local Government (Electors) Bill, and if that be not finished to-night to take it up on Monday. There is other Business on the Paper for Monday—the Criminal Evidence Bill, which will follow the Local Government (Electors) Bill. I think that is as much information as I can give to the House at present.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: When will the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill be read a third time?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I propose that it should be read a third time to-morrow.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There is no opportunity of generally discussing the Bill on the Report stage. If the third reading is taken to-morrow it ought to be fixed at some hour when a discussion can take place.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I was not aware that there was any desire for a general discussion on the third reading, as a general discussion has already taken place on the second reading, and it is not, I think, very usual that a discussion should be taken on the third reading. I shall endeavour, however, to arrange that the Bill shall be taken at an hour which will allow of a discussion. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the importance of getting the third reading of the Bill as soon as possible, having due regard to the desire of hon. Members to express their views upon it. He is also aware that the Bill can be taken at any time; and, therefore, if unfortunately the discussion on going into Committee of Supply should be prolonged, it may be necessary to take the Bill at a later hour.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not quite let those words pass without challenge. It appeared that one discussion on the Taxing Act of the year was to content the House, and that anything beyond that was to be considered entirely out of the common course. While recognizing the desire of the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill should be got through as soon as possible, he thought that it would be a perfectly fair request to make if they asked the right hon. Gentleman to give some facilities for a discussion.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that he would endeavour to use every influence he possessed in order to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—MR. JOHN ROCHE, OF WOODFORD.
  MR. CONYBEAREwished to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether it was a fact, as stated in that day's papers, that Mr. Roche, of Woodford, now imprisoned under the Coercion Act, was seriously ill, suffering from acute lung disease; and, whether he could state that proper means were being, or would be, taken to prevent this gentleman being tortured to death?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he had not seen the report referred to.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE WINE TAX—COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the communications with the French Government with regard to the proposed duty on bottled wines were now closed; and, if so, whether he would communicate the result to the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, that Notice would be required of the Question, and that it ought to be addressed to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

  CRIMINAL CASES (INCREASE OF SENTENCES ON APPEAL)—MR. BLANE, M.P.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is now able to lay before the House the record of the convictions of Mr. Blanc, M.P., which he said he would inquire into?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I believe I can give a fairly full account to the House. It appears that the Resident Magistrates did not condemn Mr. Blanc to hard labour. It appears there was a distinction drawn in the record of the sentences by which it was put down with regard to Father M'Fadden that he was not condemned to hard labour; and it is that circumstance, and that difference in the statement of the two sentences—which appeared to be identical in their character—which, I presume, led to the fact that it was reported in the first instance as being a sentence of hard labour; and throughout the recent trial of the appeal it was treated by counsel for the prosecution, and by the prisoner
  1248
  and those who advised him, as being a sentence of hard labour. The mistake is rather a remarkable one.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman now admit that there was an increase of sentence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I admit there was an increase of sentence. I have now given the House the information which reached me for the first time to-day, and, of course, I now admit that, with regard to Mr. Blane, there was an increase of sentence, but not with regard to Father M'Fadden.
  MR. JAMES STUART: As the increase of sentence on Mr. Blane was accompanied, in the mind of the magistrates, by a decrease of its severity, and as it appears not to have taken place, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to rectify it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand the matter, the County Court Judge gave the sentence, on the re-hearing of the case, which he thought befitting the offence that had been committed; and if that was the view it was perfectly irrelevant whether an error was committed as to the sentence or not.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman now withdraw the word "modification" of the sentence which he used the other night?
  [No reply.]

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the second reading of this Bill would be taken before Whitsuntide?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Yes, Sir.

MOTION.

  NATIONAL DEFENCE BILL.
  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE), in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to make better provision respecting National Defence, said, that, as the subject was of a somewhat tech-
  1250
  nical character, he had circulated a Memorandum which would clearly explain it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to make better provision respecting National Defence, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Stanhope and Mr. Brodrick.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 235.]

NATIONAL DEFENCE BILL.

  MEMORANDUM.
  The object of this Bill is to facilitate in case of emergency—
  (1) the calling out of the yeomanry and volunteers;
  (2) the calling out of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers;
  (3) the use of railways for naval and military purposes;
  (4) the provision of horses and carriages;
  As respects (1)—
  At present a corps of yeomanry can be called out for actual military service in case of actual invasion or appearance of an enemy in force on the coast of Great Britain, or of rebellion or insurrection arising or existing within the same on the appearance of any enemy in force on the coast, or during any invasion.
  A corps of volunteers can at present be called out for actual military service in case of actual or apprehended invasion of any part of the United Kingdom.
  The yeomanry and volunteers, when called out, are required to serve in any part of Great Britain, subject, possibly, in the case of yeomanry, to certain exceptions.
  The militia, on the other hand, can be embodied in case of imminent national danger or great emergency, and are required to serve in any part of the United Kingdom, and when the militia is embodied Parliament is required to meet within ten days after the order for the embodiment.
  The object of the Bill is to authorise the yeomanry and volunteers to be called out for actual military service whenever the militia is embodied; but it is not proposed to impose any additional liability on existing men without their consent.
  As respects (2)—
  At present Royal Naval Coast Volunteers raised under 16 & 17 Vict. c. 73. s. 4. from seafaring men and others deemed suitable (s. 4.) can be called out "in case of imminent national danger or of great emergency" by proclamation specifying the cause.
  The Royal Naval Volunteers raised under 22 & 23 Vict. c. 40. from seafaring men and others deemed suitable can be called out "on such occasions as Her Majesty shall deem fit."
  The Naval Artillery Volunteers raised under 36 & 37 Vict. c. 77. can (s. 16.) be called out in case of actual or apprehended invasion of any part of the United Kingdom.
  The object of the Bill is to authorise the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers to be called out for actual service whenever the Naval Reserve is called out, but it is not proposed to impose any additional liability on existing men without their consent.
  (34 & 35 Vict. c. 86.)
  As respects railways, the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, provides that when the Queen by Order in Council declares that an emergency has arisen in which it is expedient for the public service that Her Majesty's Government should have control over the railways in the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State may empower any person to take possession of a railway, and compensation is to be paid, which is to be ascertained, in case of difference, by arbitration under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845.
  The object of the Bill is to enable the Queen, whenever the militia is ordered to be embodied, to order that naval or military traffic shall have precedence over other traffic on a railway without the Secretary of State being obliged to take the extreme step of taking possession of the railway.
  As respects carriages and horses, s. 115 of the Army Act, 1881, provides that the Queen by order, stating that a case of emergency exists, and signified by a Secretary of State, may authorise any general or field officer commanding Her Majesty's regular forces in any place in the United Kingdom to issue a requisition of emergency.
  On production of the requisition by an officer of Her Majesty's forces mentioned in the requisition, or by an officer authorised by a Secretary of State, a justice must issue his warrant to constables to provide such carriages and animals, and such vessels used on a canal or river, as may be required.
  The Secretary of State is to cause due payment to be made for the carriages, animals, or vessels furnished, and in case of difference, the amount is to be determined by a county court judge.
  The section is considered not to be sufficiently definite, as it might be held to apply only to hiring. The object of the Bill is to clearly extend it to the provision of carriages, animals, and vessels for the purpose of being purchased as well as hired by the Secretary of State, but this extension is to exist only when the militia have been ordered to be embodied.

ORDERS OF TILE DAY.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 202.]
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jackson.)
  CONSIDERATION,
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. SLAGG, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, after Clause 3, to insert the following clause:—
  "That, on and after the passing of this Act, or at such other date subsequent thereto as Her Majesty may fix, by an order made with the advice of Her Privy Council, the Excise Duty now payable on plate of silver and gold made or wrought in Great Britain, or in Ireland, shall cease and determine; and that the Duty of Customs now payable under the Customs Tariff Acts on imports of plate of silver gilt or ungilt, and on plate of gold, shall also, on the same date, cease to be charged, and all drawbacks now payable on plate of silver or gold on being exported from Great Britain or Ireland shall cease to be paid,"
  said, in doing so he was happy to inform the House that it would not be necessary to trespass upon the attention of hon. Members at any considerable length. It seemed to him that he had very few persons to convince in regard to the important question he was about to bring forward. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was almost the only individual it was necessary to address specially, other hon. Members having already been converted to his proposition, and the right hon. Gentleman himself having, in fact, been his principal guide and tutor in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman would not dispute the fact that a few years ago he had deliberately condemned the imposition of a duty upon plate, and upon that occasion it was understood that upon the very first opportunity the Government would consider the duty upon gold and silver plate in connection with the subject of hall-marking. It would be out of Order for him to propose formally the amendment of that system, by which the duty on gold and silver plate was now levied. He should, therefore, be obliged to confine his remarks to the necessity of abolishing the duty at the earliest possible moment in the general interest of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget, had imposed
  1254
  several new duties, some of which wore more or less oppressive to the trade of the country. He (Mr. Slagg) confessed that it would be very acceptable to him and to others connected with the industries of the country to see some relief given to trade, and he knew no better way in which it could be done than by abolishing those duties on gold and silver plate, which were now antiquated and absolutely barbarous. Personally, he was amazed that the present system of taxing an important and growing industry of the country had remained so long. The amount raised from the duty was really so trivial that he should have thought on the very first opportunity the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have taken means to get rid of the system. The system itself was some centuries old, and it appeared to be supported only by a small clique of persons who were connected with the trade in London and elsewhere, and who were not the most enterprizing persons of their class. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not hesitated to attack other classes. Why did he hesitate to attack this monstrous and inadequate monopoly? He believed that the reason for this backwardness on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be found in the restraint placed upon him by the action of the Goldsmiths' Company in London. Possibly, in anticipation of action to be taken in that House, that worthy, august, and ancient Corporation had made haste to incorporate among the Company a number of right hon. Gentlemen who had seats on the Front Bench, in order, he presumed, to dine down any proclivities they might have in the direction of interfering with these duties. He thought nothing more was needed to point out the undesirableness of continuing these duties than to show what their effect was. The trade in silver plate was decreasing seriously, both in quantity and in quality. In 1857, duty was paid on 1,930,000 ounces; in 1868, upon 780,000 ounces; in 1877, on 786,000 ounces; and in 1886 on only 690,000 ounces; or 1,000,000 ounces less than in 1825, notwithstanding the increase of population which had taken place in the interim. Those figures spoke for themselves, and proved the important fact that not only was the industry oppressed by the present system of taxation derived from

  1255
  hall-marking, but that it was in such a languishing state that before long it would inevitably expire. But, further, there was another fatal defect in these duties; they crushed out any enlargement of the trade in the direction of artistic development, as any hon. Member could see for himself, if he would look into a silversmith's shop. In the meantime, what were foreign countries doing? While our trade was languishing, that of America was improving by leaps and bounds. There was no such system there of hall-marks and duty, and the result was a large development of the trade. While we were harking back to the days of Queen Anne and George III. for our artistic designs, other countries were striking out new designs altogether, and were producing articles which beat ours and secured the customers who we formerly supplied. At present we were resting quietly under this competition which we had ourselves raised, and we were allowing a country like America not only to take away the whole of our trade, but to absorb the whole of our workmen and take them over to their factories. There were two large firms in America which alone made more artistic silver plate than the whole of our firms put together. On these grounds he made a strong appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay some consideration to the question. The right hon. Gentleman—and with justice perhaps—pleaded that it was now too late in the day to make such alterations in his Bill as would meet these grievances; but the right hon. Gentleman must be convinced of the importance of the subject, and he hoped he would at least give them an assurance that he would take an early opportunity of dealing with it, and, if possible, of setting it right. He thought that if the House could only be made aware of the loss of employment and the destitution of artistic application caused by the operation of these taxes, there would be a general demand for their removal. There was only one further part of the question upon which he would trouble the House with a very few words—namely, the effect of these duties in India. In India the silversmith's art was a very ancient one, and many of the inhabitants of that country were specially skilled in producing silver articles of great beauty and design. While, however, we professed in this
  1256
  country to be making every possible effort to foster the Native art of India, we were really doing all we could to stifle it and crush it out, by meeting it with a virtual prohibition at our Custom Houses, owing to the fact that it could not pass our hall-marking process, seeing that the silver rupee was a little below the standard of our own silver. Thus we absolutely denied to our own Dependencies the advantages which might be derived from a trade of this sort with the Mother Country. He thought that hon. Members who took an interest in the welfare of India would support his proposal. It was utterly impossible that they could extend trade as it ought to be extended until the imports to which he was objecting were done away with. He had no hesitation in expressing his full condemnation of the present system of hall-marking. But that was not the point which he desired to raise on that occasion. What ho wished was to give to those who were in favour of abolishing the duty the opportunity of voting with him if they possibly could. There could be no doubt that hall-marking was a very great burden and tax upon the art of the country. He had made appeals to various Chancellors of the Exchequer, and the answer which he had invariably received was—" Oh. yes; we agree that it is a barbarous and antiquated state of things; but we are held and bound fast by the difficulty of dealing with the question of drawbacks." He was surprised, after the steps which had been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, that he should flinch from facing the question. He (Mr. Slagg), as a Free Trader, would have no hesitation whatever in removing the duty without considering the question of drawback at all. It had been done in other cases, and he did not see why they should stand shivering on the brink. To meet the difficulty, however, he would propose to compromise these drawbacks. He knew that the suggestion he was about to make could not be acted upon now; but he threw it out for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, to give, as had been given in former instances, one year's drawback on the whole stock of silver plate. The amount of gold plate was so small that he thought it might be left out of the question, being simply confined to wed-

  1257
  ding rings. Taking the average for the last three years, he estimated one year's duty at £50,000, and this sum he would apply to the extinction of all plate duties. He ventured to think that the sum of £50,000 would liberally cover all demands of the trade. In the last few years about £150,000 had been paid in the shape of drawbacks, and two-thirds of that sum had gone in consumption, so that there was only one-third remaining upon new and unused silver plate. That sum would, therefore, be sufficient to pay all demands; and, although it was not a large sum, he believed it would satisfy the great bulk of the trade. The proposition would only be opposed by dealers in old plate, if only upon the ground of giving artistic employment to the working men of our large towns, and of removing an injustice to our fellow-subjects in India. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to give some favourable reply to his proposal. He believed that hon. Members opposite, in voting for the Clause, would give satisfaction to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the right hon. Gentleman himself desired to have some expression of opinion upon the justice of the case. He, therefore, hoped that hon. Members would support the clause he proposed, which would confer a lasting benefit upon the commerce of the country.
  Clause (Silver and gold plate,)—(Mr. Slagg,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was unable to go the full length of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Slagg). Although the sum involved was not a large one, he was very unwilling to withdraw the duty entirely, because the fact should not be overlooked that it was a tax upon luxury. He also doubted whether the removal of the customs upon imported plate would benefit the British trader; whereas such removal would give rise to a very severe competition from India. The real grievance was that the present regulations in regard to hall-marking had the effect of practically excluding Indian goods from
  1258
  the English Market. He agreed with the hon. Member that Indian artificers were highly skilled, and it was one of the industries with regard to which it might be said that India was in advance of this country. It seemed to him that there were two questions to be considered: in the first place, the duty; and, in the next, the question of hall-marking. He thought the regulations as to hall-marking ought to be altered, so as to give India fair play.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, the only Question before the House was the question of duty, and it would be out of Order to enter into the question of hall-marking.
  SIR. GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was simply about to suggest that a duty should be imposed, without any reference to the material upon which it was put. If a man chose to pay the duty he could do so.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was going into a subject which was outside the scope of the Bill.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought it would be possible to discuss the matter without any reference to hall-marking at all. In his opinion, it was desirable that the duty should be retained, and that there should be a stamp of some kind, such as that which was placed upon patent medicines, and other articles that were subject to Imperial duty, That was the only suggestion he intended to make.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTsaid, that he should have been quite prepared to support the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Slagg), if his clause had ended with the first part relating to the remission of the Excise Duty on gold and silver plate wrought within the United Kingdom; but he could not support the second part of the Motion, which proposed to abolish the duty on imported foreign plate. He did not see how the languishing home trade would be benefited by the Market being flooded with more base foreign goods. It was an important admission for the hon. Member for Burnley, who was well known to be an active Free Trader, to make—namely, that the foreign trade was growing by leaps and bounds, whereas our trade was declining.
  MR. SLAGG: I only referred to the trade in silver plate.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTsaid, that after the ruling of the Deputy Speaker he presumed it would be out of Order to follow the hon. Member into the question of hall-marking; but he could not resist the opportunity of saying that, in the opinion of a large number of artificers connected with the silver plate trade in Sheffield, that the present system of compulsory array was a great protection to them, and a guarantee of the good work of many honest but unknown small masters and artizans.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, the remarks of the hon. Member were not in Order.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTsaid, he would not pursue the matter further. He only hoped the hon. Member for Burnley would adopt the suggestion he had offered.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that although he sympathized with many of the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Slagg), he could not entirely agree with him as to the causes which had led to the diminished consumption and use of plate in this country. There was a time when good plate was made in this country, before George IV. melted down his plate and had it reconstructed into extremely bad plate by Rundell and Bridge. From that time the trade had fallen off. The modern habit of not putting plate on the dinner table had led to a large diminution of the trade. He was old enough to remember when it was the fashion to cover the table with plate. It was now the fashion to cover it with flowers instead. He did not think the imposition of the duty had had much effect in reducing the trade. There was no dispute as to matters of taste; but he could not agree with the opinion which had been expressed that American plate was very superior to ours. With regard to Indian plate, some people admired it more than he did; but there was no doubt that Indian artificers showed great capacity. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to dealing with Indian plate in some manner, so as to give it fairer play in the Market here, he should have great sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman. The tax, however, was a tax upon luxury, and it was not, therefore, one of the first taxes that pressed
  1260
  for removal, such as might be the case if it were a tax upon necessaries.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Slagg) upon the question of the discontinuance of hall-marking; but he did agree with him as to the desirability of removing the duty upon silver plate. Among other disadvantages, it was open to the objection that it was an almost insurmountable obstacle to the adoption of a system of bimetallism. If the tax were abolished, he believed that numbers of persons would engage in the manufacture of silver articles who were now prevented by the duty from doing so; and this would operate to restore silver to its true relative value and its primary function. The use of silver as money was a secondary one; the primary use of silver was in the manufacture of articles of luxury. In sacred history we read that the offerings of the Princes of Israel for the building of the Temple were not given as so many shekels of money, but in silver plate, chargers or dishes of silver, and gold spoons, valued in no other way than according to weight. That proved satisfactorily that in ancient times the primary use of gold and silver was in the manufacture of articles of luxury. The secondary use was for coinage which subsequently became the chief function of both the precious metals. The question of bi-metallism was being very much agitated at the present moment, he believed that this duty had acted very much as an obstacle to that system, because it prevented the application of silver to its primary use in art and commerce, and so lessened its value relatively to other things.
  MR. WIGGINsaid, that he knew the plate manufacturers of Birmingham and Sheffield intimately, and he was satisfied that as a body they did not want any alteration in the matter. He had not received a single application on the subject from the manufacturers of Birmingham. It was quite certain that the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had not paid a recent visit to Birmingham, or he would have seen that the articles he described did not altogether belong to the taste of the past. If the right hon. Gentleman would

  1261
  only pay a visit there, he would see that the trade was able to produce artistic articles of great beauty, and in the very best taste.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he thought that the question lay in a nutshell. He did not know whether what he had to say would satisfy the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Slagg); but he might state that if he could he should be glad to do so. Hon. Members were by no means unanimous as to whether the tax ought to continue or not, and it was curious to find how differently the same tax might be regarded even by two Members sitting on the same side, the one looking on it as a tax on industry, and the other wishing to maintain it as a tax on luxury. He confessed that his own sympathies were rather in the direction of the remission of that duty if it could be done. The hon. Member for Burnley had referred to the views of those whom he had called the monopolists; but the hon. Member would do him the justice to admit that there were some classes whom he had been obliged to touch by his Budget who were far more formidable than that particular industry, and no opposition coming from a small though opulent class would in the slightest degree affect the decision of the Government in such a matter. The hon. Member for Burnley had, he thought, to a certain extent exaggerated the effect of that tax, and he was inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in the opinion that it was not the tax which had prevented an increase in the consumption of that class of manufacture. He could not dispose of the question of the drawback in the same light and airy manner as the hon. Member for Burnley. At the same time, he did not wish to state the question of the drawback too strongly; he desired to be very careful, as he might have to deal with it on other occasions, and therefore he would not enter into controversy with the hon. Member on the subject. It was not a question of opposition only—the opposition of the silversmiths in that House would be almost absolutely nil; but there was the question of equity as to dealing fairly with the class affected. They were in this position as regarded
  1262
  drawback—that while in respect to most articles—for example, tobacco and some others—the bulk of them was kept in bond, and a comparatively small stock of them was not in bond; whereas in the case of silver there was practically no manufactured silver in bond. The case of drawback in regard to silver would stand on a different footing, because the duty was paid in a different manner. The question of drawback had seriously embarrassed successive Chancellors of the Exchequer in dealing with that matter. The matter was one of a complicated character, requiring time and close examination for its satisfactory solution, with due regard to the interests of the public on the one hand, and to what was equitable towards the manufacturer on the other. If the hon. Member would withdraw his proposal, he would promise him that he would continue to give the subject his best attention. He could make no pledge as to the time when the matter should be dealt with, as it must depend on the condition of their finances and other circumstances; but his sympathies lay in the direction that he had indicated, and he was especially desirous of remedying the Indian grievance which had been pointed out.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the course adopted by his Predecessors on this question, he wished to add that it was perfectly true that they had endeavoured to deal with this question. In 1880 his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian proposed the gradual reduction and ultimate abolition of the tax on silver and gold plate, and it had also been his duty to make a proposal under which the duty would have been abolished. But he was obliged to point out that when the Liberal Government proposed the abolition of the duty according to these two plans, they were met by very considerable political opposition, which was strong enough to make it impossible in 1880 and 1883 to carry through the proposed abolition. Now, he could promise the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Gentlemen on that side of the House would not throw in their lot with a small discontented body of silversmiths, and use their political power to defeat a measure for the abolition of the duty. He was

