Sitting of 1 August 1889

QUESTIONS.

  THE COLONY OF ST. VINCENT.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. C. J. M'Leod, who was appointed Provost Marshal and Inspector of Prisons in the Colony of St. Vincent in 1882, at a salary of £250 per annum, and upon whom, in the last three years, the additional
  50
  offices of Registrar of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Registrar of Deeds, Registrar of the Court of Appeal for the Windward Islands, Secretary to the Incumbered Estates Court, and Registrar, Taxing Master, and Receiver in Bankruptcy, have been imposed without an increase of salary; whether there is any precedent, either in the Imperial or Colonial Service, for imposing seven more offices upon an officer without any addition to his salary; whether the Secretary of State will consider the question of either granting to Mr. M'Leod an increase of salary, or relieving him from performing the onerous and responsible duties of the said offices to which he has been appointed and for which he receives no additional remuneration; and, whether each Governor, under whom he has served, has placed on record his approbation of the manner in which he discharged his duties?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): Mr. M'Leod was appointed in 1882 Provost Marshal in the Colony of St. Vincent, the duties of which office included the inspectorship of the prison, with a salary of £250 per annum. By a colonial law, passed in 1886, the office of Provost Marshal and the office of Colonial Registrar, which embraced the duties of Registrar of the Supreme Court, Registrar of Deeds, Registrar of the Court of Appeal, and Secretary to the Incumbered Estates Court, were abolished, and a new office of Registrar was created to which the duties of both the abolished offices were attached with a salary of £250 per annum. This new office was offered to, and accepted by, Mr. M'Leod. By a subsequent Ordinance the duties of Registrar, Taxing Master, and Receiver in Bankruptcy have been assigned to the Registrar without increase of salary. There are precedents in the Colonial Service for imposing additional duties on public officers without additional salary. As the duties of the combined offices held by Mr. M'Leod can be easily discharged by one officer, and the salary is not considered to be inadequate, having regard to the financial position of the Colony, the Secretary of State does not propose to recommend that his salary should be increased, or that he should be relieved from any of those duties

  51
  The Governors under whom Mr. M'Leod has served have spoken favourably of him.

  THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY,
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether Her Majesty's Government has acquired from the London County Council the plot of ground on the north of Hemmings Row, the preservation of which as an open space the Architect of the New National Portrait Gallery has stated to be "vital to that scheme?"
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The value of the vacant plot of ground at Hemmings Row, if let for building purposes, has been estimated at £7,000. The Government are willing to pay half that amount, £3,500, to the London County Council if the latter body will hand over to them the ground to be kept as an open space. Considering that such an open space would be not only of importance to the proposed National Portrait Gallery, but a great advantage to the Metropolis, I think the offer of the Government is a fair one.

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if there are any regulations prohibiting Railway Companies from conducting the up and down traffic from one platform, or from allowing the up line of rails to cross the down line; and, if stations where so dangerous a state of affairs prevails have to be altered, and, in such case, within what period of time?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): No, Sir; the Board of Trade have no power to make any such regulation as is referred to in the question; but as regards new lines or new stations they now require as a condition of opening that, in case of double lines or of passing places on single lines, each line shall have its own platform.

  MAIL BAGS AND RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the Report of General Hutchinson, dated
  52
  21st May, 1889, respecting a fatal accident to a passenger between Perth and Carlisle, on the 19th February, from her head coming in contact with a post office letter pouch, and the statements of General Hutchinson that there are 600 of these mail pouches suspended up and down on the railways, and that—
  "The existence of a heavy obstruction, weighing, if full, about half a hundredweight, and hanging, if motionless, from eight to 13 inches (and closer if oscillating) from the side of a carriage, just above the level of the head of a passenger leaning out of a carriage window, is certainly most dangerous,"
  he has made any communication to the Railways and Post Office on the subject; and, if so, with what result?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Certainly, Sir. On receipt of General Hutchinson's Report I at once caused a communication to be addressed to the Post Office as regards the arrangements to be adopted to avoid the risks referred to in the Question. I am informed that the matter, which is by no means free from difficulty, is receiving the most careful consideration of the Postmaster General.

  FOREIGN MATCHES IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if it is a fact that the Government offices are now supplied with matches, whereof the boxes bear the device "made in Sweden"; and, in such case, when, and by whose authority, the order was given, what was its amount, and what steps were taken to place it, if possible, among the English working men and women whose livelihood depends on this trade; and, finally, why the Contract was omitted from the recent Parliamentary Return of "Contracts with Foreigners" up to 31st March, 1889?
  MR. PLUNKET: There is no direct contract made with any foreign firm for the supply of their matches. Swedish "Lion" matches and Bryant and May's matches are included in a contract made with an English firm, Messrs. E. S. Mendey and Co., of 106, Fenchurch-street, for the supply of soaps and other sundry household articles. Bryant and May's matches are supplied to the Houses of Parliament and several

  53
  public buildings, and are always supplied when asked for. They are not so generally supplied as the Swedish "Lion" matches, because the latter are lower in price. The contract prices are 5d. per dozen boxes for the latter, and 7d. for the former. In either case each box contains 100 or more matches.

  IRELAND-MONEY ORDER OFFICE FOR LISCARRALL.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if a Memorial has been received by the Post Office Authorities, largely signed by the traders and inhabitants of Liscarrall, asking them to open a Money Order Office and Savings Bank Department in that town; and, if, in view of the considerable business done and the important fairs held there, any steps will be taken towards affording those facilities asked for in the Memorial?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I find that the Memorial referred to by the hon. Member was received on the 5th of June last, and was duly attended to. Liscarrall containsabout600inhabitants, and from a Return which has been taken it appears that only one money order was issued, during the four weeks ending the 8th June, to any resident in the place. The circumstances, therefore, would not justify a Money Order Office being opened there, unless a guarantee were given by the applicants to recoup the Department for any loss to the Revenue which might accrue from it. Offer has been made of a Money Order Office on these terms, but the offer has not been accepted, and as Postal Orders are already being sold at Liscarrall, I do not see that the Department can do anything further in the matter at present. The question of granting Savings Banks, irrespective of Money Order Offices, is under consideration.

  H.M.S. RODNEY— H.M.S. ELK.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is correct that H.M.S. Rodney, which fouled the North Goodwin Lightship, when on her passage to Portsmouth, was considerably out of her course; and, whether the Elk, which fouled the Newark Lightship, when on her passage from Queensferry to
  54
  Portsmouth, was also out of her course; if so, will he state whether either of the vessels had on board a licensed pilot, also the extent of damage sustained by the two vessels and the lightships?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): It is not correct to say that the Rodney and the Elk were considerably out of their course when they fouled the lightships referred to. An error of judgment in not making sufficient allowance for the strength of the tide was the cause of the collision in both cases. Neither of the vessels had pilots on board, but were navigated by their own officers. The damage done to the ships and light vessels was slight, except to the Elk, though even in her case the injury did not extend below the upper deck.

  GEMS AND RELICS IN CYPRUS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that gems and antique relics found in Cyprus have for many years been, and are still being, taken away from the island; and whether some restrictions could be placed upon their removal?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Digging for antiquities cannot take place in Cyprus except under permit from the Government, which usually reserves to itself a share by way of Royalty. The permits are now given out with much caution, but the licences are not restricted by law as to the removal from the island of their share of what is found. Her Majesty's Government have decided not to issue any further licences (except, perhaps, under very special circumstances) to private parties desiring to export the antiquities for their own profit or benefit, but only to institutions like the Cyprus Museum, the British Museum, the Berlin Museum, &c.

  IRELAND—POLICE REPORTS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to "the power of writing Reports," which is one of the qualifications for obtaining promotion in the Royal Irish Constabulary, whether he will state what test, if any, is applied as to the accuracy of such Reports?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IEELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Though I admit that neither the hon. Member nor any one else could have guessed it, the expression referred to indicates, I understand, arithmetic, Irish geography, spelling, and handwriting. Excellence in these branches of knowledge is tested by examination.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman correctly reported in all the newspapers to have stated that one of the qualifications is the power of writing reports?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir. I was accurately reported.
  MR. GILL: Are any steps taken to test the accuracy of the reports?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The expression, I am afraid, was a misleading one. The qualifications are what I have just read to the House.

  ARREST OF MR. M'NAMARA.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen a report appearing in the Freeman's Journal of the 22nd instant—namely, that—
  "A farmer named M'Namara, Secretary to the Crusheen Branch of the Irish National League, was arrested last night at the railway station Ennis…. On asking the reason of this step, the policeman replied that it was because he would not tell what was his business in town for the past three days. M'Namara was then brought before Mr. Hodder, R.M., who also interrogated him as to his business in town. M'Namara asked the Magistrate if he had authority from the Crown to ask such a question. Mr. Hodder said he had not. M'Namara was then released;"
  and, if so, what action the Government proposes to take with regard to the case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: From the Report before me it appears that the statement in the Freeman's Journal is both inaccurate and misleading. The man was a stranger, and was observed by the police to have been associating for some days with the bad characters of the places. He was interrogated by the constable. He was not arrested, but went voluntarily before the Resident Magistrate. The Resident Magistrate did not interrogate him as to his business, but merely told him he might make any statement he desired. He
  56
  declined to do so unless questioned, whereupon the Resident Magistrate told him he could go. The Government do not propose to take any action.

  BOILER EXPLOSION INQUIRIES.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is a fact that the Penal Clause of the Boiler Explosions Act, 1882, which provides that—
  "The Court may order the costs and expenses of a preliminary inquiry, or formal investigation, or any part thereof, including the remuneration of persons holding such inquiry or investigation, to be paid by any person summoned before it,"
  has never on any occasion been put in force, although no less than 336 preliminary inquiries and one formal investigation have already been held; whether any cases have been found where blame could be attached, and where the Penal Clause would have been applicable; if so, how many such cases were there, and what were the reasons which prevented the Act from being enforced in each case; and, if the Act does not give the necessary powers, whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to tike steps to amend the Act so as to give the necessary powers?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir; the facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the hon. Gentleman's question. Of all the cases referred to, the Penal Clause was only applicable in one— namely, that in which a formal investigation had been held; and in that case costs and expenses were not applied for as the circumstances did not warrant it. In many of the cases the result of the inquiry was to show that blame could have been attached, but no formal investigation was held, because it was considered that the main object had been attained by discovering the cause of the accident. It does not appear to me that any further powers are necessary. I am, however, carefully considering whether, in the public interests, the Act could not be more stringently enforced in future.

  CANADIAN MAILS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is the fact that the Canadian Government have entered into an arrangement with the

  57
  Orient Steamship Company of London for the conveyance of the Canadian mail between Plymouth and Canada, which has been for many years carried by Messrs. Allan, of Glasgow and Liverpool, between Liverpool and Canada via Londonderry; whether he is aware that it is not alone a matter of great importance to Londonderry that the service via Londonderry should be maintained, but it is also most important to Ireland generally, as the change in the service would have the effect of cutting off to a considerable extent the intercourse with Canada; and whether his attention has been called to the advantages which a subsidy from the Canadian Government for carrying the mails by steamers, which must call at a French port, and with a subvention from the British Government to the same vessels as Admiralty cruisers, together with the French export bounties, will give to the French manufacturers in Canadian markets over the British manufacturers, who will have to export their goods from Glasgow and Liverpool by unsubsidised steamers, and without the other advantages enjoyed by the French manufacturer?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The details of the contract between the Orient Steamship Company and the Canadian Government are under the control of the Dominion Government, and the considerations referred to by the hon. Member do not appear to justify Her Majesty's Government in making any official representations to Canada on the subject. The improved arrangements are, it is understood, highly appreciated by the public; and they form a part of the great system of communication between this country and the far East, via Canada, from which important advantages are anticipated.

  KANTURK AND NEWMARKET RAILWAY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Board have yet decided on the appointment of arbitrators under Section 13 of "The Kanturk and Newmarket Railway Act, 1888;" is he aware of the request put forward by the Kanturk Board of Guardians, as representing the ratepayers, to the effect that they should have a voice in the appointment of the arbitrators; is it a fact, as reported,
  58
  that two gentlemen have already been named to act—namely, Mr. Denham Franklin and Mr. Kirby, C.E.; is he aware that Mr. Franklin is the nominee of the company, and Mr. Kirby has acted in an engineering capacity for and has been a paid employé of the company; and will he undertake that the request of the ratepayers, as conveyed in the correspondence with the Board of Trade, will receive due attention?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Under Section 13 of the Kanturk and Newmarket Railway Act, 1887, the Board of Trade may, during a specified time, upon the request of the company, appoint as arbitrators the County Surveyor acting for the time being in the East Hiding of the County of Cork, and two other persons to be selected by the Board of Trade. The names of two gentlemen qualified to act as arbitrators were suggested by the Railway Company. These names were approved by the grand jury and by the Irish Government, but the Kanturk and Newmarket Guardians suggested two other names. The Board of Trade appointed Mr. Franklin, one of the gentlemen suggested by the Railway Company, and Mr. M'Hugh, one of the gentlemen suggested by the Board of Guardians. They also appointed the County Surveyor, acting for the time being in the East Riding of the County of Cork, following the terms of the Act. It appears there are two Surveyors, and if it be found undesirable that Mr. Kirkby should act the Board of Trade will take steps for the appointment of the other Surveyor acting in the East Riding.

  FENIT PIER LOAN.
  MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the instructions issued by the Lord Lieutenant to the cess payers of the baronies connected with the Fenit Pier Loan, and on faith of which the cesspayers gave a guarantee for £95,000, the following passage occurs:—
  "No portion of it (the loan) can be expended on the present canal, or in payment of the balance of the canal debt due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, or of the instalments of the present loan;"
  but that, in spite of this passage in the

  59
  instructions, £2,500 was paid to the National Bank in discharge of a debt due by the canal, £300 and £290 were paid to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in discharge of the debt due by the canal, and £3,192 11s. 4d. was paid to the Irish Board of Works in discharge of the instalments on the Fenit Pier Loan referred to in the Lord Lieutenant's instructions as the present loan; whether interest has to be paid and capital repaid by the taxpayers as regards these sums, although these sums were paid by the Fenit Harbour Commissioners in direct contravention of the Lord Lieutenant's instructions, on the faith of which the taxpayers gave their guarantee; and, whether, if these facts be as stated, he will take steps to enforce the instructions of the Lord Lieutenant?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Full information on the subject of this question has not yet reached me. I must therefore ask the hon. Member to be so good as to defer it for two or three days.

  GLOUCESTERSHIRE ENGINEER VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the 1st Gloucestershire Royal Engineers' band is advertised to take part in a Unionist demonstration at Ledbury; whether the above-named band is the band of a Volunteer regiment; and, whether he will take any action in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): The band of the 1st Gloucestershire Engineer Volunteers accepted an engagement to play at a fête at Ledbury under the impression that the fête was not political. On learning that the contrary was the case, the engagement was cancelled.

  LABOUR STATISTICS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the cause of the delay in the issue of the further Returns promised by the Labour Statistics Department; and, whether he can state if any additional information has been collected this Session, and when such information will be published?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: A part of the census of wages (a most important part) is now in the hands of the printers. A Return as to the cost of living is also in proof. The Report as to strikes for 1888 and the Annual Report as to Trades Unions are also with the printers. These four papers will be issued very shortly. The other parts of the programme in the Memorandum No. 433 of Session 1888 will be carried out. There has been unavoidable delay with some of these papers owing to the great novelty of the work, as explained in the Memorandum referred to, but they are being pressed forward as rapidly as possible with the staff at the disposal of the Department.

  THE BLENHEIM.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any shipbuilding contracts with the Admiralty are now being carried out by the Thames Ship Building and Iron Works Company; whether he is aware that, in consequence of certain trade differences, a considerable number of unskilled workmen are now employed as rivetters in such works, and that some of the bolts are very imperfectly rivetted; and, whether efficient inspection is practised, to prevent such rivet-ting from being passed?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Blenheim is being built by the Thames Shipbuilding Company. The Admiralty are aware that certain difficulties have arisen with the workmen, but they are not aware that any unskilled workmen are employed on skilled work, or that any work has been done imperfectly. There is efficient inspection, and there is no risk of imperfect work being passed even if—which is unlikely from the reputation of the firm—such an attempt was made.

  MARITIME INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many delegates he intends sending to the Maritime International Conference, which is to be held at Washington in the autumn; and whether he can place before the House a programme of the questions likely to be discussed?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No answer has yet been received from the United

  61
  States Government to our proposals as to the conditions to which the Conference should be subject, and until this is received it is not possible to make any statement with regard to it.

  IRELAND—CASE OF DR. TANNER.
  MR. MATTHEW KENNY: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland if there is any precedent, since the passing of the Act 14 and 15 Vic. c. 93, for Magistrates at Petty Sessions in Ireland requiring a person adjudged by them guilty of a contempt of Court to find sureties for good behaviour?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): Perhaps I may be allowed at the same time to reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin—namely:—
  "Whether it was for 'contempt of Court' in language used by him in addressing the Court upon a charge against himself that Dr. Tanner, M.P., was ordered by two stipendiaries at Tipperary on Monday last to find bail or to undergo imprisonment for three months; and whether it was within the legal competency of the justices to deal with 'contempt of Court' otherwise than by a sentence of imprisonment for a period not exceeding one week."
  It appears that the hon. Member referred to in these questions was not adjudged by the Magistrates to be guilty of a contempt of Court. The conduct in respect of which the hon. Member was ordered to find bail to be of good behaviour took place in open Court, but the Magistrates acted under their jurisdiction in holding the Commission of the Peace, and not under the statutable authority referred to in the question of the hon. Member for South Cork. The hon. Member was not sentenced by the Court to any punishment for contempt of Court, nor need he undergo any punishment at all provided he gives the required securities to be of good behaviour.
  MR. MACNEILL: Does not the Petty Sessions Act prescribe that the punishment for contempt of Court shall be seven days' imprisonment, and no more?
  MR. MADDEN: The Magistrates did not in this instance exercise the statutory jurisdiction at all.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: May I ask whether the offence for which Dr. Tanner has been sentenced is not that of making a speech in
  62
  his own defence, his counsel having been thrust out of Court by the Magistrates?
  MR. MADDEN: It was in the course of making a speech that the insult was offered to the Magistrates composing the Court.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: Are we to understand that in Ireland in future, if a Magistrate chooses to put an accused person's counsel out of Court, and the accused afterwards in any way offends the Magistrate's canons of manners, the presiding Magistrate is to send him to prison for three months?
  MR. SEXTON: Was or was not the offence contempt of Court, and, if it was, were the Magistrates justified in going outside the statute, which prescribes that a person committing contempt may be fined or imprisoned for a period of seven days only?
  MR. MADDEN: The right hon. Gentleman has brought the matter to a very narrow issue. The statute provides a certain punishment for contempt of Court. It is competent for the Magistrates to order a person guilty of certain conduct to find sureties for his good behaviour, and the question is whether this jurisdiction is ousted by the Statute in cases where the latter applies. The right hon. Gentleman raises the question whether the order in this case has been made legally or illegally—whether it was within or outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrates. As there are perfectly understood means by which such a question can be raised, it would not be proper for me to express an opinion on the legal point.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Is there any precedent in the Superior Courts of England, Ireland, or Scotland where a Judge in a Superior Court, having been insulted in his Court, has dealt with such a case, not as one of contempt of Court, but has called on the offending person to find bail, and in default has sent him to prison?
  MR. MADDEN: There is the highest authority for saying that insulting or contemptuous language spoken of Judges or Magistrates is a proper matter for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Magistrates under the Statute referred to; but whether, where there is statutable jurisdiction for dealing

  63
  with contempt of Court, it is co-extensive with the general jurisdiction to which I have referred, I must decline to discuss, as that is a question which must be decided by proper legal authority.
  MR. SEXTON: In consequence of a telegram just received from Dr. Tanner as to the violence from which he has suffered I feel myself under the necessity of giving notice that at the end of the questions I will move the adjournment of the House.

  SHIPBUILDING ON THE FOYLE.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that, on his own statement in April, 1887, the ship yard on the Foyle at Derry City was duly certified and placed upon the Admiralty List, he will give directions that some of the contracts for the new shipbuilding undertaken by the Admiralty shall be offered to the Derry shipbuilding yard?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The shipbuilding yard on the Foyle at Derry, though placed on the Admiralty List as eligible for certain classes of war ships, is not considered capable at present of constructing vessels of over 2,000 tons displacement under the conditions required by the Admiralty. The ships to be built under the new programme are either too large for the capabilities of the yard or of such a special character that they could only be intrusted to firms which have made vessels of the kind a speciality.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL—THE BURGH OF DYSART.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will issue a revised edition of the provisional proposals as to number of County Councillors in Scotland, so far as regards the County of Fife, and will assign a representation on the County Council to the burgh of Dysart, hitherto omitted, so as to relieve the uncertainty which still prevails in the locality?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBETSON,): I have sent to the hon. Gentleman a revised edition Of the proposals, from which he will observe that Dysart is duly assigned a representative.

  THE NAVAL REVIEW.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, on the occasion of the coming inspection of the Fleet, when the Admiral and other officers in command are to be presented to the German Emperor on board the Victoria and Albert, any officers have been nominated to represent either the Royal Marine Artillery or the Royal Marine Light Infantry, 4,700 men of which corps are at present embarked in the Fleet; and, if not, whether this omission to recognise the senior officers of the Marine Force is due to an inadvertence?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The only officers who are to be presented to the German Emperor, on the occasion of his visiting the Fleet at Spithead on August 3rd, are those in command of ships present, who are of the rank of commander and upwards. It is the tradition and the practice both in the Navy and the Army for the officer in command of a ship or of a land force to represent in his individual person all the component parts of the force under his command, and I see no reason for departing on the present occasion from this practice.

  IRELAND—LOAN FUND BOARDS.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is a fact that printed notices of default by Loan Fund Boards in Ireland are charged as letters, and notices by Railway Companies advising goods as circulars, and what is the distinction between them; and, whether he can see his way to treat them alike in future?
  MR. RAIKES: The hon. Member has been good enough to send me copies of the documents referred to in his question, and having examined them, I have to state that they are both letters, and have no claim to be considered "circular" letters, as the particulars they contain must obviously vary from the particulars of other letters sent by the same persons for a similar purpose. They should, therefore, both alike have been charged at the letter rate.

  THE CLANRICARDE ESTATE.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland

  65
  whether the Rev. P. Costelloe, the newly-appointed parish priest of Woodford, Galway, has recently addressed a letter to him, stating that he had recently been authorised by the tenants of the Clanricarde estate to offer to Lord Clanricarde, either to purchase their holdings on reasonable terms, or to refer the matters in dispute to arbitration, or to agree to reasonable terms, conditional upon the re-instalment of the seventy evicted tenants upon the same terms; and that Lord Clanricarde had refused the offer, and was making great preparations for the wholesale eviction of the tenants; whether Mr. Costelloe, under these circumstances, requested the Government to send down to the district an impartial Commissioner for the purpose of hearing both sides and presenting a Report on the whole ease; and in the meantime to suspend supporting the evictions with the forces of the Crown; and, whether a refusal was made by the Government to this request; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the letter of Father Costelloe, and his reply to it, and also any correspondence which has passed between himself and Dr. Healy, the coadjutor Bishop of the Diocese, on the same subject, with reference to the pending evictions on the Portumna district of the Clanricarde property?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman will not object to my saying, in accordance with an answer I previously gave on the subject of the last paragraph of the question, that I must with all respect decline to gratify his curiosity with regard to my private correspondence.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question, which has reference to correspondence not of a private nature?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The letter was addressed to me in my private capacity, and I decline to make it public.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I understand that the letter was addressed to the right hon. Gentleman in his public capacity, and I should like to know whether a Minister can decline to publicly answer a letter written to him in his public capacity?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; I have a right to answer privately any
  66
  letter addressed to me in any way I like.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I shall draw attention to the matter on the Estimates.

  "BOARD OF TRADE JOURNAL."
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the House any information concerning the advantage the manufacturers and merchants of the United Kingdom take of the Board of Trade Journal as a guide to the condition and requirements of British trade abroad; and, if there is any truth in the allegation that foreign competitors more largely utilise the valuable information furnished by Her Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Officers than our own countrymen?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Board of Trade Journal is made use of by Chambers of Commerce, the Agents General for the Colonies, and other authorities, as well as by private merchants, who express themselves as greatly interested in the contents. There is no doubt business people profit by information of the kind which the Journal contains. The Press also make a large use of the information. The Board of Trade have not been informed that our foreign competitors more largely utilise the information than our own traders, and they do not believe it likely that this is the case, the information relating mainly to places where our own trade requires development, or to circumstances which our own traders have the best opportunity to take advantage of. The risk of foreign competitors utilising the information is, of course, no reason why our own traders should not have the advantage of it.

  IRISH PRISONERS AND WHITEWASHED CELLS.
  MR. MACNEILL: I eg t o ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Conybeare, and other prisoners in Derry Gaol, complained on Saturday evening last that their eyes were weakened and influenced by the glare of the whitewash on the walls of their cells; and, whether, having regard to the cases of Messrs. Wilfred Blunt and Cox, M.P., whose sight has been impaired by imprisonment under similar circumstances,

  67
  he will be prepared to direct the cells of these prisoners to be covered with a wash of blue or pink instead of the ordinary whitewash?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My attention has not been called to the article in question, which does not seem very relevant to the question on the Paper. The General Prisons Board inform me that the Governor of Londonderry Prison has reported that it is not the case that Mr. Conybeare or any other prisoner had complained, as alleged in the first paragraph of the question; and as the hon. Member has been already informed, in reply to questions put by him on July 19, there is no evidence that either the sight of Mr. Blunt or of Mr. Cox, M.P., was impaired by imprisonment, nor do the Prisons Board see any necessity to alter the existing arrangements in regard to the colouring of the walls.
  MR. COX: I do not wish to trouble the House with my own grievances and infirmities, but does the right hon. Gentleman know that I was conveyed from Dundalk Gaol to Kilmainham Gaol at the order of the Prisons Board?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be glad to answer any specific question put to me if the hon. Member will put it on the Paper; but the Prisons Board declare that there is no evidence that the sight of the hon. Member was impaired by his imprisonment.
  MR. MACNEILL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that Mr. Blunt, in my presence and in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), swore that his eyesight was injured, and the Attorney-General, who was prosecuting, laughed, though he apologised for so doing?
  MR. GILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Powell, who is now being prosecuted, has practically lost the sight of one eye owing to two imprisonments?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the general question, I can only say that I can hardly believe that the eyesight of hon. Gentlemen in prison under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act is more delicate than that of persons imprisoned under other Acts; and, as I have not heard of complaints in the latter class of cases, I hope there is no ground for the fears of hon. Gentlemen.

  FORAGE RATIONS OF OFFICERS' HORSES.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet come to a decision upon the question of the right of the War Office to reduce the forage rations of officers' horses; and whether it is contended that the power to alter or vary the rations by the substitution of equivalents also includes a right to reduce it altogether?
  THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I hold it to be quite within my power to make an experiment in the reduction of the ration, which is not a personal emolument of the officer's; but if any permanent alterations are deemed necessary a new warrant would certainly be issued.

  MAILS TO CHINA VIA CANADA.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now say when the new contract for the conveyance of mails between England and China viâ Canada can be printed and circulated for the information of the House; and when it is likely to be brought before the House?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I hope the contract and Treasury Minute will be circulated to-morrow.
  SIR GEOEGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in regard to the new contract for the conveyance of mails between England and Canada and China, Messrs. Allan have publicly declared that now they are released from mail duties they will be able to improve their service via Londonderry to Canada; whether the Dominion, Beaver, and other regular lines will continue to run as before unaffected by the new arrangements; whether the contractors for the new service, in their own interests, make special provision for Irish mails and passengers; and whether the new service will compete directly, not with any existing British lines, but with the subsidised French and German lines carrying the existing Continental trade, and especially the French line now running to Canada which is subsidised by the Canadian Government?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: In answer to my hon. Friend I have to say that the Secretary of State has not a copy of the contract, and has no official knowledge of these details. He has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts stated by my hon. Friend; but the subject is one for the Dominion Government to deal with.

  THE MEDEA AND THE VICTORIA.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the fact that the Medea, designed to make 19¾ knots, did not succeed in making more than 16 on her recent experimental cruise to Gibraltar and back, and whether, after cruising even at that speed, her boilers must be retubed throughout; and when were the two 110-ton guns of the Victoria tested, or has neither of them been tested yet?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Medea was designed to make about 20 knots on the measured mile and with forced draught, and this was accomplished by her sister ship, the Medusa. In her experimental cruise, subsequent to the forced draught trials, the Medea did not make more than 16 knots in a sea-way, with natural draught, and the tubes of the boilers leaked considerably from the results of the forced draught trials. The boilers will not require re-tubing. The Admiralty are carefully watching the trials of these and similar ships, as the problem to be solved is to test the power of the engines to develop the horse power contracted for under forced draught without injuring the boilers by the test applied. One of the 110-ton guns on board the Victoria has been tested, but the second gun has not been accepted, and is about to be returned.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TRANSFER OF POWERS) BILL.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state what course it is proposed to take with regard to the matters dealt with by the Government Departments (Transfer of Powers) Provisional Order Bill in the next Session?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): As the hon. Gentleman knows, after the Report
  70
  of the Select Committee the Bill was deferred because it was manifestly impossible for the Government to proceed with the measure this Session. I am not at present prepared to state what course the Government will take next Session.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: When will the evidence taken by the Committee be published?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have not the smallest idea. It is a matter with which I have no concern whatever.

  POLITICAL PLACARDS IN POST OFFICES.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a printed placard, announcing that a Primrose and Conservative demonstration will take place at Husbands Bosworth on 8th August, at which there there will be addresses from two Conservative Members of this House, dancing, a dinner, a donkey race, and other similar amusements, is exhibited in a prominent position in the post office at Market Harborough; and whether he will issue orders forbidding such placards to be exhibited in post offices in future, and will see that this particular placard is forthwith taken down?
  MR. RAIKES: I have given directions that the placard in question, if exhibited in the Market Harborough post office, is to be taken down at once, and a notice will be issued forbidding the exhibition of such notices in post offices.

  ARMY AND NAVY ADMINISTRATION.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is able to give the House any information as to the progress made by the Royal Commission on the Administration of the Army and Navy in the consideration of the important questions referred to them?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The Royal Commission has agreed upon a preliminary Report on part of the subjects submitted for their consideration; but, inasmuch as this Report deals with matters of the highest importance and calls for the most careful consideration of the Government, I am unable at this late period of the Session

  71
  to hold out any hopes of being able to make any communication on the subject to the House this Session. During the autumn the Commissioners hope that they will be able to conclude their final Report.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.
  MR. DILLWYN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the late period of the Session, and of the great opposition to the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill which exists in many sections of the House, it is still his intention to press that measure this Session, notwithstanding that his doing so must necessitate its being passed either without due consideration of its provisions, or else by the considerable prolongation of the Session?
  MR. S. LEIGHTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I should like to ask him whether his attention has been called to the following statement of Mr. Justice Field, made in his charge to the Grand Jury at Chester last week:—
  "It was a disgrace that such things as the late tithe riots should take place in this country; and those who put in motion the mass of the people and who urged them on, directly or indirectly, had a terrible account to answer for. There was no doubt that the public mind had been agitated and roused to an extent hardly credible if it were not known as a fact."
  MR. G. O. MORGAN: I should like to ask whether the Bill of the Government would prevent the tithe riots?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have not seen the report of the charge, and it would ill become me to express an opinion' on the learned Judge's utterances in the position which he occupies. But I wish to say that we do hope that this measure, small as far as its dimensions are concerned, will go very far indeed to remove the opportunity for these lawless displays which have occurred to the great pain of many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. It is hoped that the Government will be able to pass the measure during the course of the Session. The Bill itself is confined within small limits, but it will tend very much indeed to the due regard of order.
  MR. H. GARDNER: May I ask whether, having
  72
  regard to the great number of hon. Members for Wales and for English agricultural constituencies who are interested in this Bill, and in consideration of the undoubtedly protracted discussion which the Bill must lead to, the Government can see their way to allowing the discusssion, when it is once opened, to be taken de die in diem?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will certainly endeavour to do that.
  MR. G. O. MORGAN: Will the Bill be put down as the first Order of the Day?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman must have sufficient experience of Parliamentary matters to know that it is impossible to answer that question definitely.
  MR. H. GARDNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of an autumn Session?
  [No answer was returned]

  SCOTLAND AND THE ASHBOURNE ACT.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government has received several communications and memorials from Aberdeenshire and elsewhere, asking that the Ashbourne Act may be extended to Scotland: and whether Her Majesty's Government are or are not favourably disposed to consider the request before the meeting of Parliament next Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Naturally I made inquiry for the memorials to which the hon. Member refers at the Scotch Office. Nothing is known at the Scotch Office of these memorials and communications, and, as far as I know, the Government have not received any.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the period of the Session, the general desire that it should not be much further prolonged, and the inadvisability of legislation involving controverted principles without reasonable opportunity for discussion, he can now state definitely what Government Bills will be persevered with?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the hon. Member will admit that the Government have been most anxious to avoid bringing before the House I at this period of the Session strongly

  73
  opposed Bills. As far as I am aware the only Government Bill which involves serious controversy is the Tithe-Rent Charge Recovery Bill, and I am hoping that we shall be able to conclude the Session without any undue delay.
  MR. J. MORLEY: May I ask whether the Government are likely to allow facilities for a discussion of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government are most anxious that an opportunity should be found for discussing that question.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Considering the number of Votes still remaining to be taken, will the Government proceed with Supply de die in diem?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope that Supply may be reached this evening so as to make effective progress, and also to-morrow. The Education Estimates in Class 4 will be taken on Monday, and I hope that they will be disposed of on that evening. On Tuesday the Irish Constabulary vote will be taken, and the House will proceed with the consideration of Irish Estimates during the remainder of the week.
  MR. CAUSTON: Are we to understand that the Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Bill will not be taken until after next week?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I believe that the Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Bill is generally accepted by the House, but I will not say whether or not it will be taken to-day or to-morrow. I do not wish to go beyond Thursday of next week in allocating business. After the Education Estimates on Monday and the Irish Constabulary Vote on Tuesday, I do not desire to say at present what business will be taken until the Government have seen what progress has been' made.
  MR. STOREY: Does the Chief Secretary propose to take the Bann Drainage Bill to-morrow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I wish to know whether the Government can give hon. Members interested three or four days' notice before the Tithes Bill is taken.
  MR. W. H. SMITH; The Government will give all the notice they can. Hon. Members will have ample notice.

  ADMISSION OF STRANGERS TO THE HOUSE.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is proposed to make any alteration in the regulations now in force for the admission of strangers to the House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government have been considering this question. They are sensible of the fact that the existing regulations for the admission of strangers are not wholly satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen. But although a Committee sat and reported on this question last year, the Report of that Committee has not met with that amount of general agreement on the part of the House which would justify the Government in asking the House to act upon it. Attention will be given to the subject during the recess, and the Government hope to make in the early days of next Session, either by the appointment of a Committee or by technical proposals of their own, regulations under which strangers will be admitted.

  SEAFIELD FISHING HARBOUR,
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in pursuance of a promise in a letter from the Treasury of the 1st January, 1889, in reply to a memorial of the 13th December, 1888, anything has yet been done to improve the fishing harbour of Seafield, Miltown Malbay, County Clare; and, if so, what?
  MR. JACKSON: Sir, there is, I think, some misapprehension, as I cannot find that the Treasury made any promise to improve the harbour at Seafield. The Treasury letter stated only that the claims of Seafield would be considered with those of other places in the allocation if any surplus from the Fishery Piers Fund. There is no surplus yet available, and, therefore, the numerous applications which have been received could hardly usefully be considered at present.

  BOYCOTTING IN WEXFORD.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the grounds upon which a Secret Inquiry

  75
  Court has been instituted at Gorey; and, whether the County of Wexford is quite free from anything like serious crime?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: An inquiry under Section 1 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act was ordered at Gorey upon sworn informations that a conspiracy to boycott and intimidate existed in that district. This class of crime has, it appears, recently existed to a very great extent in different districts in the County of "Wexford.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is true that the three men, Millan, Doyle, and Kavanagh, charged at Gorey with endeavouring to prevent people buying pigs from the Earl of Courtown, were confined in a small and dirty police cell for a considerable time, as bail was refused till next day; and, whether the Government intend to prosecute these men on any other charge than that connected with Lord Courtown's pigs?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that it was not practicable to send these men to the county gaol, and they were detained in the police lock-up. Bail was not refused, nor was it offered. The men were released on bail on the following day.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is it calculated to promote law and order in Ireland that respectable men should be prosecuted simply because they refuse to buy Lord Courtown's jugs?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the strong expression of opinion of the Australian Governments in favour of conferring Home Rule on Western Australia, the Government intend to proceed this year if possible with the Bill dealing with the constitution of Western Australia?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government propose to ask the House to affirm the principle of giving responsible Government to Western Australia by reading the Bill a second time. But, having regard to the details of the measure and the necessity for examination, they propose not to proceed further
  76
  with the Bill this Session. If necessary they propose to inquire into the subject early next Session.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Have not strong representations been received from several of the Australian Governments in favour of the passage of the Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There can be no doubt that such representations have been made. It is fair, however, to say that a strong opinion has been expressed in this country as to the details of the measure, and the Government do not think it right, in these circumstances, to force the Measure through at this period of the Session, and, therefore, they will allow time for further consideration.
  MR. W. A. MCARTHUR: May I ask whether, having regard to the almost unanimous opinion in favour of this Measure, the right hon. Gentleman can give the Colonies an assurance that the Bill will be brought in early next Session, and that the Government will make a serious attempt to carry it?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the hon. Member will see that it would be very unwise for me to make any serious engagement as to next Session. The Government desire to give effect to the principle of the Bill at the earliest possible moment.
  MR. CHILDERS: Will the Government consider the propriety of appointing a Special Commissioner to proceed to Western Australia with the object of making inquiries on the spot, because the question is to a very large extent a local one?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: A suggestion of that kind is so important and so grave that I am unable to return an immediate answer to it. It will, however, receive the consideration of the Government.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Are we to understand that the Government will not in the face of the representations from the Australian Governments introduce their Bill early next year?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir; that would be an entirely inaccurate representation of the answer I have given.

  ORDER OF BUSINESS-SUPPLY, &c.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Do the Government propose to take the Orders of the Day in the order in which they appear on the Paper? Will they

  77
  take the Bills which stand before Supply before Supply?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman has been long enough in the House to know that we must take the Bills which stand before Supply before Supply.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: But do the Government propose to go on with Supply instead of dropping it and passing to the other Orders?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have stated repeatedly that our proposal is to advance legislative business as rapidly as we can, and then to take Supply.
  MR. CAUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that the Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Bill will not be taken either to-day or to-morrow?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I think I am entitled to ask whether the Bills which stand after Supply will not be taken until after Supply?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly, Sir, The Bills which stand after Supply will not be taken till after Supply.

  WHIPPING A JUVENILE OFFENDER.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that, on Thursday last at Edinburgh City Police Court, a boy named Fair was charged with stealing, and Fair's mother, having promised to chastise her son, Sheriff Orphoot allowed the charge to be withdrawn, saying that he would order a constable to attend at the boy's dwelling in order to see the corporal punishment actually inflicted; and whether such employment of a constable is authorised by law?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The facts stated in the question are correct. The Sheriff was unwilling, owing to the youth of the boy, to follow the usual course of ordering him to be whipped in the police cells by a constable. He, therefore, agreed to the offer made by the boy's mother that she should chastise him, but, at the same time, deemed it necessary to send some one to make sure that the punishment was inflicted. He, therefore, sent one of the officers of Court, of whom four are constables; and it was in the capacity of officer of Court, and not as constable, that the man was employed.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Sixteenth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
  Return ordered—
  "Of Public Income and Expenditure for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1889 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 311, of Session 1888)."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

MOTION.
  IRELAND—THE CASE OF DR. TANNER.

    ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
    Mr. SEXTON, Member for West Belfast, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the maladministration of the Law, and misconduct and violence of the Irish Executive in the case of Dr. Tanner, a Member of the House connected with the recent trial; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen in their places—
    MR. SEXTON: Sir, I hope to state very briefly the facts which appear to me to make it my imperative duty to ask the immediate judgment of the House upon the treatment of Dr. Tanner by the Irish Executive. Sir, in the notice which I have placed in your hands, I refer to the fact that Dr. Tanner is a Member of this House. I have done so advisedly, because I believe it is in consequence of the fact that Dr. Tanner is a Member of this House, and because of his action in that capacity, that he has been singled out by certain obscure and vindictive Irish officials, confident of impunity, for persecution and for insult. The House is aware that Dr. Tanner has recently completed a sentence of three months' imprisonment for a speech delivered at a Cork meeting, and in virtue of a sentence inflicted on him by a Coercion Court. While suffering that term the fresh charge was brought against him of having assaulted an officer of police—an assault which, whatever its character, was not an assault of violence, or one that ought to have been

    79
    brought under the Crimes Act before a Coercion Court. My hon. Friend, however, was brought before two "removable" gentlemen, the paid servants of the Executive, one of them a near relative of a well-known Irish Conservative landlord and politician, and the other a gentleman who has qualified in India for service as a Magistrate in Ireland. Mr. Healy, the Member for North Longford, was counsel for Dr. Tanner on that occasion. However hon. Members may differ from Mr. Healy, they will admit that he invariably acts from a high sense of public duty. At the bearing Mr. Healy seems to" have made some observations against these two Magistrates, who seem to be somewhat peppery gentlemen, and they felt it to be their duty to take notice of them by removing him from the Court by force. Dr. Tanner was thus deprived of the services of his counsel. The case was adjourned from time to time—I can suppose for no other reason than that the sentence for the assault should not run concurrently with the other—and eventually Dr. Tanner's imprisonment for the speech expired. He bad no sooner returned to his duties in this House than he received two urgent telegrams from the Crown Solicitor (Mr. George Bolton), who, having been relieved of his prolonged functions in regard to Mr. Soames, was at leisure to devote himself to the case of Dr. Tanner. The telegrams called upon my hon. Friend to appear in the Court at Tipperary. My hon. Friend, being without the assistance of counsel or solicitor, delivered a speech to the Court in his own defence, in which, in regard to the charge itself—an assault of a very objectionable kind—he declared the charge to be mean, infamous, and a lie. He said that the mere fact of being brought into Court upon such a charge gave him more moral torture than a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment. [A laugh.] I expected that sneer from the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson)—it was characteristic of him; but I would appeal to the House whether Dr. Tanner is not one of the last men, in the House or out of it, to deny upon any occasion any word he has uttered or any act he has done? ["Hear, hear," from Colonel SAUNDERSON.] I thank the hon. and gallant Member for that assent. Dr.
    80
    Tanner, therefore, would never have declared this charge against him to be mean, infamous, and a lie if he had conceived there was any foundation for it. The Court, the moral competence of which to try the hon. Member I deny, nevertheless convicted him and sentenced him to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. That was a vindictive and cowardly sentence. Three times Dr. Tanner asked for such a sentence as would allow him to appeal, and three times he was refused. The Magistrates persisted in imposing a sentence which would permit of no appeal, and then added to it the indignity and torture of hard labour. It is high time for this House to intervene between the obscure kind of official subordinates in Ireland and the Irish Representatives in this House. All the time these Magistrates had another sentence up their sleeve. Dr. Tanner felt himself debarred, from a feeling of self-respect, from calling evidence in his behalf, and contented himself with denying the charge of assault, and I respectfully ask the House whether these two magisterial functionaries, if they had been inspired by a single spark of true magisterial spirit, would not have felt themselves under an obligation to allow a man whom they had deprived of his counsel and solicitor to appeal to another Court? Why is it that these servile agents of the Government should be afraid of the County Court Judge of Tipperary? Is he a gentleman they could not trust? At any rate, the appeal was refused, although imprisonment with hard labour had been inflicted on a Member of Parliament. I challenge contradiction when I say that to refuse Dr. Tanner an opportunity of bringing the case before a higher tribunal was a magisterial denial of justice. Repeated instances have been brought before me in recent days to show the growing and passionate hatred which many of these functionaries feel towards Members of this House in consequence of our action here. Let me remind the House of the fact that when the Crimes Act was being passed the Chief Secretary stated that there would be an appeal from the Magistrates in every case in which it was desired. Even if there had not been such a statement made, if it were not the well-known general intention of the law, I ask was this not

    81
    signally and exceptionally a case in which the defendant, having been debarred from offering his defence before the Magistrates, ought to have had an opportunity of presenting his defence to an independent member of the judiciary? Dr. Tanner made a speech in his own defence, in which he expressed his convictions with regard to the Court with energy and without reserve. Perhaps the most frank course to pursue would be to read the speech of the hon. Member. Dr. Tanner said:—
    "He would not insult any gentleman by asking him to come forward on the Table to give evidence for the defence. But the people of Tipperary knew him, the people of the country knew him. The present case had been known in England, had been talked of in the House of Commons. His character as a gentleman had been sought to be injured. Now, putting aside all heat, putting aside all bitterness, he asked in the judgment of all honest, fair-minded men, was the present case brought forward in a fair way? First of all, he impugned the jurisdiction of the Court altogether, and when he consented to employ a counsel or a solicitor he did so against his own wishes, and because he did not wish that other men, his poorer friends, would be deprived of that assistance to which they are entitled. In the hearts and minds of the Magistrates on the Bench they knew what he and others were tried for—for adherence to the cause of the country—for standing by the oppressed and the persecuted; for sustaining the poor and the weak."
    Then he went on to say:—
    "We seek liberty, and we are determined to have it. We are prouder of the gaol in the struggle in which we are engaged than the toga of distinction and prominence and place and all the power that a Government—the present Government—can bestow. He was brought before the Court on a charge that put him to more pain and torture than if he were sent to prison for twenty years. The charge was mean, infamous, and a lie."
    Dr. Tanner concluded:—
    "You deprived me of the assistance of my counsel, and if I were a free man I should impeach your conduct before the House of Commons. I would put you on your trial before the whole country, and would confidently look to their verdict on your conduct. Do not think for a moment that I submit to your Court. I have nothing to fear. I feel for you. I pity you—for the position you are forced into. It is humiliating, but it is the effect of the British administration in the land which we intend to rule. This prosecution has been gone into because I am an Irish patriot Protestant, and it has been sought to defame and traduce me. Pass your sentence, I defy you. I defy the Government which seeks to rob the people—to help the strong against the weak, and to oppress the Buffering."
    82
    [Mr. WINTERBOTHAM: Is that all?] I am not surprised at the question. That was the speech delivered in Court by my hon. Friend, and I ask hon. Members whether, considering that this Gentleman laboured under a keen and exasperated sense of wrong, there was anything extraordinary in the use of that language? The Magistrates did not act with precipitancy. The Magistrates retired and deliberated for 20 minutes. At the end of 20 minutes they came into Court, and the Chairman, having first delivered their sentence on the charge of assault, went on to say that Dr. Tanner was to find bail for £200 for his good behaviour, or go to prison for three months. When they made that order, the Magistrates well knew that Dr. Tanner would refuse to find bail. What was the offence committed? A little while ago I asked a clear question on that point, and I now press for a specific answer. Was the offence that of contempt of Court or not? I find the offence described in the letter addressed by the Magistrates to Mr. Speaker, and read to the House yesterday. It is that "C. K. Tanner had outrageously misbehaved, and wilfully insulted the Magistrates." I turn to the Act which regulates the proceedings in Petty and Quarter Sessions, and I find it enacts that if any person wilfully insults—the very language used in describing the charge—any Justice or Justices sitting in any Court, or shall commit any other contempt of Court, it shall be lawful for the Justice or Justices to direct such person to be removed or taken into custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court, by warrant to commit such person to gaol for any period not exceeding seven days, or to fine such person any sum not exceeding 40s. There is not the remotest reference or hint to any other jurisdiction. The Solicitor General for Ireland suggested that there was an alternative jurisdiction; but I challenge him to cite a case, since the passing of that Act, in which the members of a Court of Justice showed by action or argument that they had any other jurisdiction except under the Act. The charge must have been one of contempt of Court. If it had been anything else, it would have been necessary that it should have been brought before the Court and evidence given upon it. The language of the

    83
    clause I have cited is clear, and the Magistrates were bound to take one of two courses—either to impose a fine or to commit to prison for some period not exceeding seven days. The argument that the Magistrates were entitled to fallback on some general jurisdiction and inflict the punishment of imprisonment for three months is untenable and absurd. As to the sentence of a month's imprisonment with hard labour for the assault, I believe that if I had the opportunity of consulting my hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) he would not allow me to suggest that it should be modified. I therefore simply denounce that sentence as a vindictive and cowardly outrage. But with regard to the sentence for contempt of Court, I do ask that the Government should use their power and act on their duty to cancel that sentence, and to inform these blundering subordinates of theirs that they are bound to keep within the law. Then, again, why was the prison van used for Dr. Tanner alone? The prison van at Clonmel has been almost as long unused as some of the relics in the Tower of London. It is not even used for convicts. It was used for Dr. Tanner only. The officer of police whom Dr. Tanner was alleged to have assaulted was the officer in command of the police at this very place. This man had had his revenge through the law, but he was allowed to have a further revenge. He was the person who requisitioned the prison van. When I brought this question forward a little while ago, the Chief Secretary scarcely ventured to defend what has been done, but suggested that two other Members of Parliament had refused to enter an open break. I am informed the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in respect to one of them; but, whether he is right or wrong, is that any person for inflicting degradation and insult on Dr. Tanner? I contend that the persons who brought the prison van to the Court did so because they knew that Dr. Tanner would refuse to enter it, because he had done so before. I submit that the authorities have been guilty of an act of mean and cruel tyranny. When Dr. Tanner refused to enter the van he was thrown upon the floor with force and violence, and the telegram to which I referred at the opening of the Debate I
    84
    received from Mrs. Tanner. I have today received this telegram:—
    "Dr. Tanner is suffering from the effects of a fall from the car in which he was being conveyed to the Court House on Monday, and by which his arm was bruised. He has since suffered from sleeplessness, and altogether his system has received a severe shock."
    That is, I think, an appeal which ought to command the sympathy of hon. Members without distinction of Party. It is one which it is impossible for the Government and for hon. Members opposite to resist, and which, I think, amply justifies the Motion which I am about to make. I think that I have proved the case I have laid before the House—namely, that Dr. Tanner has been subjected to unnecessary and wanton violence, that the first sentence passed on him was vindictive and cowardly, and that the sentence which has been passed upon him of three months' imprisonment for an alleged contempt of Court is manifestly illegal. I regret the absence on this occasion of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, who has recently described the policy of the Irish police as a policy of exasperation. I am sure many hon. Members share the feelings which prompted that speech, and I hope they will remember that every day brings us nearer to the time when the judgment of the nation will be asked on this excess of tyranny, persecution, and insult. I hope that hon. Members opposite will acquit themselves of all share in this cruel and unmanly violence which has been used towards Dr. Tanner, and of this lawlessness on the part of the servants of the law in Ireland, who now shelter themselves under the shield of the law. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    The Chairman of Ways and Means, at the request of Mr. Speaker, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 1.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I noticed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just just sat down that he did not for a a moment deny that if the hon. Member in question had been guilty of

    85
    the conduct which has been imputed to him he was guilty of a grave offence and ought to receive due punishment. I do not think that in the circumstances of the case, if the hon. Member was guilty of such a grave offence as that which is imputed to him, any one would be justified in asserting that he has been the object of a vindictive sentence. I come now to the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman called the attention of the House—namely, the circumstances under which the sentence was pronounced. I do not think hon. Members will deny that an assault of this nature upon a public officer in the discharge of his duty is a grave offence. It is said that Dr. Tanner was deprived of the assistance of his counsel; but, as a matter of fact, the hon. Member has been represented throughout the trial by his solicitor, who raised points of law in his favour. There was, moreover, no reason why the hon. Member should not at the adjournment have been represented by another counsel.
    MR. SEXTON: At the opening of the proceedings his counsel retired, and I do not know that Dr. Tanner could have been represented by another counsel after his first counsel had been expelled the Court.
    MR. MADDEN: The expulsion of counsel had taken place long antecedently, and after that a solicitor appeared in Court on behalf of the hon. Member. It is said that the Court found Dr. Tanner guilty without hearing evidence on his behalf. What are the facts? What really occurred was this. The case was clearly proved by the evidence of the Inspector of Police and of the constables. A witness was called on the part of the hon. Member, and be admitted that the assault with which the hon. Member was charged might have been committed without his seeing it. Then the case was adjourned till the 26th July, and when the hearing was resumed the hon. Member deliberately declined to call any further evidence, on the ground that he would not subject his witnesses to the indignity of being examined before the Court. In these circumstances, the Court had no course open to them but to act on clear and un-impeached evidence, which was not broken down in cross-examination, and to convict the hon. Member. It ought
    86
    not to be suggested for one moment, that because an accused person, even if he be a Member of Parliament, refuses to produce evidence on the ground that he would not subject his witnesses to the indignity of appearing before the Court, the Magistrates are not to act on the testimony before them. It appears to be assumed by hon. Members opposite that what occurred gave the hon. Member a right of appeal, although the law provides in the case of such a sentence no such right of appeal. It would be absurd to allow any person charged to obtain a right of appeal merely by refusing to call witnesses on his own behalf. The right hon. Gentleman has read from a report of what took place in Cork, but I will refer to a report in the Times, which supplies, omissions in the account already read From that it appears that the Magistrates were of opinion that the action of the hon. Member amounted to an outrageous insult to the Court. The hon. Member said that the Magistrates who tried him had the sentence in their pockets, and he openly defied the Court to do their worst.
    Several hon. MEMBERS: Is that all?
    MR. MADDEN: Hon. Members ask is that all? It is all, and I think it fully justifies the language used by the Magistrates. A question has been asked by the right hon. Gentleman as to what power Magistrates had for punishing misbehaviour in their presence. I will refer to the highest authority on the subject (Burn's Justice of the Peace), which lays it down that a man can be bound over to be of good behaviour for speaking words of contempt to inferior Magistrates, Justices of the Peace, or Mayors. To speak words of contempt to Magistrates, even though not engaged in the discharge of their duties, is good ground for causing a person to be bound over to be of good behaviour. Contemptuous language to those intrusted with the administration of justice being "a proper matter for taking sureties for good behaviour," the question then arises whether the discretion of the Magistrates was properly exercised in this case. The right hon. Gentleman relies on the Petty Sessions Act as showing that the Magistrates had no jurisdiction in this matter. That Act makes it lawful for Justices to commit persons to prison for

    87
    seven days for contempt of Court. It has been argued that that Act ousts the ordinary jurisdiction of the Magistrates to order persons misbehaving in their presence to find sureties to keep the peace. I do not intend to argue this question, because it is perfectly open to the hon. Member to go to the proper tribunal to have the question decided.
    MR. SEXTON: And the hon. Member will remain in gaol all the time.
    MR. MADDEN: Yes, because the original sentence is unaffected by this question, but as regards the additional sentence its validity can readily be determined. The right hon. Gentleman says that the second sentence must have been for contempt of Court, because there was no formulated charge. That is not so, for Justices may exercise the jurisdiction of requiring sureties for good behaviour for what is done in their presence. By ordering the defendant to give sureties for good behaviour the Magistrates adopted a more lenient course than by imposing the statutory penalty. For if the hon. Member gives the required security, he need not go to gaol for a day. I repeat that if there is any desire to test the validity of the second sentence it is open to the hon. Member and his Friends to have the point decided by a competent Court having jurisdiction in the matter.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: There are in this case two distinct trials, two distinct convictions, and two distinct punishments. The Solicitor General for Ireland, with that ability with which we are so familiar, has very cleverly mixed up two things and has endeavoured to prejudice the consideration of one by a defence of the other. I, for one, hold that it is a very serious thing to send a Member of Parliament to prison; and the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, who is a marvellously acute observer of public opinion, has discovered, what the Chief Secretary has not yet discovered, that sending Members of Parliament to prison is not popular with the constituencies of the United Kingdom. When a Member sent to prison happens to be a prominent and, if you like, a disagreeable political opponent, whose absence from the House may be desired by many sections of it, it behoves the House to scrutinise such a case with the greatest
    88
    jealousy and impartiality. We ought to regard the case of the hon. Member for Cork in the same light and deal with it on precisely the same principles as we should apply to the case of any Gentleman sitting on either Front Bench. The Solicitor General in dealing with the first sentence has objected to its being called vindictive; but it must be borne in mind that an offence against the Crimes Act, against the present administration of affairs in Ireland, had been already committed, and Dr. Tanner had been punished for it. The second offence, this alleged assault on the police, arose entirely out of the first offence and cannot be severed from it. The Solicitor General said it was an outrageous and disgraceful offence. The hon. Member for Cork agrees in that view, for he avers he would sooner have suffered a long term of imprisonment than have been so accused. It is to him torture to be charged with such a vulgar and disgraceful act. But, after all, this second offence was not in the nature of an outrage tending to a breach of the peace; it was not an assault in which a policeman's head had been broken open; still, it was a very offensive assault upon the police, and whoever committed it ought to have been punished. What we are complaining of is, not that the offence was too severely punished if it was committed, but that the hon. Member for Cork was deprived entirely of two safeguards to which every Englishman is entitled—I say Englishman, and expressly exclude Irishmen. An Englishman is entitled to be represented by counsel; and no English Judge, from the Lord Chief Justice downwards, would have excluded the hon. Member for Longford for what he said on that occasion. A Judge would have remonstrated and reproved, but he would not so far have forgotten his high station and what is proper to the administration of justice as to deprive a defendant of legal advice on account of an unseemly conflict between the Bench and the Bar. Thus, in the first place, the hon. Member was deprived of his right of legal advice. Secondly, Dr. Tanner was deprived of his right of appeal. The Solicitor General says that this was a proper case to be brought under the Crimes Act. Every case in Ireland is now considered to be so. I presume that if a man committed bigamy

    89
    they wouid try him under the Crimes Act for that offence. Listening to the Solicitor General, one would have thought that the offence of assault on the police was created by the Crimes Act, whereas it is one of the oldest offences known to the law and is punishable under statute. Why on earth, except in wanton disregard of the rights of the Irish people in the administration of justice, the law officers of the Crown should have sanctioned such an absurdity as a proceeding under the Crimes Act for an assault on a policeman in the discharge of his duty I am utterly unable to fathom. If proceedings are taken under the Crimes Act, then we must take the Crimes Act with all its concomitants. We must remember, and we shall never forget, that the Chief Secretary pledged himself over and over again that any one charged under the Act should have a right of appeal. This was a solemn pledge given on behalf of the Government by the Minister in charge of the Bill when it was under discussion in this House, and the right hon. Gentleman will be reminded over and over again of this breach of faith on his part. Perhaps it may be said that he did not mean that pledge to apply to little trumpery cases; but this not a trumpery case; it is the case of a Member of Parliament charged with a disgusting and improper offence, of which he maintains his innocence. Dr. Tanner thought—and I do not hesitate to say I think so too—that he could not have a fair trial before these two Magistrates. Dr. Tanner claimed a right of appeal, and they could have given him an appeal by sentencing him to 32 days' imprisonment; but they imprisoned him for only 31 days. The Solicitor General says the record of appeals was not encouraging. I do not think this appeal would have been heard in Donegal, where a Government pamphleteer has been rewarded by being made a County Court Judge; but this case raises only a question of fact, although the Solicitor General has accepted the finding of the Court on ex parte evidence when the counsel for the prisoner was excluded. My point is this: The sentence was vindictive because it was pronounced after an unfair trial, and because it was one day too short to entitle the prisoner to an appeal. I now come to the other
    90
    part of the case—the observations indulged in by the hon. Member for Cork. I admit that the hon. Member indulged in some very free observations which were not very respectful to the Bench. I was not surprised when the Solicitor General read his version of what occurred that hon. Members exclaimed, "Is that all!" It seems extraordinary to have sent a man to prison for three months because he had violated the decencies of the Court by these exclamations. But after all what did Dr. Tanner say? He said he would not subject his witnesses to the indignity of appearing before the Court; and he was quite right. His counsel had been sent away, and he would have been a silly man if he had called his witnesses. Next he said that the Magistrates had got his sentence in their pockets. I will admit that that was a very rude remark; but I have no doubt what he meant was that they had made up their minds as to the sentence they would inflict. Prisoners sometimes say extraordinary things in England; but Judges do not send the offender to prison for three months for such language. A short time ago an amateur lawyer, promoted to judicial functions in Trinidad, sentenced a man to 31 lashes and penal servitude for life for attempting to assault him in Court; but the Colonial Secretary not only annulled the absurd sentence, but remitted a sentence of seven years' penal servitude, which the man richly deserved, for an offence he had committed, and warned the Judge that if such conduct were repeated he would be removed from his office. Then Dr. Tanner said "Do your worst; I defy you." For these foolish remarks Dr. Tanner was sent to prison for three calendar months. The hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt tell us that Dr. Tanner would not have been sentenced if he had found sureties. Of course he would not find sureties; it would have been unworthy of him as a man to have done so. The Solicitor General has told us that there is a power some centuries old which enables Magistrates to require persons to find sureties if they have been guilty of outrageous conduct in Court. This is not quite so clear as the Solicitor General for Ireland thinks. I am not going to presume to argue a legal point with him, especially as that will come for judgment before the proper