  1263
  very glad to hear what bad fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he made no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would be able next year to apply a small portion of any surplus he might have to get rid of the tax altogether. On those terms, he would ask the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Slagg) not to press his proposal to a Division.
  MR. SLAGGsaid, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) very heartily for the manner in which he had met his Amendment, which he would now ask leave to withdraw.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WARMINGTONsaid, that on a former occasion the principle of the Amendment in his name was put forward by the hon. Member for the Eifion Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Bryn Roberts), who gave reasons in support of it; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that it was a matter which excited so little interest that it required no answer. He (Mr. Warmington) believed that a study of the Division Lists of last week would show that the subject was one of wide interest. There were many small tradesmen and others who, although good men of business, were not able to put two sentences together, and who, when they appeared before men very well versed in these matters, were at a very great disadvantage in attempting to make good their case against the assessment. Small tradesmen desired that they might have an opportunity of being represented before the Commissioners by some skilled persons who would be able to put forward their claims for the revision of the assessments made upon them. In other classes of the community there were also many persons suffering from unjust assessment for Income Tax, because they found it better to submit to the injustice than to go to the trouble of appearing personally before the Commissioners. That was so, particularly with those who had the concerns and interests of people committed to their charge, and whose time was so valuable that it was impossible for them to sacrifice it by personally representing their case to the Commissioners. On these grounds he ventured to propose the Amendment in his name upon the Paper, which he thought was founded upon reason and good sense.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 12, after Clause 22, to insert the following Clause:—"Any person appealing against an assessment of Income Tax shall be entitled to appear by solicitor."—(Mr. Warmington.)
  Clause (Persons appealing may appear by solicitor,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, that many hon. Members, at the first blush, might think it desirable that solicitors should be allowed to appear before the Commissioners; but he would point out that the clause would give a totally different character to the proceedings which now took place. Dealing with these matters in a common-sense way was certainly equal to the advantage of having legal persons present. Of course, if a solicitor appeared on one side, it might be necessary to have a solicitor on the other side also; and the consequence might be that, instead of cases being rapidly disposed of by the exercise of common-sense on the part of impartial persons, there would be a long debate on each side. He felt certain that it was in the interests of persons who had to appeal that the process should be kept as simple and as commonplace as it could be. If people could not calculate upon the time at which their cases would be heard, it would be a great hardship. The Amendment would destroy the certainty which now existed. Experience had shown that upon the whole the present tribunal had given satisfaction, and it was not a tribunal before which it was desirable to introduce long legal arguments.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he ventured respectfully to differ from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was quite indifferent whether it was a solicitor or any qualified agent who might be entitled to appear; but he could not believe that because such persons came before the Commissioners to state the case of a person who considered himself unduly assessed there would be any waste of time. It was generally found that the more perfectly a man knew his case, the more rapidly he was able to put it forward; on the other hand, it was, generally speaking, the

  1265
  person who was not a practised man, and could not put his facts together, that wasted time in stating his case. He many years ago had a client, a manufacturer, a very able mechanic, a genius at inventions, but bad at accounts. This gentleman was assessed for Income Tax at thrice the propor amount. He appealed, but could not present his case clearly, and gained nothing by his appeal. Next year he consulted him (Mr. Gedge), and he was somewhat irregularly allowed to go with him before the Commissioners. In a few minutes he put the matter clearly before them, and a reduction of two-thirds of the Income Tax followed. He thought that the proposal of the hon. Member opposite would facilitate matters rather than delay the proceedings. The Income Tax was a very unpopular tax. ["No, no!"] An hon. Gentleman said "No;" but if he were acquainted, as he (Mr. Gedge) himself was, with persons whose incomes were about £600 or £700 a-year, he would find that among that class the Income Tax was very unpopular indeed, and that it was particularly so with the class who came under Schedule D. He believed that if, instead of the present system, they could let the appeal be heard by the County Court Judge in camerâ, and allow the appellant to be represented by a qualified man of business, who understood accounts, and could put the matter clearly before the Commissioners, it would be of advantage. The Commissioners, of course, would not allow the representative to go into any legal arguments. The question would not be one of law, but simply of figures, and he believed that the proposal would lead to a great saving of time, and to much greater content on the part of the taxpayer, who would no longer feel that he had been treated unjustly.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it would be a disadvantage if the representations to the Commissioners were turned into a legal argument; but he should be glad to know whether the grievances really existed which the hon. Member (Mr. Gedge) complained of? He believed that, under the present system, the Commissioners did not insist on personal attendance. As far as his experience went, a person could send anybody he liked to represent him; and, from his own observations, certainly it was not necessary for indi-
  1266
  viduals to appear in the case of the valuation of houses for Income Tax. The owner might send any person he thought fit, and if that took place under one Schedule, he did not see why it should not also be allowed under another Schedule.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 214: Majority 48.—(Div. List, No. 89.)
  MR. CRAIGsaid, he ventured to hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might see fit to agree to the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper. Over and over again, in the course of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, he had declared that it was not his wish to strike at the lower classes of wine introduced into this country, for which they were so much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. The right hon. Gentleman said, further, that it was his wish that only high class and costly wines, especially champagne and expensive clarets, which were the luxury of the rich and seldom the luxury of the poor, should be subject to the increased duty. One of the disadvantages under which the House suffered in this discussion was that they had not been supplied by the Government with statistics showing the quantities of bottled wine from various countries which would be affected by this proposal. But in the course of the debate of last Thursday the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) had given some statistics which he thought furnished a clue to the quantity of French wines which would be affected by the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it became law. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that the British Consul at Bordeaux had reported that the quantity of wine exported from that port to the United Kingdom in bottle was 700,000 gallons. That was a very moderate estimate, although, if they took into account other French wines which were not sparkling, he thought that something like 300,000 gallons more would not be an erroneous estimate. The quantity of French wine in bottles other than champagne then affected would be not less than 1,000,000 gallons. That showed why it was that the French people might be

  1267
  said to be up in arms against a measure which so seriously affected their commerce; but the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs went further. He referred to some figures that were stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and he admitted that the quantity of wino bottled and exported from France was twice as large of champagne as of all other kinds. He said that there were 90,000 hectolitres of champagne as against 45,000 hectolitres of other kinds of wine, which showed that no less a quantity than 2,000,000 gallons of champagne were exported annually from France to this country. The tax proposed by the Bill was 2s. 6d. a-gallon, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that the tax would produce only £125,000 when taken on all classes of bottled wines brought to England, whether from France or other countries. The House would see, therefore, that the produce of the tax had been largely underestimated, and that on champagne alone the right hon. Gentleman might get twice as much as from all other kinds of winos taken together. He thought that some hon. Gentlemen had failed to perceive that, with regard to France, they were creating a sort of international animosity which might result in retaliatory measures. Retaliatory measures had been spoken of in France, and M. Goblet had had the greatest difficulty in prevailing on the Chamber not to propose retaliatory measures, the object of which would be to deprive us of the benefit of the Act of 1882, which extended to England the "Favoured Nation Clause." If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to tax costly wines only, no harm would be done; but there would certainly be reprisals, if the wines which were drunk on middle-class tables were interfered with. But France was not alone concerned in this matter. There was a trade springing up between Portugal and this country, and which, strange to say, the Portuguese Government had taken measures to promote in this country by means of their Consul. He knew of one case where the Consul had endeavoured to make people acquainted with the fact that there were wines in Portugal as good as claret and Burgundy, and more than that, they had succeeded in supplying this wine in bottles at 16 s. a-dozen, yet in this Bill
  1268
  they had a proposal to put on that wine a duty of 7s. per dozen bottles. Take the case of Spain also. Owing to the measure carried out with respect to the alcoholic scale of duties in 1886, trade was being brought back to this country. Then, again, there was Germany with her light Rhine wines, hock and Moselle, and there was Italy also trying to introduce its wines into this country; and the same might be said of Greece. As might be imagined, England could not inflict a tax of this sort upon the industries of those countries without being met at every port with vexatious imposts upon our ships by way of retaliation for this tax. This question was of particular importance from the point of view of those interested in shipping, because there were constantly little imposts inflicted upon that class of property abroad which ate away all profit that might otherwise accrue from the voyage, and really left nothing for the owners. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would limit this excessive surtax to expensive classes of wine, he would lose nothing of the amount which the charge had been estimated to produce, and, while that alteration would not injure our trade, it would preserve to us the advantages we had enjoyed in our friendly relations with France and other countries. For these reasons he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 1, after the word "bottles," to insert the words "and of a greater value at the port of entry than thirty shillings per dozen bottles,"—(Mr. Craig.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper embodying the same principle as that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Craig)—the difference between the two Amendments being, that his hon. Friend's Amendment seemed to have been suggested by way of compromise. He (Sir George Campbell) could not vote against a proposal of the Government to place a special tax on luxuries; but, at the same time, it seemed to him an enormity that Scotch whisky, worth perhaps 10 s., should be charged 20 s.

  1269
  a-dozen duty, while the rich man's champagne, worth perhaps 100 s., was only charged 2s. a-dozen. It was contrary to all principle to enact that the rich man's articles of consumption should be charged less duty than the poor man's, and he would like altogether to reverse that principle. But although he very much doubted the expediency of the form in which the special tax had been laid upon champagne, yet, as he had said, he was totally unable to vote against the proposal of the Government. He thought they ought to spread their net wider to tax luxuries. As regards wine the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) ought to have put his proposal into a more discriminating shape; he should not tax all wines equally, but make a distinction between the high class wines and the comparatively poor wines. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) had stated, a few days ago, in reply to the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Provand), that it was better to keep out of the country champagne which, was sold at 20 s. a dozen; but he (Sir George Campbell) thought that there was a fallacy in the reasoning of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that the result would be to encourage British champagnes. It was well known that at Hamburg they could supply the finest brand at 12 s. a-dozen; and he thought that the British people were wanting in science if, with a Protective Duty of 7s., they could not produce an excellent bottled wine of the character of champagne. It seemed to him, therefore, that the result of taxing these cheap wines would be not to keep out low wines, but to promote the manufacture of wine in this country. He agreed that if they carried too far the taxation of wine from France it would be at the risk of irritating the French people, with whom, above all, it was most desirable to keep on good terms. He hoped the Government would be able to see their way to make some compromise in this matter, and he thought that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was a reasonable compromise to propose. He knew that it was the practice of the British Custom House Authorities to assert that it was impossible to discriminate with regard to the value of tea
  1270
  or wine and other things; they said they could not discriminate whether an article was fine or inferior, and that, therefore, all classes must be taxed alike. But that was not true of other countries, in all of which something in the nature of ad valorem duties were to be found. He remembered in Calcutta there were ad valorem duties, and he could affirm that he had not found the insuperable difficulties which the British Custom House officials spoke of. Therefore, he could see no insuperable difficulty in the way of carrying out the principle here. In dealing with the Wine Duties, the English Government had first offended Spain, and now they were trying to impose a duty on bottled wine from France, and wore very likely to offend that country also. He doubted whether the argument about Commercial Treaties was a sufficient reason for entering into this course of treating foreign countries; and he thought it neither right nor fair that alcohol in foreign wines should be taxed much more lightly than the alcohol in home produce. He thought his hon. Friend's Amendment was framed in fair terms, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would favourably consider it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, that the House was aware that it was the wish and the intention of the Government to levy this tax only upon the more expensive wines. He had shown on former occasions that the tax would not be paid by the cheap wines, because they could and would be imported in casks and not in bottles. The wines of Spain and Portugal would certainly come in casks. The House generally, he understood, did not object so much to the taxing of the higher classes of wines, but to the taxing of the cheaper wines. A largo portion of these cheaper wines could be imported in casks, but there was some portion of them that could not. Her Majesty's Government would like to find means to relieve these wines, but the difficulty was as to the method of doing so. They should also be glad if by such means they removed any feelings of irritation that had been aroused abroad, for though they had pointed out that they could not adapt their fiscal system in every point to foreign susceptibilities,

  1271
  yet it would be very satisfactory if these were not aroused. The hon. Member, by his Amendment, proposed that wines under a certain value should be exempt from this tax. But here was the difficulty. How was the value of the wine to be tested at the port of entry—by its intrinsic value or the hopes of the seller? How could the wine be tested, except by drinking or tasting it? How could they ascertain whether it was worth 30 s. a-dozen or not? He should be quite prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member if any method could be discovered whereby it was possible that the value of 30 s. per dozen could be arrived at without giving rise to fraud, friction, and irritation of every kind. The principle of the Amendment he accepted, but the difficulty was in its application. So far the Custom House Authorities had not been able to devise any satisfactory means of ascertaining the value of any particular class of wines, sugar, tobacco, and tea, and other products, the value of which varied in an extraordinary manner. It had been attempted to tax tea on the ad valorem principle by tasting it, but the experiment led to every kind of difficulty, and proved to be a great impediment to trade. The ad valorem theory was excellent in principle but most difficult to carry out in practice. There had been tea-tasters and there might be wine-tasters, but that was not a satisfactory system. It was suggested that the article should be taken by the Customs Authorities at the value declared. But this involved the wines being subsequently sold by auction and sacrificed. These were the difficulties that had to be faced; but he was quite prepared to promise that he would continue to consider this question with the Custom House Authorities, and that if practical means were found of determining the value of wines, he would be willing to accept the limit of exemption suggested by the hon. Member. It would not, he thought, be advisable to put into the Bill a clause in regard to which they could not at present see how it could be worked. But if the House were disposed to accept the Amendment, he would suggest that it should be modified to the following form:—
  "Provided that, from a day to be fixed by an Order in Council, this section shall not apply to wines imported in bottles after that day if of a value, as determined by regulations made by
  1272
  the Commissioners of Customs, not exceeding 30 s. per dozen bottles."
  The objection, however, was that it would give very considerable power to the Treasury and to the Customs; and, though he made the suggestion, still he thought the more preferable course would be to pass the Bill as it stood, upon the pledge—which he was willing to give the House—that he would pursue the consideration of the subject in concert with the Custom House Authorities, with a view of ultimately bringing in a Bill which would show the manner in which the value might be arrived at, and enable the House to judge better as to whether the exemption was based upon proper principles.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the House could not but feel satisfied with the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met the Amendment. He (Sir William Harcourt) agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be an undesirable precedent to pass a Bill containing a clause giving the Treasury a sort of roving commission in the shape of the discretionary power such as had been suggested. He should, however, much prefer to rely on the promise of the right hon. Gentleman to bring in a separate Bill dealing with the subject. If the right hon. Gentleman undertook that, in the course of the present Session, he would introduce some legislation which, under the authority of Parliament, would carry out the principle of relieving the lower-class wines, that would be most satisfactory. But he must remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that though he and his Friends were satisfied with the attitude taken by the Government in that particular instance, they objected to the tax as a whole; not on account of its character, but because of the effect it would have upon our commercial relations with France. The right hon. Gentleman had not touched upon that point, although it was a point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and the objection made to the tax was not merely that it was imposed on the cheaper wines, but that the tax was calculated to affect our commercial relations with France. The House had been given to understand that Her Majesty's Government had been in communication with the Government of France on the subject, and he

  1273
  thought that they had a right to ask that, before the Bill went finally out of I their hands, hon. Members should be informed how the Chancellor of the Exchequer exactly stood in reference to the French Government in regard to the question. He hoped that some arrangement had been arrived at between the two countries, which would remove the grave apprehensions which there was some reason to think had been entertained; for, certainly, it seemed exceedingly ill-advised to risk serious consequences to a trade of £20,000,000 for the sake of so small a sum as this tax could produce.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) must be aware that if the proposed plan were adopted, a large portion of the French grievance would be removed, because that grievance had been largely founded on the amount of wine that would be taxed. He should have thought it would have facilitated an amicable discussion with France, if the House would wait to see the effect of the proposal now made with regard to the cheaper wines. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the bulk of our trade with France. Her Majesty's Government also had a very great principle at stake, and that was whether, in regard to their fiscal policy, they were not perfectly justified in maintaining their rights. The French Government, he thought, would not contest that for a moment. He deprecated the continuance of the debate at that moment with regard to the relations between France and England as to these questions, and did not think it would produce so amicable a settlement as they could desire. At the same time, he felt that he had no right to deprecate it in strong terms, if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite thought it should take place, as he fully admitted their right to bring such an important matter before the House if they wished to do so.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he recognized the fact that Her Majesty's Government were with regard to this matter placed in a very difficult position, even more difficult than was shown by the words of the right hon. Gentleman. As the right hon. Gentleman considered it best that the clause should remain, as at present he thought the House might be satisfied if he would
  1274
  give an assurance that after obtaining further information the Government would bring in a Bill, not at the end of the Session, but at an early date, to secure that low wines should pay a reduced duty. He felt that full confidence would be had in the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman; but the matter was not one which would bear much longer delay, and he trusted that no time would be lost in framing a Bill under which wines of a lower class would pay a lower rate of duty. No one, it was true, liked to go back to the system of ad valorem duties, after their distinct repudiation by this country; but matters could not be left in their present state. It was unfortunate that the proposal as to wine in bottle should have been made; but, it having been made, and approved by this House, he thought it best to accept the view now taken by his right hon. Friend.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he wished, with the indulgence of the House, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, if there was to be another Bill brought in dealing with these cheap wines and the method of raising duties upon them, that Bill should not include the whole of the wine question, so that there might be time for the right hon. Gentleman not only to consult with the Custom House Authorities, but also with the French Government? He thought that would facilitate matters considerably, and he did not see that the course presented any insuperable difficulty.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid he quite agreed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown a disposition to get out of a difficulty which he thought had been gratuitously created. The right hon. Gentleman insisted that this House should have absolute liberty to control its own fiscal arrangements. There was no doubt that we could preserve our fiscal liberty. So could the French Government; and nothing was truer than that if we took this course, the liberty which the French Government possessed would very soon be exercised. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] He could not make an appeal to Gentlemen who did not regard the benefit of Free Trade as between the two countries. He believed he should

  1275
  be supported by everyone in the House when he said there was no policy which had benefited this country and the world at large more than the existing commercial arrangements between this and other countries. It was quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might satisfy the French Government that he intended to act in good faith under the assurance given to the House that evening, and that he would endeavour to free the cheaper wines coming into this country from the enormous surtax proposed. But this was not the whole difficulty; they might assure the French Government of this, but could they assure the French people that their wines were not to be charged at this excessive rate? He would be sorry if the House should assent to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman as he at first submitted it. It seemed to him that the amount was so small that it was not worth while for £125,000 to run the enormous risk of a disturbance of the trade relations between England and France as well as other countries. The cheap wines of those countries would be largely on the increase in future years, and it was of the first importance that no difficulty should be thrown in their way. He ventured to enforce upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the enormous necessity of the course suggested by his right hon. Friend—namely, to withdraw from the present proposal with regard to the wine tax. In making this appeal, he would ask what was the inference drawn from the proposal of the Government? It was that for the paltry sum of £125,000 it was proposed again to disturb almost in perpetuity our commercial relations with every country; and those Governments which wished to extend Free Trade with us would have additional trouble thrown upon their hands to restrain those who wished to act upon contrary principles. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had yet measured the difficulties which underlay these proposals. The right hon. Gentleman said he would be doing a service to the bottling trade of the country.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not say that. It was not his intention to do so. He said it would not injure the proposal—
  1276
  that it would, perhaps, have that effect. The instance he gave was simply by way of illustration.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERpointed out to the hon. Gentleman that the Question before the House was the restriction of the duty on wine.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make a fuller and truer estimate of the injurious effects inseparable from his proposals as they now stood; and he suggested that the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was far sounder—namely, to suspend the matter until the further proposals of the right hon. Gentleman were laid before the House.
  MR. GOSCHENasked, whether he understood that the right hon. Gentleman Sir William Harcourt had suggested that there should be a withdrawal of the whole duties?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had been asked a question by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he desired to reply to it. [Renewed cries of "Order!"] He appealed to Mr. Deputy Speaker whether he could not reply to the question?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, this was extremely irregular, and asked the Mover of the Amendment whether he persisted in it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT [across the Table to the Chancellor of the Exchequer]: I regret that I cannot answer your question.
  MR. CRAIGsaid, after the assurance given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would now move the omission of the clause, which, he understood, would enable the House to discuss the whole question of the Wine Duties. He did not wish to speak again on the matter at any length; but he did wish, on his own part, to enter his protest against the plan of the Government as it now stood. He had to complain that the House at present had received no information as to the situation in which the Government stood with reference to