    91
    tribunal; but I may remind him that a recent judgment of the Lord Chief Justice of England creates considerable doubt whether the law compelling a man to find sureties can be put in force except on the oath of somebody that he is in positive danger from the prisoner under the circumstances of the case. But I will not go into that. But this question has been before the Law Officers. My impression is that you have prisons in Ireland which you have not in England. Sir Frederick Pollock and Sir William Follett years ago, when Law Officers, advised that Justices of the Peace have no power to commit for contempt. After that opinion comes legislation, and what says legislation? It says, "And if any person shall wilfully insult any Justice," and this covers the case of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, for, put the highest construction you like upon his conduct, put every aggravation into his words, I say they amount to nothing more or less than wilful insult. It is not treason, it is not felony, it is not flat burglary, it is wilful insult he committed. I admit for the moment he is guilty of wilfully insulting the Court. What says legislation? "If any person shall wilfully insult any Justice or Justices so sitting in any such Court—that is, Petty Sessions—or commit any other contempt of any such Court"—and surely this conduct was either wilful insult or contempt of Court—"it shall be lawful for such Justice or Justices by verbal order to direct such person to be removed from the Court, or to be taken into custody, and at any time before the rising of the Court by warrant to commit such person to gaol for a period not exceeding seven days. Now, I say there is the offence, and there is the punishment, and I say it is a gross violation of the principles of justice—I might say a gross violation of the privileges of this House—that these Magistrates in Ireland, "of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant has satisfied himself"—these Magistrates—supporters of the Government and politically hostile to this gentleman—should dig out of the musty recesses of three centuries an obscure power and send this man to prison for three months. Such is the case before the House. Many times I have known the Adjournment moved under circumstances when
    92
    I have not thought that course necessary, but if ever the exercise of the privilege has been justified it is on this occasion, in order to bring before the House and the public this system that is being pursued in Ireland, this parody of justice. I can tell the First Lord of the Treasury—who to-night seemed to think that the Irish Estimates are going to pass with remarkable ease and rapidity—I can tell him that we mean to take advantage of these Estimates to exercise the power the House undoubtedly possesses of dealing with all the servants of this House. These men are not independent of the House of Commons. I know they are servants of Dublin Castle. I know they are perfectly loyal servants of Dublin Castle, from whence they have their reward, but I say again in the face of the Chief Secretary what I will say in the country, but it is more honourable and courageous to say it here, that no more disgraceful administration of justice is to be found in the annals of modern history than that which now prevails in Ireland.
    THE CHIEF SECEETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,)rose, and Mr. HANBURY (Preston) rose at the same time, and both remained standing for some seconds, while cries were raised for either.
    The DEPUTY SPEAKERcalled on Mr. Balfour.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is very difficult to please hon. Gentlemen opposite When I did not get up to reply to the right hon. Member for West Belfast, hon. Members were not satisfied, and I heard one hon. Gentleman, with characteristic courtesy, call out "you are afraid"; and when I do rise to follow the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton it is intimated that I ought to delay my reply until another hon. Gentleman has addressed the House. So far as I am concerned I should have preferred to reserve my speech till the end of the debate, because as my hon. and learned friend the Solicitor General for Ireland has already spoken, there will be nobody left on this Bench to reply with that full knowledge of the details of Irish administration which is necessary adequately to meet the misrepresentations of hon. Gentlemen

    93
    opposite. But I cannot believe that my hon. Friend behind me means to attack the Government; and therefore I proceed to make such reply as may be necessary to the speech of the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Wolverhampton. The right hon. Gentleman has very properly divided the case into two distinct parts—first, that part which, in its nature, is more legal and technical, relating to the action taken by the Magistrates in consequence of the hon. Member for Cork's behaviour in court; and, secondly, the part which relates to the sentence inflicted by the Magistrates for the original offence with which Dr. Tanner was charged. On the second part I need not detain the House long. The right hon. Gentleman has advanced the astounding assertion, as coming from a gentleman learned in the law, that the Court sentenced Dr. Tanner to three months' imprisonment for contempt of Court. The Court did nothing of the kind. Dr. Tanner need not remain one moment longer in prison in consequence of his conduct in Court. He has only to find sureties for good behaviour, which he can do without the slightest difficulty, and no imprisonment will follow on account of that conduct. But the right hon. Gentleman, to my intense surprise, says that Dr. Tanner naturally did not take a course that would be discreditable to him, that he was not the man to find sureties for his good behaviour, and, acting like a man of courage (Interruptions.) [An hon. MEMBER, "more than you do.]" ("Order")—acting like a man of courage, he went to prison. Irrelevant and discourteous interruptions do not disturb me, and I do not think my hon. Friends behind me need trouble their heads about them. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the language of Dr. Tanner in Court was highly improper. ("No! If he used it.") He did not defend it, he admitted it was highly improper. The phrase which I myself should have used as to that language is much stronger than that; but, take it to be what the right hon. Gentleman admitted it was, if Dr. Tanner used language which was highly improper, why should it be disgraceful to him to give sureties for his good behaviour? He was guilty of that which was not good behaviour, the right hon. Gentleman admits the impropriety, why,
    94
    therefore, is it discreditable to him that surities should be required from him, and why this loose and violent rhetoric which has been used by the right hon. Gentleman? But this is not all. The right hon. Gentleman says that the adjournment of the House affords a very proper opportunity for bringing this case before the House and the country; but, at all events, neither the House nor the country can do anything to relieve Dr. Tanner from the sentence, if you call it a sentence ("Why not?"), imposed on him by the Court. But something can be done to relieve Dr. Tanner from the consequences of his behaviour if the Magistrates have been guilty of the misconduct attributed to them by the right hon. Gentleman. This House is not the place to re-try the action of the Magistrates. There is a Court which is competent to survey, and, if necessary, to quash, the action of the inferior Court on the ground of illegality; and if the Magistrates have acted illegally, as the right hon. Gentleman maintains, let him not come down to the House and indulge in violent tirades against the Magistrates and the Officials—let him take the legitimate course of asking a competent legal tribunal to give an opinion on the action of the Magistrates. With one further remark I will leave this branch of the question. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be deeply indignant because the Magistrates took the course which they did take rather than that under the Statute, which has been referred to more than once, that would have enabled them to inflict a sentence for contempt of Court. Now, in my opinion, the Magistrates adopted, I will not say the legal course, but the merciful course; and they did so not merely because by the action they took they did not necessarily inflict a single hour's imprisonment, but because if they were wrong in taking that course there is a mode of questioning the action of the Magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman is very strong on the matter of appeal, but I apprehend that if the Magistrates had given Dr. Tanner seven days' imprisonment there would have been no appeal. But now their action can be reviewed by a higher Court. Therefore I say that the Magistrates took the merciful course on two grounds, partly because they did not inflict a sentence at all, and partly because their

    95
    action can be done away with if a superior Court should hold that it was illegal. I would remind the mover of the adjournment that as that sentence was concurrent with the sentence for the assault on the policeman, a whole month must elapse before any injury can, under any circumstances, be inflicted on Dr. Tanner. During that month there will be ample time for taking steps to have the legal question tried; and if it is not tried it can only be—whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may say in this House—because they think the case, though good enough to bring before a Party audience, is not good enough to go before a Court of law. I pronounce no opinion on the question of law. I know not and I care not how it may be decided by the superior tribunal; but let not hon. Gentlemen opposite say the Magistrates have acted improperly unless they have the courage to go to a Court that is competent to decide the question. I pass to that part of the charge brought against the Magistrates which relates to the sentence inflicted on Dr. Tanner for the original offence in respect of which he was brought before them. This has been described with an extraordinary wealth of invective, as gross, indecent, discreditable, and vindictive, and with other high-sounding adjectives which it is not worth while to record. Now, it is not my business to say whether the sentence was excessive or was not, but I do say most emphatically that the offence of which Dr. Tanner was accused and found guilty, and with regard to which he brought no evidence to prove his innocence, was a most disgusting and horrible offence. It was an offence which I gather Dr. Tanner did not himself defend in Court, and the character of which none of his friends have ventured to defend in the House. If Dr. Tanner was guilty of that offence, and whether the sentence inflicted was too serious or not, I maintain that, taking all the circumstances into account, the fact that Dr. Tanner is a Member of Parliament, instead of diminishing, greatly aggravated the offence. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to found part of his indictment against the Government on the fact that the man accused is a Member of this House. Of all men in the world, surely a Member of Parlia-
    96
    ment ought to be the one who would not, under any circumstances or provocation whatever, be guilty of the disgusting offence of which Dr. Tanner was accused. Having read the proceedings, and taking into account the circumstances of the case, I feel no doubt that the tribunal not only acted rightly, but as any other tribunal in the world would have acted in finding Dr. Tanner guilty of the offence. The most clear and specific evidence was tendered on oath that he was guilty; and no evidence of a rebutting kind was adduced, though every opportunity was given for its production if it existed. There is but one conclusion that any Member of the House or any tribunal can arrive at—namely, that Dr. Tanner was guilty of the offence. The right hon. Gentleman says that, at any rate, Dr. Tanner should have had an appeal. But the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that there was no question of law involved, but that it was a simple question of fact. If the Magistrates were not qualified to decide intricate legal questions, they were perfectly competent to decide an issue of the kind brought before them. And why should a tribunal, having a simple plain matter of fact to deal with, in respect of which evidence of a conclusive kind was adduced on one side, and none on the other, go out of its way to give an appeal to Dr. Tanner? There had been a great deal said about the retirement of Dr. Tanner's counsel. [Cries of "Expulsion."] If the right hon. Gentleman had followed with the close attention I have had to give to them the proceedings under the Crimes Act, he would have known that the course habitually pursued by a certain class of the accused and of lawyers in Ireland before the Crimes Courts has the appearance of a deliberate conspiracy to insult the Court and render the decorous administration of justice absolutely impossible. Instances of this kind have been familiar for the last two years. There is no doubt if decency and order are to be maintained in these Courts, and Magistrates are to be allowed to possess and use those powers without which the law cannot be administered with dignity and propriety, such incidents as that which resulted in the expulsion of the counsel of Dr. Tanner must be dealt with severely. It is a

    97
    great error to regard this as an isolated example. It is an instance of an unhappily familiar practice; and I do not think that the Magistrates had open to them any other course than that which they actually pursued. I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with any more of the points raised except one. All the hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House from the Opposition side have made allusions to a speech delivered two days ago by my noble Friend the Member for Paddington. My noble Friend has been quoted as a critic of the Government in respect to the imprisonment of Members of Parliament, and he has been deliberately quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast as being on his side of the controversy, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite stated that the noble Lord had discovered what I, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, had not discovered—that it was unpopular to imprison Members of Parliament.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman will not be in order in discussing the speech of the noble Lord to which reference has been made. It has no connection with the question before the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Do I understand you, Sir, that no allusion can be made to that speech?
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: An examination of it cannot be entered into now.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Nothing in the nature of an examination of that speech was going to fall from my lips. I was merely going to protest against the language of my noble Friend being interpreted as it has been interpreted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. My noble Friend is not present to defend himself, but I do not know that it is my business to defend him. Of course, Sir, I bow to your ruling. I will only say, in conclusion, that I have never taken into account the consideration which the right hon. Gentleman opposite seems to think ought to have paramount weight with me. He seems to think that the question of popularity or unpopularity is the paramount consideration to determine these matters. I do not think so. Whether it is popular or unpopular, I am going to do my best to preserve law in Ireland. And I do not think that to allow even a Member of
    98
    Parliament to spit on a policeman with impunity is the best course to be taken in order to maintain the law. But I go further. I have not been, and shall not be, deterred from doing anything I think to be right by the fear of unpopularity, or by the threat of what the right hon. Gentleman may say before my face or behind my back. But I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the people of this country would look with favour on so grossly partial an administration of justice as would punish the humble dupes in Ireland and leave unpunished those more powerful politicians who use their position in this House as one from which they can with impunity and effect stir up the people to courses of disloyalty and disorder.
    MR. HANBURY: This is not the first time in which, differing as I do with hon. Members below the Gangway, I have risen to resent what has seemed to me to be not only an inexpedient treatment of Irishmen from a Party point of view, taking the lowest consideration, but to protest against what seems at first sight to me to be actually illegal and unconstitutional treatment. If we are to fight hon. Members opposite—and I am prepared to fight them on the question of Home Rule to the last—if, at any rate, we are to make our case clear and just before the people of this country to whom we shall have to appeal at an earlier or distant date, at any rate let us be able to show to the country that we have treated Irish Members with every possible degree of fairness. I agree that distinctions ought not be drawn between Members of Parliament and ordinary criminals; indeed, I should be inclined to punish a Member of Parliament who broke the law more severely than an ordinary lawbreaker. Although I should be perfectly ready to attack the Government, if I thought them wrong in the case before the House, yet, seeing that they have not defended the Resident Magistrate, the vote I shall give will not be against the Government, but will show my appreciation of the fact that the Resident Magistrates ought not to strain and stretch the law as they do. If Dr. Tanner is guilty of the offence with which he is charged, then he richly deserves the punishment which he has received. But with re-

    99
    ference to the tribunal, I express an opinion not general on this side of the House, but one which I have held ever since I had read the names and occupations of the Resident Magistrates, that they are not the most fitting persons to administer justice in the exceptional circumstances of the Coercion Act, and it was no satisfaction to me to see the occupants of the two Front Benches pointing to each other as responsible for their appointment. It does not matter two pins by whom the appointments were made. I do not think these gentlemen are qualified to exercise the jurisdiction entrusted to them. There was every reason why, in this particular ease, the Resident Magistrates should have acted with the greatest possible circumspection. In the first place, they had a politician as the criminal, and although politicians must be tried like other criminals who offend against the law, still you cannot help, in the excited state of public feeling in Ireland, a certain amount of prejudice from being imported into the case in such instances. In this particular instance there was one very special circumstance. The man whom Dr. Tanner was charged with grossly insulting was an official of the Court, and that is a circumstance which ought to have weighed with the Court in passing sentence. But the question we have to deal with is one solely of contempt of Court. I am no lawyer, but I was very much struck, from the commonsense point of view, with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler) when he, speaking as a lawyer, gave it as his opinion that the recent Act, which only inflicts seven days' punishment for contempt of Court, overrides the old law under which it is possible to give a greater amount of punishment. But, whether that be true or not, when we pass exceptional laws for Ireland, which are considered to be sufficiently stringent, it seems to me to be unnecessary, modern laws being so strict, to go back and find out musty precedents in order to bring them into Court against opponents. It is no answer to say that Dr. Tanner need not have gone to gaol, and that he might have chosen the other alternative and given surety for good behaviour. The Judges who gave the decision looked on the two things as equivalents, and both of them, I say,
    100
    far exceed the seven days' imprisonment which can be inflicted under the law. Speaking from the point of view of a Unionist, and as one who wishes to maintain law and order in Ireland, I think we ought to be sure that the law and order to be maintained is the law and order which is recognised by Parliament and sanctioned by Statute. The Government, while they ought, undoubtedly, to keep order in Ireland and maintain the law, ought to be very careful that they do not go one iota beyond what is absolutely certain is the law. I have often observed that the law, as administered by the Resident Magistrates, has been somewhat strained. I could understand anyone who wished to separate England and Ireland trying to make enemies of the hon. Members from Ireland, and of the Irish people, but for the Conservative Party, who look to the day when the difficulties between England and Ireland will be removed, I think it is very bad policy indeed to try and embitter the Irish people, and to allow a sentence of this kind, which can be quashed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to remain, and so seemingly to be supporting what, if it is not actually illegal and unconstitutional, does seem to be a strong straining of the law. It is because I am a strong Unionist that I say it is folly to make the English Law unpopular in Ireland, and to provoke the Irish Members, who, for the present at least, are the leaders of the Irish people, by acts which, I venture to say, are illegal and unconstitutional.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I have almost invariably noticed that when excesses by the Irish Resident Magistrates are brought before the notice of the House the English Law Officers are silent. I should like to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether or not he thinks that the Resident Magistrates exceeded their powers when they bound Dr. Tanner over in his good behaviour for the alleged contempt of Court. I feel confident, speaking as a very humble English lawyer, that my hon. and learned Friend will inform the House on his great authority that this action of the Irish Magistrates cannot possibly be defended by any lawyer. I do not think we ought to confine ourselves to narrow and technical grounds as to whether the Magistrates

    101
    were entitled to act as they did or not Under a recent Statute, as has been, pointed out, the maximum penalty for contempt of Court in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in Ireland is seven days' imprisonment, and I cannot help thinking that these two Irish Magistrates had a very shrewd notion that Dr. Tanner would not allow himself to be bound over in sureties to keep the peace, and they came to the conclusion that by binding him over they would be inflicting a far heavier punishment upon him than if they sentenced him to seven days' imprisonment. The Solicitor General for Ireland quoted from Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown to show that the Magistrates were entitled to take the course they did take. The power under which such a sentence could be imposed is conferred by the Statute of the 34th of Edward III., Chapter 1. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland was careful not to quote Hawkins's statement, that the power appears to refer only to matters having relation to the peace, and "it has been said not to apply to rash, quarrelsome, or unmannerly words unless they directly tend to a breach of the peace." Although there is a power in the Magistrates to bind over for good behaviour, it is a power which has no relation whatever to contempt of Court. I will ask my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General whether he can state that in all his experience there has been one single instance in which a person has been bound over for contempt of Court under this Statute. It is the commonest thing in the world for strong language to be used in the heat of the moment by prisoners, and Justices or Judges either ignore such language altogether or confine themselves to ordering the detention of the offender, perhaps for the rest of the day. It appears to me there can be no possible defence, either technically or in substance, for this most extraordinary conduct on the part of these Magistrates. They also declined all facilities for appealing. Under the 42nd and 43rd Vict, it is expressly provided for the liberty of the subject that whenever a person is convicted and punished by imprisonment, there shall be a power of appeal. I say that to have deliberately shut out Dr. Tanner from an appeal is a scandal
    102
    in the administration of justice. Matters of this kind disturb the public conscience and constitute what is nothing more or less than a reproach to the Government of Ireland, and I utterly refuse to believe that my hon. Friend Dr. Tanner was guilty of so disgusting an offence as that with which he is charged.
    MR. FULTON: I rise in order to enter an emphatic protest against the growing practice of discussing legal questions in this House—legal questions which are capable of being properly discussed in a Court of Law. The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down had the amazing effrontery—[" Oh," and "Order"]—I will not insist upon that word but will say the hon. Member asked the Attorney General to be kind enough to give his opinion upon the question of law as to whether the Crimes Act Court was right or not. I sincerely hope the Attorney General will do nothing of the kind. If, as is said, the Magistrates acted without jurisdiction, there is the simplest possible way of ascertaining that immediately. As every lawyer knows by simply moving the Queen's Bench that Court would at once have ordered, on cause being shown, a rule nisi to have the order of the Magistrates brought up, and by that means the order, if they acted without jurisdiction, could be quashed. Hon. Members opposite are hard to please. They complain of the Magistrates because they would not, in the first instance, pass on Dr. Tanner a sentence which would give him the right of appeal, and then, when the Magistrates make an order with respect to the contempt, which gives him the opportunity to appeal, they find fault with the Magistrates for giving him that opportunity. This Debate has been very instructive. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler) a Member of the Privy Council, and a former Member of the Government, has stated in his place in this House that the hon. Member for Mid Cork. Dr. Tanner, was perfectly right and acted as every hon. Member would have done, when he positively and peremptorily refused to admit the jurisdiction of a Court constituted by law.
    MR. FOWLER: The hon. Gentleman will be good enough to quote me correctly. I did not say he was perfectly

    103
    justified in refusing to admit the jurisdiction of the Court, but that after his counsel had been ordered out of Court and he had been deprived of legal advice he was perfectly right in contending that he could not have a fair trial.
    MR. FULTON: That refers to a different matter. The right hon. Gentleman repeated several times that the Magistrates had sentenced Dr. Tanner to three months' imprisonment, and I said "No." Then the right hon. Gentleman said—"The hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that he could have given sureties to keep the peace. Of course he would not give sureties to keep the peace." We have it, then, on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman that a Member of Parliament brought up before a Court properly constituted and which has heard evidence on oath is perfectly justified in refusing to find sureties to keep the peace. I am quite willing that this House and the country should judge as to whether that is a proper attitude to adopt. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) approves of the conduct of Dr. Tanner's counsel. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton says that if such conduct took place in England there would simply be a rebuke from the Bench and that would be an end of the matter. I venture to say that no one can produce anywhere any record within modern memory of a counsel daring to use such language and behaving in such a manner in a Court of Law in England. I invite any one of my hon. and learned Friends opposite who sympathise with Dr. Tanner to attempt to use such language in any such Court. I say, without hesitation, that if any member of the English Bar sank so low as to act in that manner he would very soon be brought to his senses by one of Her Majesty's Judges in a way that would be extremely disagreeable to him. I altogether deny the right of members of the Bar to insult any properly constituted tribunal merely because they happen to disapprove of its constitution. It has been said that in England Magistrates will always increase a sentence in order to give a right of appeal. Of course they
    104
    will, and the Magistrates in this case would have been wrong to refuse if Dr. Tanner had called any evidence. As he called no evidence there was no reason why they should give a right of appeal This matter after all has been opportunely brought forward, because it shows how utterly unfounded are the accusations of hon. Gentlemen opposite against the Government.
    MR. R. T. REID, &c.): The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down is apparently of opinion that this House ought not to take cognisance of what he calls legal cases but what we call the maladministration of justice in Ireland. In my opinion it is one of the most important duties this House can discharge to see especially in the exceptional circumstances of the criminal law in Ireland at the present time, that Magistrates do not abuse the powers committed to them. I think it is one of the most gross abuses of which the Resident Magistrates have hitherto been found guilty that they have made use of this old Statute for the purpose of inflicting punishment for contempt of Court. The law relating to contempt of Court is so jealously guarded in England that it is only permitted to Judges of the Superior Court except by Statute. And this for two reasons—in the first place, because the term of imprisonment is unlimited, and in the second place, because the punishment is inflicted by those who have themselves sustained the insult, and it is not necessary to point out that you require carefully to safeguard the powers of punishment placed in the hands of any man under such circumstances. There has been an alteration of the law by Statute in the case of County Courts, and also an alteration of the law in Ireland by which when contempt of Court has been committed, Justices are entitled to imprison for seven days, and may order the person to be removed from Court. Now, Sir, the Resident Magistrates in the case before the House knew of the law which relates directly to contempt of Court, and they deliberately refrained from using it, but went back to the old Statute of Edward III., the object of which was to punish persons for disorderly conduct. I may specify one or two cases mentioned in the Act:—Persons "who sleep in the

    105
    day and go abroad at night," "such as keep suspicious companies," "eavesdroppers," and "common drunkards." The proceeding is on a Statute passed in Edward III., and it is intended for persons of the character I have described. It is an open question whether, according to the English law, Justices of the Peace are entitled to make use of this Statute at all. I believe it would be difficult to maintain that proposition. But suppose for the sake of the discussion that they are entitled to use it. How have they applied it? They have grossly misapplied the Statute, intended for "drunkards and persons who sleep in the day and walk by night," for the purpose of inflicting punishment they could not otherwise inflict on a man who is supposed to have insulted them. That is the grave part of this matter. I put this question to the Attorney General—has any person ever heard before of this Statute being applied in England for contempt of Court? Has any lawyer in this House ever heard of this obsolete Statute of Edward III. (obsolete for this purpose) being used for inflicting punishment for contempt? What have we got? We have got a couple of Resident Magistrates, being authorised by law to inflict seven days' imprisonment, with the significient alternative that they may order the man to be turned out of Court, making use of a Statute which has no more to do with the law of contempt than any stray Statute you would pick up from that table. It is said there may be an appeal. I will endeavour to meet that proposition. There may be an appeal, not an appeal in form, but a legal process for bringing forward and quashing this proceeding, if it appear that the very wide language of this Statute cannot, under any circumstances, embrace disorderly conduct such as has been suggested here, then the conviction would be set aside, but if, technically, it should appear that this very wide and very loose language may possibly embrace disorderly conduct of any kind, then there will be no certiorari and no appeal. We have, therefore, to remember that Dr. Tanner is now required to raise the question as to what construction can be put on the language of the Statute of Edward III. It is a legal question which I need not
    106
    now discuss, as the House will not take much interest in it. I believe, in point of fact, that this imprisonment will be set aside. Supposing it is not, the result will be that for the first time in the course of our history Resident Magistrates have made use of a Statute which is not intended for the purpose, in order to wreak their personal revenge upon a man who is supposed to have insulted them. I have endeavoured to point out how the law is maladministered in Ireland by Resident Magistrates, and although it is important, no doubt, that Dr. Tanner should be relieved from the infliction of the sentence which, even if there were lawful power to administer it, is a most gross sentence in comparison to what was done, in my mind a far more important matter is that this is an apt illustration of the length to which these Resident Magistrates will go in gross defiance of the constitutional aspects of the law, which I am afraid they are unable to appreciate.
    MR. C. J. DARLING: All that the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the length to which Resident Magistrates will go amounts simply to this, that they have ordered a person who has been disorderly in Court to bring some sureties, which he could have obtained in a moment, that he would be of good behaviour for some time to come. And we are actually told that the country is going to rise in revolt against Her Majesty's present Government, because they do not instantly rebuke in some way or another the Magistrates who have merely ventured to ask a person disorderly in a Court of Justice to give security that he will not be disorderly again. Seeing that the country is for the most part composed of orderly persons, I do not think they will be so shocked at what has happened to a notoriously disorderly person as hon. Members seem to fancy they will. The real secret at the bottom of this Debate is that the Opposition are delighted on this particular evening, before coming to a subject which will divide them into 50 atoms, to find a subject upon which they can all go into the Lobby, and represent to the country that they are a united Party. The hon. Member (Dr. Tanner) is used as a corpus vile for performing in the presence of the public this interesting experiment. But with

    107
    regard to the proof which the hon. and learned Gentleman (MR. Reid) has attempted to give of the utter illegality of the action of the Resident Magistrates, it seems to me that the more thoroughly he satisfies himself and this House that they had no kind of warrant for this proceeding, the more extraordinary it is, if there should be a real wish to relieve Dr. Tanner of his imprisonment, that a certiorari has not been applied for at once. I make no doubt it will be applied for, after the utterances from a solicitor (Mr. H. H. Fowler) a barrister (Mr. Atherley Jones) and a Queen's counsel (Mr. Reid.) In the course of the many interjections which have adorned this Debate, some hon. Member for England said that Dr. Tanner was too poor to get an opinion. [Mr. SEXTON: No one said that.] Well, I thought so. At all events, that need not stand in the way now he has got opinions in this House from the hon. and learned Gentlemen I have named, that he has a good case against the Resident Magistrates if he likes to apply for a certiorari, and he has got those opinions for nothing. All he has to do to-morrow morning is to get a counsel who can restrain himself in the presence of an Irish Court of Justice. I would not advise him to employ the same counsel as before, as then the real point of the case may never be reached. He has only to employ an orderly and competent counsel, if he can find one in Ireland, and to ask that counsel to apply for a certiorari, and if he only mentions the opinions of the three hon. and learned Gentlemen, I have no doubt he will get it immediately. The more he proves the Resident Magistrates to be wrong, the less need, it appears to me, is there for interference on the part of this House or the Officers of the Crown. Reference has been made to a letter written by the hon. Member, which asked for the grace of the Crown.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. and learned Member is under a misapprehension. Dr. Tanner does not want the grace of the Crown; he desires, simply as a Member of Parliament, to expose the cruelty of his treatment.
    MR. C J. DARLING: I am very sorry indeed to have imputed so respectable a motive. The only way in which the Chief Secretary, who has been appealed
    108
    to, can exercise his power is to advise the Lord Lieutenant to exercise the grace of the Crown. He cannot quash the Order of the Resident Magistrates. The only possible way to quash the Order is to go before the Courts in Dublin. I think the application for grace to the Crown might be made with some force. There are circumstances with regard to Dr. Tanner to which I need not allude. ["Allude to them." "What are they?"]—they cannot but be present to the minds of every Member of this House—why the Crown might take a lenient and exceptional view of this matter.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, before the House closes, I should like to say a word or two, though not as a lawyer. The scintilla luris to which we have been just treated by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Darling) were not intended or expected to elicit any serious reply from this side of the House. I do not think he has improved the Government casein reference to the charges against Dr. Tanner by his chivalrous and gentlemanly reference to poor Dr. Tanner's wife. I turn, Sir, to more important persons. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton and the hon. and learned Gentleman, who sits opposite, upon their success in drawing the Chief Secretary, who declared two nights ago that there was nothing happening in Ireland which did not bore him now since he had ceased latterly to be amused.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said anything of the kind.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: The right hon. Gentleman repudiates the report of the secret meeting at Shoreditch. Am I to understand that?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I repudiate the version which the hon. Gentleman has given of the remarks I made.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: Well, I have given the version which I myself saw, and the right hon. Gentleman has only himself to blame if there is not a more authentic report given. He did state according to both the versions I have seen that latterly there was nothing in the state of Ireland, or in what was happening in Ireland that even amused him, or even gave him, as it once gave him acute pleasure to deal with in this House. To-