  1277
  the French negotiations; but, of course, if the Under Secretary of state for Foreign Affairs said it was not convenient to make a statement at the present moment, he should not press for it. All they desired was that no difficulty should arise between this country and France in regard to the subject. They had no desire to hinder or embarrass Her Majesty's Government; but they saw a great danger which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not fully recognized. They, on that (the Opposition) side of the House, did not deny that each country had the right to settle its own fiscal system or that the right hon. Gentleman had the right to impose the tax, but the question was as to the prudence of such a proposal as I was made by Her Majesty's Government. The French Government and people might be perfectly unreasonable; but they often had to deal with unreasonable people; and if they were prudent they would not offer unnecessary provocation, especially when large interests were at stake. A more retaliatory speech than that which was made by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the other night ho had never hoard. They must protest to the last, and leave on record their objections to this unnecessary raising of the duty on bottled wines, the amount to be obtained from which would have been raised with less difficulty had it taken the form of an increased duty on cigars. They must, however, leave the whole responsibility of the difficulty that would be created between this country and France to Her Majesty's Government. [Ironical Ministerial Cheers.] Yes; he was aware that some hon. Gentlemen opposite who now were cheering would cheer as much, or even more, at a declaration of war, because their doctrine was that of retaliation. [Cries of "Oh," and "Hear, hear!"] Those hon. Gentlemen differed from the Chancellor of the Exchequer because that was not his doctrine, and it was because he (Sir William Harcourt) knew what was the policy of the Supporters of the Government that he recorded his protest against it. He gave credit fully to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not proposing the new duty on any such ground; but, at the same time, in view of the fact that it might lead to a considerable amount of misunderstanding and angry feeling in France, they regarded it as likely to
  1278
  lead to very prejudicial consequences. He begged to move the omission of the clause.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 3.—(Sir William Harcourt.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not think ho could add much to what he had already stated. But he must protest in the strongest manner against the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he and his hon. Friends were going to divide against this clause because it was a provocation to France. He disclaimed in the strongest possible manner the suggestion that it was a provocation.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not say there was intentional provocation—[Cheers]—intentional, no doubt, in the sense of those hon. Gentleman who cheered, but not intentional provocation in the sense of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said it would have the effect of provocation.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman in stirring up a cheer had really gone a little too far. Surely, it was injudicious that a Gentleman in his position should tell the people of France that they on that side of the House cheered the words "provocation to France." The right hon. Gentleman really must have said that in joke. He hoped it would be so taken elsewhere. To say that even a declaration of war would be cheered by hon. Gentlemen on that side might be good as a rhetorical retort, but he was sure that no one would seriously wish to irritate the feeling of Members in any quarter of the House. He only hoped that the right hon. Gentleman by his words had not done as much to disturb public feeling in France as he believed. the Government had done by the proposal of this tax. He was always ready to meet the right hon. Gentleman, if possible, but he was anxious to bring the discussion to a termination, because in a matter of this kind it was so desirable that difficulties should not be increased by indiscreet utterances in that House. The Government would go to a Division on this question, because simply on fiscal grounds they considered it expedient to place a higher duty upon the dearer classes of wines,

  1279
  but without the slightest intention of, impairing the commercial relations of this country and France.
  MR. ILLING WORTHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that he had somewhat misapprehended the meaning of a statement made on the introduction of the Budget. He happened to have in his hand, however, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, of the 26th of March, who, in reference to he bottling trade, used these words—
  "I take note, in making this estimate, of the probable, nay certain, diminution of the amount of wine which may at present be imported in bottle, and which will in future be imported in casks. It is possible that the bottling trade in England may receive a certain impetus, but I cannot conceive that that is an objection to the plan."—(3 Hansard [324] 313.)
  The right hon. Gentleman might have meant nothing by that observation, but if he meant nothing he wanted to know why it was introduced.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not say it was the intention to give an impetus to the bottling trade.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he had I not said anything about intention. He wanted to know whether there was any moaning to be attached to the words of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the proposal which had been made would in the long run prove to be eminently a trade proposal. The right hon. Gentleman would find it very difficult, indeed, by words used in that House to overthrow the feeling caused by his way of setting up this increased Wine Duty. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring in a measure to deal further with the question if he could find a satisfactory and workable plan, but he had led hen. Members to hope very little from his statement, because he prefaced it by saying that it was almost impossible to determine a fair ad valorem duty, so that there was little reason to anticipate an early mitigation of the tax now proposed. It was impossible that this question could remain over to the end of the Session, because then a great part of the mischief would have been done. It was not probable that the French Minister could restrain the Protectionist Party in France unless there was immediate action taken, in consequence of the difficulty which the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman had already raised, and he, therefore,
  1280
  hoped he would relieve the country at once from a danger which it would otherwise take years to overcome.
  MR. SCHWANNsaid, he was sorry that the Government had thought fit to interfere with a trade which had been going on now for 28 years, and which amounted to between £50,000,000 and £60,000,000 per annum, for the sake of gaining what was admittedly a small sum. It was not a trade with which we could afford to trifle, and there was considerable danger lest retaliatory measures should be adopted by France by the application of the "general tariff" to English goods. Grave apprehensions existed in the cotton manufacturing districts as to the probable results of the application of this tax. The fear of the "general tariff" being applied to cotton goods for France and Algiers had prevented a great deal of business taking place. With this tariff hanging over them, merchants were afraid to make contracts many months ahead. His constituents in Manchester felt the greatest anxiety. There was every fear that retaliatory measures would be adopted by the French nation, and that the trade which had grown so splendidly would decrease materially. For his own part it seemed to him that it was perfectly unnecessary to make this proposal. If the income tax had been reduced by ½d. instead of 1d., it would have satisfied those who wished to see the taxes reduced, and there would have been no necessity for seeking new taxation of a very exasperating character.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 207; Noes 115: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 90.)
  Clause 4 (Alteration of duties upon carriages).
  MR. OHANNING, said, the object of his Amendment was to continuo the Carriage Tax as affecting small four-wheeled carriages under 4 cwt. on the same footing as it had stood for the last 16 or 18 years. He could hardly think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have fully considered the result of his proposals. In his Budget speech he said he wished to remove grievances, but he was creating a grievance. While the alteration of the duties relieved the heavier single-horse carriages of one guinea, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to increase by

  1281
  40 per cent, or from 15 s. to 21 s. per annum, the tax on that large class of lighter carriages. These small carriages—the vast majority of them—were used by people of small means in country districts. They were very largely in the hands of poor parsons—and all parsons were poor enough now—Dissenting ministers, small farmers, tradesmen, and ladies of limited means. He thought the remission of half the duty on the heavier carriages was just, and would have a good effect on the carriage building trade. But he wished to ask why should people of small means who had pony traps and small four-wheeled dogcarts, which now paid a tax of 15 s., be called upon to contribute an extra 6s. in order that the remission of a guinea should be given to wealthier people who kept a large brougham or victoria, or a single-horse carriage over 4 cwt? He must say, he wondered at the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who was treating this as a laughing matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that he did not know why the hon. Gentleman should say that. He denied that he had done anything to justify such an imputation.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 27, after the word "only," to insert the word "and shall weigh four hundred-weight."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, it was ridiculous for the hon. Member (Mr. Channing) to assert that the sole object of the simple proposal of the Government was to tax the poor man in order to reduce the taxation on the rich. It was preposterous to treat that matter as if it were at all a question between the rich and the poor, and he strongly deprecated that view being introduced in those discussions on every possible occasion. He greatly doubted whether people's carriages were small in proportion to their means, and it certainly had never entered the mind of the Government to attempt to make up for a loss of revenue on one portion of their proposals by raising the taxation
  1282
  of four-wheeled carriages that did not weigh 4 cwt.; and he could assure the House that that proposal was made, after the matter had been thoroughly discussed with all the various classes interested in it, solely with a view to simplification and to the relief of the owners of carriages themselves. It was also proposed with a view to get rid of the limited weight, which operated very prejudicially as regarded the construction of carriages.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, that many of the small pony carriages now paying only 15 s. belonged to a class of people who very often kept no other conveyance, and to whom they were a great convenience. Those people were to have an additional tax of 6s., equal to no less than an additional 40 per cent, inflicted on them, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to raise the tax beyond the present rate of 15 s. He regarded the Carriage Tax altogether as a mistake; but he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, he would venture to remind, posed during the Edinburgh contest as an opponent of the tax, would at least yield so far as not to impose the extra 6s. in that particular case, which would cause a good deal of feeling, but would accept the present Amendment.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he considered that the effect of this increased tax would be to increase the number of two-wheeled traps, and therefore to increase the amount of danger to the women and children who used them. He would support the Amendment, which he held to be a very reasonable one.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 144: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 91.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Repeal of duties upon hawkers' licences).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLin moving an Amendment to the effect that the duty should be repealed altogether, said, he would point out that its imposition was a hardship upon a poor class of traders, seeing that they had to pay the Cart Tax in addition. He hoped that the Government would carry out their original intention of abolishing the duty.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 19, to leave out all the words after the word. "shall," to the words "annual licence," inclusive, and insert the words "cease to be payable."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. QUILTERsaid, he hoped the House would not endorse the views of the hon. Gentleman. There ought to have been no reduction in the charge for the licences of hawkers, who were generally regarded as nuisances, injuring crops, breaking hedges for fuel, and acting in some cases as purveyors of stolen goods. Certainly, they were not a class to be exempted from taxation as against small traders in towns, who could be called to account if they sold inferior goods, while hawkers could. sell them with impunity. The facilities of improved communication between towns had almost rendered hawkers unnecessary.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he had received communications from several parts of the House as to the inexpediency, and, to a certain extent, the injustice, of repealing the whole duty; but he thought that hawkers were entitled to some remission. He did not consider that the arguments were very strong one way or the other, and therefore he was prepared to stand by his second determination, which was to reduce the duty from £4 to £2.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not adhered to his first proposal. It might be that hawkers in Suffolk were worse than elsewhere; but, on the whole, he believed they did not deserve the aspersions cast upon them. On the contrary, he knew they were of the greatest service to the poor in many parts of the country, and brought to them many articles of first necessity at moderate rates, as, for example, petroleum for lighting purposes.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Duty on contract notes).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, after sub-section (2), insert—" (3.) The amount of duty upon a contract
  1284
  note stamped in conformity with this section may be added to the charge for brokerage or agency."—(Sir Robert Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  COLONEL LAURIEin supporting the Amendment, said, that without it business would not be remunerative to the brokers.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that, in this matter, the first thoughts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were best. As the Bill was originally drawn, the duty would be paid by the broker's client, and that was plain and intelligible. He suggested that words should be inserted accordingly.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, he must urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the Amendment.
  MR. BARINGsaid, he should personally have preferred the original words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he had been told that if the clause were passed in that form, a broker, in neglecting to charge his client, either by accident or agreement, with the price of the stamp, might be committing an offence.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he had no objection to the insertion of the words suggested by his right hon. Friend.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Provisions as to the stamping of instruments).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICEURD WEBSTER)in moving to leave out, in Sub-section (d)," every person by whom the instrument has been or shall be signed or executed," in order to insert "as in that behalf specified in the 1st Schedule hereto," said, the object had been originally to secure that some persons should pay the Stamp Duty. The clause had given rise to some discussion, and the Government had communicated with gentlemen well acquainted with business affairs, with the result that this modification was now suggested.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words "every person by whom the instrument has been or shall be signed or executed," in order to insert the words "as in that behalf specified in the 1st Schedule hereto."—(Mr, Attorney General:)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. WARMINGTONsaid, he thought the Amendment was ridiculous, until the Committee knew what words were to be inserted in the Schedule. This was really recasting one of the most important sections of the measure without Notice, and springing a new set of provisions on the Legal Profession and the public without warning. He protested against such a practice.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)in explanation, said, that most legal Members in the House were aware that he had been in Communication with authorities on the subject. The question had been thoroughly gone into with the view of satisfying the Legal Profession, and he was sorry that the hon. Gentleman had not had the same opportunity as other Members. The proposition had been thrashed out, and had obtained the assent of what might be called the representative bodies in the Profession.
  Question, put, and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Further Amendments made.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) ELECTORS BILL.— [BILL 181.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Long.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. STANSFELDin rising to move an Instruction to the Committee, said, its object was to assimilate the electorate for the election of Poor Law Guardians to that for the election of the members of the County Council. This Bill and the Local Government Bill were closely bound up together, and he hoped he should not be out of Order if he took the present occasion to explain his proposal as a whole with regard to this question. Speaking generally, he should like to
  1286
  repeat what he said in opening the debate on the second reading of the Local Government Bill—namely, that he had no desire to do anything that could destroy the Bill or smother it with kindness. On the contrary, he positively desired that the scheme should become law. But he did reserve to himself the right of criticism and of bringing forward Amendments. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) would meet these Amendments with an open mind and judge them upon their merits. Some of them, if the right hon. Gentleman did not find them objectionable, might greatly facilitate the progress of the Bill. With regard to the question of the exclusion of the Poor Law administration from the jurisdiction of the County Councils, he admitted that the difficulties in the way were great, but he did not think they were insuperable. They merely required time, labour, and patience. He did not ask that the Poor Law system should be taken at once in and made one of the ordinary municipal duties of the County Council; but if it were contemplated that sooner or later the Poor Law system was to be taken into the county system, the way could be paved for that by assimilating the electorate. Certain functions of the Guardians of the Poor—those relating to sanitary matters—were to be taken from them by the Bill, while the administration of the Poor Law was to be left in their hands. The result would be that the least important branch of the duties of the Guardians would be performed by a new Body elected on a popular franchise, while the larger and more important functions would be discharged by a Body elected on an old antiquated system. He believed that the effect of refusing the popular franchise on the election of Poor Law Guardians would create a very unfavourable impression in the minds of rural communities, and would be a danger to the good administration of the Poor Law itself. He would point out that the workhouse test was not a perfect test, and that it weighed upon the minds of the working people of this country. It was, therefore, highly inadvisable to take any steps which might stimulate in the minds of the working classes a great distrust of the administration of the Poor Law, or which might

  1287
  lead to them to believe that the Government and Parliament would not allow them to choose their own representatives to administer the law. Having granted an extension of the Parliamentary franchise, and being about to extend the franchise for elections to the County Councils, they could not refuse to extend the franchise for Poor Law elections. If the right hon. Gentleman rejected his Amendment and the Bill went through the House without any such proposal being accepted, he would submit that the present state of things could not last, and if the change was inevitable the best plan would be to make it now. They all admitted the need of simplification of areas and of the functions of local government; but simplification was also required in the matter of registration. At the present time the system of registration was complex, difficult, uncertain, and expensive; but this Bill would add to the complexity and expense by creating a new register. What he proposed, on the other hand, was that there should be for all local government purposes, including Poor Law elections, one register, one franchise, and one method of voting.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill with a view to assimilate the qualification of electors of Guardians of the Poor, including the abolition of the plural vote, to the conditions prescribed in the Bill with regard to electors of county authorities,"—(Mr Stansfeld.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that the question which the right hon. Gentleman had raised was one which did not require any very large amount of discussion at the present stage of the Bill; and, no doubt, the desire of the right hon. Gentleman was to raise it with a view to future action. He (Mr. Ritchie) wished to take that opportunity of saying that on a previous occasion, in consequence of the limited time at his disposal, he was not able to notice many of the points which the right hon. Gentleman had raised in the debate to which he referred. He valued very much the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman; but he felt that there would be ample opportunities afforded him for dealing with them when the Bill reached
  1288
  the Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman had now alluded to many matters which formed points of discussion between himself and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). Upon those matters the House would feel that it would be hardly desirable that he should enter. Of course, the main question which they had to deal with to-night was the Instruction of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld). The impression left upon his (Mr. Ritchie's) mind was that the numerous points of great delicacy and importance to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded were a sufficient justification of the Government in not attempting to overload their Bill with this particular subject of the Poor Law. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with it in a somewhat peculiar manner. The mere fact that the right hon. Gentleman had to move an Instruction in order to carry out his proposal showed that what he proposed was quite outside the four corners of the Bill. In his speech on the second reading the right hon. Gentleman characterized as the great blot in the Bill the fact that the Government did not deal with the Poor Law. Indeed, he went further, and said that the new Councils were created side by side with the Boards of Guardians. But surely the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, instead of removing, would magnify, what he considered to be the great blot in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must perceive that, instead of removing any anomaly such as he contended would be created by the Bill, he would only be setting up another anomaly of a distinctly larger character. Now, the right hon. Gentleman, departing somewhat from his proposal, said—"If you are going to give municipal work to the new Body which you are about to create, why do you not give to it also the administration of the Poor Law?" His answer was that the municipal work and the Poor Law work had always been recognized as being clearly distinct from each other. The Government hesitated to transfer powers of so delicate and so important a character as those connected with the Poor Law to a Board which did not yet exist, and as to the constitution of which they had no certain means of expressing any very decided opinion. The Government

  1289
  thought it desirable that at some future period all these matters should be administered by one Local Authority; but that was not the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. His proposal was that, whereas property had hitherto possessed a very large voting power in the election of Boards of Guardians, it should now have no voting power whatever. At present an owner and occupier might have 12 votes, six for occupation and six for ownership; but the right hon. Gentleman proposed that in future he should have only one vote. That was an enormous change, fraught possibly with very grave and important consequences. The Government considered that the right mode of dealing with this question, if they felt it could be done at once, would be to transfer all local matters to one Local Body. He was glad to recognize that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other right hon. Gentleman opposite had charged the Government with a desire to increase by their proposals the stringency of the Poor Law administration, though it might be contended in some quarters that outdoor relief was given too lavishly. In Unions with which he was acquainted, where indoor relief was insisted upon to a large extent, the most philanthropic men were to be found serving on the Boards of Guardians. The view which those gentlemen took was that there was a point when outdoor relief was given where private charity ought to come in, and that where outdoor relief was given too lavishly it checked private benevolence. The burden of the rates would be almost intolerable if outdoor relief was given with too free a hand. But he recognized the force of the observation that the distribution of the contributions proposed by the Government might be an inducement to Boards of Guardians to administer the Poor Law in an unnecessarily harsh manner. The Government were now considering whether they might not make some proposal which would remove the objection and get rid of the difficulty. Nothing was further from their intention than unduly to press people into the workhouse. Though extremely unwilling to take up a strong attitude of resistance to any Amendments proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, he did not desire to conceal from the House what the effect of
  1290
  carrying this proposal would be. If the House were to accept it, the Government would be compelled to withdraw the Bill. It would not be possible for them to carry the Bill through if it were overweighted, as the Government considered it would be, by having to deal in this measure with the all-important question of Poor Law administration.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, he wished to say a few words in support of the Instruction which had been moved by his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) from a Metropolitan point of view, as he did net think that had as yet been touched upon. He was perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) would admit that nowhere was the work of Poor Law administration more difficult, delicate, or complicated than it was in London, and that nowhere was it more important that the Poor Law Authority should be in touch with every class of the community. But they did not secure that in London more than they did anywhere else by the present system of election and representation. In London at the present time they had great difficulties in Poor Law administration—difficulties which were not only recurrent, but which were increasing every year—because those who were skilled and expert knew perfectly well, and frequently alleged in their Reports, that there was in London a growing class for which there was no room in the labour market, crowded as it was to repletion, even to congesion. The Board over which the right hon. Gentleman presided had specifically stated this in a letter written to the Local Authorities during the period the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was at the head of the Department. The reason he pointed this out was because he considered it essential, in the interests of the economy and efficiency of Poor Law administration, that the Boards of Guardians should have at their back popular support. They should feel that they rested on a democratic basis. Their administration would be just as strong—nay, it would be all the better—if they had more confidence in what they were doing. He thought it was perfectly clear that the Poor Law Guardians in