    109
    night I am glad to say that he has to some extent been roused out of his state of languor. Notwithstanding his statement of the other night, I venture to hold to the opinion——
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not repeat a statement which I have distinctly repudiated.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman does admit that there are serious and terrible things going on in Ireland still. I think we have had a fairly good specimen of them to night. The right hon. Gentleman, I venture to say, affected to ignore the powerful appeal of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast by putting up the Solicitor General for Ireland to make a defence which was a very conscientious defence, but which was a dry, legal, and thoroughly ineffective defence. But the right hon. Gentleman now finds from indications on this side of the House and on his own side of the House that it is not the Solicitor General that we are arraigning, but himself. Whatever his relations are to the hon. and learned Member for Paddington, he has begun to realise that even on his own side of the House there is an uncomfortable feeling possibly not so candidly or courageously expressed as it was by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, but still a deep feeling that this is an unworthy attempt to insult and to wound a brother Member of this House, who, whatever he may be as an opponent, or whatever men may think of him, is, at all events, a man, every inch of him, and as warm-hearted an Irish gentleman as ever the Chief Secretary delighted to dishonour. But there is one aspect of this case which has not been pressed sufficiently upon the House. I believe nobody who has heard this Debate can seriously doubt that this charge would never have been heard of if the Chief Secretary had not inoculated his subordinates in Ireland with his own apparently incurable taste for wounding his opponents in petty and unmanly ways. Dr. Tanner stated—and who can doubt him?—that he would sooner endure 20 years' imprisonment than be obliged to answer this disgraceful charge. Of course he would. They knew that they could not break his spirit by long months of imprisonment, so they tried to wound
    110
    him to the quick by a charge which it is a humiliation and an insult to be called upon to answer or deny. [Laughter.] I know that there are hon. Members who are not ashamed of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman and not ashamed of themselves. I am glad to think that their opinions are becoming the opinions of a very diminishing minority. I say that the laughter and jeers of hon. Members only emphasises the fact that this charge is in itself the best specimen of this sort which the right hon. Gentleman encourages among his officials in Ireland. The County Inspector and Mr. Fitzgerald, I know quite well, are not so stupid as not to see the kind of services that obtain their promotion. They know that there is nothing which affords the Chief Secretary such exquisito pleasure as putting the word of an Irish Member against the word of an Irish policeman; and it is not their fault if they come to the conclusion—and this is a desperately serious thing—that the more hateful and injurious the insinuations they put forward against the honour of Irish Representatives, the more highly they will be regarded in influential quarters. I know something of the officer whom Dr. Tanner is charged with assaulting. I must say that a more ill-tempered and ferocious officer never had the lives of the people at his mercy, even in Ireland. I do not know how to convey to this House any idea of the sort of man that he is. Probably it would not be discreet to say more, or to say that much, because in a few weeks more I may be in his power again, and I may have a worse charge made against me than was made against my hon. Friend, who is utterly incapable of disgracing the name of an honourable gentleman. He has been taunted with not producing witnesses. Do hon. Members know what a horrible system this is, and how utterly we are at the mercy of these policemen and officials, and how unsafe our honour and character are? What happened in this particular case? Here is a man shut up in a railway carriage with a body of policemen who are encouraged and stimulated in every way to cover Irish Members with opprobrium. Why was this charge kept for months in pickle? It was never mentioned until my hon. Friend's term of imprisonment was

    111
    coming to a close. Then you have the adjournment to the date when he could not have the advantage of a concurrent sentence. Then you have this episode before Mr. Fitzgerald; you have his counsel thrust out of Court—a counsel who, I think, will compare possibly not unfavourably either in character or in ability with the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken. Mr. Healy is flung out of the Court at the whim of these creatures of the Chief Secretary, and then the man is left defenceless and to his own resources, and actually for the very speech he made in his own defence he is sentenced to three months' imprisonment. I believe it is unheard of that an undefended prisoner should be subjected to this punishment simply because in his defence he is betrayed into a few words of rough truth—a few words which do not disgrace him in the smallest degree in the eyes of his countrymen or in the eyes of honest men in this country. It seems to me that the speeches we have heard to-night establish conclusively that these Magistrates are not content even with the ferocious powers which the Coercion Act gives, but that they must endeavour to heeltap that Coercion Act by having recourse to this ancient Statute against strangers and vagabonds. Whereas it appears as clear as daylight that seven days is the extent of the term of imprisonment for contempt, they have gone to this musty old Statute for a punishment which is in direct contravention of the pledge and understanding upon which this Coercion Act passed this House. The more this question is considered and discussed, the more, I believe, it will be seen that it is a cowardly and vindictive attempt to victimise a political opponent, because Dr. Tanner is supposed not to be a very popular person in this House. It is not the first time that the Government have pressed us too far before the ordinary humane feeling and sympathy of the people of England, and I dare say their experience to-night will have shown that they have ventured too far upon Dr. Tanner's personal unpopularity with a certain section of the House, and that they are not quite so safe as they supposed they were in attempting to degrade and to insult him, and to drag him about in the hands of policemen as they have done. I venture to
    112
    say that the man who is capable of directing that policy, or of tolerating such a policy, ought to blush for himself in the eyes of honest men, instead of smirking and bragging as he does of it. I will only refer to one other topic—the argument that Dr. Tanner might have obtained bail. Had he done so, it would have been a confession that he had been guilty of this disgraceful conduct, which he utterly repudiates. There is no reason why we should not all be shut up in secula seculorem without any particular charge being made if the Magistrates chose to take such a course. So far as we are concerned, we are accustomed to this sort of thing; but it is a very serious thing for you to encourage these officials in Ireland to believe that, practically speaking, they are safe in putting any story or any charge to the discredit or the dishonour of an Irish Nationalist, and that the more atrocious the charge the better are their chances of promotion. They are convinced that the right hon. Gentleman will accept any story they choose to tell him without qualification, and they are justified in that belief by the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. They know that he will resolutely refuse the English people any honest way of judging the conduct of his subordinates as the result of any honest and independent public inquiry. They have come to consider that if they only make themselves sufficiently obnoxious to the Irish people they will be the first to be pensioned off when Home Rule is established. It is a very dangerous feeling that you are encouraging in the minds of those officials, and it is time it should be known that the day will come when there will have to be a full and searching investigation into the right and truth of all these matters, if not under the present Government, at any rate under the Government that will succeed it. I have no doubt that when the treatment of Dr. Tanner is inquired into, it will be seen that it was an unworthy and disgraceful attempt to defame a political opponent, and but a part and parcel of the policy which you are endeavouring to carry out all over the country.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: It is very interesting, to hear the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) giving his opinion in regard

    113
    to odious insinuations. There is no better judge of odious insinuations in the world than the hon. Member. I do not know whether the House remembers, but I certainly do remember, that it was not from this side of the House, but from the hon. Member himself, that the most dreadful insinuations were heaped by him upon his present friends and allies on the Front Opposition Bench, insinuations so odious as not to bear repetition in the ears of civilised society. The hon. Member, alluding to the imprisonment of Dr. Tanner, has characterised that individual as an honest and warm-hearted Irish gentleman. Sir, I have my own opinion on that subject, and my opinion as to an honest, warmhearted, sober-minded Irish gentleman differs materially from that of the hon. Gentleman opposite. And now, Sir, I should like to draw attention to what is the real question before this House and the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston has alluded to it, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler) took it as his principal theme; and I think we may expect that, during the Recess, sermons from that text will be preached to the English people. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fowler) seemed to think that it is a very serious thing to imprison a Member of this House; but if an hon. Member of this House chooses to break the law, and subject himself to the penalties of the law, why, I ask, should he be treated in a different manner from that in which he would treat the meanest of Her Majesty's subjects? My hon. Friend is entirely astray when he says that the real question we are discussing is the punishment of Dr. Tanner for refusing to find bail. The question we are now debating is, whether the authorities were right in imprisoning Dr. Tanner, not for a contempt of Court, but for a disgraceful and an odious offence which was clearly proved against him. [Several hon. MEMBERS: No, no!] I am certainly right, because there was no rebutting evidence. If the hon. Member for Cork chose to allow himself to be accused in a Court of Justice of an odious offence, and deliberately refused to give evidence to the contrary, then he allows judgment to go by default against him. As to whether the hon. Member for Cork is or is not capable of such a disgraceful
    114
    act, I offer no opinion; but the conduct of the hon. Member is in the memory of the House, and all I can say is that the impression produced on my mind is that there are very few things he is not capable of doing in opposing the law.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: He is an Irish gentleman, and you would never dare to say that to his face.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin appealed at the outset of his speech to the sympathy of this House for Dr. Tanner. Now, what was the sympathy of the House to be accorded to Dr. Tanner for? It was because he was incarcerated in an Irish gaol. I cannot conceive that that appeal related to the decision on the question of contempt of Court, because, in all probability, that sentence will be quashed. As a Magistrate, I am not aware that there is power to inflict such a punishment as has been imposed upon Dr. Tanner, and I have a strong idea that that punishment will not be carried out. But that is not my point, and that is not the ground on which the Lord Mayor of Dublin appealed to the sympathy of this House and country. He appealed for that sympathy on the ground that Dr. Tanner is in gaol undergoing the penalty of hard labour, and that he had no right to appeal.
    MR. SEXTON: The right of appeal had been denied to him.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: In such a case as this no Magistrate would ever have given an appeal in the case of an ordinary individual or common person who had not attained the exalted rank of an Irish Nationalist Member; but if they had granted an appeal, on what ground would it have been given? Dr. Tanner had said they were a grossly unjust tribunal, utterly unfit to try the case, which was one of a disgraceful assault on a police officer, although, I am sorry to say, it is not one of a character which is utterly unknown in Ireland. The question I want to ask the House—and, if I live, I shall ask the country—is this: hon. Members opposite, for the purpose of spreading their own opinions, deliberately go over to Ireland and disobey the law to try to bring it into contempt. The law upon, which they trample is not a law passed by my right hon. Friend the Chief

    115
    Secretary, but by this democratic House of Commons; and I maintain that if there is one thing which the people of this country will insist upon more than another it is that Members of this House shall be treated in the eyes of the law in the same way as the meanest man in the Kingdom. You are asked to sympathise with the hon. Member for Cork because he is now in gaol under going the tyrannical law which this House has passed; but, in so putting himself in gaol, he has only fulfilled his highest aspirations. If the House will allow me, I will read an elegant extract from one of the hon. Gentleman's speeches——
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: As this Motion of Adjournment has been made on a definite matter of urgent public importance, I think the hon. Member should confine himself to the matter at issue.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I still maintain that, in imprisoning Dr. Tanner, the Magistrates were fulfilling his highest aspirations, openly expressed—namely, that he desired and hoped to be put in gaol, and to obtain a period of retirement, which he has now succeeded in securing. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin has appealed to this House for sympathy towards Dr. Tanner, who is now in prison for a disgraceful and odious offence; but it should be remembered that this is not an accusation suddenly brought against the Member for Mid Cork, but one which has been before the public for some time. Why did not the hon. Member come before the country and deny that he had ever committed such an abominable action? [An hon. MEMBER: "What chance had he?"] At all events, some of the 85 mouths below the Gangway on the other side of the House might have spoken for him. Allow me to point out how childish it was on the part of the hon. Member for North East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) to say why should Dr. Tanner in a Court of Justice attempt to deny a charge of this kind. I maintain that any man, whatever his position, is under the necessity of denying such a charge, supposing it to be untrue. I say it is the duty of every hon. Gentleman so charged of an abominable offence to establish his
    116
    character as a private man, and as a Member of this House. I hope the House will see that Her Majesty's Government, at any rate, are not to blame in this matter. Is there any instance on record in Parliamentary history of any hon. Member of this House getting up in his place and accusing the Government of the day of prostituting justice to their own ends, either in England, Wales, or Scotland? But because this occurred in Ireland, and because hon. Members opposite found their policy on a successful resistance to the law of Ireland, we have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, who is a lawyer and ought to know better, getting up in his place and without a shadow of foundation for his remarks accusing two Irish Magistrates of being absolutely destitute of one shred of honour, and of having for political motives prostituted the law which they were bound to administer. Whatever may be said of an Irish lawyer he may, at any rate, compare favourably with the right hon. Gentleman himself. No language is too strong to repudiate this attempt to vilify the Irish Magistrates, whoso duty is hard enough already, in the attempt to exercise the different functions which this House, and not Her Majesty's Government, have placed in their hands. And yet the right hon. Gentleman gets up in his place in this House and helps to fan the flame of illegality in Ireland, and to prompt the Irish people to disobey a law which this Parliament has passed.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I do not desire to detain the House on this question, but I think it right to say that I know Dr. Tanner to be a high-hearted and honourable man, and I am convinced that he did not commit the act of which he has been charged. I think I know more about Dr. Tanner's character than the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down, and I am not ashamed to say so. I believe him to be a very kind-hearted, honourable man, although, perhaps, not always very discreet. Some time ago a friend of mine who was travelling in Ireland met with a very severe accident by being thrown out of a car. Dr. Tanner took charge of this gentleman, and for many days nursed him most kindly and tenderly.
    MR. NOBLE: I rise to order. I wish to know whether the kindheartedness of Dr. Tanner is the question before the House?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: A few days ago I spoke to Dr. Tanner on the subject of the charge against him, and he assured me on his word of honour that he did not commit the act of which he was accused, and I believe him. The House should remember that Dr. Tanner did not produce evidence in contradiction of the charge against him because he denied the jurisdiction and competency of the Court. I would ask hon. Members opposite to consider whether it is not certain that two Resident Magistrates sentenced Dr. Tanner to one month's hard labour with the intention of ousting what would otherwise have been Dr. Tanner's appeal to the County Court. This is only one illustration of many cases of the same kind. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has pointed out that Dr. Tanner might have relieved himself from imprisonment by giving security and bail for his good conduct. But if Dr. Tanner had done so, he would have admitted that he had been in the wrong, and I do not think there is a Member of this House who, under similar circumstances, would have taken that course. When the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) was very unjustly sent to prison by a Conservative Government in 1868 for holding an Orange meeting in the North of Ireland, Lord Mayo offered to release him if he would enter into his recognizances for his future good conduct, and would undertake not to repeat the act, but the hon. Gentleman very rightly refused to give such an undertaking. If he had done otherwise, I think he would have forfeited the good opinion of every Irishman. I will conclude by remarking that, in my opinion, the Magistrates took this method of dealing with Dr. Tanner's case knowing that that Gentleman would go to prison for three months in addition to the three months' hard labour that had previously been inflicted upon him on another charge.
    SIR H. DAVEY: I do not think there is any real difference of opinion among lawyers on the point before the House. No hon. and learned Member opposite has expressed the
    118
    opinion that the Magistrates had jurisdiction to inflict three months' imprisonment on the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner). To put a strained interpretation on the Statute of Edward III. so as to include contempt of Court within the general wording is not a proper use of the Statute. It has been said that legal questions which may come before the Courts ought not to be argued in this House; but I claim, on behalf of the honour and dignity of the House, the right to bring forward any case wherein a Member of the House has been committed to prison by a Magistrate acting in excess of his jurisdiction. This is not a question affecting Dr. Tanner, but it affects the House. I deny that because it is a matter which may have to be decided by the Courts the House is precluded from discussing the reasons why one of its Members is prevented from attending its sittings. We have continually called, and intend to call, the attention of the House to any case in which there has appeared to be any maladministration of justice in the circumstances in which Ireland is now placed The Government have obtained an exceptional Act creating an exceptional tribunal. I admit that the Act is the law of the land, and that we cannot complain of the powers which it confers being exercised. But the exceptional character of the Act makes it more incumbent on the House to take care that the large jurisdiction conferred on Magistrates shall not be exceeded. Then we are told that this may be a matter of appeal, or that a certiorari might be applied for. I do not know what course Dr. Tanner may take, but even if he applies for a certiorari that does not answer the point which the Lord Mayor of Dublin has brought before the House. The right hon. Gentleman expended a great deal of eloquence in describing the horrible and abominable nature of the crime of which Dr. Tanner has been convicted. If Dr. Tanner has been guilty of that offence it may be admitted that his conduct was at least unbecoming and unworthy of a gentleman. But the real points are—first, whether the Magistrates have not exceeded their jurisdiction; and, secondly, whether they have exercised that jurisdiction in a proper manner by refusing an oppor-

    119
    tunity of appeal from the sentence. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it was Dr. Tanner's own fault in not finding surety. Why, if Dr. Tanner had done so he would have admitted the jurisdiction of the Court to make that order; and the jurisdiction has not been seriously defended by any single Member of the House. With regard to the refusal of the right of appeal in connection with the first sentence, I can only say that under the special circumstances of the ease when Dr. Tanner had been deprived of the services of his counsel, I know not whether rightly or wrongly, owing to that gentleman having conducted himself in a manner which the Magistrates considered improper, and when the Magistrates were told that there was evidence which might put a different complexion on the case, it was their duty either to postpone the trial so that the accused might obtain other advice, or to inflict such a sentence as would enable Dr. Tanner to appeal to a higher Court. The Solicitor General for Ireland will not go further than to say that doubts have been entertained whether the Statute of Edward III. applies to a ease like this. But when the Summary Jurisdiction Act prescribes a remedy and fixes the punishment of one week's imprisonment, the effect of that enactment is to prevent the Magistrates from inflicting any greater term of imprisonment. Otherwise, the Magistrates would be able to do indirectly that which they are prohibited from doing directly. The Secretary for Ireland repeated that he is determined to discharge his duty, and to preserve respect for the law in Ireland. But I tell him that events such as this, if what is stated is true, constitute a mockery and travesty of justice—the idea of giving three months for what the Magistrate is restricted to one week! These cases are calculated to destroy respect for law in Ireland. If the Government had expressed their regret that the Magistrates had exceeded their jurisdiction and would take care that no harm came to Dr. Tanner, it would be far otherwise. But when the Irish people see that the Government use all their powers to support sentences and orders against Dr. Tanner which they do not venture to say are in accordance with law, it is not to be expected that they will show much respect for the
    120
    law which was administered in their own country.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir E. WEBSTER,): It is a pity that my hon. and learned Friend, for whose opinions on all legal questions I entertain the highest respect, should have made a speech without acquainting himself with the facts. My hon. and learned Friend has said that if what is stated is true this trial has been a mockery and travesty of justice, and that Dr. Tanner is at that moment illegally imprisoned.
    SIR HORACE DAVEY: I did not say that.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Then I do not understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant.
    SIR HORACE DAVEY: What I said, or at least intended to say, was that the Government were supporting an order made by Magistrates for three months' imprisonment.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: My hon. and learned Friend could not have made the statement he did if he had known the facts. Imprisonment has been inflicted for the disgraceful offence referred to for one month. At the end of that month any question with reference to the further sentence of three months can be raised. Now, what are the facts? My hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton have attributed injustice to the Magistrates, because it is said that they acted in the absence of Dr. Tanner's counsel. My hon. and learned Friend further said that the Magistrates were told that there was other evidence, and that they ought to have adjourned the case. But my hon. and learned Friend seems to have forgotten that on the 2nd of July the hon. and learned Member for Longford appeared for Dr. Tanner and openly charged the Magistrates with being in a conspiracy against Dr. Tanner with the witnesses who gave evidence against him. He charged them with conspiring to prevent justice being done. I pass no opinion on the conduct of that hon. and learned Gentleman, but I would ask the attention of the House to what actually happened. One witness for Dr. Tanner was called and broke down, utterly failing to establish the innocence of the defendant. Thereupon the Court said that if there were further witnesses the

    121
    Court would adjourn, thus doing the very thing which my hon. and learned Friend said they ought to have done. The Court was adjourned from the 2nd to the 26th of July, and since then Dr. Tanner has been in communication with many of his able and accomplished friends in the House, and, among them, with the Member for Bradford, as that right hon Gentleman has told us to-night. It is trifling with the House when it is said of an hon. Member accused of a disgusting offence — it is trifling with the House to say that he had witnesses who could prove that he was not guilty, and declined to call them. Dr. Tanner acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court, having appeared before it by counsel and solicitor, and called a witness; the House, therefore, will draw its own conclusions as to why the other witnesses were not called. Further, having regard to the character of the language admitted by the Lord Mayor of Dublin to have been used by Dr. Tanner, the Court would not have been justified in taking the protests of a man who had used such language against the testimony of witnesses who had been sworn and cross-examined. My hon. and learned Friend challenges me to pledge my reputation as to a particular view of the law. Well, it does not seem to me that this is the right place for one lawyer to boast or brag of his own opinion or to pledge his reputation; but when the Statute comes to be examined I think a great deal more is to be said for the power of the Justices who had such conduct before them to act upon the Statute than has been suggested. But I decline in this House to express an opinion upon a matter which ought to be discussed and dealt with by a proper legal tribunal upon proper information. It seems to me that, inasmuch as this question may be raised elsewhere in the course of a few days or a few weeks, it would not be right for anyone to pledge his reputation either on one side or on the other in this House.
    MR. REID: Will the Attorney General say whether the Statute has ever been so used since the reign of Edward III.?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I am not able to make all my observations at the same time. No doubt I ought to have answered
    122
    the hon. Member for Dumfries first. I know of no case in which the Statute has been so used. On the other hand, I am very glad to know that the instances of such insults offered to Magistrates in the face of the Court are of very rare occurrence indeed. At any rate, the law books I am privileged to consult do not show many such instances. But this is not the proper tribunal for dealing with the case. With characteristic candour the Lord Mayor of Dublin has admitted that if the offence were proved he would not say the sentence was too great. But the Court had the proof before it, and passed a sentence, and it would be improper for this House to try the validity of an Order which might be appealed against next week. My hon. and learned Friend has said that if Dr. Tanner had been willing to give security he would have admitted the jurisdiction. But my hon. and learned Friend will not find a scintilla of authority to show that a man who has obeyed the order of the Court in a criminal case has waived his right to go into the Court of Queen's Bench next day, either by certiorari or habeas corpus. I do not intend to notice every point which has been raised. But I trust I have addressed myself to the points as to which hon. Members wish that I should say a word. I trust that nothing which has occurred this evening will lead anyone to the conclusion that the Court ought not to deal with the case on the evidence before it. If Magistrates are to listen to the protestations of innocence where no evidence is called, or are afraid to do their duty, there is an end of any bonâ fide administration of the law. Even my right hon. Friend will agree with me that the case having been adjourned, and Dr. Tanner, having declined to produce evidence, the Court had no option but to perform its duty, and to do so fearlessly.
    MR. A. BLANE: I trust that the House will listen to the few words I have to say. We have it admitted that this assault alleged to have been committed on a policeman was not an ordinary assault. It was committed, if at all, while Dr. Tanner was in custody. That must not be forgotten. He had been sentenced to three months' imprisonment by a Resident Magistrate for an offence under the Coercion Act, and while he

    123
    was being conveyed to prison it was alleged that he committed this assault. He, therefore, brought himself within the scope of the Prison Act of 1877, and under the rules the Governor of the prison or the Visiting Justices were the proper authority for trying him for the alleged offence. But that did not suit the purposes of the Government. They preferred to allow the term of imprisonment to expire and not to take any proceedings until Dr. Tanner had regained his liberty. I contend that this is an infringement of the Prison Act of 1877, and I cannot understand how any Member of the Government can get up and defend such a scandalous Act. I submit, also, that Dr. Tanner was quite justified in refusing to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Magistrates.
    MR. SCHWANN: I wish only to speak as to a question of fact. It has been stated that the language used in Court by the hon. Member for Mid Cork was unusual. I beg entirely to challenge that statement. Only a few weeks ago I was present at a trial of two Members of this House before two Resident Magistrates at Drogheda, and they were defended by Mr. Bodkin, who used towards the Magistrates much the same language as that imputed to Dr. Tanner. Mr. Bodkin stated that in his opinion the Magistrates had the sentence they were to pass already in their pockets, or that they would telegraph to Dublin for it. Therefore, the language that Dr. Tanner had used did not appear to be unusual in Ireland, and the argument based upon that statement falls to the ground.
    The House divided: —Ayes 118; Noes 174.—(Div. List, No. 268.)

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE &c. — LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Standing Committee on Trade, &c, do sit and proceed with the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill To-morrow, at One of the o'clock."—(Mr. Salt.)
MR. STOREY: I object to that, Sir. It was understood that the Committee of Selection was to nominate a number of Members to be added to the Grand Committee in respect
124
of this Bill. Being absent from the House on account of ill-health at the commencement of the Session, I was not placed on any Grand Committee. I have taken a special interest in this Bill; and the least the Government could have done would have been to have given me, or some other Member for me, the opportunity of laying my views before the Committee. When a Bill comes from a Grand Committee it does not pass through Committee of the whole House, and on the Report stage the privileges of Members are circumscribed. I, therefore, appeal to the Government, and especially to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who, I think, gave us if not an absolute promise at all events a tacit understanding that a certain number of gentlemen should be added to the Committee.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Committee of Selection reported the day before yesterday that they had added 15 Members to the Grand Committee. The 15 names are in the Votes.
MR. STOREY: Might I ask what the names are?
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will read them. Mr. Biggar, Mr. Blane, Mr. Crilly, Mr. Edward Harrington, Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. Macartney, Mr. Madden, Mr. Marum, Sir Joseph M'Kenna, Mr. Molloy, Colonel Nolan, Mr. O'Hea, Mr. Parnell, Mr. T. W. Russell, and Colonel Saunderson.
MR. STOREY: Well, Sir, I suppose it is too late to object to the names, but I can, at least, resist this Motion, and I shall do so because the names added are those of Irish Members who, with one or two exceptions, act on the principle of getting as much English money as they can. I do not think the Government have treated us quite fairly in this matter.
Mr. TOMLINSON: I ask you, Sir, whether it is in order for the hon. Member to accuse the Government of having had any share in the nomination of these Members, it being, according to the Standing Orders of this House, the duty of the Committee of Selection to put the names in?
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERcalled on Mr. Storey to proceed.
MR. STOREY: Well, Sir, I do not see what point of order that is. I say it is notorious that a number of English

125
Members have in season and out of season resisted this Bill in the interest of the taxpayers, and the least that could have been done in fairness was that some of these Gentlemen should have been put upon the Committee, so that they might be able there to state their views in regard to the measure. The Bill is of an extremely complicated character. The details are of the essence of it. In its present form it does not lay down any distinct plan upon which the money is to be spent. It may under the Bill be spent in Antrim, where they do not need it, or in Galway where they do. I think we could in the room upstairs give ample reasons why a considerable alteration should be made in the conditions and terms of the measure. I think that in the seclusion of that roots we could convince the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that before he took the money of his constituents in Manchester and agreed to spend it in Ireland, he should define in the Bill how and where he was going to spend it and to what extent as between province and province.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the Amendments. That is not in order.
MR. W. H. SMITH: Let me appeal to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think it is in order that this Question should now be debated. The Motion is merely an intimation to the House that an arrangement has been made for the Committee to meet to-morrow. The Committee will meet without an order of the House.
MR. STOREY: I will not compete in knowledge or experience with the right hon. Gentleman, but I know that when Mr. Speaker puts a question from the Chair it is possible to debate it. I heard the question put, and I think I can urge reasons against the Motion. I want to appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chief Secretary. The opponents of that Bill have not been fairly treated. They have not had an opportunity of presenting their views in a quiet and calm Committee upstairs. I wish the Chief Secretary to come to some reasonable arrangement by which there shall be put on the Committee the hon. Member for Bristol, the hon. Member for Lanark, the hon. Member for Spalding, or myself. (Ironical Cheers.) There is no reason for cheering when I
126
ask for a little work. I believe that legally I can move that this Debate be now adjourned, and I beg to do so.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Storey.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course we are anxious that the discussion in the Grand Committee should take place as soon as possible, but if the hon. Member is strongly of opinion that it should be delayed, I shall be ready to postpone the first meeting till next Tuesday. As to the constitution of the Committee, that is not merely technically but substantially outside the control of the Government. It would be a serious and a disastrous thing if the Government were to attempt to interfere with the discretion of the Committee of Selection. I have had no communication with that Committee, and am not a Member of the Grand Committee. If the hon. Gentleman will approach the Committee of Selection and lay his grievance before them, it is possible that some arrangement may be come to by which his demands will be met.
MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: As I happen to have some experience in this matter, having acted as Chairman of one of these Grand Committees for the last two years, I may be allowed to support what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. The constitution of these Committees rests entirely with the Committee of Selection, and the Government has nothing to do with it.
COLONEL NOLAN: When it was proposed to send this Bill to a Grand Committee I objected, on the ground that every opportunity would be taken to cause delay. The Chairman of the Committee was away a day or two, and, therefore, we did not sit yesterday or to-day, and now here is another proposal for delay. I object to the whole tactics of the hon. Member for Sunderland, which are tactics of delay. He has said he believes greatly in the power of talk in Committee. I do not object to his threatening to give us in Committee one long flow of wishy-washy talk, but I do object to his delaying the progress of this Bill. The Committee of Selection have added fifteen Members to the Grand Com-