  1291
  London had, on the whole, done their work economically and faithfully; but they had had a great deal of pressure to bear, and that pressure was becoming greater every year. They saw from the papers how, when winter time came, it brought with it an increasing disorganization and misery, and how deputations, many of them of a tumultuous kind, were constantly waiting upon the Guardians urging them to relax the rules of Poor Law relief. And there was pressure from above as well as from below. In 1886 there was a Circular issued by the Local Government Board asking the Guardians to extend the outdoor relief system. Most of the Boards had expressed themselves satisfied with their existing powers; but he submitted that they would be all the more self-reliant if they could feel that they represented the community in whose interest they were entrusted with the management of these affairs. And that they could not do—it was not in the nature of things that they should—with a limited franchise and plural voting. Then, again, this matter was most important from the point of view of the applicants for relief. There were many poor people who would submit to almost any privation, and go to the verge of starvation, sooner than enter the workhouse or submit to the present labour test. What did these people see? Why, they saw a Body judging of their necessities upon which they themselves had no representation whatever. They saw that no voting power was given under a rating of £50. There was an anomalous state of things existing in London which was not found in other great towns—an anomaly which it was difficult to conceive could be allowed to exist when they were making democratic changes in their Local Government; this was the occasional presence at the Board of ex officio Guardians. They could see the force of the arguments used by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) just as much from the ratepayers' standpoint as from any other. It was said to the owners of property—"Suppose you have a profligate expenditure by a Poor Law Authority elected on the same franchise as the Local Authority of London, which is about to be entrusted with the many powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, what will happen to you? "His answer was,
  1292
  that on no class did the onus of the poor rate fall so heavily as upon the very poor who were excluded from the present franchise. Rating under £50 did not give voting power.
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member is quite wrong.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, what he meant was that there was only one vote for a rating under £50, and that the plural vote came in over that. He meant that the representation given to a person rated at a sum below £50 was very small indeed, compared with that given to the larger ratepayer which rose to six votes when over £250. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board need fear that by giving the mass of the community increased power there would be any tendency to increased expenditure. The likelihood was all the other way. He was convinced that those who depended on the Poor Law Authority would have reason to feel all the more dissatisfied when they saw a premium put upon indoor pauperism, as was proposed by the distribution already alluded to of the Probate Duty; and having that before their eyes, the Government ought to be all the more anxious to show these people that the class to which they belonged was adequately represented by those who had to administer the Poor Law. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board how he was able to show that by the Instruction moved by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) another anomaly would be created? The fact was, they would be doing away with an anomaly already existing. The Government were actually now going to give them one more franchise in London than they already possessed. London would possess five franchises under this Bill—namely, the Parliamentary, the County, the Board of Guardians, the Vestry, and the School Board. If the Instruction moved by his right hon. Friend were agreed to, this number would be diminished by one at least, and they would be so much better off. In the borough which he represented there were 27,000 ratings, the average of which was £47, and he should doubt very much whether, at an election for Poor Law Guardians, there were 10,000 votes recorded altogether. At an election they wanted life

  1293
  and reality. Well, he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board realized what the people of London would have to put up with under the Government Bill? There would be an accumulation of franchises and registers. The rate book held good for the Poor Law, the School Board, and the Vestry elections; but they were going, by this Bill, to set up a municipal register similar to that possessed by the municipal boroughs in the country. They were going to add one more. They would leave the Poor Law Guardians to be elected on the basis of the rate book, and were going to give a municipal register for County Council purposes. He (Mr. Lawson) imagined that that was the case—that the municipal register would only stand for County Council elections. What was wanted was cheapness with simplicity in their local elections; and, so far as that went, if the Bill were carried in its present form they would rather lose than gain. They would do away with the cheapness secured by the use of the rate book for all present purposes. The right hon. Gentleman had made one remark which was, he thought, singularly applicable to London. He had said—"You must draw a firm line between Municipal and Poor Law administration." The right hon. Gentleman knew very well that the Metropolitan Asylums Board was really a Sanitary, and not a Poor Law Authority. With regard to that Board, they would find it difficult to say how far it ought to remain a municipal, and how far a Poor Law Authority. But he had risen for the purpose of pointing out that in London what they most wanted in these matters was unity, and he distinctly believed that they would gain in that direction if this Instruction were agreed to to-night. As the Instruction was opposed by the Government, however, he supposed it would not be assented to by the House. If it were adopted they would do much more than secure unity and cheapness, because they would benefit the Poor Law Authority and strengthen popular confidence in them. He admitted that the Guardians had done their work well in the past, but the effect of adopting the present proposal would be to place them on firmer ground. When they were creating a new register in London
  1294
  it would be perfectly easy to adapt it for this purpose. He had thought it advisable to put this matter from a London point of view, because he thought the people of London were suffering more than the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board knew from the multiplication of registration authorities and registers.
  MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, that when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board first introduced his Bill he was inclined to think that he had made a serious mistake in not including in it any alteration in the Poor Law system; but when he (Mr. Llewellyn) began to remember what an alteration of the Poor Law system would involve, and had come to reflect on the fact that the administration of the law would have had to be placed in the hands of a new authority, he realized that this was not the time to make any alteration. He should not have ventured to say this much had it not been his advantage to have had in the country some experience of the Poor Law. He had been for 20 years a member and for 14 years Chairman of one of the largest Boards of Guardians in the West of England; and he could, therefore, say with some authority that to hand over to a new Body having no knowledge whatever of Poor Law affairs—the work of the present Boards of Guardians—would be to inflict on them a task which there could be no hope of their discharging with the efficiency and economy of the present Boards. There were many points connected with Poor Law administrations, which to touch on at all without affecting a thorough alteration would be a great mistake. There was the law of settlement and removal for instance. He did not mean to go into that subject more than to say that to hand over the duties of the Guardians in connection with the law of settlement and removal whilst the law remained in its present condition would be a great blunder. In addition to that, there was the difficult subject of the amalgamation of areas and workhouses to be dealt with, and the consequent economy which would be introduced. That matter had to be taken in hand when the question of the re-organization of the Poor Law was sought to be dealt

  1295
  with at all. Another question which had been touched on in several quarters during the second reading debate was as to the different assessments. They had in the country at this time an Income Tax assessment, a County Rating assessment, and a Union assessment—three distinct assessments. That in itself was a subject for a Bill, and if they went into it thoroughly it would take them a great deal of time to set it at rest. Well, those were his chief reasons for coming to the conclusion that the Government had done wisely in abstaining from dealing with the Poor Law question, and from handing over its administration to the new authorities. He himself had no fear as to the ability of the District Councils to deal with the question—no one who had had any experience of Poor Law work had any right to entertain such fear. Some hon. Members spoke as if they thought that the Government were inclined to shirk the question. An hon. Member who had spoken just now spoke in that strain—as if the Government were doubtful of the ability of the new Councils to undertake Poor Law work. He could not believe that such was the case, however. He believed they would have men elected to the new Councils capable of taking hold of and attending to these matters. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) seemed to think that perhaps one of the reasons why the Government did not hand over the administration of the Poor Law to these new District Councils was that they feared the new Boards would be too soft-hearted. Well, he did not believe that they would be so at all. It had been a charge against the Guardians in this House that they were too hard-hearted, and it was customary to ridicule them from the Benches opposite—especially to ridicule ex officio Guardians. Allow him to say—and in so doing he did not wish to be thought disrespectful to the hon. Members he alluded to—that it was a distinct disadvantage, so far as the understanding of this matter was concerned, to be associated altogether with towns; for hon. Members in that position, not having mixed with the Poor Law Authorities, were apt to think that there was a distinct line between the ordinary Guardians and the ex officio Guardians. He could only say that he
  1296
  had been associated as an ex officio Guardian in assessment work, and in matters affecting highways, sewers, drainage, and so on, and had never known any line to exist separating the elected Members from the ex officio Members. When once a gentleman having the leisure and the will to identify himself with this work took this work in hand as an ex officio, he seldom heard of the line separating him from his colleagues, and the line was altogether wiped out when he began to work with the elected members. He himself, during the years he had worked with the elected members of the Boards of Guardians, had altogether lost sight of the fact that there was any distinction whatever. He had thought it right to say this in vindication of the country Boards of Guardians. Where it was the custom for ex officio members who did not usually present themselves to attend meetings of the Boards whenever there was a job to be effected or an election taking place, or for any such like purpose, he thought it was very much to be resented. No one could deprecate and resent such conduct more than he did. Whenever they made a practice of taking part in the ordinary work of the Boards their ability was recognized, and they were on equal terms with their elected colleagues, but when they confined their attendance at Board meetings to such occasions as the election of officials, their appearance then was dishonourable. He should not have thought that the question of the distribution of outdoor relief would have formed part of this discussion; but the subject had been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Instruction, and by others, and he thought he might be allowed to say this much—that whilst he considered the proposal of the Government in the shape of a capitation grant for indoor relief a wise one, still, he was bound to say, at the same time, that he had his fears that under certain circumstances, and in certain cases, it might lead to hardships on the part of the Guardians and have an evil effect on the poor. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board spoke just now of his experience in connection with the Metropolitan Unions. Well, he had no experience of the Metropolitan Poor Law arrangements at all, but he was

  1297
  given to understand that in the Metropolis outdoor relief was the exception, and indoor relief was the rule. That might be so, and that system would be carried out in the rural districts also if they had the advantage which they possessed in London. In London they had the Charity Organization Society, and other societies to assist them largely in bearing the burdens of outdoor relief. There were many persons who were able and willing to pay attention to outdoor cases, and so those hardships, which were entailed by the application of a too rigid work test, were avoided. In the country districts they had no such organization as that. One hon. Member had referred to the subject of the advantage of clubs to the poor, and had said that it was the fault of the poor that they were without resources in their old age when they had had the opportunity of joining benefit societies, and had neglected it. But he would point out to hon. Members who made use of that argument that we had not yet done with the generation which had not possessed the advantage of clubs, and a great many men who were now in receipt of outdoor relief were men who, in a great many cases, had subscribed to clubs which broke down just at the time they wanted assistance from them. He believed that to do away with the system of outdoor relief—but he saw he was getting out of Order by dealing with this subject, and, therefore, he would defer his remarks upon this point to another occasion. He had risen chiefly for the purpose of saying that the Government had acted with great wisdom in not including in their Bill the question of Poor Law relief. But if they had now put off dealing with the question, he hoped it was only with the intention of taking it up again on some future occasion and bringing about a re-organization of the system. He trusted that when finally the Poor Law system of the country was handed over to the District Councils, those Councils would be able to carry it out, as he believed the Guardians in the past had carried it out, not only to the satisfaction of the ratepayers, but to the satisfaction of those to whom it was applied.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he wished to express his great regret, not only for the fashion with which the Government had refused to
  1298
  accept this Instruction, but at the reasons they had given for such refusal. They at once rendered any discussion upon this Instruction utterly purposeless by saying that if it should be carried they would withdraw the Bill. That was, of course, an intimation to the whole of those who supported them on the Opposition side of the House that they were expected to vote against the Instruction, and to give a judgment upon the question without any discussion at all. But the reasons the Government had given were worse than this. The reasons with which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) had concluded were reasons which would prevent anyone from considering in the future that there was anything of a radical character connected with the proposals of Local Government reform, for he announced that to touch a man who, as owner and occupier, had 12 votes, and to reduce him to one vote, was something too awful for the occupants of the Treasury Bench to contemplate. Now, he (Mr. Bradlaugh) congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on that declaration, which was one which he (Mr. Bradlaugh) would take care, as far as he was able, to let the country understand as being the view of the Government in relation to the Poor Law question.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Member for giving him notice of what he was going to do in the country; but if he proposed to make in the country the statement which he had just made in the House, he (Mr. Ritchie) thought he would make a statement which was not at all correct. He (Mr. Ritchie) never said anything of the kind. In pointing out the nature of the change which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) proposed, he stated that that was one of the things which he (Mr. Stansfeld) proposed, and that it was at least an important one. Further than that he did not go.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he thought he heard the word "terrific."
  MR. RITCHIE: No, no!
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Or the word "terrible."
  MR. RITCHIE: No, no!
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he was sure he was mistaken; but, in any case, what

  1299
  he had said was his impression at the moment. At any rate, the manner of the right hon. Gentleman was terrifying when he was dealing with this question.
  MR. RITCHIE: No, no!
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that was the impression conveyed to him, but he was very glad to be set right. He understood now that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the reduction of the 12 votes to one vote, not as the most important reason for refusing this Instruction, not as one of the reasons for refusing it, not as a matter at all influencing him in any way, but as something so light that he desired to repudiate it, having tried to make an impression upon the House with it. Then, what was left? The great difficulty of introducing the Poor Law system into the Local Government reform at all. The whole scheme of reforming Local Government was difficult. Every one of the propositions in the Bill which had been debated for so long was difficult. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) had listened with admiration to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and had marked the skill with which they had dealt with these intricate matters, and the only excuse for a measure of Local Government reform was that it should either be complete in itself at first, or that it should contain the possibilities within it of being made complete. But, by refusing the Instruction of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board proposed to perpetuate the difficulty, or, at any rate, if he did not propose to perpetuate the difficulty, he would succeed in doing it. The right hon. Gentleman intended to keep the method of election, which he repudiated in his Bill, of plurality of vote. He declared it to be bad by the method proposed in the Bill, but he intended to allow it to continue side by side with his new method. The right hon. Gentleman said he desired to get rid of it; but that desire, it seemed to him (Mr. Bradlaugh), would be better shown by action than in words. They had under their eyes at the present moment, and within a few yards of them, abundant illustration of the evils of this method of plural paper voting. There had been this week an illustration of the difficulty in distributing the papers to the voters entitled to take part in the election of Guardians,
  1300
  and they heard declarations, he would not say of fraud, but of gross abuse on the part of the police in distributing the papers. There were occasions over and over again, in which charges of tampering with the papers arose, which could not possibly be made if the election of the Guardians was put upon the same footing as the elections proposed upon the County Councils. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that possibly this might be a fresh mistake—that it was indefensible to propose to elect two Bodies—that was to say a Body to deal with Municipal affairs, and a Body to deal with the Poor Law system—on the same suffrage. Why was it absolutely indefensible, except that it was absolutely inconvenient to the present Government to undertake it? What other indefensibility was there about it?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member was asking him a question, but he looked as if he was. The reason was: if it was desired to constitute two Bodies on the same suffrage, and the same franchise, to deal with two subjects, the better plan would be to entrust the one Body with both duties.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that in that he quite agreed, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman who proposed this Instruction would much rather have one Body to deal with the whole matter than two. It was because they understood that the Government were not prepared to do right at once, but would continue doing some error, that they were endeavouring to put in their way a means of getting themselves right to some extent, instead of perpetuating their sin. He (Mr. Bradlaugh), however, would not occupy the time of the House by going any further in this matter. He desired, however, to emphasize the fact that when he addressed his constituents on this matter, he should notice that the present Government were not bringing forward a real and complete measure of Local Government reform; but that, under cover of being deterred by the difficulties of the subject, they were keeping alive side by side an old and a bad system and a new system, and preventing themselves from opening the door to a sound reform.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he was glad the hon. Member for

  1301
  Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had emphasized so clearly the determination of the Government to wreck the whole of the Local Government scheme, which was the main scheme of the Session, rather than accept this Instruction. When the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board declared that he would withdraw the Bill if this Instruction were carried, he practically announced that he would prefer the wreck of the whole Legislative Business of the Session to the adoption of the principle of this Instruction. It was well that the country should understand that—that they should understand that rather than simplify the method of electing Boards of Guardians, and doing away with the present system of plural voting, the Government were prepared to sacrifice their principal measure of the Session. And yet the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had not said anything in defence of the existing system; and, as had been already pointed out, he was abolishing this old system of election in regard to Local Boards of Health, and was only retaining it in connection with the elections of Boards of Guardians. Hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House who supported the Government were not to be allowed to vote on the merits of the question before the House, but were to be subject to the penalty of wrecking the whole Local Government scheme which was now before the country. The right hon. Gentleman had said that no doubt their might be advantages in amalgamating the work of Boards of Guardians with that of the District Councils. He appeared afraid that it would create serious dangers; but, in spite of those dangers, he was looking forward ultimately to that arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman's speech went in that direction, or it pointed to nothing at all, because he was opposed to having separate Boards of Guardians elected by the new franchise that was being created in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Somersetshire (Mr. Llewellyn) seemed still to regret that the Government were pursuing the course they were now taking, though he confessed that he had changed his mind on the subject. The hon. Member had told the House that, on mature reflection, he would not be willing to hand over the duties of the
  1302
  Poor Law Guardians to a Body without experience; but he went on to state that he did not fear for a moment either the ability or the knowledge of the District Councils. He distinctly said he was sure that the men elected to the District Councils would be men fully qualified to discharge the duties at present performed at the Boards of Guardians. It should be remembered that the hon. Member's objection would always apply, because whenever the Poor Law system was reformed and the method of election was altered it would be necessary to hand over the Poor Law administration to those who had not had thorough experience of the system. But he (Mr. M'Laren) thought that the main argument that they must rely upon was, in the first place, the thorough badness of the present system of election of Guardians, and the fact that it did not work well in experience. If it worked well in practice they would be much more disposed to put up with it than they were. But on its own merits it was indefensible. It had been said that a person might have 12 votes at an election of Boards of Guardians, six as owner and six as occupier; but, as a matter of fact, he might have 24; 12 for his business premises and 12 for his dwelling house. He himself had once had 13 votes; 12 for his business premises—for the firm with which he was connected, and one for his residence. Practically, if a man was only rich enough, and only had property enough, he might have 24 votes—a gigantic suffrage. But, in addition to that, there was the system of proxies. If a man did not care to exercise the vote himself he could give his proxy to some committee or club, and the vote would be tendered without any knowledge on his part. The present system of voting was extremely faulty; if the papers were accurately distributed by the policeman, it did not necessarily follow that they were accurately collected. In fact, there was every possible drawback to time present mode of electing Guardians. The method did not work well, and that was the chief argument against it. There was probably no set of representatives who did their work so badly as Boards of Guardians, who, in many cases, were corrupt and used their privileges for interested motives on behalf of themselves and their friends. For

  1303
  that reason, if for no other, the House ought to endeavour to give them the benefit of a more close intercourse with their constituents, and all hon. Members must regret that the Government hesitated to take the very wise step now proposed. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) told his constituents and the country some time ago that the motto of the Government was trust in the people; but that motto had been repudiated that night by the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie)—the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to trust the people in regard to the election of Boards of Guardians, and he had given various reasons for that. He had said that the very delicate functions which Boards of Guardians discharged could not at present be safely entrusted to freely-elected Boards. In that he (Mr. M'Laren) disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman; he did not think that there ought to be any objection raised to the acceptance of the Instruction moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). The Instruction would not encumber or overload the Bill; but it would simply abolish a method of election which was condemned by the whole of the country, and which must, before many years were over, be swept away.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, that the object aimed at in the Instruction was not to hand over to the new Councils the administration of the Poor Law, but merely to equalize and simplify the existing mode of voting. For his own part, he wanted to see plurality of voting abolished, because it was a relic of class legislation and class privilege, and he was disappointed at the refusal of the Government to discuss the question on its merits. That refusal would let daylight into the real intentions of the Government.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)said, that the complaint of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) that the Bill did not deal with plural voting showed that he had not read the Bill, because, if he had, he would have found that which he stated the Government regarded as too terrible to contemplate was included in
  1304
  the Bill at the present moment. The Government had dealt with the question of plurality of voting in connection with the Local Boards.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he had stated that he heard the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) say so, and although there might have been some confusion in his hearing his impression was still the same.
  MR. LONGsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman said so—he was satisfied he did not—he must himself have been oblivious of one of the great merits of his own measure, because he had already done what he was charged with having left undone. A more serious charge was that the Bill not only was incomplete, but that it did not contain the possibilities of being made complete. That statement he altogether traversed. Nobody ever contended that the Bill was complete; but that it contained the possibilities of being made complete everybody would admit who did not look at the question from a mere Party point of view. There was every possibility of bringing within the purview of the Bill all the parts of Local Government, and the proposal before the House would not facilitate in any degree whatever the making more complete the reform of Local Government. The Government had nothing to fear from letting light in upon their proposals. They did not distrust the people; but they realized the vastness of the whole question of the administration of the Poor Law, and they held that the new Councils should have time allowed them to realize and understand the duties and responsibilities they were called upon to administer before overloading them with additional responsibilities. He hoped that, the Government having stated its intentions, the House would now be allowed to go into Committee.
  MR. H. GARDNERsaid, he did not propose to detain the House for many minutes, but simply desired to answer something that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) had just said. The hon. Gentleman boasted that the Bill, as it now stood, was against a plurality of voting. He thoroughly agreed with the hon. Gentleman that there was a provision in the Bill which was against a plurality of voting in elections to District and County Coun-

  1305
  cils; but the hon. Gentleman entirely forgot to state that the system of plurality voting was to exist in the case of the election of Boards of Guardians. He (Mr. Gardner) did the Government the justice to say his opinion was that, when they first contemplated this Bill, they certainly contemplated including the Union in their measure. It would be in the recollection of the House that during last Session the Government proposed a Boundary Commission to determine the very difficult question of areas, which pointed to the inclusion of Unions in the Bill; but that during the Session they had thought fit to throw over the Boundary Commission altogether, and not to present its Report to the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) had said that that had been done simply in accordance with the feelings of the counties; but some more severe critic of the right hon. Gentleman than himself might point out that the Government had thrown over the Boundary Commission, because they did not wish or intend to include the question of the Unions in the Bill now before the House. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) had said that the whole of this subject was to be left to the County Councils. That seemed to him (Mr. Gardner) to be rather a dangerous system than otherwise; it might be very good for a Nationality or a Province to form a Central Body first, and then leave it to work out its own scheme of Local Government; but in regard to so small an area as a county, he thought it could not be so good a measure. What the Government proposed to do was to constitute a County Council, and hand over to that Body the formation of the Local Government of the county over which it was to rule. That seemed to present a very serious difficulty—
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member does not seem to be addressing his remarks to the Instruction moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax.
  MR. H. GARDNERsaid, that he was merely arguing that the mode of voting which was proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) would simplify the companion measure of that which was now under consideration. If the Government would accept the simplification of voting now suggested, they
  1306
  would find it far easier to carry the greater Bill, and far easier to work that Bill when carried. At any rate, he must protest against the exclusion of the voting for Boards of Guardians. That exclusion would be deeply felt in the agricultural constituencies, and it was a matter which would detract much from the feeling of gratitude for the Bill which the people would undoubtedly otherwise have.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 214: Majority 86.

  AYES.

  Abraham, W. (Glamorgan.)

  Grove, Sir T. F.

  Gully, W. C.

  Allison, R. A.

  Harrington, E.

  Anderson, C. H.

  Hayden, L. P.

  Asquith, H. H.

  Healy, T. M.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Holden, I.

  Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

  Hoyle, I.

  Barbour, W. B.

  Hunter, W. A.

  Barran, J.

  Illingworth, A.

  Biggar, J. G.

  James, hon. W. H.

  Bolton, J. C.

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

  Bolton, T. D.

  Bradlaugh, C.

  Kenny, C. S.

  Bright, Jacob

  Kilbride, D.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Labouchere, H.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Brunner, J. T.

  Lawson, H. L. W.

  Bryce, J.

  Leake, R.

  Burt, T.

  Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

  Campbell, H.

  Lewis, T. P.

  Cavan, Earl of

  Lockwood, F.

  Channing, F. A.

  M'Donald, P.

  Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

  M'Laren, W. S. B.

  Maitland, W. F.

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  Mappin, Sir F. T.

  Coleridge, hon. B.

  Menzies, R. S.

  Conway, M.

  Mundella, rt. hn. A. J.

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  Neville, R.

  Cossham, H.

  Nolan, J.

  Cozens-hardy, H. H.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  Craig, J.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Crilly, D.

  O'Keeffe, F. A.

  Crossley, E.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Dodds, J.

  Pease, A. E.

  Duff, R. W.

  Pickard, B.

  Ellis, J.

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Ellis, J. E.

  Picton, J. A.

  Ellis, T. E.

  Plowden, Sir W. C.

  Esslemont, P.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Fenwick, C.

  Power, R.

  Ferguson, R.C. Munro-

  Price, T. P.

  Flower, C.

  Provand, A. D.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Quinn, T.

  Foster, Sir W. B.

  Reed, Sir E. J.

  Fowler, rt. hon. H. H.

  Roberts, J. B.

  Fry, T.

  Robinson, T.

  Gardner, H.

  Roe, T.

  Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

  Roscoe, Sir H. E.

  Gill, T. P.

  Rowlands, J.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Rowntree, J.

  Graham, R. C.

  Russell, Sir C.

  Grey, Sir E.

  Samuelson, G. B.

  Schwann, C. E.

  Whitbread, S.

  Shaw, T.

  Will, J. S.

  Sheil, E.

  Williamson, J.

  Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

  Wilson, C. H.

  Stevenson, F. S.

  Wilson, H. J.

  Stuart, J.

  Wilson, I.

  Sullivan, D.

  Winterbotham, A. B.

  Summers, W.

  Woodall, W.

  Sutherland, A.

  Woodhead, J.

  Thomas, A.

  Wright, C.

  Thomas, D. A.

  Trevelyan, right hon.

  TELLERS.

  Sir G. O.

  Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

  Wallace, R. E.

  Wardle, H.

  Morley, A.

  Wayman, T.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, J. T.

  De Cobain, E. S. W.

  Allsopp, hon. G.

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

  Allsopp, hon. P.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Ambrose, W.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

  Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

  Donkin, R. S.

  Dorington, Sir J. E.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Dugdale, J. S.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Duncan, Colonel F.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Duncombe, A.

  Barry, A. H. S.

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W.H.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Edwards-Moss, T. C.

  Bates, Sir E.

  Egerton, hon. A. J. F.

  Baumann, A. A.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Bazley-White, J.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

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

  Elton, C. I.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  Beadel, W. J.

  Fellowes, A. E.

  Beckett, W.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

  Field, Admiral E.

  Bigwood, J.

  Fielden, T.

  Bolitho, T. B.

  Finch, G. H.

  Bond, G. H.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J. W.

  Bonsor, H. C. O.

  Bristowe, T. L.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

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

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Brookfield, A. M.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Bruce, Lord H

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash-B

  Fraser, General C. C.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E

  Burghley, Lord

  Caldwell, J.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Carmarthen, Marq. of

  Gedge, S.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Gent-Davis, R.

  Coddington, W.

  Giles, A.

  Coghill, D. H.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Collings, J.

  Godson, A. F.

  Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

  Goldsmid, Sir J.

  Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E

  Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

  Compton, F.

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Cooke, C. W. R.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Corbett, J.

  Gray, C. W.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Green, Sir E.

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Grimston, Viscount

  Cross, H. S.

  Gunter, Colonel R.

  Curzon, hon. G. N.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Dalrymple, Sir C.

  Hall, C.

  Darling, C. J.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Davenport, H. T

  Hamilton, right hon.

  Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.

  Lord G. F.

  Hamilton, Lord E.

  1308

  Hamilton, Col. C. E.

  Mayne, Admiral R. C.

  Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

  More, R. J.

  Hanbury, R. W.

  Morrison, W.

  Hardcastle, F.

  Moss. R.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Mount, W. G.

  Hastings, G. W.

  Mowbray, R.G. C.

  Havelock - Allan, Sir H. M

  Mulholland, H. L.

  Muntz, P. A.

  Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

  Murdoch, C. T.

  Newark, Viscount

  Heaton, J. H.

  Noble, W.

  Heneage, right hon. E.

  Norton, R.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Paget, Sir R. H.

  Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

  Parker, hon. F.

  Hervey, Lord F.

  Planket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Powell, F. S.

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Hill, A. S.

  Rankin, J.

  Hoare, E. B.

  Richardson, T.

  Hoare, S.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Holloway, G.

  Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

  Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

  Robertson, Sir W. T.

  Hozier, J. H. C.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Hunt, F. S.

  Robinson, B.

  Isaacs, L. H.

  Ross, A. H.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Round, J.

  James, rt. hon. Sir H.

  Russell, T. W.

  Jarvis, A. W.

  Selwyn, Capt. C. W.

  Jeffreys, A. F.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

  Jennings, L. J.

  Sidebotham, J. W.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Kerans, F. H.

  Sidebottom, W.

  Kimber, H.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

  Smith, A.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Stanley, E, J.

  Knowles, L.

  Swetenham, E.

  Kynoch, G.

  Tapling, T. K.

  Lafone, A.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Laurie, Colonel R. P.

  Theobald, J.

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Thorburn, W.

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Lennox, Lord W. C. G.

  Townsend, F.

  Trotter, Col. H. J.

  Lethbridge, Sir R.

  Waring, Colonel T.

  Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

  Watson, J.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Llewellyn, E. H.

  West, Colonel W. C.

  Long, W. H.

  Wharton, J. L.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Whitley, E.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Whitmore, C. A.

  Macdonald, right hon.

  Williams, J. Powell-

  J. H. A.

  Wilson, Sir S.

  Maclean, J. M.

  Winn, hon. R.

  Maclure, J. W.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  M'Calmont, Captain J.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Madden, D. H.

  Wood, N.

  Malcolm, Col. J. W.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Mallock, R.

  Wright, H. S.

  Marriott, right hon. W. T

  Yerburgh, R. A.

  Matthews, rt. hn. H.

  TELLERS.

  Mattinson, M. W.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)—put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

PART I.

  COUNTY COUNCILS.
  Constitution of County Council.
  Clause 1 (Establishment of county council).
  Clause 2 (Composition and election of council and position of chairman).
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he had put down an Amendment to except London from the operation of the clause. The Bill throughout was applicable to London, but had not, he thought, been drawn with much consideration for London. London was about to be created a county, and, of course, the operation of the Bill, as far as it affected a county, would affect London. Now, in a county at present, there was only one register—that was to say, the Parliamentary register; but in London there were two registers at present, one the Parliamentary register, and another, which was not printed, the rate book, upon which the voting for Vestries took place. That rate book, if London were treated as an ordinary borough, would practically be preserved as the register for county purposes; but London being treated as a county, the rate book would not be accepted under the Bill. It might be thought that the new register which this Bill provided for would be in London practically the same as the rate book or the register which applied to Vestry or parochial purposes, &c. but that would not be so. If the Bill, as it stood, became law, there would actually be three lists of voters in London—one for Parliamentary purposes, one for Vestry and parochial purposes, and a third for the sole purpose of the election of the County Council for London. The reason was this—that the Metropolitan Management Act, under which London Vestries were elected, dated from the year 1855, and it gave a different burgher's qualification—if he might so call it—in London from what there was generally in municipal boroughs. The burgher's qualification in London was, in fact, to some extent more generous than that in ordinary municipal boroughs. In the Act, under which London Vestries existed and were elected, the qualifications of voters were somewhat vaguely expressed; but they involved having been a ratepayer for the year immediately preceding the election,
  1310
  and having paid rates up to within six months of that election. No residential qualification whatever was required. That was the great difference between the burgher's qualification in London and elsewhere. If they introduced this new register into London they would introduce a residential qualification—that was to say, they would require residence for the 12 months ending the 15th of June, and they, therefore, had to form a different register. Now, what was the good of creating a third register, which was not very materially different from either of the other two, but was very confusing to the persons who had to vote? He would be quite open to accept for the purpose of the Local Government Act in London either the one or the other of the two lists that he had described. That was to say, either the list for municipal, parochial, or Vestry purposes, or the Parliamentary list, with, of course, the addition to it of women and Peers, who were excluded from the Parliamentary list. They might choose either of the two; and it was a matter fairly open to the consideration of the Committee which of the two should be adopted. By this Amendment he merely excepted the County of London from the operation of this clause; and he desired to say a word or two in favour of the adoption of the Parliamentary register. What was the difference between taking the Parliamentary register and the register under the Bill? The difference, practically, would be this—that a certain number of lodgers would be included if they took the Parliamentary register; but, on the other hand, there would be some £10 occupiers who would be excluded, and there would be a certain diminution in the register, because residence was not so rigid in the case of the Metropolis Management Act. There was one other recommendation for the line of action he suggested, and it was that it left only one printed register in London, and he had hoped that that one register would become the sole register for all purposes; if so, a considerable saving would be thereby effected. There was, however, a further advantage, and that was that they would have no double revision, for women and Peers could form a separate list, just as property voters formed a separate list in the case of the county register. Simplicity really

  1311
  was the chief point he aimed at; there was no Party advantage one way or the other; this was really a matter of economy and simplicity. If any modification of what he suggested was felt to be necessary, he should be very willing to accept it. He desired to avoid multiplication of registers, for he believed that many small difficulties would be obviated if there was but one register. In conclusion, he desired to say that he hoped that the President of the Local Government Board would be able at an early stage to say what were about the divisions he meant to make in London, because it was easily seen that if the divisions were to be as he (Mr. Stuart) hoped they might be—namely, the Parliamentary divisions—it would very greatly expedite and facilitate the employment of the Parliamentary register. It would not be requisite that the register should be split up into wards or voting districts; but the register, exactly as it stood, would be utilizable. For many reasons, as well as registration reasons, he hoped that arrangement might be adopted. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, after the word "England," to insert the words "except for the county of London."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he quite understood that the hon. Gentleman had not made this Motion from any Party point of view at all. He and the hon. Gentleman were perfectly agreed that whether they adopted the Parliamentary register or the municipal register, it was of no moment to one Party or the other; but his objection to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was that if they accepted it they would place London in an entirely different position to that occupied by any other of the municipal boroughs in the United Kingdom. Every borough in the United Kingdom, from Liverpool and Manchester downwards, to the smaller boroughs, would have a different franchise to the one which the hon. Gentleman proposed to give to London. The franchise in the one case would be the municipal fran-
  1312
  chise, and that in the other would be the Parliamentary franchise. The only object that the hon. Gentleman said he had in view in proposing this change for London was that it was a more simple, less complicated, and less expensive plan. If the hon. Gentleman could be assured that his fears were in a large degree groundless, he (Mr. Ritchie) was sure the hon. Gentleman would not desire to press his Amendment, because he would not advocate London occupying a different position as regards franchise to that occupied by any of the large or small boroughs of the Kingdom. The impression upon the hon. Gentleman's mind, and, no doubt, on the minds of many hon. Gentlemen, was that they were going to have a multiplicity of registers; but he assured the hon. Gentleman that that was not so at all. There would be but one register—a similar register in the counties to that which now existed in all boroughs; but the register would be divided into three lists or divisions. The first list would be composed of nine-tenths, he might say 999–1,000ths of the voters, of those who were entitled both to the Parliamentary and municipal franchise. As the hon. Gentleman knew, in nine cases out of 10 a person who had the Parliamentary franchise had also the municipal franchise, and a person who had the municipal franchise had the Parliamentary franchise. Therefore, the great bulk of the voters both for one and the other would be comprised in the first list. Then there would be a second list, and that list would be composed of those who were Parliamentary voters, but not municipal voters. That would be a very small list, because it would be composed of the freeholders, the lodgers, and those who held the service franchise. Then the third list would be composed of those who had a right to vote for municipal purposes and not for Parliamentary purposes, and that would consist entirely of women and Peers, so that the two smaller lists would be very narrow and of small dimensions. The great list would be the first list—namely, that of those who were entitled to vote both for Parliamentary and municipal purposes. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing there would be a double revision. Nothing of the kind would occur; the revision of the three lists

  1313
  contained in the same register would take place at the same time; there would be no complexity whatever; and he did not think that there would be the slightest difficulty experienced by any voter. Looking to the fact that the complexity and difficulty which the hon. Gentleman feared was not at all involved?, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would see the impossibility of treating London in a different way from that in which any other borough was to be treated, and of departing from what he (Mr. Ritchie) ventured to say was the fundamental principle of the Bill—the extension of municipal privileges throughout the country.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he was sure they were all glad it was proposed to have but one register; but there would be this difference between London and the country, that the County Council would be elected upon one register, and what in London would be the future District Councils—the Vestries—would be elected ou a different register. Some of the rated householders, entitled to vote for the County Councils, would not be entitled to vote for the Vestries. Therefore, there would be two different voting arrangements for Vestries and County Councils. When they came to the case of the City, matters were still different. There the Common Council were elected on the Parliamentary franchise. He should have thought that for the present, having regard to the close approximation in character of the Vestry electorate to the electorate it was proposed to create, they might have gone on with the rate-book until the Government could have seen their way to propose a unity of franchise.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would acknowledge that there would be, until they got the whole scheme for London Government before the House, the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman had pointed out. The Government thought that the preferable mode was to start at once with what they considered was a proper register for London; and they hoped in a short time to be able to make a proposal to the House which would do away with the differences which had been referred to.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to accede to the request of his hon. Friend (Mr.
  1314
  J. Stewart). There was one point which had been somewhat overlooked by the right hon. Gentleman. He had said that they wanted to create for London a different electoral qualification to that for other parts of the country. He (Mr. Rowlands) was bound to say that there was a very strong feeling in London that, now they were creating a new County Council that was to have control over local matters in the Metropolis, lodgers should have a right to participate in the elections. London stood in an exceptional position in regard to lodgers as compared even with the large towns in the country. Owing to the present high rents, lodgers in London were persons who would be small householders in country towns, or oven in some of the largest Provincial towns, and in consequence would have all the rights of citizenship. In London they were debarred from those rights; they had no right whatever to vote in elections for the School Board, or of those who administered the Poor Law, and they would have no right, as the Bill now stood, to vote in the election of those who would have the huge powers they were so directly interested in, upon the County Councils. Seeing that no Provincial town could compare with London as to the proportionate number of lodgers, lodgers in London had a perfect right in this new departure to claim that their interests should be considered. The only way in which that could be done was by the adoption of the Parliamentary register, plus the addition of Peers and women. Having had some little experience of burgess lists, he could not help thinking that the Parliamentary register was far preferable. As a matter of fact, there was no burgess list in London. If there was a Vestry election, and one wanted to contest any particular ward, he had no list to go upon at all; the rate book only was at his disposal, and possibly that was the reason why so little interest was taken in Vestry contests in the Metropolis. He felt strongly upon the lodger question, and therefore he hoped his hon. Friend would divide the Committee. He was quite aware that the usual argument used against lodgers being allowed to vote was that only those who paid rates should have the right to vote. But his contention was that a lodger was as much a ratepayer as any

  1315
  other person in London; they admitted him as a compound householder; and he (Mr. Rowlands) asked the House to consider what was the difference between an individual who had to take a set of rooms in a large house in which the landlord lived, and an individual having a set of rooms in a house in which the landlord did not live. In the one case he was a householder, and was entitled to participate in the elections of Boards of Guardians. School Boards, and Parliamentary Representatives; and in the other case, from the mere fact that the landlord lived in the house, he was debarred from all these privileges, although he might be paying identically the same rental. Take the case of the large blocks of model dwellings. A man living in one of them was considered a householder and allowed to participate in all the local life. Why was that? Only because they had in that case gone on the assessment of each separate flat; but the man did not pay the rates directly, but indirectly, just as the man having a set of rooms in a house in which the landlord lived. He (Mr. J. Rowlands) begged his hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart) to press his Motion to a Division, because he thought they ought to have some positive decision with regard to the right of lodgers to be placed on the local franchise list. There was another reason why the Parliamentary register should be adopted, and that was that in London—he thought there was scarcely an exception at the present time—the Parliamentary registers were made out in street lists, instead of alphabetical order. They all knew what an advantage that was. This had been done in many instances, not at the wish of one political Party, but at the wish of both political Parties; and a most striking instance was afforded by the constituency the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) formerly represented—namely, the Tower Hamlets, where in all the divisions the registers were in future to be made out by mutual consent in street lists, instead of in the old-fashioned alphabetical order. Seeing that lodgers held all the qualifications of citizenship, he thought it was high time they were allowed participation in local life.
  MR. THEODORE FRYsaid, he wished the right hon. Gentle-
  1316
  man could see his way to place both the lodgers and service franchise men upon the municipal list as well as upon the Parliamentary list. There were numbers of men who were formerly entitled to vote for such bodies as Boards of Guardians, but who, when the new service franchise was created, were taken off the municipal list and placed only on the Parliamentary list of voters, although it was said they did not in one sense pay rates, yet in another sense they did. It would simplify things exceedingly for men on the "Lodger" franchise and on the "Service" franchise to be placed on both lists throughout the country.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he thought there was much force in the appeal for a simplification of the Register. The "Service" franchise men did not constitute a very large class, and the arguments in favour of allowing them the franchise were conclusive. But he was concerned rather with the question of lodgers, betwixt whom and householders there was no distinction except one that had been created most unfairly to the lodgers. Lodgers were not entitled to the Parliamentary franchise unless they paid £10 a-year for an unfurnished room, and this really amounted to a great deal more than householders were called upon to pay to be entitled to a vote, and in country districts it amounted to a prohibition. In his own constituency, for instance, rents were very much lower than they were in London, where £10 as the rent for an unfurnished room might not be above the average rental; but in country districts it was obvious that hundreds of men were disfranchised who, if they were technically householders, would have a vote. An opportunity presented itself for the right hon. Gentleman to do a bold stroke of business and get rid of the lodger franchise by reducing it to the same dimensions as the household franchise, and simplifying the register and the Bill. It would be doing nothing but justice to a class against whom nothing could be said, but that their economical habits induced them to live in a cheaper manner. A singular illustration of this came under his notice during the franchise controversies in 1884–5, and it was in that part of the Metropolis the right hon. Gentleman represented. A most respectable man at 60 years of age, who had