127
mittee. They are all Irish Members, and the hon. Member for Storey— [Laughter] —I beg pardon, the hon. Member for Sunderland, could not be better represented. My hon. Friend the Member for Cavan objects to all railway locomotion in Ireland, and has gone into the highways and byways to find another Member to support him.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: All this is not relevant to the Motion for adjournment.
COLONEL NOLAN: Well, Sir, I will drop all this, although it was gone into by the hon. Member for Sunderland.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member forgets that the hon. Member for Sunderland spoke before the Motion was made.
COLONEL NOLAN: On the question that the Debate be adjourned I strongly beseech the Government not to give way to this Motion. The hon. Member for Sunderland can effect his object in another way. To-morrow I will move the Committee of Selection to put him on at once, but I want the Committee to meet to-morrow, but if we adjourn the Debate the meeting will be put off until Tuesday. I beg the Government will reconsider their determination and not consent to an adjournment. I for one, as an advocate of the Bill, will use any influence I can with the Committee of Selection and the Trade Committee, to induce them to add the hon. Member for Sunderland to the Committee. I hope there will be no delay. I think the course I propose is the most practical. We are at the end of the Session, and can count our remaining time by days, and I know from my Parliamentary experience that if the Bill is put off for six or seven days it is gone. I think my proposal is the most feasible.
SIR HENRY TYLERrose in his place and claimed to move "That the question be now put," but Mr. Deputy Speaker declined then to put that question.
MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I would like to ask, as a question of order, is it necessary to have any order of the House at all on this matter?
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I confess I am not aware that it is, but the Motion has been put from the Chair.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
COLONEL NOLAN: I object to the Motion being withdrawn.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion altogether from the consideration of the House.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the Debate be now adjourned. This was moved by the hon. Member for Sunderland, and he must ask leave to withdraw first.
MR. SEXTON: Before that Motion is withdrawn I feel it my duty to say that I differ from my hon. and gallant Friend on the immediate question. The Chief Secretary quite correctly said that the Government are in no way responsible for the action of the Committee of Selection, who exercise in this regard wholly independent functions. I take an impartial position in regard to the Bill. I am not anxious for it, and I do not oppose it, but I think the hon. Member for Sunderland has made out a good case. He is a strong opponent of the Bill, on the merits of which strong differences of opinion exist, and I think he is entitled to be on this Committee, which if the Committee is to meet to-morrow he cannot be. The Bill contains complicated details that demand careful study. I have a number of Amendments of a somewhat technical character, which I should be glad to give more consideration to. If the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion for adjournment, and the First Lord would amend his Motion and order the Committee to meet on Tuesday instead of tomorrow, that would give opportunity to consider what representation the hon. Member for Sunderland should have on the Committee.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I think that is a very reasonable suggestion.
MR. ILLINGWORTH: As a member of the Committee of Selection, I should just like to point out that the Committee have no power to make alterations in the Standing Committee except to fill up vacancies that occur from resignation.
MR. W. H. SMITH: It appears to me that the interval between this and Tuesday will allow of communications passing, and lead, I hope, to an understanding being arrived at. It is not possible for the Government to interfere in the matter; we have no authority to do so. I trust the House will accept

129
the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast.
MR. STOREY: I think it is a very reasonable course. In asking leave to withdraw my Motion, I will only say I hope the Government will use their moral influence in favour of some representation of the opposition to the Bill being on the Committee.
Motion for adjournment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to move that Tuesday be substituted for to-morrow.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "to-morrow" in order to insert the words "upon Tuesday next." —(Mr. Sexton.)
Question proposed, "That the word to-morrow' stand part of the Question."
MR. STOREY: No; I think that is not the way of meeting the point. I think the Motion should be withdrawn altogether, because——
MR. W. H. SMITH: I will withdraw the Motion altogether.
MR. STOREY: What I was going to point out is this: If the Resolution is passed and the Committee of Selection do not see their way to making any change in the Committee, then the Committee will meet in its present form on Tuesday. This I object to, and I desire that the Motion should now be withdrawn.
COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to point out that the hon. Member for Sunderland has not exactly risen at the proper time. He advocated one course, and I advocated one in a diametrically opposite direction. I am sorry to find myself in opposition to the hon. Member, but on this question of Light Railways we must agree to differ, except that I quite agree with him that these Light Railways should be constructed in Galway. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast suggested that the hon. Member for Sunderland should withdraw his Motion, and that the Motion of the First Lord should be put in a modified form. We allowed the hon. Member for Sunderland to withdraw his Motion, we challenged no Division, but he now gets up and objects to the other part of the proposition of my right lion. Friend, which was to balance the other. Certainly I think the hon.
130
Member for Sunderland, having been allowed to withdraw his Motion, ought now to accept the other part of the advice of the right hon. Member for Belfast. We will use any influence we have to get his name added to the Committee; more we cannot do. The only pledge the Members of the Government could give would be as individual Members; but I can see there is an awkwardness about that.
MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: This is a very important matter, as bearing upon future action. I feel certain that when once a Bill is referred to the Standing Committee no further order is necessary. Over and over again I, as Chairman of the Committee, have acted on that understanding, and I think it is introducing what may be a dangerous precedent to say it is necessary there should be a further order as to when the Committee should meet. I would suggest, therefore, that the proper course is for the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) to withdraw his Motion. As to the constitution of the Committee that is an entirely distinct matter.
MR. BARING: It seems to me some Resolution of the House is necessary, because ever since the Committee on Trade has existed it has sat on Mondays and Thursdays, and a Resolution to the same effect was passed this year.
MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: Of course the Committee having power proprio motu to fix, can also change, the day; there is no difficulty about that.
MR. COSSHAM: I have prepared a number of Amendments which I hoped to urge in Committee of the whole House, and which cannot be discussed if the Bill is referred to a Committee upstairs. I think it is unfair that those who have given notice of their objection to details of the measure should be precluded from the opportunity of ventilating their objections.
MR. W. H. SMITH: Every Amendment of which any hon. Member has given notice on the Paper will be referred to the Committee. I desire to withdraw my Motion.
DR. CLARK: This Order is not upon the Paper at all, and I do not know whether it is regular, whether it is convenient or necessary, but I wish to ask if the Motion is withdrawn will

131
the Government take any steps to have the Committee meet on Tuesday? Otherwise the Committee may meet on Monday and proceed with the Bill before any change is made in the constitution of the Committee. Now there are some Members of: the Committee who have paired for the Session, and it can easily be arranged that the Committee shall be supplemented by some of my hon. Friends who are prepared to wait until the end of the Session.
MR. CRAIG: There was an agreement at the last meeting of the Committee that Members should only be called together after ample notice, both to allow of time being given to a fair and judicious examination of the Bill and Amendments as well as to allow of Members making their own arrangements. I hope this understanding will be carried out.
MR. CRILLY: I hope the Government will resist these attempts at delay. Those hon. Members who have objections to the Bill have had ample time to prepare their Amendments. This Light Railways Bill has been before the House for a considerable period. An attempt is now being made by the hon. Member for Sunderland and his colleagues to defeat the Bill by delays, and I hope the Government will resist such an attempt. If I had my way I would have insisted as one of the new members added to the Committee on Trade on the observance of the notice on the card handed to me to-night in the Post Office, that a meeting of the Committee should be held to - morrow at 1, because the Session is drawing to a close, and if there is any merit in the Bill at all that can only be secured by the Committee proceeding with the Bill strenuously at once. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of Dublin that as the friends of the Bill have not, perhaps, had time to well consider their Amendments, it is desirable to meet on Tuesday, but I do trust that the Government will resolutely carry the Bill through, disregarding the efforts of my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland and Cavan, who, I believe, want to kill the Bill for the Session. My desire, and the desire of North Mayo, is that the Bill should pass into law, and little as I like making such appeals, I do make the
132
appeal to the Chief Secretary and the Solicitor General for Ireland to show the strength of their good intentions by using their influence to secure the meeting of the Committee on Tuesday to proceed with the Bill, irrespective of whether my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland and Cavan have or have not sufficient representation on the Committee, because, so far as I can analyse the disposition of the 15 additional members placed on the Committee, I think they are pretty evenly divided for and against the measure.
MR. PHILIPPS: Is it too late to reconsider the question whether the Bill should be referred to the Committee on Trade at all?
MR. MACARTNEY: If the Motion is withdrawn do the Government intend that the Committee should proceed with the Bill on Tuesday or not?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The day for which these Committees are summoned depends not on the Government, but on the Chairman of the Committee. Notices have been given for the Committee to meet tomorrow, but obviously that cannot take place now. If this Motion is withdrawn the result will be, that as the days originally fixed for the meeting of the Committee were Mondays and Thursdays, the Committee would meet pro formâ on Monday, and then decide to go on with the consideration of the Bill on Tuesday.
MR. BIGGAR: The thing is practically settled in a sensible manner. I understand that the Committee of Selection will try to place upon the Grand Committee a certain number of English Members who are specially interested in the subject, and these will be reasonably prepared to go on with business on Tuesday.
MR. E. HARRINGTON: I have not troubled the House for some time, and may be allowed a few words. I wish to put myself right in the position I take. I intend to support the measure, but certainly I do not think that the Radical Members who oppose it are under any animus towards us, and if I were an English Member——
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question is that "to-morrow" stand part of the Question.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACHrose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
MR. A. O'CONNOR: May I ask you, Sir, on a point of procedure, whether this is not the first time any such Question has been put from the Chair; and, whether if that is so, it may not be a precedent to rule all subsequent proceedings in regard to these matters?
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Similar questions have repeatedly been put from the Chair.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 58.—(Div. List, No. 269.)
Question, "That the word 'tomorrow' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
Words "upon Tuesday next" inserted.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Ordered—
"That the Standing Committee upon Trade &c, do sit and proceed with the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill upon Tuesday next, at One of the clock."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PRINCE OF WALES'S CHILDREN BILL (No. 358.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to move an Amendment with regard to this Bill, Clause 1, line 28, to leave out the words "Trustees hereinafter mentioned." Mr. Courtney, strong language has been used by Gentlemen opposite, and by some Gentlemen on this side of the House, against those who oppose this Grant, in pursuance of what we estimate to be our duty. But if this money is to be granted I cannot exactly see why we should interfere between the Prince of Wales and his children and a number of Trustees. We have more confidence than the Government in the Prince of Wales's honour and policy. It seems to me that this proposal involves the
  134
  idea that if this money were left to the management of the Prince of Wales he would make away with it. We heard some very beautiful sentiments from the right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. W. H. Smith) about the family relations when he brought in this Bill, but when he comes to give effect to his own ideas of family, he actually wishes to make clear that this House is not prepared to trust the parent with the money. I always thought it would be more simple to vote the money directly to the children, or that the money should be voted to the Prince of Wales to be allocated in certain fixed ways amongst the children. But, then, what is the good of Trustees? They are an extra and perfectly unnecessary wheel of the coach. The father is the fitting trustee of the children, and it seems to me that the only plea and reason why, instead of voting the money directly to the children of the Prince of Wales we should vote it to the Prince of Wales, is to recognise in some sort of way his parental authority. His Royal Highness is not a young man. He is almost middle-aged, and this proposal really does seem a gratuitous insult on the part of the Government towards the Prince of Wales. We wish on this side of the House to free ourselves from any notion that we wish to impose such a condition on the Prince of Wales, or that we remotely or distantly imagine that the Prince of Wales is not to be trusted with the money that we vote to his children. It seems to me that those who advocate the passing of these Grants say that the Prince of Wales shall be nominally the holder of this money, but we will put half-a dozen policeman around him to see that he does not make away with it. I think it is more consistent with the respect which this House entertains for the Prince of Wales, and its belief that he is a perfectly honest man, and that he would honestly administer this money, that we should do away entirely with these trustees. Of course, if this Amendment be carried it will be necessary to carry a certain number of consequential Amendments, although I do not think there is likely to be any discussion if this Amendment be carried. This Amendment recognises the Prince of Wales as the fitting guardian and trustee of his children, and objects to the interpolation of "trustees" because

  135
  the Government chooses to distrust the honesty of the Prince of Wales.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 28, to leave out the words "trustees hereinafter mentioned."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 147; Noes 47.—(Div. List, No. 270.)
  MR. STOREY: I now move the Amendment which stands in my name, by which I propose to strike out the words "thirty-six" in order to insert the words "twenty-one." I may say that I am quite prepared for the imputation of shabbiness from hon. Members on the other side of the House, or, if not from them, from the organs which represent or misrepresent them in the country. I care no more for imputations of shabbiness than hon. Members opposite care for imputations of wasteful extravagance. I would here venture to remark that we are to-night, or, perhaps, to-morrow, absolutely going to vote more money than Her Majesty has asked for. When Ministers come down and represent that it is necessary, in additfon to the extraordinary large sums voted to support the dignity of the Throne, that more money should be voted, it was originally intended to ask for a sum of £13,000 per annum; but a Committee "was appointed, and the result was that £23,000 a year more was asked for. I propose in some degree to remedy that exceedingly improper proposal by reducing the sum asked for to £21,000. I am not unwilling to admit that the elder son of the Prince of Wales should have £10,000 a year, and as the younger Prince would probably feel uncomfortable if he had much less than his brother, I am not unwilling to admit that he should have £8,000 a year. Nor do I object that the Princess just married, and whose happiness we all desire, just as we desire the happiness of every young bride in England, should have £3,000 a year. In that way I get at the sum of £21,000. What I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is—where is the other £15,000 going to? Is the Prince of Wales to have it? Or is it to be spent for the other young
  136
  Princesses? If not, what is to be done with it? Is it to be accumulated and invested? If so I entirely resist and repel the notion that out of the public money any sum should be given to be invested and accumulated for future purposes. We live now in troublous days for Royal people. I believe that Napoleon when on the Throne of France invested large sums in English and American securities, so that when the inevitable issue came he might not be without resources. Can it be that our Royal Family think their position so insecure that they, too, wanted to make a bag, that when the inevitable change comes they may not be left without means? If this extra £15,000is not spent on the Princesses, and if it is not to be spent by the Prince of Wales, and if it is not to be accumulated, what is to become of it? I suggest that the proper thing would be to keep it in the Public Exchequer. It is the people's money. It ought not to be reserved for the probabilities of the future; there ought to be no disposition to make insurance against the future. The ancient Constitutional practice of this country has been, year by year, to meet the necessities of the year, and so also should it be in the case of the Royal Family. I propose, therefore, that instead of paying £36,000 out of the National Exchequer we should pay £20,000. In Clause 2 of the Bill—if I may refer, for the purpose of explanation and elucidation, to further Amendments—I propose to give effect to my contention by providing that the annual sum which the Trustees hold under the Act shall be distributed in a certain statutory manner and not according to the notion of the father or grandmother. There have been oases in history where Kings have blessed favourite sons and cursed those they thought less of—when the money that the people had given for the support of the Royal Family was wasted on certain members of the Royal Family, while others were left in need. Therefore, I propose that the money should not be distributed according to the temporary wish or whim of the Trustees or anyone else, but that it should be distributed amongst the grandchildren of the Queen so as to relieve them from fear as to whether they will receive it or not. I propose that the eldest Prince shall receive five-twelfths of the £21,000; the

  137
  second Prince four-twelfths, and the daughters one-twelfth each. In this way we shall guard against anything like a recurrence of that period in history when there was a King's Party and a Prince's Party, as happened in the time of George II., a state of things which might arise if the demise of the Prince of Wales should take place. The inevitable consequence of such a state of things would be that there would be dissensions, and that the Prince would depend upon others for what he received. I say that if this money is to be divided Parliament should say precisely how the division is to be made. Now, why do I fix on this sum of £15,000 to be saved to the public purse? I fix on it because it is almost exactly the sum that is saved at the present moment upon the gifts to the Queen under the Act of 1837. The Report of the Committee shows that between£15,000 and £16,000 a year, which is given for specific purposes, has not been applied to those purposes, but has been, instead, paid into the Privy Purse of the Queen and become her private property. So long as this £15,000 a year is saved, the Government have no right to come to this House and ask for a further Grant in aid. When I made my speech the other night I had the misfortune to be followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone). It was not a misfortune for the House or the country, but it was an extreme misfortune for me, because the right hon. Gentleman's great authority, and influence, and knowledge were all exerted to prove that I was wrong, and that the Government were right. Well, I would put this point— which is extremely germane to the point I am urging—both to the First Lord of the Treasury and the Member for Mid Lothian, that there is no precedent in the whole history of England for the Ministry coming to this House and asking for a grant in aid whilst already the Sovereign had resources.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I did not catch the point of the hon. Member.
  MR. STOREY: What I say is, I have looked up authorities, and I find that in this country in the whole of the dealings between the King and his subjects on the matter of grants in aid
  138
  there has never been an application made without a previous statement on the part of the Crown that the resources were exhausted, and that it was necessary to ask for more money. [A laugh.] I do not understand that laugh.
  MR. GOSCHEN: No such declaration has been made in recent years.
  MR. STOREY: No, and why? I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there has been any declaration made in recent years that the Queen had large savings? I want to know whether any declaration was made in 1882 or 1885, when we put questions to the Government on the subject of the savings on the Civil List. We were told that we have not to inquire into that. But I contend there is a necessity for such an inquiry, and that it is no answer to me to say that there has been no such declaration in recent years. It has been done during the whole of the time of the House of Hanover. The practice prevailed in the time of Elizabeth and in the reign of Charles I. I have here evidence to show that in the time of William III. such declaration was made. In the time before William IV. a demand for money for the support of the younger branches of the Royal Family was always preceded by the statement—
  "Whereas His Majesty is restrained by the laws now in being from making provision for his younger children."
  These were the wise days when the King was not permitted to own property, except such as fell to the State when he died. I submit there is no such statement now, because since that unfortunate Act of 1873, it is not impossible for the head of the State to provide for younger children. What I want to point out is, that the object to be attained is the same. The point of view of the people then was "The king has no more money; give him some more; long live the King." What is the point of view now? The Queen comes to us and confesses through her Ministers that she has enormous sums of money.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): No.
  MR. STOREY: I suppose that to the right hon. Gentleman £824,000 is not enormous. It is to me. But I will not

  139
  go into figures. I will say a great sum of money.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Not great.
  MR. STOREY: Well, I should like to have it. I will not even insist on "great." It is not necessary to my argument. I will say the Queen has ample resources.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No.
  MR. STOREY: Well, she has resources. If the right hon. Gentleman will get up and tell me that the Queen has no resources, then, Radical as I am, I will vote for the Grant. The other night I objected to the declaration that this demand is founded upon reason. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian insisted upon it, and told us he was one of the old-fashioned order who stood upon precedent. I am prepared to state this tonight, and without fear of contradiction, that there never was a precedent in the history of England for an application from the Sovereign to Parliament without a preliminary statement, either in the Message itself or in the speech of a Minister, that the Queen had no resources for the purpose. I hold that the Queen at the present time has resources which she may fairly employ for the purpose in view. I was very much rebuked the other night for having made what was said to be a reckless statement about the savings of the Queen. That rebuke came from the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill), and I must say that such an accusation comes with admirable grace from one whose name in the Parliament of 1880 was a synonym for all recklessness of speech and act. I make the same contention now. Until this £824,000 is exhausted there is not, according to the Constitution or precedent, any right in the Crown or any propriety in Ministers to come down to the House and ask for further Grants.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I rise to order. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that there should be no Grant at all, whereas the question before the Committee is the reduction of the Vote to £21,000.
  MR. STOREY: Now with regard to this £15,000 or £16,000, I will ask the question again, why should that, instead of being applied to the support of these younger branches of the Royal Family, go into a fund of accumulation. The
  140
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, when I raised this point the other night, told me, if I looked at the Act of 1837, I should find a distinct declaration that the whole sum of £385,000, clear and certain income, had to be paid to Her Majesty. I have read the Act over and over again, and although I am no lawyer, or because I am no lawyer, I can read the common sense of the Act, and I say there is no such statement whatever in it. First, I must tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Parliament did not give the Queen any money whatever. Parliament had had no experience of Her Majesty. If it had it would have been less jealous. But former Parliaments had had experience of former Sovereigns—experience of waste, extravagance, and constant running into debt—and, therefore, when the new Civil List was granted, not one penny was ordered to be paid to Her Majesty, except the sum of £60,000. The whole of the rest of the money was to be paid to trustees. Clause 2 of the Act says, "That for the support of Her Majesty's household, and of the honour and dignity of the Crown, and for the payment of the charges on the first, second, fourth, and sixth classes in the schedule, it is enacted that there shall be granted to Her Majesty during her life a net yearly revenue of £385,000, and the Lord Treasurer or the Commissioners of the Treasury are hereby authorised on and during every succeeding quarter to cause the said yearly revenue to be issued and applied from time to time, monthly, weekly, or otherwise, for the uses and purposes by this Act appointed."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The hon. Gentleman has omitted the important words, "Paid to Her Gracious Majesty during her life."
  MR. STOREY: The right hon. Gentleman cannot suppose I would wilfully omit so obvious a thing as that. There can be no doubt that it is to be paid to Her Majesty during her life, and the clause goes on to show how. It is to be paid to the Trustees.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There are no Trustees.
  MR. STOREY: The only way I can settle it is to read the clause throughout.
  The hon. Gentleman again read the clause, down to the words, "The Queen, whom God long preserve."
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: "Amen."
  MR. STOREY: That rather offensive ejaculation comes from a Loyalist of the North of Ireland.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I wish to know, Sir, whether there is anything improper in my saying "Amen" to the wish for the preservation of Her Majesty's life.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Let the hon. Member proceed, but I hope that he will be more succinct in his argument.
  MR. STOREY: In view of what has fallen from you, Sir, I will not continue to read the terms of the Act. My opinion is that this clause means that there is to be granted for certain specific purposes £385,000, but that is not to be paid to Her Majesty except as regards the £60,000. The rest is to be retained in the Treasury, and to be paid out at convenient periods for the purposes specified. Then Clause 8 recites absolutely what is to be done with this money. All sums of money shall become due and payable out of the Civil List revenues for any of the purposes of this Act, and be paid in the order and according to the plan herein mentioned —and it being expedient—and I invite the attention of my hon. Friends to the change in the law—to specify the sums to be appropriated to each class, an estimate has been laid before Parliament, and the amount for each class respectively is specified in the schedule of the Act. That means that the money has been appropriated to distinct classes, and for these classes it is to be used. The clause also means, that, given A, B, and C, the money set apart for A is during the year to be spent on A; the sum for B is to be paid for B, and the same with regard to C. Now, the only other clause which I will touch is Clause 9. That enacts that if any surplus be carried forward into the Exchequer, the amount shall be applied in aid of the charges of any other class or charges upon the Civil List revenues, in such manner as may under the circumstances appear to be most convenient. Now, I hope I shall get the assent of the Government to my view of that Clause. Given at the end of the year a saving in A and a deficiency in B, it is
  142
  legal under this provision to take the saving in A to supply the deficiency in B. But supposing there is not a deficiency in any, what follows? In that case the Act says the surplus may be applied for any charge or charges upon Her Majesty's Civil List revenues in such manner as may, under the circumstances, appear most convenient. I will put a case. Suppose no deficiency in any class. Suppose the Queen has got her £60,000 from the Privy Purse, what charge remains to which the money is to be applied? When I put this case the other night, the noble Lord said, "What prevents the Government from handing it over to the Queen?" I am rot concerned to point out any such thing. Here is an Act of Parliament bestowing a revenue and creating a trust. I want to know how, under this Act, you gat power to apply the money any way else than as the Act directs, or according to the provisions it contains? The Act contains no directions. Now, I ask, what have they done with this money? They have handed it over year after year to the Queen, for no charges whatever, because money was already applied to meet every expense. What they have done is to go behind the Act of Parliament and increase the Privy Purse without any right to do so. The Privy Purse was fixed at £60,000. The Act of Parliament limits it to that; but, by this sleight-of-hand, successive Governments have increased the Privy Purse from £60,000 to £76,000 per annum for the last 50 years. It was said by the noble Lord the other night that we were imputing embezzlement to Her Majesty, and to successive Governments. The noble Lord is a master of fence, and he knows the prejudice which is created by affixing a bad name to anything. I made, however, no charge of embezzlement, and I should be ashamed if any Member on that side of the House thought that I made any such charge against Her Majesty or her Ministers. The charge I made was that they used the Act of Parliament in the interest of the Crown, and not of the people—that they transferred to the Privy Purse savings which the Privy Purse had no right to receive, and that they should rather have taken this £16,000 or £17,000, and have put it into the Exchequer—either in aid of the

  143
  public funds or in satisfaction of those exceptional charges which, in consequence of her large family and of the considerable families of her children, have come on the Queen. If we had the £824,000 standing in the Exchequer, as we should have, there would be none of these demands on Parliament and none of these Debates. The money would have been there to be devoted to Her Majesty and her grandchildren, and we should have been called on for nothing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, our leader, told me the other night that such a sum as I named could not have produced anything like a sufficient sum for the support of the Queen's grandchildren, and I admit it. The £824,000 or the £400,000 savings on Class 6, which I mentioned, would probably not produce a sum sufficient for the grandchildren. But that was not my contention. I dispute the right of any head of the State in England, under the present Constitution, to take the public money in order to make an accumulation. I say that under the ancient Constitutional principle of England, ever since the present Royal Family came to the Throne —a Constitutional principle which should now be insisted upon—there has been no contention on the part of Parliament that out of the public monies granted to Her Majesty she should be able to accumulate sums. The purpose has always been liberally and loyally to bestow sums on His or Her Majesty for the time being, with the intent that they should not be hoarded but Royally spent in supporting the dignity of the country and the honour of the Royal Family. On that ground I object to these accumulations, and make it my argument that, until this £15,000 or £16,000 a year is accounted for, and the £824,000 which has grown out of the accumulation of this £15,000 or £16,000 a year for 40 or 50 years are expended and accounted for, there does not remain in the Crown or its Ministers a right to come to the Representatives of the people and ask for more money. Now I have carried the argument so far, but, entertaining the objection that I still ent rtain, I do not pretend to state to the House that if they accept my Amendment, that will make the proposal of the Government more palatable to me. I think the original proposal was
  144
  bad. I think my proposal a little better' and therefore I am ready to accept a compromise. If I cannot get w hat I want, I will accept a compromise. But I do not say that the proposal will then be more palatable to me than it is now. I am, however, willing that £21,000 should be given instead of £36,000, simply for the sake of peace. I have now stated to the House as clearly as I could my contention that the savings on the Civil List under the Act should not go to the Crown or the Crown's Privy Purse, but should be retained by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if expended at all should be expended under the direct orders of Parliament. And I have endeavoured to support that contention by showing that the Act reads so, and that the purposes of the Act should be carried out. If I had that view before, I have been fortified ten-fold in my idea of its truth by reading the terms of the Bill now put into our hands. I can point out to the Committee that Clause 2 of this Bill, for the first time in the history of England since these Grants have been made, states that the Trustees shall hold the annual sum granted under the Act, and any accumulations of that fund. Why is that inserted in the Bill? I will tell the House it is inserted because under the stress of the discussions of last week, the Government recognise that under the Act of 1837 they had no such power. No such power exists in that Act. Therefore they have given the authority in the Bill that the Prince's Trustees should not only have the annual sum, but the accumulated money. I have put my first contention, no doubt, at some length, but still with all the brevity of which I am capable, he fore the House. I have put it seriously, and if the Front Bench will hold their tongues and let some Gentleman behind them reply to me, I shall be glad to hear any substantial objections to the points I have raised. I beg then, in conclusion, to propose that we should omit the words, "thirty-six," and insert "twenty-one."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, to leave out the word "thirty-six," in order to insert the word "twenty-one."—(Mr. Storey.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty-six' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GOSCHEN: If there has been a little impatience with the latter part of the hon. Member's speech it is no doubt due to the fact that he dealt at considerable length with a point which has been threshed out in a previous Debate, and which has no special bearing upon the Amendment now before the House. The question is, how far we are going over the same ground again that has been traversed in the previous Debate. The hon. Member has utilised the occasion to make another speech on the question of the savings on the Civil List. The senior Member for Northampton has contended that all payments made to the Queen in excess of the £60,000 a year assigned to the Privy Purse have been practically illegal; and the hon. Member's contention is that the Government and the Parliament which originally framed the Civil List Act did not know what they were doing. Now, after 50 years have elapsed, the hon. Member claims to know better what was the intention of the framers of the Act than they knew themselves. It is almost labour lost at this time of day to justify the payments made to the Queen from the year 1838 down to the present time by every Administration, by men belonging to both political Parties, and by the most watchful Chancellors of the Exchequer and Secretaries to the Treasury that ever existed. The hon. Member was perfectly within his right when he moved to reduce the sum payable under this Bill from £36,000 to £21,000, but the argument he has raised with regard to savings ought to be abandoned, looking to the history of the case from 1837 down to the present day. The hon. Member maintains that the charges on the Privy Purse have been discharged by the payment of £60,000 a year, but how does he know that that is the case? It is true that £60,000 is paid to the Privy Purse, but the expenditure of the Privy Purse has often been much larger than £60,000, and it is much larger at the present moment; and it is in aid of the Privy Purse that the savings to which he has alluded have habitually been paid. After all that has been said in previous Debates it is unnecessary to dwell more
  146
  upon that point. But then the hon. Member wants to know how the £824,000 paid to Her Majesty has been applied. [Mr. STOREY: We want to know.] Why should the hon. Member know? The sum was paid to Her Majesty as Her Majesty's private property, and we have no right to ask as to its application. The hon. Member seems to think that he is the only watchful guardian of the public purse that has existed during the last 50 years, that he alone of all Members of Parliamentduringthelast50 years has had a proper appreciation of this particular bargain. As the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian has said, we have no right to pry into the expenditure of the Sovereign. The hon. Member knows better; he thinks it is the privilege of a Member of Parliament.
  MR. STOREY: I did not say that, and it is not fair to put it in that way. All I argued was that the Sovereign has never applied to Parliament without stating that she had no more resources.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member has claimed that if any application is made for a Grant we are entitled to know the savings of the Sovereign. The hon. Member claims to know what has been the expenditure of the Sovereign, and whether she has properly applied the sums which have been paid in aid of the Privy Purse, according to his views of what is right. The letter from Sir Henry Ponsonby, which the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) quoted distinctly stated the maximum amount of the savings of the Queen, and after the production of that letter I should have thought hon. Members would scarcely wish to convey exaggerated ideas of Her Majesty's savings. The hon. Member's great point is that there is no precedent of a Sovereign asking for a Grant without stating the necessity of the case, and that there is no provision from which otherwise the Grant might be made. I maintain that during the whole course of the present reign no single instance has occurred in which application has been made to Parliament based upon the absence of a fund for making the provision asked. Whether in the case of the daughters of the Duke of Cambridge, or of the Queen's sons and daughters, the claim has never been rested upon the absence of savings or upon the absence of power in the Crown