  1317
  reared a family and had sons and daughters out in the world, finding it more convenient to live with his wife in rooms, gave up his house, and thereupon he was deprived of that franchise which he had enjoyed for all the previous years of his adult life Cases of this kind constantly arose. Of course, he knew that in this case it would be argued that lodgers did not pay rates; but, as everyone knew, practically lodgers did pay their share indirectly just as much as those who paid under the compound system. Where rates were heavy, rents were proportionately increased, and often enough out of proportion, and the lodgers paid more than their share. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it was not possible to simplify things and do this act of justice.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, hon. Members invited him to enter upon a wide field of Amendments he could not contemplate without dismay. To take the Municipal Corporations Act in hand and amend it in the way proposed would be to raise matter quite outside the Bill. The Government, in relation to the Bill, took the Municipal Act as they found it and applied it to the rest of the country. In proceeding upon that principle, he did not for a moment say that Amendments might not properly be made in that Act; but it was a task the Government were not prepared to take in dealing with this Bill, nor could they attempt to deal with it in the case of London without extending the application to the rest of the country. This was far too large a matter to add to the difficulties with which the Bill was already connected.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he desired a little more information. The right hon. Gentleman had gone far in his explanation to remove the apprehensions of those who contemplated, with something like terror, the addition of another register; but would he be good enough to explain the starting of the new register? There seemed to be some difficulty not met by any provisions in the Bill. For instance, the qualification by residence was six months for the municipal vote, twelve months for the Parliamentary vote. If the right hon. Gentleman could assure the Committee that the difficulty could be met and overcome so that the new register could
  1318
  be started by the machinery sketched out, it would go a long way to removing objections to the Bill as it stood.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he understood the register was already made out in municipal boroughs and in three divisions. The first division was composed of those who were entitled to vote in municipal and Parliamentary Elections; the second, those who were entitled to the Parliamentary franchise only; and the third, those on the municipal franchise only. The last two divisions were very small, the first was very large. It would be the duty of the overseer, of course, in considering whether a voter should be put on the one or the other, to satisfy himself as to qualification. That, he understood, would be the process under the new system.
  MR. PICTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman must be well aware, from his own personal experience, that the position of the intended county of London would be entirely different from that of any other large town. He Picton) had had some experience in the matter, because for nine years he had boon, he hoped, a tolerably active member of the London School Board, and thus was brought into contact with the great populations of eastern London, in Hackney, the Tower Hamlets, and elsewhere. Many censuses were taken by the School Board for various purposes, and on one occasion schoolmasters and mistresses obtained a return of the number of parents of children attending the schools who lived in one or two rooms, and it would astonish the House to find how enormous was the proportion. In schools of 1,000 children, it was found that 800 or more lived with their parents in one or two rooms. Of course, some of them might rent the houses in which they occupied only a room or two, while sub-letting the rest; but they would not be many. Others would be paying as much as £10 a-year for very wretched accommodation, and by taking great trouble might get on the register as lodgers. But he was speaking within the limit when he said that the vast majority were on no register whatever. There were streets after streets of small houses, little villas they might be called, in some parts of Hackney, and not one of them in the occupation of one family, the lower part

  1319
  of the house, perhaps, being held by the chief occupant, the rest of the rooms let off to lodgers. The effect of treating London exactly the same as other and smaller towns such as Leicester would be that enormous populations in the East of London would have no voice in municipal matters, among which—sanitary matters, for instance, forming a large portion of municipal business—lodgers in crowded dwellings were most seriously and directly interested. It would be unjust to leave these without a voice in the election of municipal authorities. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. James Stuart), who was well able from his knowledge of his own constituency to appreciate the importance of the point, would urge his Motion to a Division, and he also hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would, on consideration, see that the case of London did not necessarily involve the question of other largo towns.
  MR. RITCHIEapologized for interposing so often, but this was his last appearance with reference to this point. The hon. Member spoke of vast numbers of people whom he described as being on no register at all; and clearly, if they were not on the Parliamentary register, they would not come within the scope of the Amendment or within the lodger franchise. Prom his not inconsiderable knowledge of the East End of London, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the number of lodgers on the Parliamentary register was extremely small.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he should not like this remark to go forth as an exact representation of the case. The number of lodgers on the Parliamentary register was very small, but it was very much smaller than the number entitled to be upon it if they wore to make their claim; therefore, he was proposing to deal with a large number of people who were excluded from the franchise they had every right to. If the Bill passed in its present form, London would differ from every other municipality in having an extra list for voting purposes.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHasked, whether it was the intention of the Government to add the same proviso in elections for the new County Councils as existed in the Municipal Corporations Act, that no elector should
  1320
  have the right of voting in more than one division of the same constituency?
  MR. RITCHIE: Certainly.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 226: Majority 116.—(Div. List No. 93.)
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 207.]
  (Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. T. Lea, Mr. Sinclair.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. T. M. FIEALYsaid, he was not present during the discussion in Committee; but ho understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) had inserted, at the instance of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), an Amendment, the effect of which would be, in his opinion, most injurious, and instead of conferring any rights, would take away a great number that existed. The Amendment gave the right to renew applications; but it excluded all holders of town parks who, now that the law was changed, might now desire to go into Court. That might not be the intention; but, in his view, it would be the effect. The declaration that—
  "Disqualification before the passing of the Act on the grounds aforesaid shall not be a bar to another application by the person claiming to be lessee,"
  so far as it had any effect, would be mischievous; and, therefore, he proposed to insert the new clause to provide that an application dismissed before the passing of the Act, but renewed and allowed subsequently, should, in the decision of the Court, date from the day when that decision would have come into operation under the original application. Of course, it was inconvenient to discuss the matter on the present stage; and, perhaps, the better course would be to formally move the re-committal of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) would not persist in that Motion. The matter was discussed at some length in Committee; and the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland was accepted by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. M'Cartan), who moved an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy). The Amendment of which the hon. and learned Member for North Longford had given Notice raised a new question altogether, and one outside the scope of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the Government had declined, unless the Bill were confined to the matter of assignment, to assent to the Bill at all; and he feared that, in an attempt to achieve too much, the hon. and learned Member would accomplish nothing at all.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)said, the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) dealt with two points. The first related to the fixing of a judicial rent in cases where an unsuccessful application had been made before the passing of the Act, and then a subsequent application had been granted after the passing of the Act; and the hon. and learned Member proposed that in such a state of facts the judicial rent should not relate to the application which had been rendered successful by the passing of the Act, but to the previous application, which the law did not then allow to be entertained. That did not appear to him to be a reasonable suggestion, and he could not advise the House to accept it. This Act liberated the tenant from the consequences of his own default in taking an assignment the landlord was willing to grant, without taking the precaution to have his consent endorsed on the lease in compliance with the Act. From the consequences of that neglect the Bill would liberate him; but to put him in the same position as if he had been careful and diligent all through, the Government could not agree. The other matter raised by the hon. and learned Member was rather one of form, arising out of what occurred in the last discussion. The Bill provided that no application by the lessee should fail on
  1322
  the ground of certain informality in the assignment, and the Committee had before it the fact that there might have been previous applications which had failed on that ground, and it was thought right that the tenant should come into Court notwithstanding. When the Act passed, the fact of an application not being tenable under the Act of 1887 should not be a bar to a second application; and, so far as he had ascertained the practice of the Land Commission, it would not be a bar. He would, therefore, agree to strike out the words introduced on the previous occasion, for he quite appreciated what the hon. and learned Member said-that they might suggest that in other cases the failure of an application might be a bar to a subsequent tenable application. He could not, however, go the length of accepting the new Amendment, which would amount to a radical alteration of the Acts of 1881 and 1887. There would not be the slightest danger of a tenant who had made an application before the passing of this Act and failed, being on that account debarred from making another; and, therefore, quite appreciating what the hon. and learned Member said, he would meet him half-way, for the Act would be better without the words introduced on a previous occasion.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, it would have been better had the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) considered the full effect of what was proposed. However, it was the Bill of the hon. Member; and his duty was to protect one set of tenants from any mischievous result. At the request of the hon. Member, he would not press the Motion for re-committal. He was obliged to the hon. and learned Solicitor General for offering to meet him on the other point, as to which he would reserve his remarks.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, it would be only reasonable for the Government to accept the Amendment he now would propose. The Act of 1887 enabled the tenant to get certain advantages in Court, and these advantages were also designed by the framers of the Act of 1881, but given up at the instance of the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland. When the Crofters' Act came to be passed, making the judicial rent date

  1323
  from the time of application, then, in the Act of 1887, Parliament reverted to the original design of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). It was said by the hon. and learned Solicitor General that the tenant was placed in the position of having his application rejected by his own act and default, but it was nothing of the sort. The tenant might have taken out an assignment at a cost of £10. On large estates the landlord would say—"If you want this done, my solicitor is Mr. So-and-So." And then Mr. So-and-So would say—"My charge for preparing an assignment is £10." Then the tenant, who up to 1881 had no status, thought—"So long as the landlord does not turn me out I do not care for a bit of parchment." But the moment he got into Court he was met by the fact that he was not a real tenant. Grave injustice had resulted to men who had been recognized as tenants year after year, and nobody disputed their tenancy until the landlord on a technical point sought to deprive the tenant of the reduction on the rent of a-year or a-year and a-half. Only ungenerous landlords were guilty of this, and he noticed they were generally lords who took the advantage. His Amendment might very reasonably be accepted.
  New Clause—
  (Land Commissioners to decide date of commencement of judicial rent.)
  "Where any application has been dismissed prior to the passing of this Act, and is renewed and allowed after passing of this Act, the judicial rent shall date as from the gale day when it would have come into operation had the original application not been dismissed, and the order of the Land Commission fixing the date for the commencement of such judicial rent under this section shall be conclusive in all legal proceedings,"—[Mr. T. M. healy,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, it was quite true that the judicial rent in ordinary cases dated from the service of the original notice, not from the date of the judgment given; but there was something in what the hon. and learned Solicitor General said, that it did not follow that the tenant who committed the mistake should be put exactly in the same position as the tenant who had not.
  1324
  However, if the Government accepted the Amendment, he would not object; but if the Government refused, he was bound by the arrangement that the Bill should be confined simply to matters of assignment, to vote with the Government.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, if the Question when put was contested, the discussion under the Rule must stop.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 1, page 1, line 10, to leave out the word "any," and insert the word "such."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, what was the advantage of this?
  MR. MADDENsaid, after the word "any" was inserted in Committee, it occurred to him, reading the clause carefully, that it was not only not the best word, but that it might lead to serious misunderstanding. It might be so construed that where there were several successive assignments, and the landlord had consented to any one of them that consent validated them all. That was not the intention of the framers of the Bill, and could not be sanctioned if it were. No assignment which had been consented to practically by the landlord in the manner pointed out by the Bill could be invalidated before the Land Commission on the ground of the informality with which. the Bill dealt, and the word "such" made that meaning perfectly clear.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 10, after the word "assignment," leave out the words "of such lease."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, be understood the hon. and learned Solicitor General agreed to the principle he laid down in the remarks he made earlier, and in his opinion it would ho preferable to accept his Amendment instead of striking out the clause as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. In the case of town parks a radical change was made in their position by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) in the Act of last

  1325
  year, and it was very much debated at the time. There was now no question in dispute, and the Amendments he proposed would, he thought, make no change in the law, and surely could do no harm. He had heard it contested, though it had never been judicially decided, and he had a very strong opinion to the contrary, that once an application was dismissed it could not be renewed. Certainly, he should prefer to have the clause omitted, rather than have a doubt thrown on the applications as to town parks, but he hoped the hon. Member would see the blot on his Bill, and accept the Amendments to the 2nd clause, the first of which he moved, the omission of the words "on the ground aforesaid "in lines 3 and 4.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understood that the hon. and learned Member suggested to the clause being struck out altogether. If that is his desire, he should make that Motion first.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that placed him in a difficulty, for he would prefer to have his Amendments inserted. Could he not move the omission of the clause after the Amendments.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, that could not be done on Report.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2 be omitted."—(Mr. T. M. Healy).
  MR. MADDENsaid, he quite appreciated the substance of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy), but he feared that the Amendments would bring up a number of subjects connected with the Act of 1881 not contemplated by the Bill. It would be better to omit the Clause, and he did not think there would be the slightest danger to leaseholders thereby.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause omitted.
  On the Motion of Mr. T. M. HEALY, the following Amendment made:—In Clause 3, line 8, to leave out the word "leaseholders."
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

MOTIONS.

  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill do consist of Twenty-five Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. Anstruther, Mr. Asher, Mr. Baird, Sir George Balfour, Mr. Barbour, Mr. Barclay, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Preston Bruce, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Macdonald Cameron, Sir Archibald Campbell, Mr. R. F. Campbell, Dr. Clark, Mr. Cochrane-Baillie, Mr. Donald Crawford, Lord Elcho, Mr. Esslemont, Mr. Hozier, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Menzies, Mr. F. S. Powell, Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Mark Stewart, Mr. Webster, and Mr. Williamson, with power to send far persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.

  FOREST OF DEAN TURNPIKE TRUST.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the affairs of the Forest of Dean Turnpike Trust.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. W. B. Beaumont, Lord Edward Cavendish, Mr. Salt, Mr. Beach, Mr. Samuelson, Viscount Folkestone, and Mr. Long.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to inquire and report to the House under what conditions with reference to the rate of interest, expenses of management, maintenance of roads, payment of debt, and term of years, or other special arrangements, the Act of the Trust mentioned should be continued.
  Ordered, That all Petitions relating to the continuance or discontinuance of this Trust be referred to the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—(Mr. Long).

  EAST INDIA (HYDERABAD DECCAN MINING COMPANY).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the formation and promotion of the Hyderabad Deccan Mining Company, Limited, the circumstances under which the concession held by that Company was obtained from the Government of Hyderabad, and the subsequent operations on the London Stock Exchange by persons interested in the Company.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Sir Henry James, Sir Richard Temple, Mr. Slagg, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, Mr. M'Lagan, Mr. Bristowe, and Mr. Labouchere.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Universities (Scotland) (47).
Committee—Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act,
1878, Amendment* (68–88).
Committee—Report—Westminster Abbey*(57);
Customs (Isle of Man)* (60).
Report—Copyhold Acts Amendment* (77–83).

THE EARL OF CARNARVON AND MR. PARNELL.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I wish, my Lords, to ask your indulgence for a few minutes while I speak of a matter which is personal to myself. During a considerable absence from this country I find that my name has been very frequently used, and allusions made to matters which passed between me and another person on a particular point. I might have thought it necessary to dispense altogether with a full notice of these attacks, as I must consider them, because about two years ago I laid before your Lordships a very clear statement of what occurred on that particular occasion. But, upon
1176
the whole I think I am bound to make an answer, and it shall be a short one. First, I must observe that it is hardly consistent with the usual laws of Parliamentary fairness to wait until a person against whom the attack is made is in such a position as to render it absolutely impossible for him to reply to it. If these allegations which have been made with regard to me were founded in truth, there was no earthly reason why they could not have been said during the whole course of last Summer, when I could have replied to them either in this place or elsewhere; but those who thought fit to make them waited until I had 13,000 miles of sea between me and this country, and then an old story was vamped up with very considerable additions and embellishments. Now, my Lords, I shall confine myself to two allegations which were made—first, because they are the most important, and, secondly, because they were made by one and the same important person. They are allegations which were made by Mr. Parnell now some five or six weeks ago, and they refer to two subjects—first, the Crossmaglen murder conspiracy in Ireland, and, secondly, certain things which I am alleged to have said to him in my conversation with him two years ago. With regard to the Crossmaglen case, your Lordships perhaps will remember that there was a gang of prisoners tried and convicted for, I think, conspiracy to murder, and sentenced to long periods of imprisonment. This occurred at the time when my noble Friend opposite (Earl Spencer) was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. My noble Friend had been repeatedly asked to reconsider his decision, but had always declined to depart from his original decision. I observe that Mr. Parnell stated, or is reported to have stated, with regard to myself that—
"Shortly before the General Election in 1885 an hon. Friend came to me in Dublin, and told me that he had just been sent for by Lord Carnarvon, and that his Lordship evidently wished him to communicate what he had told to me, and it was to this effect—that Lord Carnarvon had investigated the cases of the Crossmaglen and the Barbavilla prisoners, and had come to the conclusion that the latter were justly convicted, and that he could not interfere, but that in the case of the Crossmaglen prisoners he did not think that there was sufficient evidence for a conviction, and that he intended to liberate them forthwith."
Now, my Lords, I hardly regret that

1177
that statement was made, because there is just enough truth in it to give colour to it, and just enough misrepresentation in it to make it an excellent illustration of the nature of some of these allegations which have been made with regard to myself. The real story is simply this. The case of these prisoners, like all others, came before me in the natural course of business. I was pressed by many persons to reprieve the prisoners or to vary their sentences. I was pressed in one particular case by a gentleman, who is now dead, in my own drawing-room after dinner, and I told him that I had considered that case with care, and that in my opinion there was one prisoner out of the whole gang against whom, so far as I could see, there was not sufficient evidence to warrant his detention, and I said that I should certainly consider the evidence carefully in respect of that particular individual. I did do so; I considered the case so carefully that I brought it under the special consideration of the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and of the learned Judge who tried the case and of the Law Officers of the Crown, and it was only after they had sifted and resifted the matter that I came to the conclusion that my own opinion, which was only that of a layman, could not be set up in opposition to those of the law authorities, which were conclusive upon the point; and if anyone will refer to the official records of the time he will find my account of the matter to be absolutely correct. Therefore, this is really what this precious story comes to—that I had undertaken to consider the case of one prisoner, feeling very doubtful whether there was sufficient evidence against him, and that is construed into a distinct promise that I would liberate every one of the gang who were then imprisoned. That is the first point. I observe that Mr. Parnell refers also to the Maamtrasna and the Barbavilla cases, and, with regard to them, I can only say that I undoubtedly refused to reopen them. I was bound as a matter of courtesy, and of official duty, to look into any memorial relating to the matters which was brought before me, but I never gave any hope whatever that I would vary the sentences which had been awarded or alter the decision which my noble Friend opposite had come to. If Mr. Parnell, in his place in the House of Commons, gave a contradictory account
1178
of the matter, I can only say that such an account is absolutely contrary to the fact. Now I come to the second allegation, which is, after all, the more important of the two. Mr. Parnell came to me and entered into conversation with me, and his statement of what occured at that interview was this—
"Lord Carnarvon expressed to me the strongest belief that only by the concession of an Irish Parliament could the Irish question be settled, and that it was to be a Parliament, and that it was to be called a Parliament, that it was to have most extensive powers, even going as far as the right of protecting Irish industries by the imposition of protective tariffs… Lord Carnarvon's views, as convoyed to me, or rather as we exchanged them in our interview, were absolutely identical."
Now, my Lords, it is perfectly true that all Mr. Parnell said with regard to an Irish Parliament was said in that conversation, but it was said, not by me, but by Mr. Parnell; and as regards even my concurrence in what he said, Mr. Parnell has allowed his imagination to run away with him, both in his conversation and in my replies. That conversation consisted in the main of questions on my part, and of answers and explanations on his part, and I never made any promise nor gave any assurance in the direction he has indicated. I repeatedly warned him that he came to me for the purpose of giving me information, that he was speaking to me and me alone for the sake of information, that I alone was responsible for that meeting, and that no responsibility in respect to it was to be attached to any of my Colleagues in the Cabinet. I could give a version of what Mr. Parnell said—a great deal passed which was no doubt intended to be confined within the four corners of the room. Mr. Parnell may forget that the conversation was private as between gentleman and gentleman. "As between gentleman and gentleman" was the formula I remember using, and ho assented. A great deal of the conversation might have been interesting, and some of it amusing if repeated, but for my part, I should not repeat it. My right hon. Friend in the other House of Parliament was good enough to make a reply for me upon the subject, and I take this opportunity of expressing my obligations to him for that speech, which was a very manly, straightforward reply in many ways, and indeed was one which in some degree does away with the necessity for

1179
my making these observations to-night. Among other things, Mr. Balfour said—
"Lord Salisbury in 1886 said—' Lord Carnarvon treated me absolutely without reserve, and I know what passed at that interview with Mr. Parnell. The statement that he gave any ground to believe that the Conservative Government would favour the establishment of an Irish Legislature is absolutely without foundation,'"
I can confirm every syllable that Mr. Balfour uttered on that occasion. I should have been wanting in my duty if I had failed to inform my noble Friend at the head of the Government of my intention of holding that meeting with Mr. Parnell, and still more should I have failed in my duty if I had not acquainted him with what had passed between us at the interview at the earliest possible moment. Accordingly, both by writing and by words, I gave the noble Marquess as careful and as accurate a statement as possible of what had occurred within 24 hours after the meeting, and my noble Friend was good enough to say that I had conducted that conversation with perfect discretion. Your Lordships will consider whether it was likely that I should have made such preposterous statements as those which have been charged against me. I think, my Lords, that I have now disposed of this unfounded and ridiculous story. My opinions have been frequently alluded to during the past few I months, but I do not think it necessary to go into them at the present time. I have already indicated more than once in this House what my opinions are, and when the opportunity arises I shall be perfectly willing to do so again. Nor do I think it necessary to justify the meeting I had with Mr. Parnell, as I have justified it on a former occasion. I can see no reason whatever for thinking that I was guilty of imprudence or unwisdom in the matter. Looking at the circumstances of that time, it was common sense to ascertain the opinion of the most important person in Ireland, and therefore I did not, when I went to that country, shut my ears to information that could be obtained from any person who was entitled to give it. It would have been absurd if I had consented to hear only subordinates and had refused to listen to the leader of the most important Party in Ireland. There might have been, as I have been sometimes told there was, an error of judgment on my part, but if there was such an error
1180
of judgment it consisted in my accepting such a meeting without the presence of witnesses.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Marquess of Lothian.)
(NO. 47.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it had no direct bearing on any educational matter in England, but he thought he should have the attention, at any rate, of those Members of their Lordships' House who were connected with Scotland, and who, if their experience during the last few weeks in any way resembled his, had been forced to take an almost painful interest in the Bill. It would, perhaps, conduce to a better understanding of the Bill if he referred very shortly to the history of legislation with regard to the Universities of Scotland. He would not go further back than the Commission of 1831, which was presided over by a Predecessor of the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery). There were other Commissions in 1837, 1839, 1843, and 1845, which were appointed to inquire into individual Universities, and a Bill, founded on these Reports, was introduced and passed in 1858. That was the Bill under which the government of the Universities of Scotland as it now existed was appointed. A Commission was appointed to carry out the provisions of that Bill, and that Commission reported in 1863. But educational interests had so changed during the interval that another Royal Commission was appointed in 1876, and it reported in 1878. Parliamentary action had been taken on the Report of that Commission on several occasions, but no Bill had ever passed through Parliament. Year after year, Session after Session, in 1883, 1884, 1885, and last year, Bills dealing with the Universities of Scotland had been presented to Parliament, but they had all shared the same fate. He earnestly hoped that the Bill which the Government had introduced this Session might fare better, because he could conceive nothing more inimical to the interests of higher education in Scotland than that this transitional state of things, which made it impossible that