  147
  to make the provision. The hon. Member still argues the question of savings, although the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian has declared that it is impossible to believe that the Sovereign has saved sufficient to enable her to provide for the children of the Prince of Wales. With regard to the hon. Member's actual Amendment to reduce the amount to be paid to £21,000, the hon. Member first objects to the form in which we propose to deal with the £36,000; he wishes it to be allocated by Parliament in certain fixed proportions. He desires that so many twelfths shall be allotted by Parliament to the sons and so many to the daughters. But the hon. Member not only voted, but told with the hon. Member for Northampton, who strongly contended that Parliament should not interfere at all, and that the whole matter should be left in the hands of the Prince of Wales. Now, the hon. Member entirely discards the view which he previously voted for, and contends that Parliament should retain the matter in its own hands. The hon. Gentleman thinks £36,000is a great deal too much to grant, and suggests that we should grant £21,000. He would prefer, however, to deal only with the present emergency, and to give £13,000 —namely, £10,000 to Prince Albert Victor and £3,000 to the Princess Louise of Wales, leaving the provision for other children to be settled hereafter. He thinks it is a gratuitous piece of profligacy on the part of the Government when they ask for £36,000. Yes; but we have been accused of shabbiness became we departed from our original proposition. Now, what are the facts? What we propose to grant is a sum which, properly arranged, will provide adequate incomes for the children of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Hon. Members below the Gangway say this sum of £36,000 is far in excess of the original proposition, and, therefore, ought not to be adopted by zealous guardians of the Public Purse. But hon. Members are in error. The hon. Member thinks it would be better for Parliament to keep the matter in its own hands, and he says this Bill is against precedent; but? a Committee was appointed to lay down the principle upon which these Grants should be made in future, and the Committee reported that, in order to avoid
  148
  repeated applications to Parliament and all these painful Debates, it would be desirable to make one arrangement with the Prince of Wales which should last during the present reign, and to give him a certain sum to provide for all his children, so that when once that matter was settled by Parliament further applications would be unnecessary. It is a question for the House to decide whether a lump sum of £36,000 a year to cover provision for all the Prince's children is a fair equivalent for the offer which was originally made. £21,000 would be as a permanent arrangement far below the mark, and would not supply those annuities which the hon. Member himself is not unprepared to give. Then the hon. Member asks how is the matter to be arranged, and whether there are to be accumulations? The general principle of the plan is that instead of giving a varying amount, which might rise to £49,000 a year, Parliament shall give a permanent Grant of £36,000 to meet all contingencies. In the first year the whole of the £36,000 will not be required. Then the hon. Member asks, will the balance be paid over to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales? Certainly not. It will be held by the Trustees and invested, and form the basis of annuities, and the basis of dowries for Princesses, or other allowances. The calculation is that this sum of £36,000, if fairly invested during the present reign, will provide for all the children of the Prince of Wales. The suggestion is one which the Government adopted from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, but for which we do not wish to make him specially responsible, for it appears to us, as it appeared to him, that it is an equitable arrangement which will save much trouble to Parliament and much friction, and which will prevent these unseemly questions arising between the Crown and the Commons.
  MR.CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: In rising to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Sunderland, I must take exception to the phrase several times used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He deprecated these "unseemly and painful" Debates. What, I should like to know, is there of a painful nature connected with these discussions? Laying aside all cant, so

  149
  far as it is possible to do so in any assembly of men, I try to look at the question on its own merits, and I think the word "painful" does not at all apply to this question. The Kings and Queens of this country are not Kings and Queens in the ordinary sense. They are the creatures of Parliament. Parliament placed them on the Throne, and has from the beginning regulated the amount of money which they are to take from the country; and in an extreme case, I presume that Parliament could unmake them altogether. I am, therefore, unable to understand the introduction of the phrase as applied to the discussion of the question as to whether the Grant should be £36,000 or £21,000. I do not intervene, as the House well knows, for the purpose of wasting time. I must say that this question of whether we should give a few thousands more or less to the grandchildren of the Queen is not to my mind a question of very great importance. I do not think the British exchequer will suffer greatly from the Grant of £15,000 more or less; but, I do hold again, in direct opposition to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, rightly or wrongly, the working classes of the country take a very great interest in this question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not, I think, include a large number of the working classes in his constituency; but I think I understood him to say that the working classes generally are not averse to these Grants in principle. Well, it is a very curious thing if that is so, seeing the attitude that has been taken by so many of my hon. Friends who are undoubted representatives of working class constituencies. I appeal to them, and they can testify to the undoubted feeling of the working classes against the whole principle of these Grants. For further corroboration I would draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the votes of confidence received by the hon. Member for the Rhondda Division (Mr. Abraham), and he has spoken in this House on this subject in the name of his constituents. The Chancellor of the Exchequer disavows very strongly all that the hon. Member for Rhondda has said; but I do not admit his claim to be a better exponent of the wishes of the working classes of the United Kingdom than the hon. Member of the miners of
  150
  Wales. However, leaving this aside, and coming more to what I have alleged before, that, rightly or wrongly, there is a strong feeling against these Grants, I may say we have often seen millions voted with more celerity than this sum will be granted, and I attribute this to the fact, and I know that it is a point of view in which I shall not get many Members to agree with me—I attribute it to the fact that large bodies of the working classes of the kingdom have got to dissociate themselves from these demands for ironclads, for armies, or for official expenditure; their interests do not seem to be touched by these matters, but this question somehow seems to them of great importance. Their attention is much directed to it, and undoubtedly in almost every part of the kingdom very strong expressions of opinion have been given in regard to it. Some very memorable words fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in reference to this subject; so memorable that I venture to trouble the House with a repetition of them, for it almost seemed as if a revelation had descended upon the right hon. Gentleman, a revelation that I, for one, hail with exceeding joy, and I hope it will be confirmed and pressed inside and outside the House. The broad difference, the right hon. Gentleman said, between members of the Royal Family and other men of gigantic wealth, is that while in the case of the Royal Family large means are associated and even tied to the discharge of public duties, in the case of other wealthy men in the country, they are under no such obligation except to their own consciences. Very memorable words for an ex-Prime Minister; very memorable words from the Leader of the popular Party. I, for one, never have attacked the Queen or any Member of the Royal Family outside the House, and I do not come here, therefore, with any nauseous pretensions of sham loyalty.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the Question is that £36,000 stand part of the clause.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Certainly, Sir, I bow to your reminder. The question is whether we shall grant the smaller or the larger sum for the maintenance of the Royal State and the performance of their duties. I was I about to urge, and I hope I shall not

  151
  be transgressing your ruling, that this question of Royal Grants has not so much importance as many people seem disposed to attach to it, and I, for one, shall support the hon. Member for Sunderland simply and solely because I consider his Motion an expression of public opinion and a protest against a continuance of the state of society as we know it now, a state of society that condemns large bodies of people to misery, semi-starvation, and overwork, while these large sums are voted to the maintenance of a single family. I will not for a moment deny that there may be 20 Members sitting on both sides of the House whose joint incomes are a heavier burden than this same Vote to the Royal Family.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Again I must remind the hon. Member that the Question is whether £36,000 shall stand part of the clause.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I accept your ruling, Sir, and abandon my line of argument. I will merely say this before I conclude. I reiterate that it is simply and solely as a protest that I give my vote in support of the hon. Member for Sunderland, believing that the sum now devoted to the interest of the Royal Family in return for duties which, in my opinion, they do not discharge, is ample, and in the interest of great masses of our overworked, underfed population, I support the protest against the system that tends to increase the feelings of class hatred and class distinction.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said just now that there never had been expenditure from the Privy Purse of less than £60,000 per annum. Now, certain figures were laid before us in Committee which we were asked to consider private, but it was not stated to the Committee and figures were not laid before the Committee to show that the Privy Purse had ever fallen short of the £60,000 allocated to it. As a matter of fact, it seemed to me, so far as I could deduce conclusions from the figures, that the Privy Purse and the Duchy of Lancaster receipts—for we must put them together —had never in any single year, certainly not in any average year, been expended. Therefore, I do protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer making this statement to the House which he
  152
  was not prepared to make and did not make in Committee upstairs, and when his statements might have been verified. I quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we ought not to pry into the private savings of Her Majesty. We ought not to ask the exact amount, and no one has asked that; but we ought to have a clear and distinct statement that the amount now paid to the Royal Family, which amounts to £700,000, is not adequate, and that nothing can come from that source for the support of the younger members of the Family. We have not been told that, and we know perfectly well that there have been savings amounting to at least a million. I am not now refering to any figures put before us in Committee. I am referring to the Ponsonby letter, from which, I take it, the amount does not, or did not then, exceed a million—that is to say, about a million. In addition to that, we know perfectly well that, from the fact of the Duchy of Lancaster producing £38,000 per annum in excess of what it did when the Civil List was voted to Her Majesty; and from the fact that £16,000 was the amount turned from other classes to the Privy Purse, then we know that Her Majesty is in receipt of an income of £52,000 more than was deemed sufficient for the requirements of Her Majesty when the Civil List was fixed. The House, by reading this Bill a second time, must be taken to have decided that some sum should be voted to the Prince of Wales for his children, but the question now is what sum? I, who was against voting any amount because I believed there was already sufficient in the hands of the Family, would certainly prefer £21,000 to £36,000. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to regard the hon. Member for Sunderland as a perfect monster of iniquity because he proposes that the amount should be reduced from £36,000 to £21,000. We have made our calculation said the right hon. Gentleman, and £40,000 a year will practically give what we originally asked, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer used this as an argument for not yielding to my hon. Friend. Well, but it is not £40,000. After making all their calculations, no sooner did my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian move that £36,000 should be substituted

  153
  for £40,000, than the Government at once threw over all their calculations and said "Yes, by all means let us make it £36,000 "—a figure for which I am bound to say my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian adduced no sort of reason, and if he had I should have advanced reasons for a further reduction. Now, I take this sum of £21,000, and I find it would enable the Prince to give his eldest son £10,000 a year, his second son £5,000 a year, and his daughters £2,000 a year, which would be very handsome incomes for them all. We live in an age when the worship of the Golden Calf is getting daily more scandalous. We have all sorts of Nitrate kings and men who have become rich—Heaven knows how—becoming the darlings of Society. [Interruption.] Have hon. Gentlemen got shares in the Nitrate kingdom? These people raise the level of expenditure, spread abroad their wealth, and get somebody to invite people to their entertainments. [Interruption; Cries of "Question."] I know how the Nitrate shares were divided. But these worshippers of the Golden Calf are persons with whom I have no sort of sympathy. I think we might take this opportunity of establishing the principle that there is a family for whom we entertain great respect, and it is not necessary to command that respect that they should be excessively rich. I was reading the other day some letters of Sir William Temple. ["Divide!"] I may tell the hon. Member opposite that Sir W. Temple was a gentleman who lived in the time of Charles II., and he was sent over by Charles as Ambassador to Holland. In one of his letters he mentions that he went to visit the Grand Pensionary of Holland. ["Question!"] The hon. Gentleman says "Question!" How can I cope with such ignorance as that? I do not profess to be among the Gods, but the hon. Member reminds me of what Goethe says: "Against stupidity the Gods fight in vain." But to return to my Grand Pensionary. Sir W. Temple called upon the Grand Pensionary, and found him living upon the third storey with a single maid to look after him and open his door. Sir W. Temple contrasted the dignity and real importance of the Grand Pensionary living like that with the tinsel, gaud, and wretched position in Europe of his own master Charles II. I cite this
  154
  instance to show that it is not necessary to endow heads of families or of States with large possessions in order that they may be regarded with respect. I think the sum proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland is amply sufficient for Royalty to live not only in decent comfort but with reasonable splendour, and I shall support the proposal.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 201; Noes 62.—(Div. List, No. 271.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I now wish to insert at the end of this clause words which provide practically that if any son of the Prince of Wales is in receipt of any salary or emolument attached to any office, place, or employment under the Crown, the amount so received shall be deducted from the annual amount now granted. I regret to see that those two Kilkenny cats of Unionism—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the noble Lord the Member for Paddington—are not present, because I believe that both of them would have been anxious and eager to support this particular Amendment. The noble Lord the Member for Paddington has been lecturing about the country, and has been prating a good deal about economy, while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has claimed to be an old Radical, and to have inherited in some special way the mantles both of Cobden and Bright.
  An hon. MEMBER: He is here.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Oh! very well. Then I have no doubt I shall have his support, because this happens to be an Amendment of Mr. Bright's. In 1850, as the Committee will no doubt remember, there was a proposal made to grant a sum of£l2,000 per annum to the Duke of Cambridge, and on that occasion Mr. Bright put down an Amendment which I have taken for my model, and it is practically the same as the Amendment which stands in my name. Mr. Bright said this—
  "Let us at least arrange that this annuity of £12,000 shall be all that the Duke shall receive in all circumstances. Many persons in receipt of pensions have allowed them to be merged in the salaries of their offices, and why should not this principle be applied to the Duke of Cambridge?"

  155
  Now His Royal Highness has occupied places, the emoluments of which have been added to the £12,000 per annum, and he has been permitted as a Royal Prince to draw large official salaries. The same rule has been followed in the case of the Prince of Wales, who is now colonel of a regiment for which he receives £1,500 per annum. The Duke of Connaught, too, enjoys a high position in the Army, while the Duke of Edinburgh has a high position in the Navy, and both receive large salaries. It seems to me that while we hold that the Princes of the Royal Family should have some adequate provision made for them, we are not prepared to say that they should do nothing for it. I believe that they are anxious to do something for the large sums which they receive, and the object of my Amendment is to recognise that desire on their part, and to provide that in the case of their occupying some place of emolument, the emolument they receive shall be merged in the amount of the annuity voted for them. As I have said before, I have the authority of Mr. Bright for this Amendment. We are told that we are getting more democratic every day. Do not let us go back, and do not let us be behind the Parliament of 1850. At that time there was only a majority of 59 against the proposal of Mr. Bright, and I do trust that this Committee, by the vote which it is about to give, will agree that this is a fair and reasonable proposal which I am making.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 3, after the word "preserve," to insert the words—
  "Provided that, in case any son of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales shall at any time be in receipt of any sum or sums of money by way of salary or emolument attached to any office, place, or employment he may hold under the Crown, the whole amount of such sum or sums so received shall be deducted from the annual amount now granted, so long as the said salary or emolument shall be enjoyed."— (Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will only say a very few words in respect to this Amendment. It will be felt by the House and the country that it is very much to the advantage of the House and the nation that the Royal Princes should be employed in the Public Ser-
  156
  vice, and they should be paid those sums which are befitting for the posts they occupy, and which, so far as I know, very rarely exceed the expense to which officers are put in the discharge of their duties. No greater misfortune could happen to the country than that these Princes should be induced, from any influence brought to bear on them, not to accept employment in the Public Service, because such employment qualifies them for the higher and more important duties which devolve upon them later in life.
  MR. STOREY: Even supposing it is desirable that the Princes should enter the Public Service, why should they be treated differently from other public servants? If they take the pay attached to an office they ought to give up their pensions, in the same way as Ministers and other persons are required to do in the like case. But I join issue with the right hon. Gentleman, and say that, so far from being advantageous, it cannot but be of great disadvantage that those Princes should enter the Public Service. We have seen one Royal Prince after another entering the Public Service, and instead of attaining, after years of great anxiety and labour, the position which other men attain in that way, they are pitched into positions far above their deserts, without any advantage to the country. I am not afraid to give instances. Who believes that the Duke of Edinburgh, if he had been anybody else but a Royal Duke, would have been made an Admiral at the time he obtained that rank? Who believes that the Duke of Connaught, for serving in the second line at Tel-el-Kebir, would have been specially thanked by Parliament if he had not been the Duke of Connaught? For winning the paltry action of Tel-el-Kebir nine General Officers were thanked, about as many as were thanked for winning the Battle of Waterloo. The Duke of Connaught has since received one of the principal commands in India at a salary of about £5,000 a year and huge perquisites, thereby getting a position which ought to have been filled by some worthy veteran; and it may be that even in this House there are worthy veterans who are suffering from the injustice of this system. If the wholesome rule that the pension should be deducted from the

  157
  salary had operated in the case of His Royal Highness the present Commander-in-Chief of the Army at home we should long ago have had a change that is desirable from many points of view. I do not believe that the addition of Royal personages to the great Services of the country has ever been of any use to the country, but it has many a time been productive of the greatest harm. I, therefore, beg to support the Amendment.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 188.—(Div. List, No. 272.)
  It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  POST OFFICE SITES [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all costs, charges, and expenses incurred by the Postmaster General in carrying into effect any Act of the present Session, to authorise the transfer of the site of the. Cold-bath Fields Prison, in the County of Middlesex, to Her Majesty's Postmaster General."
  Resolution agreed to.

  MARRIAGES (BASUTOLAND, &c.) BILL [LORDS]. (No. 352.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): Sir, I hope the House will pardon me for saying a few words in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It deals with a question the importanec of which is felt in every quarter of the House and in all the industrial centres of this country. We have only to look at the munificent gifts of the City Companies in furtherance of technical education and the enormous efforts that have been made in furtherance of that object, to see the vast interest which is
  158
  felt in the subject. This Bill is the outcome of the efforts to solve difficulties at which we have been labouring for two years, and it is because we have failed to reconcile the interests of Board and Voluntary Schools that I propose the Bill in its present form. The Bill is simple in its character, and is to give the Local Authority power to rate for the purpose of technical education. The Local Authorities will be the County Councils, the Borough Councils, and Urban and Rural Sanitary Authorities. It also provides two limitations which hon. Members will observe in the early part of the Bill. The first limit is in regard to pupils receiving instruction in the obligatory and standard subjects in elementary and primary schools, and the other has reference to the maximum rate which may be levied under it. I do beg hon. Members to remember that on my side of the House, at all events, there is very grave objection indeed to increasing local burdens. For myself, I believe, having studied the question, that an enormous amount of good will be done under this Bill in furthering technical education, if only to the extent of a penny rate. There is an important proviso in Clause 31, which provides that the Local Authority may appoint a Committee for the purpose of working out this plan. The Committee is to consist wholly or partly of members of the Local Authority. Of course, it is right that this Local Authority should be represented in the interests of the ratepayers; but it is hoped, if this Bill become law, that this Local Committee will also be composed of members who are strongly interested in technical education in our industrial centres and large towns. This Local Committee would be also empowered to appoint sub or minor Committees to carry out all the purposes of the Act; that is to say, where the Local Authority decides to take over any existing schools, or institutions, or science schools for the purpose of this Act, for it is desired, where possible, to avoid any expenditure on new buildings. I apprehend that this system of Committees will work in this way—that where the Local Authorities decide to apply this Act in regard to any institution, that such institution will be strongly represented on the Local Committee, which will really combine

  159
  the representatives of the ratepayers and the Local Committee of Managers for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the technical school or institution. Where the Bill is applied to a Board or Voluntary School for the purpose of establishing evening technical schools or classes, I apprehend that the managers of the Board School and voluntary school will be represented on the Local Committee. I should like to put in a very earnest plea on behalf of this Bill, if only for the enormous impetus it must give for the introduction of evening continuation schools and classes in this country. I believe that the course of instruction which this Bill will initiate will be most popular, and that the evening schools and classes in our large industrial centres will be of enormous advantage to the various schemes of technical education. I know that one objection which will be made to this proposal is that it does not cover the whole ground, and that it does not deal with technical education in elementary schools. If hon. Members read the Report of the Royal Commission and the very careful Report of the London School Board, they will find that the curriculum in those schools is such as to leave very little available time for technical instruction, and this margin will be still further reduced by certain provisions of the New Code, which have been temporarily withdrawn, but which I hope will come into active operation next year. One other objection, I am aware, will be raised—that the Bill does not make the School Board the Rating Authority. I am prepared to say at once that any such proposal would be fatal to this Bill. It would be to again tread upon ground which had already proved so hazardous in endeavouring to promote the solution of this difficult and interesting question. If the School Board were to be the Rating Authority under this Bill, something like 9,000,000 of the population of England and Wales, who are not represented at all upon the School Boards, would be shut out at once from the scope of the Bill. I am not going to detain the House longer. I deeply regret that the time at my disposal is so short, and that I can do so little justice to the subject. But, as regards this question of the School Board, I
  160
  hope hon. Members opposite will be merciful to us in regard to it. This question has now been before the House for two years, and I would remind the House, for example, that we have lately dealt with the question of intermediate education in Wales to the satisfaction of both sides of the House, and, Sir, I would say to hon. Members who feel strongly on the question of School Boards that in that Bill we have introduced the principle of a regular authority for educational purposes entirely outside the scope of the School Boards. I will not further detain the House, and will only commend the measure to the earnest consideration of the House in the hope that it may be so dealt with as to become a sound and beneficial measure.
  MR. DIXON: Considering the interest I have for many years taken in this question, I hope the House will allow me the opportunity of stating the reasons why I feel compelled to oppose this measure.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I understand the hon. Gentleman to oppose the Bill, and in that case the measure cannot be further proceeded with at the present moment.
  The Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  TRUST FUNDS INVESTMENT BILL (No. 361.)
  Lords Amendments agreed to.

  HAND-LOOM WEAVERS (IRELAND) BILL (No. 15.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  MOTION.

    COUNTY COURTS ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Neville, Bill to amend "The County Courts Act, 1888," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Neville, Mr. Warmington, and Mr. Atherley-Jones.
    Bill presented and read first time. [Bill 362.]
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND).
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in presenting a Petition for an Address to Her Majesty, praying her to withhold her consent from Scheme No. 201 of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Commission, said: My Lords, I have a Petition to present from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland upon the subject of a Provisional Order of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, with the authority of the Moderator, representing the Assembly, which they consider injurious to the interests of the Church of Scotland. Under the Endowed School Commission they have the power of issuing regulations in regard to all endowments connected with education. The endowments dealt with in this Provisional Order, being those
2
belonging to the Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge, date from as far back as 1709, and a considerable sum of money is given into the charge of the Church of Scotland for the promotion of education and religion in Scotland, especially in the Highlands and Islands. My Lords, I can testify that a great deal of public good has been done for many years by these endowments. They have been employed for religious and educational purposes in some of the very poorest parishes in the Highlands and Islands. The Commissioners now propose that a considerable part of this money should be given into the charge of a new body for the purpose of education alone, and a much smaller share left in the charge of the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge for religious purposes, of which I had the honour of being President for many years. Having inquired into the circumstance under which this Provisional Order has been issued, I can only say that while sympathising very much with the feeling of the General Assembly expressed in this

3
Petition, yet, having looked into all the circumstances as far as I can, and looking at the position of the various religious bodies in Scotland which is very different now from what it was when the endowments were given, I am not prepared to ask the House to interfere with the Provisional Order of the Commissioners.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILLS.
LORD BALFOUR,in rising to move that the Order made on the 5th day of March last,
"That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Friday, the 28th of June next,"
be dispensed with, in order to enable a number of Electric Lighting Provisional Orders Bills to be read 2a said: My Lords, the House will require a word or two of explanation from me in making the Motion which stands in my name. I am glad to be able to say that it is the last time, as far as I know this Session, that I shall have to appeal for any suspension of the Sessional Orders. The circumstances under which it is necessary in this case are as follow:—Your Lordships are aware that last year an Act was passed amending the conditions under which Provisional Orders could be granted for the supply of the electric light throughout the country; and the consequence of that has been that a very large number of applications have been made, and those which are before the House are the first of the applications under the Act of last year. In consequence of the circumstances, a very great deal of discussion had to take place with the various Local Authorities concerned. The first of these Bills concerns Local Authorities in the country, and I believe the Orders confirmed by it are absolutely unopposed. With regard to the other Orders, which concern the Metropolis as well as the private Bill which has been just now moved on behalf of the Chairman of Committees, a very great deal of discussion also took place, and so important were the issues involved to the people of the Metropolis that the Board of Trade thought it necessary to have a special inquiry.
4
That inquiry extended over 18 days, before Major Marindin, one of the officials of the Board, and a Report was made upon the whole subject. Even subsequently to that Report, a very great deal of discussion and negotiation had to be gone through; so much, indeed, that the Bills confirming the Orders could not be presented to the other House in accordance with the Sessional Orders. But the other House suspended the Sessional Orders, and referred the Bill to a strong Committee, presided over by Sir George Trevelyan. The result was that, on every material point, the decision of Major Marindin was confirmed. The appeal I now make to your Lordships is that you will not allow this very large amount of discussion and expense to be wasted, but that you will suspend the Sessional Order and allow the Bills to be read a second time. I therefore beg to move accordingly.
The Resolution was agreed to, and the said Bill read 2a accordingly.

LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 9.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with amendments: The said amendments to be printed. (No. 199.)
CANADA (ONTARIO BOUNDARY) BILL (No. 151.)
  PASSENGERS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 100.)
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE BILL (No. 125.)
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
CRUELTY TO CHILDREN PREVENTION BILL (No. 160.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, with amendments: The Report thereof received; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

COURT OF SESSION AND BILL CHAMBER (SCOTLAND) CLERKS BILL (No. 152.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c,

5
with amendments: The Report thereof received; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next.—(The Lord President, V. Cranbrook). (No. 201.)
JUDICIAL FACTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.—(The Lord Ker, M. Lothian). (No. 202.)
SETTLED LAND ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow.—(The Lord Macnaghten). (No. 203.)
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next.—(The Lord Ker, M. Lothian). (No. 204.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 179.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): My Lords, in rising to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill I cannot but express my regret that it has not been in my power to introduce the measure to your Lordships' House at an earlier period of the Session, altering as it does the whole condition of the County Government of Scotland. I should have been glad if it had been in my power to bring a Bill of this nature before your Lordships at a period of the Session in which you could have given a more adequate consideration to it. From the condition of the Benches of the House I am glad to see that confidence is felt in Her Majesty's Government, because it would appear from the number of noble Lords present that there must be a general conviction that the Bill is a good one, and that there is no desire to go very much into the details of it at this stage.
6
But I should have preferred that those noble Lords who are connected with Scotland should have been present in greater numbers to go somewhat into the details of the measure. I need not enlarge upon the principle of this Bill, because it is one to which your Lordships have already given your assent by the passing of the Local Government Bill for England last year. The Bill now before your Lordships' House simply gives effect as regards Scotland to the principles which your Lordships' House then accepted. But the circumstances of Local Government in Scotland, are so different from those which prevail in England, or which prevailed in England before the passing of the Bill of last year, that the Bill which I now place before the House necessarily differs in very important particulars from the Bill passed with regard to England last year. In some degree those differences make it more difficult to frame a measure which is to be applicable to the whole country than was the case in England, for I do not think the condition of things in England as regards the most distant parts of the country from one end to the other vary so greatly as they do between the more thickly populated and prosperous parts of Scotland in the south, southeast, south-west, and north-east, and the isolated, more thinly populated and often poverty-stricken districts of the north and north-west of Scotland. I must ask your Lordships to bear with me while I endeavour as shortly as I can to go into the details of the Bill, touching only on the more important points now, asking you to reserve the consideration of the details more particularly for a later stage when the Bill comes into Committee. But before going into the details of the Bill I think it would be convenient that I should shortly describe the existing condition of the administration and of the administrative bodies, for without that it would be difficult to explain to your Lordships what it is that is now proposed to be transferred from the existing bodies to the new County Councils. The first and most important body which now exists in the County Government of Scotland is that which is called the Commissioners of Supply. They are the chief County Authority. The Commissioners of Supply are composed of owners of land

7
of the annual value of £100, and the owners of houses of the annual value of £200. They have a chairman elected from among their own body, who is called a convener. I allude to the name of the convener simply because it is proposed that the Chairman of the new County Councils should be called by that name. Their especial powers have reference to the police administration, to the valuation of lands and heritages, the preparation of the valuation rolls, the preparation through their assessor of the Parliamentary Register, the provision of lunacy accommodation through the District Boards, and general county business, including the payment of clerks, supply, and all other officials. As I have said, this body is composed almost entirely of owners of property; they have practically the whole administration in regard to all the points which I have just named to your Lordships. The occupiers have no voice in the government of the county at all, but on the other hand the occupiers have no responsibilities in respect of the Government of the County, because the owners pay the entire amount of the rates which can be levied under the authority of the Commissioners of Supply. Therefore, while the owners have the entire administrative power in the county, yet, as they pay the whole of the rates levied under their authority, the principle of representation and taxation is carried out in that instance. It is not, as your Lordships see, in any way infringed by the system of administration and County Government at present existing in the counties of Scotland. Under the proposals of the Government in this Bill, the whole of the powers and duties now exercised by the Commissioners of Supply will be transferred to the new County Councils. Then, the second administrative body in the counties of Scotland to which I will refer, is the County Road Trustees. These bodies were called into existence by the County Roads Act, 1878, and they consist of all the Commissioners of Supply, and of two or more, but not more than four, representatives of the ratepayers in each parish, who are elected triennially. They manage and maintain all the highways, there being no distinction under the Act
8
of 1878 between main and other roads. They impose all road rates, which, at their option, may be imposed on several parishes or on the parishes separately. But under these bodies elected triennially as regards the representatives of the ratepayers there are what are called the Road Boards. They are nominated annually by the general body of the Road Trustees, and they practically undertake the management of the roads in the counties. A county is, generally speaking, divided into several districts, and each district is under the charge of the General Committee, which is annually appointed. But, my Lords, the incidence of the rates levied under the Roads Act is not to be quite these me as it is under the authority of the Commissioners of Supply. The owners and occupiers pay each half the rates for the repairs of the roads, but upon the owners alone fall all the rates for payment of the debts which have been incurred and for any new work. Therefore the owners pay the larger proportion of the rates which are annually required for the maintenance and keeping up of the roads. The whole of the powers exercised by these bodies will be transferred under this Act to the County Council. The third class of adminitrative bodies in the counties dealt with under this Act is the Local Authority in each county administering the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts. These bodies consist half of occupiers, and half of ratepayers or owners. They vary in number from 8 to 30 in different counties, but in all cases as I have said they are half occupiers and half owners. The rates in this case are divided nominally half and half— that is, they are nominally paid half by the owners, and half by the occupiers. But the rate is levied first entirely on the owner, and he can recover from the occupier if he chooses to enforce it. But I believe it is very seldom found that the owners have enforced that rate; therefore, practically the owner has been in the habit of paying the rates levied under the Contagious Diseases(Animals) Acts. Generally speaking these Local Authorities adminster the law with regard to cattle diseases, and put into force Orders in Council with regard to them. As to the rates, they issue a requisition

9
to the Commissioners of Supply, who rate according to that requisition. Then the only other administrative Authority in the counties which I need refer to is the body of Justices of the Peace. In England those authorities are a very important body, and they have very important functions to perform; but in Scotland their adminstrative powers are small. Under this Bill the whole of their powers will not be transfered; only their adminstrative powers will be transferred to the County Councils, and not those with regard to the granting of licenses. The most important duty which now falls on the Justices of the Peace will be retained by them—namely, the granting of licenses. It is not proposed by this Bill to make any change in that respect. Those, my Lords, are the four existing authorities with regard to County Administration in Scotland. It will be necessary for me, I think, to refer also to the Parish Authorities. They are three in number. The first are the Parochial Boards, administering relief both to ordinary paupers and as required under the Poor Laws. The second Parochial Authorities are the Local Trustees for administering the Public Health Acts. They carry out the sanitary laws Generally the Administrative Authority is the same as the parochial body. The rates levied under the sanitary laws are paid half by owners and half by occupiers. It is proposed to transfer the jurisdiction under the Public Health Acts from the Local Authorities to the County Councils by this Bill. The third authority of this class, which I need only refer to by mentioning it, as it is not affected by this Act, is the School Board which administers the Education Acts in each parish. Therefore, my Lords, what it is proposed under this Bill to do is to transfer to the County Councils the powers and duties of the Commissioners of Supply, of the County Roads Trustees, of the Local Authorities administering the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, and of the Justices of the Peace, as far as administrative powers are concerned, but excluding the powers with regard to the granting of licenses; and to transfer the jurisdiction of Parochial Authorities as far as the public health is concerned, but not deal-
10
ing with their administration of the parochial laws, or the powers of School Boards under the Education Acts. I think now, my Lords, having stated what are the powers which it is proposed to transfer to the County Councils, I should refer to the constitution and powers of the County Councils themselves. First, as regards their constitution: Under the third clause of the Bill the County Councils are to be charged with the whole of the administrative and financial business of the counties. Under the provisions of Clause 4, as your Lordships are probably aware, the Councillors are to be elected. Perhaps here I might point out the position which under this Bill it is proposed should be given to the small burghs. In Scotland, as those of your Lordships who are acquainted with the Scotch Burghs are aware, there is a large number of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs, the populations of which vary in a great degree, many of them—most of them indeed—being of very ancient origin. Some of them have, of course, almost dwindled away, and have but small populations; but on the other hand others have greatly increased and have already become large and important towns. By the Report of the Committee upon the Burgh and Police (Scotland) Bill, which sat in the other House in 1888, it was recommended that all burghs having a population under 7,000 should be amalgamated with the county. In preparing this Bill the Government have followed the suggestion and recommendation of that Committee, and it is proposed that all the Royal and Parliamentary burghs having a less population than 7,000 should for the purpose of police administration and in regard to dealing with contagious diseases among animals be amalgamated with the counties. Royal and Parliamentary burghs above that fixed limit of 7,000 will not be disturbed by this Bill. But there is another kind of burgh in Scotland. They are called police burghs, and some of them, such as Govan, have enormous populations. These burghs will, for the purposes of this Bill, be treated as in the county; they will be subdivided into wards, and each ward will send a representative to the County Council. Then this proposal has been made with regard to the small burghs: that they are to them-

11
selves elect their representatives (according to a number to be fixed by the Secretary for Scotland) from among the Town Councils, so as to avoid the expense and trouble of separate registration and separate elections. Then at first there will be in addition to the numbers fixed by the Secretary for Scotland under the Bill, four ex officio Councillors, who have been connected with the former authorities. That is to say, at the first election there will be those members in addition to the fixed number, and the object of that is to ensure there being on the first Councils some members who have been concerned in and are acquainted with the administrative work of County Government. There will be no Aldermen under this Bill: the number of the Councillors for each county will be settled by the Secretary for Scotland, and for the first election, when the number of Councillors for each County Council has been definitely fixed in each county, the Sheriff will divide the number of districts necessary according to the number of Councillors who are to sit on the Council, and each separate district will return one Councillor. After the first election there will be Boundary Commissioners appointed who will no doubt be able to perform the duty of dividing the districts more accurately than can be done by the Sheriff, who will make the division in the first instance. I now come to the question of the county electors, which is, perhaps, rather a more serious question. The electors will consist, first, of all the Parliamentary electors who are at present on the register for the Parliamentary elections, including those members of the electorate who are called "service franchise voters." In addition to that, all Peers will be placed upon the register, and women otherwise qualified as Parliamentary electors. The payment of county rates is made a condition of voting for these elections except in the case of service franchise members. Therefore there will be two payments of rates which will be essential before anyone can vote for members of the County Council; in the first place being on the County Register he will have to pay the Poor Rate, and in the second place being placed on the register for the election of County
12
Councillors he will have to pay his portion of the Consolidated County Rate. But with reference to the service franchise voters, they are placed in rather a different position; they will not pay any rate directly, but they are liable to their employer, who can, if he chooses, at any time insist upon the repayment to him of any rate in respect of the houses which they occupy under him. These proposals are merely giving legislative recognition to an existing practice. It is also expressly provided that if the service franchise voter has had any deduction made from his wages in the nature of rates, no further claim can be made upon him in that respect. Then there is a provision that county electors can only vote in their own divisions. Then, my Lords, comes the register. I do not think I need say much about that. The register will consist of the Parliamentary and supplemental registers, having upon it the names of Peers and of women, who would not otherwise be qualified to vote as Parliamentary electors. In reference to what I said just now about the payment of the county rates, provision is made in the Bill that in the register a mark is to be placed against the name of every elector who has not paid his county rates, and who will therefore be disqualified from voting at an election. I see that a notice on this subject has been placed on the Paper, and I think perhaps we owe it to the fact that women are not eligible to sit as County Councillors; but in that respect we are simply following out the provisions of the Municipal Elections Acts, where they are not allowed to sit upon Town Councils. The elections are to be triennial. They will take place on the first Tuesday in December, except that the first election is to be on the first Tuesday of February next year, it being impossible to complete the registers earlier, so as to allow the election to take place at the ordinary period. In addition to the powers and duties which I have already referred to, which will be transferred from the Local Authorities to the Town Councils, they will have power to appoint Medical Officers and Sanitary Inspectors for the Counties. That, I think, your Lordships will agree is a very desirable provi-

13
sion, because it is very desirable for the public health that the Inspectors and medical officers should have supervision over a larger area than is now possible. They will also have power to enforce regulations under the Rivers Pollution Acts. Now as to the question of rating. The principle of the Bill is that the rates should be paid half by owners and half by occupiers. But there is a very important deduction to be made from that principle, that is to say, a very important qualification as regards that principle, because the rates now levied solely on the owners have been stereotyped on the average for the last 10 years. They will continue to be paid by the owners only upon that average; and any increment above that will be paid half by the owner and half by the occupier. That is to say, the average rate of payment for the last 10 years by the owners in regard to the cost of police and for the different charges of administration in the county will be stereotyped, and the Sheriff is to fix that as the amount. There will be no appeal from his decision. But that average in the stereotyped rate is not to include any payment of debts, or the payment of any interest upon those debts. The average amount will be calculated, leaving out of that item the payment of any instalments of debts or of interest on debts. Otherwise the whole of the payments made under the authority of the Commissioners of Supply will be stereotyped upon an average of the last 10 years, and will fall to be paid by the owners only. Above that stereotyped amount any increment will be paid, half by the owners and half by the occupiers. I think this provision is a very satisfactory one. It has been adopted in recognition of the principle of representation and taxation. If the whole of the payments had been divided absolutely between the owner and the occupier, it would have placed upon the occupier to a very large extent a burden which he has never had before. It has, therefore, been thought right that, while the owner should continue to pay the average rate which he has paid during previous years, any increment upon that rate should be paid equally between him and the occupier after the establishment of the County Council. Then, my Lords, with regard to certain
14
functions of administration, it has been thought that the country, as a rule, is too large an area; and under the Bill, except in very small counties, not exceeding six parishes, they must appoint District Committees. They must divide the counties into districts for certain purposes. The two particular points to which I desire to refer, in regard to which the Committees will take the place of District Councils, are, first, the management of the roads; and, second, the administration of sanitary matters. The Bill commits the administration under both these heads to the District Committees to be appointed under the Act, consisting of the district officers, and one representative from each Board within the district. This Board will supply the place of the Council, and does not involve any separate cost of election. Now, my Lords, I come to another point, and that is the Standing Joint Committees. In speaking just now of the constitution of the Commissioners of Supply, I did not refer to the Statutory Committee which is appointed by them —namely, the Police Committee. Under that Police Committee is the Statutory Committee. I think its number (speaking under correction from noble Lords present, who are well acquainted with these matters) must not exceed 15. They include the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and the Sheriff of the county. Their powers are very large. They have the appointment of the Chief Constable, and they have to report to the Commissioners of Supply at the general annual meetings. They have in their hands the general management of the police. It is now proposed by this Bill that a corresponding body called the Standing Joint Committee shall be appointed by the Council. The Bill proposes to give borrowing powers to the Standing Joint Committee of the Council, and the Commissioners of Supply, consisting of such number of County Councillors, not exceeding seven, as shall be appointed by the County Council annually at their meeting in May. The Sheriff of the county is to be an ex officio member of the Standing Joint Committee, or in case of his absence one of his substitutes to be nominated by him for the purpose, and the Committee are to elect one of their own number to be Chairman. For this purpose only

15
will the Commissioners of Supply be retained; all their functions will be transferred to the County Councils; but for this purpose only—namely, that of electing seven members of their Board to sit upon the Joint Committee, will they be kept in existence. The Standing Joint Committee, in addition to the duties and powers which are now held by the Police Committee, will have a veto on all capital expenditure; that is to say, that it the Council determine to expend a sum of money upon constructing roads or furnishing water supply, or incur any capital expenditure of that kind, their decision will be subject to the veto of the Standing Committee; and the Standing Committee will have also a veto upon the borrowing powers and in regard to charging the future revenues of the county, which I think your Lordships will consider is a desirable power for them to have, so as to prevent future extravagance and future risk of a drain upon the county funds. Another point is that the Bill provides for an efficient audit. At present there is no general audit of accounts in Scotland. I think your Lordships will agree it is exceedingly desirous that a more efficient, general, and uniform system of official audit should be established for Scotland. I have already referred to the Boundary Commissioners to be appointed under the Act. The Commissioners are mentioned in the Act. Their function will be after next February to adjust the boundaries of parishes, and to make pecuniary adjustments wherever necessary between counties and parishes where the boundaries are altered, so as to involve financial changes. Now I have gone through the general provisions of the Bill, and I come now to the financial relations with the Exchequer. Upon this point your Lordships will probably take a greater interest in the measure. As you are aware, last year, under the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a now arrangement was made, by which the Probate Duties were returned—I am now speaking of Scotland alone—and an undertaking was given that the Excise Duties and License Duties should also be returned to Scotland. According to the estimates of the Probate Duty in Scotland the share of the Probate Duty amounted to £234,000. The Bill provides for grants in aid of
16
£30,000 to the Highlands and Islands. For the police there is £155,000, for pauper lunatics £90,500, and for the medical relief of the poor £20,000. The amounts in those respects in all come to £265,500. The total amount received by Scotland during the current year is 1889–90 £499,600. Now, my Lords, to pay the grants amounting to £265,000 as regards police, medical authorities, and pauper relief, provision is made by the Bill. There is a special grant for maintenance of roads of £35,000. That makes a total grant of £330,000. Deducting that from the previous sum mentioned leaves £169,500. That is for the current year. In the next year, 1890–91, the local tax licenses, which are not, of course, included in the Returns I have given, will amount to £323,000, and the Probate Duty will come, as in this year, to £234,000, making a total of £557,000. The sums payable for police, pauper lunatics, and relief of the poor are calculated to be exactly the same — namely, £265,000. The sum paid for the roads will be £35,000, just as during this year; but for the Highlands and Islands only a sum of £10,000 will be allowed, instead of the £30,000 which was allowed this year and last year only as a temporary measure. The sum total, therefore, which will be required to pay for the items which I have mentioned to your Lordships will be £310,500, leaving available for further purposes £246,500. Now, the question to be decided was, what was to be done with this surplus money? As your Lordships are probably aware, in deference to the wishes of the Scottish people it has been proposed to devote those sums of £169,500 for this year, and of £246,500 for next year, to the payment of the school fees in all the State-aided schools in Scotland. My Lords, I should like to say one word upon that point, because I know it is a matter which has aroused great interest in this House and elsewhere. There are those who are of opinion that there should be absolutely free education in Scotland up to the Fifth Standard on the one hand, and there are others who think that such a system is dangerous in the extreme, and that, except under exceptional circumstances, there should be no free education at all. Upon that disputed question I do not propose to enter now;

17
but I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the facts of the case. As I stated just now, the money which has been given back under the arrangement of last year has been given back to Scotland in the manner most agreeable to the Scottish people. It is entirely Scottish money. It is returned to Scotland in respect of payment of the Probate Duty, and in future what will come from the Excise Duty. I think, my Lords, after the expression of opinion in the other House of Parliament, which did not come from one Party or from one section only, but which came with absolute unanimity from the Representatives of the whole people of Scotland, Her Majesty's Government would have taken a very heavy task upon its shoulders in declining to listen to the wishes of the Scottish people. These proposals were laid before the other House; they were adequately discussed, and there was no question whatever that if the matter was to be left to the discretion of the people of Scotland it would be determined in the manner now proposed by this Bill—namely, for the relief of school fees in the first five Standards. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the clause under which this proposal is carried into effect. By Clause 22, Sub-section 6, it is provided that—
"The balance shall be applied towards relief from payment of school fees in the State-aid Schools in Scotland, and shall be distributed in such manner and in accordance with such conditions as may from time to time be set forth in the Scotch Education Code annually submitted to Parliament."
Of course, the Scotch Education Code now submitted to Parliament cannot contain that regulation; but as soon as this Bill passes, a Minute will be laid upon the Table of the House from the Education Department, showing the proposed distribution of this money and the safeguards under which it is distributed to the different School Boards and Voluntary Schools in Scotland. The amounts received from the Exchequer for distribution by the County Councils will be under the direction of the Secretary for Scotland, and the Licensing and Excise Duties and Probate Duties will be paid over in the same manner as the existing grants. After the existing grants have been provided for, as I have explained to your Lordships, they will be distri-
18
buted according to the provisions of a Minute which will be submitted to Parliament as soon as this Bill passes into law. There is every reason to believe that the money so available will be found sufficient to relieve the school fees in the whole of the first five Standards. If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to say a few words upon that to show why I think there is reason to suppose that the money will be sufficient to relieve education in the first five Standards. The average school expenditure in Scotland at this moment is £503,000, and the amount of all fees is about £310,000; but of that sum from the fees in first five Standards about £260,000 to £265,000 is received. I do not say that I am quite accurate in these figures, but I am as nearly right, I think, as it is possible to ascertain them. So that for the first five Standards there will be about £265,000 to be provided. Over the whole of Scotland the average amount received from fees over the whole six Standards comes to about 12s. 10d.; but the average received from fees in the first five Standards comes to less than 11s., and, by next year, it will come to about 10s. per head. So that there will be provided very nearly the amount required to exempt the first five Standards from any payment of fees. I do not say the amount will be exactly met; but under this Bill a certain number of schools will be allowed to exact fees in populous places like Glasgow and Edinburgh, where there may be some loss experienced in respect of the fees from the first five Standards, and they will be able to recoup themselves; so that there will be sufficient money to relieve the first five Standards from payment of fees. The first proposal is to distribute this money for relief of rates and for public purposes, and this exemption from payment of fees coming to 10s. per head will very largely go to the relief of rates or ratepayers in Scotland except in places where the fees charged are very high. I think I have now gone through the principal provisions of this Bill. I have not attempted to go into any details upon most of its provisions, judging that the consideration of those details will be very much better left to occupy your Lordships' attention in Committee, and that they will be very much better discussed

19
there. But I should like, before I sit I down, to say a few words generally upon the change which by this Bill it is proposed to make. In proposing this measure to Parliament, and in making these changes in local administration in Scotland, I desire to say that I have not any fault (and I am sure I may speak for Her Majesty's Government when I say so) to find with the local administrative bodies. On the contrary, I am very glad to have this opportunity of recognising how earnestly they have done their work, that they have done it with zeal, efficiency, economy, and the greatest public spirit; and that while, on the one hand, they have avoided extravagance of expenditure, they have, on the other, always fully recognised the duties and responsibilities imposed upon them. This I know from my own private experience in Scotland; and I am glad to have this opportunity of saying that that experience has been amply borne out by the wider experience which I have obtained since I have had the honour to hold the office of Secretary for Scotland. But though I look upon the supercession of those bodies who have done their work so admirably in the past, with (as I confess I do) some feeling of regret, and though I feel that the responsibilities which will be thrown upon the Secretary for Scotland will be largely increased if this Bill passes, especially with regard to the educational system, it is with no feeling of doubt or misgiving that I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, and I have every confidence that the work of local administration, placed as it will be on a broader and more extended basis, will be done as well as it has been done before. I am aware that at first there may be some friction. A new system cannot be introduced without some friction, and some difficulty. There may be at first some over zeal, which may be over zealous, some energy which may not be tempered with sufficient discretion, but on the whole the work will be satisfactorily done. If friction and difficulty should at first exist, that state of things will soon pass away, as it has done in the case of other newly created bodies, and I think that in course of time we may look for good solid work to be done by these bodies in
20
Scotland. We are getting a better system of education; with better education there comes greater knowledge; and then with greater knowledge there comes a most legitimate and proper desire to take a more effective part, not only in the work of the Imperial Parliament, but in the work of the county in which the people live, and which is nearer to them, and more important to their needs. Naturally, I myself do not think that my countrymen, the people of Scotland, are as Conservative as I should like to see them—not nearly so Conservative; but from one point of view, I do think the people of Scotland are strongly and thoroughly Conservative. They are so proud of their ancient history and institutions which affect themselves and everything connected with their daily life, that they would be reluctant to make any change which would tend to cut them off from the system of County Government which has gone before, and from their historic and local associations. Consequently I look forward with great confidence to the exercise of the increased powers which will be given by this Bill to the county electors of Scotland. I cannot help thinking that you will agree with me that such a measure as this is a guarantee for increased and substantial political progress, recognising as I think it does existing interests, and at the same time giving effect to that desire which I have alluded to—namely, a closer participation in Local Government. I think that such a measure as this, bringing home as it does to all who are interested in Scottish affairs the fact that with the new privileges given to them by this Bill there will come new duties and new responsibilities and with them new burdens, when this Bill passes into law, if your Lordships give a Second Reading to it, as I hope you will to-night, will confer lasting benefits upon the local Government and people of Scotland. My Lords, it is in that spirit that the Bill has been drawn; it is in that spirit, I hope, that the Bill will be considered in Committee, and I ask your Lordships now to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I have often had the misfortune to address your

21
Lordships' House, and to be misunderstood from not having heard the Question put, whether upon a Motion for a Bill brought forward by myself or in opposition to any Motion brought forward by noble Lords. It is my privilege to be able to come and say whether I withdraw any Motion that I may make, or whether I am justified in my persistence in conduct which, with great reluctance, I pursue. This matter is one of principle. If my Motion were carried, the proposal for the word "now" could not be put. As to the Bill now before the House, it is said in the Scriptures that "In the multitude of counsellors there is safety." The noble Earl who has just sat down, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has given us a most excellent account of the composition and duties of the different bodies, which it is now proposed to supercede by a very much smaller number. My Lords, this is decidedly an experiment. It is impossible to say that the Local Government Bill of last Session was not an experiment. It is a case of paulo post futurum legislation. It has given a great deal of trouble and perplexity, and even the Commissioners who were the final referees say if there was any difference between counties and boroughs, they must alter their opinion. As to the division of money between them, everything is kept uncertain. We knew what we had to look to, when we had the Commissioners of Supply, when we had the Magistrates, and when the maintenance and care of the roads were under the control of most carefully selected bodies, who always, in my humble opinion, acted with great caution and great prudence. My Lords, I see no necessity for this Bill. It was my duty when in the Courts of King's Bench and Queen's Bench to submit to the Lord Chief Justice an abridgement of every record; if I made a mistake that mistake was a very serious one, and I believe I hardly ever had a record referred to in that way. The question before your Lordships is whether you will institute an entirely new system without being satisfied that the system which has now been attempted in England as an experiment will turn out to be a decided success or not. Money is wanted; every Council is asking for more. It puts one in mind of the caricature by H.B. of Lord Brougham repre-
22
sented as a schoolmaster and entitled "Henry asking for more." There is not a single instance in which "more" has not been demanded, and in which money has not been thrown out to be scrambled for. That is what comes from consulting demands made in the name of the community by County Councils. My Lords, I am certain if this Bill were postponed for three years you would better have seen by that time how the Local Government Bill for England has really worked. With regard to the attempt now being made, one is reminded of the words addressed by Falstaff to Henry V., when Prince of Wales, as to "robbing the Exchequer with unwashen hands." Even a Cabinet Minister responsible for the affairs of India has talked about reducing the tax upon plate. Every old tax is worth keeping, because of the extreme difficulty of introducing any new tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very ill-used man—40 millions! I never heard of such a sacrifice, and what has been the effect upon the taxes of this country? We may wish to have some modification of the Licensing Duties; we may wish to have some alleviation from the hardships of the Probate Duties, but we are going to tie our hands for ever. My Lords, we do not, because we are members of this House, forfeit all claim to common sense. I am satisfied that this Bill will be carried in a hurry if it gets through to-day. I have read it carefully, and there are provisions in it which I do not like; but I would not attempt to support any Amendment in Committee which would send the Bill out to the country with a slur upon it. What is the consequence if you want to alter a Bill at the end of the Session? The only time when there ever was a chance of asking this House to go on to the end of a Session was in a statute, now repealed, which gave a Peer the right to shoot a buck in Her Majesty's Forests on his way to Parliament, and another, in the presence of a keeper, on his return, when, if a Member did not stay to the end of it, he lost his pay. I am quite satisfied that this principle of saying there is no time to do this or that is a fallacious one. As if this House was not capable, if necessary, of sitting every month in the year! I have seen it sitting every month except October, and I have seen

23
good work done. I remember, in particular, the measure as to locomotive engines. A suggestion was made for compromise. It was very late in September, and the Lord President of the Council the Duke of Richmond being here in his place, and Lord Watson, Lord Advocate, I wanted a uniform system to be adopted; but it certainly was very late, and probably that had something to do with the result. Parliaments have met at all times of the year, and in all parts of Her Majesty's Dominions. I am not sure that the Imperial Parliament has ever been confined to a particular locality or that anything has been so confined, except the Court of Common Pleas, which by a statute, perhaps repealed, was always to sit at Westminster. I believe Her Majesty might sit at any time and hold an Imperial Parliament in any part of her dominions. I would only recall the Parliament held in the time of William Rufus at Rockingham Castle. There is a Rockingham Castle also in Ireland, where they want Home Rule. I venture to say that in according to these Local Governments anything as a substitute for Home Rule, you are giving way to the greatest delusion that ever was entertained. It is a system, which will cause disunion, debate, and discord. It is impossible to go on unless we assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise the revenue by fair means, and I am sure that unless you will give him back the Probate Duties and the Licensing Duties you will repent it. With regard to taking away the jurisdiction over the police from the Magistrates, I think that is very objectionable, because the Magistrates are the only persons who know what the police really do. My Lords, I cannot see the use of having a Bill like this forced upon us, until the effect of its kindred Bill here is seen by the public. I am not one who looks to the effect of the future elections. Last Friday was the fourth anniversary of this Parliament. Mr. Brodrick said it was the third anniversary. Well, if so, my Lords, I can only say it has been a triennial Parliament so far, and I earnestly hope that it may last three years longer. Mr. Fox once held certain opinions, but changed them with regard to triennial Parliaments. I hope your
24
Lordships will be on the register before the next Election. My noble Friend reminds me that in this Bill there is a very peculiar privilege given to women which might operate curiously with regard to any woman not living with her husband. If they are to be invested with political power it is rather a temptation to them I think, to leave their husbands. But the Reform Bill of 1884, I venture to say, was imperfect in that respect, as the suffrage was not given to duly-qualified women. I ventured, on behalf of married women, to put in a claim for them in case their husbands ill-treat them and if they had to get a divorce from their husbands; but I hope that in all cases divorces may be discouraged, and especially in Scotland. This Bill gives a right to married women even if not divorced. My Lords, I have often been without a Teller, and with regard to any opposition to this Bill I am sure that I have had no communication with a single person throughout the progress of the measure, except Lord Thurlow just now. I wish to see that the Bill may have fair play, but I think that the registration provided for is extremely imperfect. The names are not placed on the church-doors, and any new claims should have been made by the 31st of last month. There is plenty of time to consider the Bill if your Lordships choose to adjourn for a short period. On one occasion two Bills were carried which only took two minutes each, because I did not hear the Question put. If your Lordships would adjourn there would be an opportunity for you to visit Ireland and see what is going on there. It might do away with some prejudice. I am sure that if this Bill were extended to Ireland it would have no good effect. I firmly believe that we are much better without it. We are better as we are, especially with the attachment of the people of Scotland to old institutions. I know that from my own observation, and I am quite certain, also, that there is no complaint with regard to the owners in regard to paying their proper share of the rates which are levied. My Lords, it would certainly be a very strong measure to refuse all these very large sums which are offered for the assistance of the counties; but I firmly believe that if you allow the present economical Magistrates to carry on the business of the counties, and if you do

25
not take away their powers to tax the owners and occupiers—if you trust to them, you will find that there is no improvement likely to be made by creating a hybrid body which will always be in a state of opposition one part of it to the other and to the Legislature. I am certain that the necessities of the country require that the Magistrates of Scotland and the Magistrates of England and of Ireland—you are increasing the powers of Magistrates in Ireland, and degrading the Magistrates in England, and trying to lower the Magistrates of Scotland —should be left in their present situation. That is their own view; and one gentleman, who had been a High Sheriff, said to me recently, talking of the Bill, "We must grin and bear it." We have been complimented by the noble Lord at the Board of Trade for being an economical body, and I am sure we have been an economical body. We have 200 Magistrates in Derbyshire, and only 150 County Councillors with various qualifications. I say it is imposing duties upon small bodies which it will be most difficult for them to discharge, even if they have physical endurance to be able to go through the duties imposed upon them. My Lords, I venture to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and add at the end of the Motion, "this day six months."—(The Lord Denman.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I have seen it suggested with regard to this Bill that the changes which it makes in the system of Scottish Local Government are comparatively unimportant. I think that those who make that statement can have bestowed very little attention upon the contents of the Bill. This Bill makes a fundamental change in the whole system of Local Government, because it takes away all matters of local concern from the cognisance of one body and vests them in an entirely new constituency, and places them in the hands of an entirely new Council. This Bill places for the first time the local business of Scotland in the hands of the general body of ratepayers; and it goes even further than
26
that—it places those affairs, to a considerable extent, in the hands of those who do not pay rates. Of course, it may be urged that the service electors do, as a matter of theory and in some manner which we do not quite understand, pay rates by some sort of implied bargain with those who employ them. But I think those of your Lordships who are familiar with county or local business know that, as a matter of fact, this question of local rates is not taken into consideration as far as the service voters are concerned. I would prefer to put it in another way. I think the line which the Government have taken is this—they have adopted the principle that it is the possession of a house which entitles the occupier to take his share of the local burdens and of the local business of the country; and I must say that to me this qualification appears to be the wisest and most sensible which you could possibly devise. It is a sensible qualification because the principle is intelligible; it has in it the essence of finality, and it carries with it some reason why the elector should possess a vote. I think it is very fortunate that the Government have not adhered to the line they first adopted when they introduced this Bill. At first, as your Lordships know, it was proposed that persons who are engaged in service should not possess a county vote unless they formally applied for it. I am glad that has been changed, and I think that change is a very great improvement. I am quite certain if the Government had adhered to their former plan a great deal of dissatisfaction and discontent would have been occasioned, and it would have been felt that even if the vote were given in the end, as of course it would have had to be given, it would have been simply given, not so much as a matter of favour, but because it was impossible to avoid it. Now, my Lords, let me say one word with regard to the powers which it is proposed to confer upon these new County Councils. It is said that these powers are chiefly possessed by Local Bodies in existence now; such, for instance, as the powers with regard to the management of the roads and the administration of the Public Health Acts, which are now entrusted to the Parish Authorities. The change which this Bill makes is that it confers those powers upon an entirely new set