1181
any definite arrangements, either with regard to educational or financial matters, should go on year after year. He would ask their Lordships to look upon the Universities of Scotland as differing essentially from those of England. The oldest Universities of Scotland had been founded generally upon the same principles as those of England, but in consequence of progress in every direction the Universities of England had diverged very largely from their original foundations, while those of Scotland, although they had altered also, remained more nearly what they were when founded. The Universities of England were generally resorted to by what might be called the higher classes, whereas the Universities of Scotland were attended by all classes of the community. Nothing could be a greater test of the difference in the way Universities were looked upon in Scotland and in England than the single fact that while the proportion of the population of England that attended the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge was about one in 5,000, in Scotland the proportion that attended the Universities was about one in 600. There were other differences. In Scotland there were no resident students, and the Universities had no control whatever over the students unless when they were within their walls. The system of teaching, too, was different, being given in class-rooms, which were often overcrowded and insufficient to accommodate the numbers attending. Another point of difference was that in Scotland the attendance was compulsory, no degree being granted without the required attendance, and the payment of the foes necessary for such attendance. There was no doubt whatever that the system of the Scottish Universities was very much cheaper than in England. He would not be far wrong if he said that an annual sum of about 10 guineas might cover the whole of the fees exacted in Scotland to enable a student to qualify for a degree. The constitution of the Universities as it existed under the Act of 1858, and which it was now proposed to alter, consisted of three bodies—the University Court, the Senatus Academicus, and the General Council. Among the points on which the Royal Commission of 1878 reported were the constitution and
1182
powers of the University Court; the course of studies in arts, medicine, law, and divinity; the expediency of introducing any new fellowship or degrees; extra-mural teaching, and the conditions under which it should be recognized. With regard to the constitution of the University Court, it was composed, generally speaking, of six members—of the rector, the principal, and assessors nominated by the Chancellor, the rector, and General Council, and the Senatus Academicus. In the case of the University of Glasgow, there was one additional member—the Dean of Faculty—which made seven; and in the case of Edinburgh there was added the Lord Provost, and an assessor nominated by the Town Council. That made the largest Court, consisting of eight members. Under this Bill it was proposed largely to increase the numbers of the University Court. He was aware that one of the objections to this proposal was that a small body was more capable of dealing with financial and educational details than a very much larger body. But he had considered that in making new constitutions for the Universities it was exceedingly desirable to admit others beyond the limited number which constituted the Board under the Bill of 1858. Further powers and duties were given to the Court, and it was proposed to give a place on the Board for the first time to those who represented the public interest, and from whom they hoped so much improvement in the future. That was the only new element imported. Whereas in the Court as now constituted there was one assessor representing the General Council and one representing the Senatus Academicals, it was proposed to multiply that representation by four. In the Report of the Royal Commission of 1878 it was proposed that the Senatus Academicus should have one more assessor on the University Court, and that the General Council should have two more. He had not thought it advisable to give effect to that proposal, but he had increased the number of the assessors of both these bodies in equal proportions. There was one clause which had given rise to a great deal of discussion, and that was Clause 5, subsection 1, relating to the admission of heads of Colleges. He would not, however, refer to this point until he came to the clause dealing with the

1183
powers of the Commissioners with regard to affiliation of other Colleges. In reference to those powers, he wished to direct attention more particularly to those special clauses which provide for the future extension of the Universities of Scotland. Formely those powers of extension were represented by the solitary case of St. Andrew's. In the present Bill power was given to the Commissioners in the first instance, and after the expiration of their powers to the University Court, with the consent of Her Majesty in Council, to extend the existing area of the Universities, and to add to them, by any suitable means of union which they might consider desirable, any existing Colleges, or any Colleges which private generosity might in future establish. He thought the necessity for extending University education in Scotland could not be denied. Every year the number of students was increasing, every year the demand for higher education and for new facilities was becoming stronger. At present the classes of some of the Professors were filled to overflowing, and already rival institutions were rising up in the great centres of population. They must either give facilities under just conditions for these rising institutions to amalgamate with the ancient seats of learning—namely, the Universities—or they would have to meet the irresistible argument of those other Colleges which were asking for University privileges, and were rising up as competitors to the existing Universities. He thought if foundations were started and large endowments were given to new Colleges, that it would be a great misfortune if there were no means of uniting these Colleges to the existing Universities of Scotland, because it would create competition between these Colleges and the Universities, which could have only one result—namely, a depreciation in the value of the degrees conferred by the Universities. But he had rather anticipated what he had to say about the affiliation clauses, which should have properly been dealt with in referring to Clause 14. By the first sub-section of Clause 6 it was proposed to transfer to the new University Court the administration and management of the whole funds and property of the University, and power was given to ad-
1184
minister, not only the funds and endowments and revenues of existing Colleges, but also the endowments and funds of any College which might be in any way united with the Universities. The Commission which sat in 1831 recommended the establishment of a University Court, and that recommendation directly pointed to this, that in the opinion of the Commission the control of the property and funds of the College should not be committed to the Senatus Academicus, because they said a University Court should be appointed in order that it might exercise a control over the funds and property of the University. At present it had nominally the control, because the dealings of the Senatus Academicus in regard to money matters was to be subject to the University Court, but the control was only a nominal one. He believed the transfer of the management of the funds to the University Courts would be a very great convenience, and it seemed very desirable that this relief should be given to the Senatus Academiens. There was another point in Clause 6 which had created a good deal of opposition. That was Sub-section 3, which gave power to the University Court to review any decision which the Senatus Academicus might come to in the exercise of their powers under Section 7, sub-section 1. If it should appear to their Lordships desirable that some alteration should be made in the clause, he should be prepared to consider the matter in Committee, in order, if possible, to meet the strong objections of those who were opposed to the sub-section. What he had just said would apply also to Clause 7, sub-section 1, which was in much the same position. With regard to the powers proposed to be given to the Commissioners, there was some question as to the transfer of the patronage which was now vested in private bodies. In deference to the strong feeling in Edinburgh, with which he concurred, he proposed to introduce words safeguarding the patronage of the curatorial Court. He would now return to the "affiliation" clauses, about which doubtless there was a great difference of opinion. It had been said that no proper definition had been given of the words "affiliation," "incorporation," and "union." He would venture to interpret the word "affiliation" as moaning a union in a

1185
subordinate degree with the power of dissolving that union should circumstances require that such union should be dissolved. The term "incorporation" might be defined as union on an equal and permanent footing; and "union" was meant to cover any other form of union which might seem desirable to the Commissioners. These words had simply been introduced in order to give the Commissioners ample power to unite with other Colleges if it might appear to them desirable. The whole object of the clause was to give opportunity for the extension and elasticity of University teaching. Those who were best acquainted with the University system in Scotland would not deny that such an opportunity was desirable, and that it was important to give powers to the Commissioners to make such regulations as should ensure elasticity of teaching in the Universities of Scotland. It was claimed that this power already existed, but it only existed to a certain. extent. It existed in Edinburgh chiefly by giving Professors of extra-mural classes the right for graduation in the University. In Edinburgh affiliation extended far beyond Edinburgh itself. Edinburgh had affiliated Professors in Aberystwith, Bangor, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Dublin, and Dundee. That affiliation gave the power to all those who attended the classes in those different places to obtain University degrees at Edinburgh. But would it not be very much better that the Commissioners should have power to lay down rules, regulations, and ordinances with regard to the manner in which these Colleges or extra-mural classes should be affiliated with the University of Edinburgh and other Universities? Under this Bill there was every kind of safeguard given for the protection of the Universities. But, although the conditions in the Bill were stringent enough, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the Commissioners from making such rules as they might think right to make those conditions more effective. Unless some such powers as were sought were given, he was afraid that the extension and growth of the University system of Scotland, which it was the object of the Bill to foster and promote, would not really take place; and if progress was impossible, and things came to a standstill, he was afraid they would never
1186
in the future get the benefit of large endowments for the establishment of Colleges in connection with the Scottish Universities. This was not a new principle, nor against the principle of the University system in Scotland. Their original principle was very much the same as that of Oxford and Cambridge. The original title of Edinburgh University was "the College of King James in the University of Edinburgh," and the Principal of Glasgow University was, until quite lately, called the Principal of the College of Glasgow in the University of Glasgow. But the real difficulty which had caused all this feeling about an affiliation of new Colleges, especially in connection with the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, was the fact that the existing Colleges had become so intimately united with the Universities that there was no possible division between them, and the fear was that if new Colleges were actually united to the central College, they would have control not only over the University funds, but over the funds and administration of the Colleges, which now practically constituted the University. That was a point of difficulty, and had not now arisen for the first time. It had been fully gone into on a former occasion, and an attempt was made to separate the Colleges from the Universities, and give the Colleges power and control over their own administration and funds as apart from the Universities. That was found to be alike impossible and undesirable, and this Bill made no attempt whatever to deal with the matter in that way; and he would ask their Lordships to believe that in the proposals the Government now made they had had one single idea—namely, what was really for the good of the Scottish Universities. This had been called a crude measure. That was rather a harsh word; but he would only say that the result would have ended in disaster if the Bill had attempted to define exactly the relations and position of the Colleges. Again, it was said that some of these provisions were proposed in consequence of the noisy clamour of persons unconnected with the Universities. He protested against such language. He believed that every one of those who had made representations were, like himself, actuated by but one motive—namely, to do that which

1187
was best for the future of the Universities. He did not wish to adhere exactly to the words of some of those clauses, and if Amendments could be suggested in their Lordships' wisdom that would be for the benefit of the interests of the Scottish Universities, he would be willing to consider them. He did not think he need go into many other of the provisions of the Bill. They were chiefly technical; but, perhaps, he might refer to the proposal to transfer the Botanic Gardens of Edinburgh from the Town Council to the University. He understood that there was considerable opposition to that proposal; but in connection with that, it was owing to an understanding on that subject come to with a former Government that this clause was inserted. But as there was no doubt considerable objection to that proposal, he would consult those who were the proper authorities in the matter, and see if some arrangement could not be arrived at, by which the gardens could be transferred in such a manner as to meet the views of those who were now objecting to the change. The only other point was the question of finance, which it was, perhaps, hardly proper for him to take up in this House. He bad now shortly—perhaps too shortly—laid before their Lordships the main provisions of this Bill. It was one which had created in Scotland, where the interests of the Universities were much more closely interwoven with the national life—owing partly to the more general feeling in regard to education, and more still to the larger number from whom the ranks of the students were recruited—an amount of interest which might seem, perhaps, to their Lordships to be out of proportion to the subject itself. However that might be, it had been his great object—the object of Her Majesty's Government—to lay before their Lordships a Bill which, though, as he would be the first to acknowledge, it might in some ways be usefully amended by the experience and knowledge of their Lordships, was a sincere attempt to settle this long-pending question. He had, with that view, desired to give every opportunity for remark, criticism, and discussion. He purposely gave as long an interval as possible between the first and second reading, so that, before the subject came before their Lordships, there might be every opportunity for
1188
considering all the provisions of the Bill, affecting, as it did, the interests of many. From a strategic point of view, possibly this was not his best course, as it had, of course, given every opportunity to those who objected to the provisions to get up opposition. But his action had at least shown that he desired nothing more than that the Bill should be one which should give satisfaction. Indeed, he thought he might fairly say that it was so recognized. Even those who were now opposed to different points cordially express their desire that the Bill should become law. He therefore now left this—speaking as a Scotsman—most important measure in their Lordships' hands, only earnestly impressing upon them this, that no action would be more injurious, no such alteration in the Bill as it was now presented could be more harmful, to the interests of the Universities than that any change should be insisted on which might endanger or prevent the passing of this measure of University reform, and leave those who were most interested and who were most concerned in the welfare of Scottish Universities to the unhappy conclusion that, after so many Bills had been presented, so many earnest attempts had failed, Parliament itself was practically unable to cope with the difficulties attending this great and vital question.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." (The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD WATSONsaid, he thought that the great bulk of the clauses of the Bill would be accepted by the people of Scotland, who took a deep interest in the extension and welfare of the Universities. He therefore echoed the noble Marquess's wish that the Bill should pass this Session. But if, unhappily, it should fail to do so, the fault would in some measure lie with the noble Marquess, because along with clauses which met with general acceptance there were others about which the people of Scotland entertained great doubt, both as to their meaning and effect; and with respect to which there had not been sufficient inquiry and consideration. The subject had been before Parliament for several years, and many of the questions had been so thoroughly discussed that he believed that although there were still differences of opinion, yet, on the whole,

1189
a fair compromise of disputed points had been arrived at in the Bill. There were, again, some clauses full of promise to the eye providing for the institution of new professorships, scholarships, and lectureships. If all this could be done and adequate endowments provided, the heart of every Scotchman would indeed be gladdened. He was bound to say that, although the Scottish Universities stood in need of aid and amendment, there was no amendment and no aid which they more urgently required than an addition to the funds in their exchequer. Of course, how far the financial arrangements would prove satisfactory depended on the manner in which the clause dealing therewith might be filled up in "another place." Upon that the practical value of the measure would mainly depend. The new clauses of the Bill might be divided into two parts. In the first place, there were those which dealt with the transfer of financial administration from the Senatus to the University Court. It was not suggested that the administration of University funds by the Senatus had been anything but honest, fair, and efficient; and he had no doubt the same result would follow upon the transfer. But he regretted that the Bill omitted to direct the Commissioners to make some adequate pecuniary provision out of the funds of the University for the purpose of enabling the Senatus to pay the expenses necessarily incurred in the discharge of their duty. The absence of such a direction might lead to misapprehension. But by far the most important matter for consideration was the question of affiliation, union, or incorporation. He regretted to say that the able speech of the noble Marquess had left his mind as much a blank as to what those words meant as it was before he commenced. That feeling was shared by the very bodies to whom the noble Marquess appealed as the persons who wore desirous of having this part of the Bill. In support of that statement he would refer only to the resolutions come to by the General Councils, which were composed of all graduates of the University in meeting assembled, upon this part of the measure. It had not been discussed until very recently as a practical measure before Parliament. There had been little time to discuss it, and there was little knowledge of its actual
1190
meaning and effect. The noble Marquess assured them that they were all as much informed as he was himself, but ho ventured to say that there were very few people who knew anything about these Colleges which were said to be springing up, and which in a short time would ask for incorporation. The General Council of the University of Edinburgh was of opinion that these powers as to affiliation were too vague, that they should be defined, and that they should be restricted to affiliation. The Glasgow Council, which, he believed, numbered amongst its members some of the strongest advocates of the clauses the noble Marquess had introduced, was of opinion that it was absolutely necessary that the terms of affiliation and incorporation should be defined, and that due regard should be had to the interests of the Universities. In Aberdeen the Council came to a resolution that a more judicious proceeding would be to make it an instruction to the Committee to inquire and report in regard to the subject-matter of affiliation. He could quite understand what affiliation meant; it was affiliation for the purpose of graduation only. Reference was made by the noble Marquess to the case of extramural teachers and outdoor teachers who were accepted by the University. Now, the only effect of recognizing extramural professors or outdoor teachers was this, that their teaching was accepted as qualifying for examination for a degree, and under proper conditions he did not see any reason why, in the case of the Universities of Scotland, as well as of Oxford and Cambridge, such a connection between the University and the other teaching bodies ought not to be permitted. Affiliation in the English University was on condition that the union should not be effected without the consent of the University, and that it should be dissoluble at the will of either of the parties to it. In such a case it was absolutely essential that some provision should be made for dissolving. The University, in the case of affiliation, had no control whatever over the funds of the affiliated body, over the patronage of its teaching staff, and manifestly the University ought not to be compelled to continue to accept its teaching for a single moment after it became the opinion of the University Authorities ineffec-

1191
tive. He did not know what incorporation meant in this Bill. He knew very well what in Scotch law and Scotch vernacular incorporation meant. Out of this Bill it meant that the thing incorporated became an integral part and portion of that with which it was incorporated, and if the incorporation of a small College of half-a-dozen professors was completed, its teachers would be as much a part of the University and of the Senatus as any of its present professors. The noble Marquess said it would be impossible—at all events inexpedient—to lay down any lines for the guidance of the Commission upon this point of affiliation—to make, in other words, the Bill more explicit. That was not the opinion of the Universities as expressed in their General Councils, nor, he thought, was it the opinion of many who had studied this Bill. It did lay down hard-and-fast lines enough in some cases, but not in a very good direction. It did lay down a hard and fast line, because it made it a statutory necessity that in future every University Court should contain as one of its members the head of each College presently existing in or hereafter to be affiliated or incorporated with the University. The effect would be that, whether the Commissioners desired it or not, whether they thought it proper or not, whenever an institution was affiliated for the purpose of graduation, the Principal of that institution would sit in the University Court, direct the teaching of the University, administer the funds of the University, and appoint the Professors to the University, while the University Court, representing the University itself, would not have the slightest control over the teaching or the appointments of that institution, or over the mode in which they administered their funds. It humbly appeared to him that if it was possible to lay down hard and fast lines like that, it would be possible to lay down a great many better lines than these. He had objections to many matters of detail, but would not speak to them now. He had simply indicated the objections he had to this new part of the scheme; but there was one thing of which he felt perfectly satisfied, that, without taking evidence and a very extensive inquiry, it was impossible to say what were the lines under which affilia-
1192
tion or union ought to be carried out. He thought it a great misfortune that powers of this kind should be placed in the hands of Commissioners without guidance, to allow them first to make the law and then to administer it, instead of laying down some broad and distinct lines within which action might be taken. He trusted that the noble Marquess would consider the suggestions he had thrown out, because he would find on inquiry that the feeling as to the necessity for making the measure much more definite, and limiting it to affiliation pure and simple for graduating purposes, was much more widely entertained in the Universities themselves and elsewhere in Scotland than he seemed to suppose.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he did not rise to make any detailed comments on the Bill which the noble Marquess had introduced; but he must be allowed, on the part of those who sat near him, to express his cordial satisfaction with the Bill in its main provisions and principle. He was a little surprised that his noble Friend, in his description of the course of University legislation previous to this year, broke off with some suddenness, as he thought, without explaining the Bill which was laid before Parliament in August last year, because this Bill differed so materially in its main principles and policy from that Bill that it would have been a matter of some interest to their Lordships on the Opposition side of the House to know what had been the grounds for the change of policy disclosed. There were one or two points which appeared to him to be new, and which he thought were questionable to some extent, and, at any rate, which were worthy of some explanation at the noble Marquess's hands. In the first place, the Bill was going to transfer the administration of the property of the Universities from the Senatus of those Universities to the University Courts. Against that proposition ho had nothing whatever to say, but he thought that that change and other provisions of the Bill made the constitution of those University Courts a matter of even greater importance than it was supposed to be. He thought, besides, that it had swollen those University Courts to an undue size. He would take the first University Court mentioned in the Bill,

1193
the University Court of St. Andrew's. This Court at the lowest computation would be larger than the Senatus of St. Andrew's, and that, he ventured to say, was a position never before occupied by a University Court of any University in Scotland. He would further submit to the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill that it was not wise to hand over the administration of property, and, at the same time, to increase very largely the numbers of the body by which that property was to be administered. He did not think there was any necessity for this increase in numbers. He saw that two assessors nominated by the Crown were to make their appearance in this body. He should greatly like to know what was the presumed utility of those assessors to be nominated by the Crown, and why it was thought necessary to increase by their presence a body which would be already sufficiently large. There was another point in connection with the constitution of the Court with regard to the University of Edinburgh. At present the University of Edinburgh had, he thought, a quarter of the whole representation of the University Court. The position of the City of Edinburgh with reference to the University was one of a very exceptional nature. It was a position cherished not only in the University itself but in Scotland at large, and he should witness with great distress anything which appeared to him to influence that connection, but under this Bill that connection would be very greatly reduced. The very utmost that the Lord Provost and the magistrates of Edinburgh would have on the revised University Court was a representation of one-eighth, and when affiliation had run its full course it was possible that the Provost and magistrates, where previously they were the governing body of the University, might sink and become a very insignificant fraction of that body. He should like to say a word on a clause which was new to him. It was the clause where the Rector in making a choice of assessor had to take the assistance of the Students' Representative Council. But that Council was not, he thought, an expression which was defined in the Act. The clause itself was of an absolutely novel character, and he thought his noble Friend in making further observations with reference to the
1194
would do well to give some explanation of that clause. He must honestly say that he thought in so large a proposition as this no clause so vague and so absolutely destitute of guidance had ever been submitted to Parliament, His noble Friend said that it would not be possible to give guidance to the Commissioners, that it would not be possible to lay down in a Bill what the conditions of affiliation should he; that was to say it would be perfectly impossible for the Government to lay down these, but that nothing was so easy as for the Commissioners to do so. They did not know the names of the Commissioners, and therefore they could not say in what consisted that superiority to the Government which was implied by the defence of his noble Friend. But he ventured to say that, whether the Government were unequal to defining all the conditions under which affiliation should take place or not, they at least ought to make some endeavour in this direction. After all, in the majority of cases the Universities and the Colleges of Scotland were synonymous. But the Government were going to add to those ancient corporations a vague and indeterminate and undescribed condition of educational establishment at the whim of unknown Commissioners on conditions which were absolutely kept in the dark. It was the sort of thing that was done by revolutionary Governments—the sort of Administration to which he belonged. But he confessed that it was not the sort of proposition which he expected from Her Majesty's Government. He was very far from denouncing in the slightest degree the general principles of affiliation. He thought the arguments of the noble Marquess were, so far as they went, conclusive. There were cases of affiliation which, to use a French expression, "jumped to one's eyes," such as the cases of Dundee and St. Andrew's—but he could not understand why, when they had laid hold of a broad principle they should find it absolutely impossible to give any example or definition in practice. He would give one instance in which guidance was afforded by the University of Oxford. This University had not found itself in the impotence of Her Majesty's Government with regard to defining those conditions. As far as they knew the Bill, it provided for a

1195
representation on the University Court of these new bodies; but the University of Oxford, with which the noble Marquess I opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) was not altogether unconnected took exactly the opposite view. Oxford said that the University should be represented on the governing body with the affiliated bodies. It gave some control, where it was possible, to the University over the affiliated bodies placed without its sanction under its direction; but the noble Marquess did not go that length. He left the whole relative position of the Universities as regarded Colleges with which they might be affiliated absolutely in the hands of certain gentlemen of great weight, esteemable, he had no doubt, but who were absolutely unknown to their Lordships, and could not be the meet subjects of a blind confidence on the part of their Lordships. With reference to the question of the Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh, the noble Marquess said that the condition imposing those gardens on the University was in the Bill for which he (the Earl of Rosebery) had the main responsibility in 1883. His noble Friend would know no doubt from experience that Bills which had a financial tendency were not entirely in the control of the Minister who introduced them, and he was afraid that his noble Friend had shared his experience on that question and found that the Treasury, while melting its heart to the extent of a handsome sum, imposed extensive and onerous conditions with regard to that gift. One of those conditions in 1883 was the Botanic Gardens, and he was sorry to see that five years of persuasion had failed to alter that condition. The noble Marquess had some hopes that he might accomplish that which he had hitherto failed to manage. He (the Earl of Rosebery) was very glad to hear it, but he was not sure that he shared his expectation. There was no doubt whatever that the Botanic Gardens ought to be connected with the City and not with the University of Edinburgh. The Botanic Gardens were one of the air spaces of Edinburgh, one of the recreation grounds, and while they were kept and maintained by the University for the purposes of study and analysis, they would not be open to the public in a degree to which they thought they were entitled. That was a double disadvan-
1196
tage. In the first place it debarred the public from that to which they thought they were entitled; and, what was really more important, it kept up a permanent cause of dissension and grievance between those two great constituent bodies—the Town Council and the University. He had only one word more to say. The Bill, whether it had the Botanic Gardens taken away from it, or clauses added to it defining certain matters in which they were interested—whether they added to it or took away from it—consisted mainly in one point, and that was the character of the Commissioners whom they were going to appoint. He ventured to tell the noble Marquess that, great as was the interest both of the House of Commons and of the people of Scotland in the fate and fortunes of this Bill, that interest was largely mixed up with the question of who the Commission was to consist of. It depended largely on those Commissioners whether the Bill was to be a great blessing to the Universities and to the nation of Scotland, or whether it should be as abortive as some measures which had preceded it. He hoped the noble Marquess would at the earliest opportunity let them know the names of the Commissioners.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that after the very clear statements of the noble Lord on his right and of the noble Lord opposite, he did not intend to detain their Lordships at any great length on this subject. Representing as he did the feeling of the University of Aberdeen, he was desirous, however, of expressing his views with regard to this measure. He had no objection to a great portion of the Bill, which he believed would be hailed with satisfaction by the authorities of the Universities of Scotland, but ho had the greatest objection to that portion of the measure which dealt with the subject of affiliation. He ventured to say that this was a matter connected with Scotch education which was entirely new, and he thought on a matter of such extreme importance they ought to have had the whole subject of affiliation inquired into. He was not objecting to it if after inquiry it was thought to be right and proper, but he objected to the question relating to affiliation being inserted in the Bill without having the subject

1197
thoroughly and clearly investigated before it was made part of the Bill. He could see no reason why this matter concerning affiliation should not be inquired into by the Commissioners who were to be appointed under the Bill, and then, having made their investigation, they could recommend to Her Majesty in Council the views they entertained on the matter. The question of affiliation had evidently been rather a difficult one to those who had drawn the Bill, because by the very means by which affiliation was to be accomplished they upset the whole equilibrium of the University Courts. The Bill proposed to enact that, in the first place, those University Courts should consist of a certain number of members; but if the Colleges were to be affiliated, the persons connected with those Colleges to be affiliated would be added to the Courts in large numbers, and thus the balance of power sought to be secured would be destroyed. A second objection he had to the proposed system of affiliation was that it had never really been asked for. He did not know that there had been any authority in Scotland that had applied for such a provision as that contained in the Bill. The noble Marquess had referred to the large number of rising Scotch educational institutions which had applied for the powers which it was proposed to give them under the provisions of this Bill, but he should like to have a list of the names of all such institutions in Scotland that were now crying out for affiliation with the Universities. For his own part, he confessed that he was at a loss to know where such institutions were to be found. They knew what extra-mural teaching meant. There were a certain number of gentlemen who set up as Professors outside the University, and who became qualified as Professors. These gentlemen would expect to be added to the governing bodies of the Universities of Scotland. He looked with considerable dismay to the union of those gentlemen with the governing bodies of the Universities. It was a remarkable fact that the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen were all opposed to the principle of the Bill which dealt with affiliation, and these were authorities whose opinions on such a subject as this ought not to be lightly passed over. No
1198
doubt the Bill might be amended in Committee, but he could assure the noble Marquess that if the proposals relating to affiliation were allowed to remain in the measure the Bill would meet with determined and earnest opposition both in that and the other House of Parliament, if he had any influence there, in the hope that those who were opposed to affiliation might succeed in getting these dangerous and improper provisions struck out of the measure.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that his excuse for taking part in this debate upon a question connected with Scotch Education was that it was one in which the whole republic of letters was concerned. All the Universities of the United Kingdom were interested in the manner in which this question was dealt with in Scotland. He had been entrusted by the Senatus Academicus of the University of Edinburgh with the presentation of a Petition with regard to this Bill; and he believed be represented on this particular subject of affiliation the opinions of the Scottish Universities in general, not excepting the University of St. Andrew's, because, although it was true that the University of St. Andrew's did desire affiliation or incorporation of some kind with the College of Dundee, yet that matter was in the Bill as it stood expressly and specially dealt with, so that it was taken out of the consideration of the general question altogether. If there was any subject which they were all agreed should be looked at dispassionately, and without any other view than that of doing the best they could for the interests concerned, it surely was the question of University Education. Their Lordships must appreciate, not only the ability with which the Bill had been brought forward, but the excellence of the greater part of its provisions, and they hoped and believed that it would be passed in as perfect a form as possible. The point which had been raised involved the question whether it was wise to adopt the proposals as to affiliation which were contained in the Bill. The word affiliation was known in England and in Scotland, and it represented a subordinate relation of bodies who gave instructions elsewhere, and whose students, on certain terms, might be admitted to graduate at the Universities. He did not know whether

1199
the noble Marquess expected or intended that all Colleges which had in that sense been affiliated, or which were to be affiliated, were to be brought within the Affiliation Clauses of the Bill. If not, the objection occurred to him that they would be putting in an inferior position to that in which they stood at present all Bodies who were not of the class on whom it would be fit to confer the definite privileges conferred by the Bill. By the provisions of the Bill they might altogether alter the proportions of the Governing Bodies. Under the Bill as it stood, the Court of the University of Edinburgh was to consist of 16 persons, representing what might be termed the domestic elements. But into these Courts an external element was to be introduced to an absolutely unlimited extent. It was provided that there should be upon the University Courts—
"The head of each College presently existing in, or which may hereafter be affiliated to or incorporated with, the University;"
and also—
"such number of the Governing Body of any College affiliated to, or incorporated with, the University as the Commissioners, and after the expiration of their powers the Universities' Committee, may determine."
By that means the domestic element on the University Courts might be altogether swamped by the external. The representatives of external Bodies might have influence to get other external Bodies brought in, until at length the University would be to an indefinite extent controlled by the external element. This was a point which he hoped the noble Marquess would consider. He did not believe, if this matter had been made the subject of previous inquiry, that the provision would now have appeared in the Bill, and he hoped, before the Committee stage, it would be seriously considered.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he trusted that the Bill would become law this Session. A part of it was very good, and as the subject had been examined and well considered in Scotland, he did not see how any delay would bring advantage either to the Universities or to any other set of persons in Scotland. He hoped, however, that when the Bill was in "another place" the Members representing Scotland would endeavour to get a little more
1200
money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Scotch Universities. The truth was they were too moderate in Scotland. They did things so cheaply, so well, and so quietly, that, so far as they were concerned, the heart of the Chancellor was always hardened, and he would not give them anything. As to the constitution of the University Court, he could not quite agree with the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) that its membership was too numerous. After all, it was only to consist of 16 members, and the quorum was to be seven; and to that Court were entrusted very large functions as to the discipline, teaching, and revenue of the University. It was perfectly reasonable and right that the Court should manage the revenues of the University; but the noble Marquess stated that the Court would manage the revenues not only of the University, but of the College or Colleges thereof. He wondered whether that view of the case had ever been put before the rising Colleges of which he had spoken. He knew that the College of Dundee would be very much disinclined to surrender its revenues entirely to the management of the University of St. Andrew's, which would follow if it were actually incorporated, and incorporation was the process which the noble Marquess seemed to contemplate. A very material point on which he should like to be informed was whether the University Court had power to review ex propria motu or otherwise any decision at which the Senatus Academicus might arrive. Was this University Court, which would be composed to a considerable extent of persons who had nothing to do with the teaching of the University, the right body to which everything relating to the teaching and discipline of the University should be entrusted? The Commission of 1878 said it would not be right to give to the University Court any power of that kind. He hoped the noble Marquess would tell their Lordships which was the Body to whom he intended to give, under the Bill, the right of regulating the discipline and the teaching of the University, for there obviously could not be two Bodies exercising that power, and, as the Bill stood, it seemed to him to be impossible to gather whether the University Court or the Senate was to manage the discipline. There was another remark which he

1201
wished to make with regard to the Commissioners. Under this Bill ample powers would be conferred upon them, and he thought that that course was a perfectly right one. They must necessarily entrust the Commissioners with very large powers in matters of this sort; and, as the noble Lord had observed just now, much would depend upon how the Commissioners were chosen. His Only advice to the noble Marquess on this point was to take as long a time as he could and to make every possible inquiry with regard to the Commissioners, for, no doubt, very much would depend upon the choice which he ultimately made. There was no power given to appeal against them to Parliament similar to the power which was given in the Acts relating to the English Universities. In the latter Universities there was really a double appeal; first, to the Universities' Committee, and, afterwards, if the appellant could persuade either House of Parliament that the Statute was wrong, it would be disproved. He thought he understood why this power was not in the Bill—it was not in the Act of 1858; but apparently the noble Marquess had had the matter in contemplation, for Clause 18 of this Bill said that these Ordinances, after they had been laid before Parliament, were to be submitted to the approval of Her Majesty in Council. But what was the use of laying Ordinances on the Table of Parliament if Parliament did not possess the power of presenting an Address to Her Majesty on the subject? He hoped the noble Marquess would see his way to insert a clause similar to that contained in the English Act. As to affiliation, he would make a suggestion to the noble Marquess. After all, affiliation must be voluntary, either by the University which affiliated or by the College which was affiliated. As the Bill stood, however, the Commissioners would have unlimited power to join any College to any University against the will either of the College or of the University. He did not say that that would happen, but he could conceive cases arising in which a proposal might be made by the Commissioners to affiliate to a University Colleges which the University did not wish to receive. it was true that under the Bill there were two safeguards. In the first place,
1202
the College must be duly endowed, and, secondly, the Ordinance of the Commissioners might be appealed against, and must be approved by Her Majesty in Council. But he did not think that those safeguards were sufficient, or that either the Colleges on the Universities would be making an unreasonable demand if they asked that in the one case the consent of the Governing Body of the College and in the other case the consent of the University Court should be given before the Commissioners were empowered to affiliate. They must remember that the new University Court would be a very different Court from the present one. The new Court would represent what was called the extra-mural popular element. The General Council would be much more largely represented than hitherto, and, therefore, if the consent of the University Court were given, he thought it might be assumed that the University generally was in favour of the affiliation taken place. He might make some further remarks, but as they had reference to details he would reserve them for the Committee stage. All the suggestions which had been made were made in the most friendly spirit towards the Bill, although some of them might seem to be of a strong character. In fact, their Lordships would all be glad to amend the Bill, which was perhaps the best yet presented on the subject, so as to make it as suitable as possible to the Universities in Scotland.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he had the honour to be the President of the Association of the General Council of the University of Edinburgh. In that capacity it had recently been his duty to introduce to his noble Friend a deputation from the General Councils of Edinburgh and Glasgow a short time before his noble Friend introduced his Bill. On that occasion his noble Friend gave them his assurance that the Bill would probably meet in a great measure the views of those associations. Well, he was bound to say that the Bill had done so, and that they looked upon the Bill as a very honest and bold attempt on the part of his noble Friend to deal with the difficult question which was vital to the interests of Scotland and of learning in that country. The main objects which those associations had in view were three in number. They wanted

1203
greater representation on the University Court than the General Council had. The General Council had only one assessor on the University Court. They wanted more, and he was glad to say that the Bill would meet the views of the associations in that respect, as it gave them four members instead of one member. They desired, further, that the Court should have some control over the funds of the University, which under the Act of 1858 and subsequent statutes were entirely confined to the control of the Senatus. That very important question had been dealt with fully by his noble Friend. The only question, as it struck him, was whether he had not dealt too fully with it. It was said that the transfer of authority over the Funds was done so completely that the Senatus would be left without any fund allocated to them for the ordinary wear and tear of the University. This was manifestly an oversight which in Committee might be remedied by his noble Friend. Lastly, the third point which these associations were anxious to see in any measure of University reform was a greater recognition than existed of what was called extra-mural teaching. Well, the University Courts, under the provisions of this Bill, were empowered to give greater recognition to such teaching. Here, again, he thought the Bill was somewhat vague, like the affiliation proposals; and that it was desirable that some principles or some lines should be laid down for this recognized extramural teaching. On all these most important and vital points the Bill went fully as far as, and even further, than the greatest friends of University reform could have expected. Then there was the question of the Botanical Gardens, which was somewhat of a white elephant to the University. But there was one point which had not been touched upon at all, and that was the question of how the Bill would affect certain Professors in the Universities. It was well known that some of the most distinguished scholars from Universities in the South had crossed the Tweed to engage in teaching in the Scottish Universities; and they had done so in the belief that they had a statutory right to a pension. Well, in some cases, he was informed, the Bill would take away the right; and
1204
he believed there would be a strong feeling on the part of the few who were affected by that part of the Bill. He did not like to say that gross injustice had been done, but that reasonable expectation was disappointed. The only two real blots of the Bill had been touched upon. One was the transfer of all the teaching from the Senatus, which had hitherto so admirably conducted the instruction of the University, and all the rules for graduation, to the University Court. He strongly objected to this transfer. Under the Act of 1858, the Senatus had control of teaching and discipline; under the present Bill, the former was transferred and the discipline left to the Senatus. He understood, however, from his noble Friend that he would amend the Bill so as to make no change in this respect. In any case, that was a point that ought to be considered, because it was better that those who were thoroughly conversant with the teaching, subject always to the review of the University Court, should have the control of the arrangements rather than that control should be handed over to this large and vague Body—the new University Court—many of whose members might not be conversant with educational matters. The other blot in the Bill was the proposal regarding affiliation; and he thought it impossible that the Bill could pass with that proposal in it as it now stood. It was surely out of the question that the heads of various Colleges which might not now be in existence, but might afterwards be created, should have the control of the Universities themselves, while, on the other hand, the Universities had no share of the control of these Colleges. Such a proposition would not hold water for a single moment, and he was certain that the noble Marquess would have to alter that provision in his Bill. The principles which regulated affiliation with Oxford were widely different. The College seeking to be affiliated was required to have a Royal Charter, to have a member of the University on its Governing Body, and to allow the University to take part in its examinations. The connection was also made terminable at the will of either party. On the whole subject he would strongly impress their Lordships with the necessity of

1205
proceeding with extreme caution. It was not as if they were dealing with defective or failing institutions. The success of the Scotch Universities was proverbial. They were prosperous and progressive. Three years ago Edinburgh celebrated its tercentenary, and wise men came from the East and all parts of the world to take part in the celebration. In 1858, the funds belonging to the University amounted to £51,000 a-year. In 1886, it was £300,000. The general fund was then £40,000, but now it was £60,000. It was obvious that great care and caution were required in dealing with such institutions as the Scotch University; and he hoped that the Bill would contribute to their growth and efficiency to the advancement of learning and the good of Scotland.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN, in reply, said he was gratified with the manner in which the Bill had been received. He was not sorry to hear criticisms on the question of affiliation. In fact, the main difficulty seemed to have been in regard to the affiliation clause, and on that point he still held by the definition he had given of the term affiliation—namely, that it meant, generally speaking, a union in a subordinate degree, with power of disunion, or disjunction, or separation, or whatever it might be, if that union was found not to be advantageous to both. Noble Lords seemed to suppose that that affiliation would take place under the orders of the Commissioners; but he could not believe that the Commissioners under this Bill would do anything so extraordinary as unite two bodies that did not want to be united. The union would have to be with the consent of both parties—of both the University Court and the College. As to the constitution of the Commission, ho agreed that the whole question of whether the Bill in the end would prove satisfactory or not depended upon the constitution of that Commission, and on that point he would simply say that the reason why he had been unable to put the names of the Commissioners into the Bill had been the great difficulty he had had in finding those who would accept a post which would require from them a great amount of labour and time and of knowledge of the subject. His great desire and his only object was to appoint such a Com-
1206
mission as would, by its constitution, give full confidence to all those who were interested; that the questions submitted to them would be justly, fairly, and intelligently dealt with; and in appointing that Commission he would allow no question either of personal feeling or of Party politics to interfere with the selection of gentlemen who would be best qualified to discharge the duties and would be most likely to give satisfaction. He hoped before the Committee stage to be in a position to give the names of the Commissioners to the House. Going back to the provisions with regard to the affiliation of Colleges, he pointed out that there was no compulsion in the matter—that was to say, the Universities were not forced to accept any such Colleges; nevertheless, he would be prepared in Committee to propose such Amendments in this and other matters as would, he hoped, meet the reasonable objections which had been urged from various quarters. The question of the representation of the affiliated Colleges by their principals on the University Court was one which was dependant on the general question of affiliation. He would not now enter upon its discussion. Endowment would undoubtedly be necessary before affiliation, and it was their hope, looking to the experience of the past, that those who were possessed of means would devote them to the cause of education and the endowment of Colleges. The other details which had been referred to in the course of the debate would all come up for consideration in Committee. He was greatly gratified to find that there was so much approval of the general principles of the Bill, and he hoped nothing would happen in Committee to prevent its passing into law, or to make it likely to be less effective in its operation.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 14 th instant.
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.