27
of persons. It takes away the powers from the Commissioners of Supply; it also takes the powers away from the parishes and from the Justices of the Peace. I regret that the Bill does not go a little further. I believe it would have been quite possible to have entrusted the power of licensing to the new County Councils, because I think there is a very important distinction in this respect between Scotland and England. I know very well that last year it would have been impossible to pass a Local Government Act for England if it had been proposed to transfer the licensing powers under the Bill; but some of your Lordships know very well that the licensing difficulties are not the same in Scotland as they are in England. It is considered by many as quite certain that before long the licensing powers will have to be transferred to the County Councils. I cannot say how far that expectation might have affected the passing of this Bill into law this Session, but I believe, as far as those powers are concerned, they might have been safely entrusted to the County Councils. This Bill hands over the entire administration of the county finances to a County Council elected by the householders, but it does so subject to a very important qualification. When it affects the question of borrowing money or of capital expenditure or when there is any reference to the management of the police, then it is provided that there is to be a Joint Committee of the Commissioners of Supply and County Councillors, seven of each, and in addition the Sheriff, who, by the way, I am glad to see is not necessarily to be the Chairman of that Sub-Committee. I know that some exception has been taken to this proposal, but I think that on consideration those who are best acquainted with Local Government will admit that this proposal is one of a most reasonable and sensible kind. This principle of a control being exercised when it is a matter of borrowing money for public purposes by some external authority has been admitted in England, and is admitted in Scotland at the present time. If it is sought to obtain a loan for the purpose of carrying out the Poor Law, or for the purpose of administering the Public Health Acts, it is necessary to obtain the sanction of a Board of Supervision, and similar
28
arrangements obtain in England with regard to the same matters. I do not think we are saying anything at all unjustifiable against these new County Councillors if we say that they are not infallible, and that it is very probable, when they first enter upon their office, that they will be very anxious indeed to carry out all kinds of projects in the way of what they consider to be improvements, and that it is at all events most satisfactory that when they propose to make large expenditures of money there should be some body of persons representing those who are interested whose consent would have to be obtained before the expenditures are sanctioned. My Lords, I have seen the evils produced by this want of control in Scotland. I remember in the County of Forfar we obtained a Local Act for the management of our roads, and under that Act it was perfectly possible for the new trustees to borrow money without any check. New trustees coming fresh into office, a great many of them being tenant farmers, would naturally want to have the roads improved as quickly as possible, although it might be—of course it did not necessarily follow—that in a few years afterwards they would be in the country. Therefore, all improvements were carried out at once, thus incurring a great deal of needless expense, and, indeed, a great deal of the money was thrown away. I must say myself, having had something to do with these matters, that it is a most sensible and wise precaution to establish a Joint Committee such as this which is proposed. There is another argument, which people are too apt to forget, and that is that owners of property in Scotland pay half the whole rate, and in virtue of that very large payment it is surely advisable that there should be some representation of property. I do not care how you give it; but, still, I think that owners of property should have some security that their money should not be spent solely by those whose interest in the matter, and therefore in taking care of it, is after all comparatively small, and whose contribution to the funds is necessarily still smaller. Now, my Lords, one word with regard to the numbers of the Councillors. I have received from the noble Marquess a statement of the numbers which he proposes, I do not say finally, but which, in the first instance

29
he has an idea of proposing, for the various counties. I hope that before the noble Marquess comes to any final conclusion on that matter he will consult very carefully the public bodies in the various counties—I do not mean only the Commissioners of Supply, but I allude to the Road Trustees, or any other body which represents the public to any considerable extent, because we all have one interesting this matter—what we want is sensible, intelligent, economical local administration. It would be a great pity if such bodies were too few in number, because then the public would feel that they were not adequately represented; but I think, on the other hand, it would be as great an evil if those bodies were to be too numerous, because that would throw a very large expenditure upon the rates, and if you have once established a large body it becomes very difficult indeed to reduce its numbers at any period afterwards. There are, of course, a great many matters of detail in such a measure as this, and with those I do not intend to trouble your Lordships now. There is only one to which I will allude, and that is that, in forming the District Committees with regard to the management of roads, I am sorry to see that it is proposed to appoint only a member connected with each parochial body. I should object more than I do to these proposals if I did not believe that the constitution of these parochial bodies is very likely to be enlarged. At all events, the noble Marquess will have observed that in the District Committees those representatives will almost in every case outnumber the County Councillors with whom they will have to sit. Those, my Lords, are all the remarks with which I will trouble you on the Second Reading; and I may say of this Bill that I regard it as a measure for creating a new machinery in the shape of County Councils. It is obvious that, if it is found to work well, its provisions can be largely extended hereafter; and I observe that it is in the power of the Secretary for Scotland to entrust to these Councils hereafter any other matters of local interest which he may think it advisable to entrust to them, subject always to the sanction of Parliament. The Commissioners of Supply have done their work well, as the noble Marquess has said. They have been very
30
economical; they have done their work very sensibly, and they have restricted their action to the subjects with which they had to deal. I have every confidence that their successors will follow their example, and I think it is high time we should take a clear step of this kind in popularising Local Government. I think, on the whole, that under this Bill the new County Councils will do the work of Local Government in a very practical manner.
THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALE: I do not intend to occupy your Lordships' time at any length, but I wish to make one or two remarks upon this Bill with regard to a subject which, I think, will justify me in asking your Lordships' attention. In the first place, I wish to add my testimony to the great value of the measure which has been introduced this evening. I believe it will carry out its aim and object—namely, the placing of Local Government in Scotland on a more popular basis than that on which it has hitherto stood. It is quite true, as has been remarked, that local affairs have been hitherto admirably administered in Scotland, both as to economy and efficiency; but the management has been in notoriously too few hands, and the extension of the control of local matters, and the placing the administration of them on a more popular basis, will, no doubt, be of great benefit to Scotland in many ways. The particular point to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention, in the first instance, is this. Some of your Lordships are aware that Corporations in Scotland, such as Gas Corporations, Water Companies, and Railroads, have hitherto enjoyed a representation, in respect of the rates which they paid, to a very large extent. They are represented on the Boards of Commissioners of Supply; they are represented on the Boards of Road Trustees; they are represented on the Boards of Local Authorities and upon the Parochial Bodies. By this Bill every sort of local representation is swept away, and they are left without any voice in the election of the Councillors. This seems to me to be altogether inconsistent with the intention of the Bill. The noble Marquess used the words that payment of rates was essential to taking an active part in the elections to the Councils. When I tell your Lordships that the railroads alone in Scotland pay £200,000

31
a year in rates, you will not be surprised to hear that hitherto they have had some voice in the management of local affairs in respect of those rates. I am not able to speak so well with regard to the Gas and Water Corporations, but I have no doubt that they contribute largely also. I have a list of counties here amounting to 18, in which they are the largest contributors to the rates in those counties. Yet, notwithstanding this, as I said before, their representation is to be entirely swept away. Now, having regard to the fact that the only change which was made in this Bill in its passage through another place was with regard to the right of eligibility to the Council being extended to parties who practically pay no rates whatever, it does seem strange that those who have hitherto enjoyed the right of representation should have that right entirely abrogated. I hope the noble Lord who has charge of this Bill will take this matter into consideration; and I do not think it will be difficult for him to devise some means by which those powerful Corporations who contribute so largely to the rates in Scotland as well as in England should have a voice in the representation. Another of the points on which I should ask your Lordships' attention is with reference to the rules relating to the appointment of officers under Clause 82. It seems to me of very doubtful expediency compelling the new Councils to appoint the Clerks of Supply. Under that clause they have no option, but they must appoint for the first year whoever happens to be the Clerk of Supply. The Clerks of Supply will be, in many instances, by no means the least important of the officials who will be brought under the County Councils. In the County to which I belong the Clerk to the Road Board is a more important individual, and is far better paid than any other, and it seems to me either that the Councils should be permitted to appoint their own officers from the first, or they should be allowed to select from among the officers brought under their control. In that way I should prefer myself giving them full liberty in the choice of their officers. It is more important, especially at the commencement of such an institution as this, that the Council should have the best advice that they can possibly get.
32
Anyone who has had anything to do with Scottish business knows the importance of this, and how much the efficiency of the administration of Scottish local business will depend upon these posts being properly filled. I think the County Councils should at least have the option of appointing any officer whom they think most efficient to act as County Clerk. Then, my Lords, Clause 22, which has been referred to by the noble Lord, deals with the question of the appropriation of the License Duties and Probate Duty Grants. Those grants are distributed in six different ways. In the first five the sum allocated is a fixed sum, and the sum which is to be given in relief to State-aided schools is to be the balance. This sum may vary very considerably, but it seems to me to be very desirable if it were possible that the sum should be so far as it can be made a fixed one. I do not know whether that is impossible to be done, but I should like to suggest, at any rate, whether it would not be practicable to strike an average, say, for the last ten years, so that the Local Board might know pretty nearly what sum they would be entitled to in regard to the relief of school fees. The only other point which I have to refer to is the appointment of Justices of the Peace under Clause 10. That clause says that the Chairman shall be by virtue of his office a Justice of the Peace of the county. Justices of the Peace have hitherto been appointed by the Crown. I do not know whether the appointment by an Act of this kind will make any difference, or whether it will be necessary to make any new provision under which a Justice of the Peace will in future be made otherwise than by the Crown. I have no other observations to make than to say that I believe this measure will be attended with great advantage to Scotland. We have all had experience of popular Government in the administration of roads and schools, and, speaking for myself, and in my capacity as chairman of bodies of both kinds, I can only say that the introduction of the popular element has been attended with complete success. I have, therefore, no fear whatever of the operation of this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, I have very few remarks to make

33
I feel that matters of detail would be best dealt with in Committee, but I should not like so large and important a measure as this affecting Scotland to pass without expressing an opinion upon it. I should myself have preferred that the Bill should have started upon another basis in dealing with the question of Local Government in Scotland, that is to say, I should have preferred the parish to be taken as a unit to start from, then the election to the District Committee, and then to the Central Council. But I recognise the difficulties of proceeding upon that basis in such a measure, and especially in Scotland; and I think that, taking it as a whole, the Bill now put down for Second Reading is as good a one as could be framed upon the lines upon which it has gone. But there are certain points which I think will have to very carefully considered in Committee. I agree with what my noble Friend behind me said as to the advantages of the Joint Standing Committee for the purpose of controlling the expenditure, but I do not entirely agree with him as to the bearing it may have upon the question of the maintenance of roads. As I read the Bill the whole of the powers now vested in the Road Trustees are transferred to the Road Board, which is to take the place of the Committees of Chairmen— I am now speaking of my own county under our private Act. This Board then delegates to the District Committee the entire maintenance of the roads, and the District Committee will have the management of them and will assess the rates. Therefore the whole of the rating for the maintenance of roads comes through the District Committee. But by Section 18, although they have the power of rating, yet the power of doing certain things for the improvement of the roads, is taken away from them. If your Lordships will look at that clause, Subsections 6 and 7, you will see that no capital works, that is, works involving capital expenditure, can be undertaken in any county or any district, without the written consent of the Standing Joint Committee; and then it is enacted that capital works are to include the erection, rebuilding, or enlargement of buildings, and the construction, reconstruction, or widening of roads and bridges. My experience in Aberdeenshire is that the powers conferred upon the Road Com-
34
missioners have been largely taken advantage of, but as I read this clause in future, though the District Committee will have the power of levying the rates under the Roads and Bridges Act, they will not be able to improve the roads and bridges in their district without the consent of the Standing Joint Committee; and I think that might be modified.
LORD BALFOUR: Not if they pay for them out of the rates for the current year.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I was going to add that I see there is a provision for the payment of all works out of the current year's rates. Now, this is a very startling proposal, and will require consideration in Committee. However, I simply call the noble Marquess's attention to that, and perhaps by the time the Bill comes into Committee he will have considered it. Then the only other important point in this Bill upon which I would desire to say a few words is the proposal to devote the balance coming from the Probate and Licensing Duties to the relief of State-aided Schools. Many objections, no doubt, have been raised to that proposal, but I am quite clear that the majority of Scotchmen are in favour of that proposal, and I think the noble Marquess was quite justified in his reference to the almost unanimity with which that proposal has been received. I can only account for that unanimity by referring it to the feeling which has been manifested since 1874 when the Education Act was passed, and when a large expenditure was thrown upon the rates in connection with the schools, which had not previously fallen upon them. As your Lordships know, the Education Act imposed upon the rates a very heavy burden which they had not previously been called upon to bear, and an increase of that kind is always felt very severely indeed by the poorer ratepayers. This Bill will, I think, relieve them, for it is not so much a relief to the parents of the school-children as to the poorer ratepayers. It will, no doubt, be a very sensible relief to them. With those few words I beg to express my approval of this Bill.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I shall say but little at this stage of the Bill. I am sorry to see in this measure a repetition of what was done in the English County Council Bill. I have to

35
say that my remarks upon this matter are not original, for they really follow what was said by Earl Beauchamp with regard to enlargement of area. I do not think, in England, the same objection exists, because, there, political feeling does not rise so high as it does in Scotland; but I cannot help thinking that it is unfortunate we should have a repetition of the same state of things. I think, instead of there being one County Councillor for each area as proposed, it would have been much better if the area were enlarged and six or so returned for that area. You would then get, as representatives, different sorts of people. You would get, perhaps, the larger tenant - farmers, the doctors, or the veterinary surgeons of the neighbourhood, whereas, if you have one Councillor only for one area, you will perhaps get the person returned who puts himself most prominently forward. I very much fear that the effect of that clause will be that the most pushing or energetic person, possibly some farmer Radically inclined, will be found putting himself forward. I do not know what may happen to this Bill in Committee, so many Bills disappear at that stage; but I desire to give notice that I intend to move the deletion in Clause 82 of the latter part of Sub-section 3, the whole of Sub-section 4, and the latter part of Sub-section 6. My Lords, it seems tome that this point of one Councillor, one area is an important one and ought to be well considered. In other respects I think the Bill a useful and necessary one.
THE EARL OF MINTO: My Lords, I wish to make only one remark. To my mind this Bill is in many respects a valuable one, and I hope it will work well in Scotland; but, in my opinion, the disfranchising part of it, as regards many of those who are qualified to take an intelligent part in the government of the county is a defect. Those persons are at present rather a numerous body, and by this Bill you are diminishing the number of those who may take part in treating subjects to be brought before the Council. I only wish to make that remark, and I shall perhaps in Committee move an Amendment embodying my views on the point. I rather think that the noble Lord who has just
36
spoken looks upon it in the same light as I do myself.
On question that ("now") stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative: Then the original Motion was agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

INTERPRETATION BILL. (No. 92.)
Adjourned Debate on Amendment moved on Third Reading resumed according to Order.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think I ought to persist in the Amendment which I had sought to introduce into this Bill after the remarks of my noble Friend upon it with regard to both place and time. Although I am still of opinion that it is important some such amendment of the law should be made, yet I should be sorry to carry by a majority an Amendment of this description, which some noble and learned Lords think is not really called for by the necessities of the case. I can only say, in abandoning this Amendment, that I shall claim from those noble and learned Lords next year their assistance into putting into a form more satisfactory to themselves some general enactment, which shall have a more definite legal meaning attached to it, so that that confusion shall not be possible in private Acts which exists at present. I know it is very easy to say that you can always cure that by putting a specific section into the Act. That is quite true; but the answer is that people do not do so, and the consequence is that from time to time Acts are passed without any provision as to what meaning is to be attached to them in computing time. Under the circumstances, after the opposition which has been offered to it, and the explanations given by my noble and learned Friends the other night, I do not think it would be becoming in me to persist in the Amendment of which that alteration formed the subject.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Another Amendment proposed, in Clause 12, line 11, after the word "India" insert
"And where parts of such dominions are under both a central, and a local legislature, all

37
parts under the central legislature shall, for the purposes of this definition, be deemed to be one colony."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. (No. 186.)
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.
COUNTY COURT APPEALS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 104.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD FITZGERALD: My Lords, I have to move an Amendment on Clause 13, by which the right to appeal is given to a defendant who has not appeared at the hearing, within one month. The Amendment is to insert the words at line 19 after the word "may."
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lord, I shall not oppose the Amendment which my noble and learned Friend has now proposed, though I must confess I am not satisfied that it is really necessary. The fact is that this clause was considered after the Bill was introduced at the Irish Office. After my noble and learned Friend gave notice of a Motion to reject Clause 13, it was again considered at the Irish Office, and especially by the learned Solicitor General for Ireland, and he was satisfied with the clause as it now stands. I do not profess myself to know much about the special needs or wants of Ireland in this respect, but I do rely upon the matured view of the learned Solicitor General for Ireland who has considered the matter. But as my noble and learned Friend presses this point I shall not oppose him; of course, the matter may still be considered elsewhere.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons; and to be printed as amended. (No. 205.)

INDIA—DISTRESS IN THE DIAMOND HARBOUR DIVISION OF THE PEGUNNAHS.

  QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in rising to ask the Secretary of State
  38
  for India if his attention has been called to the Report of Mr. Bolton, collector, on the distress in the Diamond Harbour sub-division, and to the fines of two rupees or a week's imprisonment on nine starving men, and of one rupee on a woman, inflicted by Mr. Maguire, the Joint Magistrate of Alipore, for a breach of the Revenue Laws, they having scraped some salt from the earth to add to their meal of tamarind seeds and stalks of the water-lily; and to ask the Secretary of State what portion of the Reserve Famine Fund has been devoted to the famine in Ganjam and Orissa, said: My Lords, before putting the question which stands on the Notice Paper in my name, I wish to mention the great good which has resulted from the efforts of Lord Connemara, the Governor of Madras, and from his personal inspection of the district at the northern extremity of the Presidency, regardless of the hot season, when it is usual to take refuge in the hills at Ootacamund. Besides establishing relief works, the Governor of Madras has directed gratuitous relief to be given to women and children, who, but for that, must have perished; and local liberality has been encouraged by the presence of the Governor. The Indian Press is full of praise of Lord Connemara, not only for his exertions, but also for the way in which he has avoided the mistakes made in former famines; and it also states that he has received a message of commendation from Her Majesty the Queen. I hope that the noble Viscount the Secretary of State will be able to confirm the truth of that Report. The questions which I wish to ask the Secretary of State for India are —first, whether his attention has been called to the Report of Mr. Bolton, collector, on the distress in the Diamond Harbour sub-division. He went there, but he was there for so short a time that the people were not aware that he had been at the place until he was gone. In his Report he minimises the distress, it is said on insufficient information, and states that it is the proper policy not to demoralise the people by giving them food. It must be remembered that there is no Poor Law in India, and that the Government alone can relieve distress. I do not ask the Secretary of State to censure Mr. Bolton, but I ask him to disagree with that

  39
  gentleman. Perhaps the best way of showing disagreement would be for the Indian Government to circulate Lord Connemara's Minute in other famine districts, if it is really as able a document as it is said to be. It has been stated that Lord Connemara has had experience of former famines, and has avoided the mistakes then made. As to Mr. Maguire's sentences for breach of the Revenue Laws by starving men, I hope the Secretary of State will be able to say that this Magistrate has been directed to exercise more discretion in future. The nine men who were imprisoned by him for a week not being able to pay the fine were perhaps benefited, as they must have been fed whilst in prison; but the woman said that if she were sent to prison her two infant children would starve. A Hindoo pleader who was present, speaking merely as amicus curiœ) besought the Magistrate to dismiss her with a nominal fine, but without success. At last the Magistrate said to the woman, "you are fined a rupee which this Baboo will pay." The Baboo paid the fine, and the woman was let go. One feels somewhat curious to know whether Mr. Maguire, like most Irishmen in India, is a Home Ruler or not. If a similar occurrence took place in Ireland, what an outcry there would have been from the whole people and Press of Ireland at the conduct of the Magistrate. With regard to the last question in my notice, I may say that I have seen statements in the Press to the effect that the Reserve Famine Fund has been swept away or swallowed up in the North-West frontier; but I cannot believe that those statements are correct, because I find that in his Despatch of April 12, 1888, sanctioning the raising of the Salt Tax, the Secretary of State has written the following paragraph:—
  "There is another reason of great moment for endeavouring to keep the duty on salt as low as practicable. One of the objects at which the Government of India aimed in the reforms that were instituted, of which great political and financial importance was foreseen, was to place a reserve in the hands of the Administration, for the purpose of meeting any serious emergency, and to enable them to obtain temporarily a considerable addition to the Revenue by an increase of duty, of which the mass of the people would be hardly aware."
  This extract from a Despatch of April of last year would indicate that precau-
  40
  tions must have been taken to reserve a fund for the emergency of the famine which has now occurred. From what has transpired in another place I am afraid the noble Viscount will not be able to give a satisfactory account of what has become of this fund, but it is clear from a telegram I have seen, stating that a total number of 80,000 people in Ganjam are receiving gratuitous relief, that the Indian Government has not regarded the disappearance of the fund, but must have supplied money from the equivalent in India of the Consolidated Fund. Lord Ripon lowered the Salt Duty a short time ago: it has been raised again, and the people of India are suffering very much in consequence. The last Medical Reports say that salt is required as a preventative against cholera, and there is no doubt also that the cattle suffer from murrain for want of salt. I think, my Lords, that before long the noble Viscount will have to look about for some other means of raising Revenue.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, with regard to the action taken by Lord Connemara in regard to the distress existing in the Presidency of Madras, I think you will agree that it is impossible to speak too highly of it. The Governor of Madras sent one of his most trusted officers at the earliest possible opportunity to examine into the whole question; and then, although the weather was extremely hot and the season far advanced, he thought it was wise to go to the district affected and make searching inquiry himself. The results have been most satisfactory. Lord Connemara has undoubtedly by this action given enormous encouragement to all those who are engaged in relieving the distress which exists, and has done a great deal to alleviate the sufferings of the people. It is quite true that Her Majesty has sent a message to Lord Connemara approving of his conduct, and unquestionably that high compliment the Governor of Madras has fully deserved. I have not yet received an official copy of the Report of Mr. Bolton, and therefore I must decline to discuss that matter at present. Neither have I received any information as to the alleged punishments referred to by the noble Lord, inflicted for scraping salt from the earth, but I will make inquiries. As to

  41
  the famine, I can assure the noble Lord that the Viceroy is fully alive to all the dangers and difficulties of the situation, and that everything that can be done to alleviate the distress in Bengal and Madras has been done. As to the noble Lord's question regarding the Famine Fund, I must explain that there is no actual Reserve Fund. The expenditure which would be necessary to alleviate distress in Madras and Bengal will be meanwhile met out of the Provincial Funds, and according to a telegram which I received a few days ago the sum which would be required in Madras for the current year is set down at Rx82,000 and for Bengal at Rx40,000. The Provincial Governments are quite able to meet that expenditure. Of course if they had not had sufficient funds to do what they desired they would have applied to the Central Government, and they would have been offered money out of the Indian Imperial Exchequer, but I am happy to say that there is no probability of that being necessary.

TRANSPORT FOR THE AUXILIARY FORCES.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TRURO: My Lords, I have to call your attention to, perhaps, one of the greatest anomalies that ever existed—namely, a standing Army—which has grown within the last 30 years to the number of 250,000 men, unprovided with transport. We have, within the last week or two, had the powerful assistance of the Lord Mayor, who has interested himself in the question of providing the Volunteer Regiments generally with proper equipment. However successful the Lord Mayor may be in London, and however successful the provincial towns of England may be should they follow his example, it is perfectly clear that without transport that Army of Volunteers must be practically useless, for the simple reason that it must be immovable. It can neither advance to the front to meet the enemy nor can it retire, if necessary, to take up a better position. Defeat, therefore, under such circumstances would simply mean its total and entire destruction. Inasmuch as the Volunteer Force has existed for a period of 30 years, it does seem somewhat extra-
  42
  ordinary that, until quite recently, as far as I know, no attempts have been made on the part of the Military Authorities to organise in any way whatever a Volunteer Transport. Like many other requirements for the benefit of the Volunteer Force, the first suggestion of Transport has come from Volunteer officers themselves. Colonel Sir William Humphreys, a man of great ability and energy himself, undertook—one can hardly call it the organization, but an attempt at the organization of a Transport Force for his own corps in Hampshire, and I believe he met with some what unusual success. I think it will be found that similar success will not attend other battalions of the Volunteer Force, even should their officers exhibit the same ability and energy. It cannot be expected from the general public in this country that they will be willing, without either money reward or some honorary acknowledgment, to give gratuitously their horses, their carts, and their men, too, perhaps two or three times during the year in order to try whether the proposed scheme will be effective. I cannot therefore but come to the conclusion that although this able officer has been successful in his attempt, it is idle to suppose that such attempts, if carried out in other parts of the country, can attain like success. But it was upon this favourable Report of Colonel Humphreys that the War Office has been induced to-issue two different Circulars in relation to transport for the Volunteers. The first of these Circulars was issued on the 14th February, 1888, when 10 regiments were selected in certain localities for the purpose of ascertaining whether the scheme suggested by Colonel Humphreys promised success. Now I do not know whether the localities in which these regiments were selected were localities most favourable to the trial of the scheme, or least favourable to it; but of this I am certain, that in trying such an experiment as this it should, to have been really of value, have been tried in the least favourable places. Whether that was so or not I will not pretend to say—certainly some of the localities, from what is stated in a Paper which I have read recently, do not appear to have been the least favourable. Now, the

  43
  War Office Circular lays down very properly certain requirements in relation to this Transport Service, and in looking at the Return that was furnished it would appear, as it has been with regard to many other things in the Volunteer service, as though the War Office authorities would say, "you must do it yourselves. "They have had no scheme of any kind whatever, and they have no scheme now; for the new instructions which they issued after this experiment to Colonels of Volunteer regiments were to register the cart and horses (I do not think men) in their several districts is hardly to be called a scheme. They have also intimated a wish that every encouragement should be given to those who are willing to lend their carts and horses for different days in the year that the experiment may be fully tried. Now, in the first instance, the War Office intimated its willingness to give £45 towards the expenses of the experiment to each of the battalions. In some cases the expenses will be found to have been in excess of that amount, though in one or two cases I believe the expenses of the battalion were kept within the margin of £45. Let me take the first Volunteer Battalion that stands upon the list. A very important part of any experiment of this kind was not tried— namely, the picketing of the horses. And why? The report says that the weather was unfavourable, and that the horses were therefore not picketed. Certain artificers were required, three to each battalion; it does not appear that artificers were forthcoming in anything like the number required. In one case the horses were too big for the water cart; in another case the horse bolted with the water cart, the shaft was broken, and it became utterly useless. In four or five instances in this return the horses were not picketed, because, as reported, the weather was wet or cold, or because the horses had no picketing-gear. In this Report it is stated that the Volunteers applied to the Government for the use of picketing-gear, which was refused. Now, seeing the small allowance—for small I must call it— that is demanded for all the exigencies of the Volunteer Service from the War Office, I think there should be no objection to an addition being
  44
  made in this respect in order that a force of this character may be brought to a state of efficiency. At some time there can be no doubt a very great increase in the expenses will have to be provided for, and Her Majesty's Government must therefore be prepared for it. My Lords, after having tried this experiment, and after having received the Reports from the different regiments, there came this letter of the 22nd March, 1889, relating to the transport of the Auxiliary Forces, by which, at the direction of the Commander-in-Chief, Volunteer Officers were informed that the reports from the various districts had shown that a system of Volunteer transport was not requisite, and that it had been decided to discontinue, as far as the War Office was concerned, any steps in that direction. The circular further stated that officers commanding Volunteer battalions should annul any contracts of this nature which they had entered into on behalf of the State, and they were instructed to give notice to terminate them as soon as possible. The whole scheme has come to an end, and the War Office simply says that we are to rest where we are. My Lords, can it be contended by anyone that this is a proper condition for a standing army to be in? Is it possible that in a week or a fortnight the carts required for the transport of ammunition and baggage can be got? Your Lordships know from your own personal experience that matters of this kind certainly take a month or so, and if, as has been supposed by some authorities, an attack on this country would be settled one way or another in a week or ten days, I should like to know what would become of the Volunteer army without transport. This circular goes on to say that the experiments have proved that "ample transport is forthcoming for the use of Volunteers. "Whether or not this has been proved in the places which are least favourable, "I do not know. I believe that in the places selected there was abundance of transport. But it is not an abundance of transport alone that is necessary; it is the organisation of transport. Anyone who knows anything of these matters is aware that to carry them out requires a great deal of time and practice. You can no more organise the necessary transport at a moment's notice than you can organise imme-

  45
  diately any other great undertaking. Then it is further stated that—
  "No further grants in aid will be made, but His Royal Highness desires that there may be kept up in all districts a careful system of registration of available transport which can be obtained upon any emergency so as to ensure that the transport requirements of the Volunteer Force may be met with ease and rapidity. As the practical testing of such a scheme will materially aid to efficiency, Volunteer Officers should be encouraged to take this transport with them when going into camp, and on other occasions."
  I do not know, my Lords, where the encouragement is! If withdrawing the sum at first granted is encouragement, I think it is strange indeed. If they think the farmers will lend them horses and carts on all occasions for nothing, I think they will find themselves greatly mistaken. We all know that the Englishman is a very fine fellow, but I am not quite certain that he is not a tradesman before he is a patriot. Then the Circular says that—
  "All Inspecting Officers should forward Reports with regard to this scheme, and of the practical steps taken from time to time to put it into execution."
  I do not desire to detain your Lordships longer on this matter. I simply desire to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War to those two Circulars, which are certainly inconsistent with each other. When I say inconsistent, I mean that the experiment has not been sufficiently tried to satisfy the War Office that what they are proposing to do is likely to be effective. I am satisfied it would not be effective, and the question I am desirous of putting to the noble Lord is this—Has the Government abandoned, once and for all, its intention, not of registering carts and horses, but of organising a transport system for the Volunteer Forces? I say that, as far as I can judge, if they propose to abandon to the efforts of the Volunteers themselves the organisation of transport for that service, they are not doing justice to a force which has endeavoured to the best of its ability to supply a defence for the country in case its services may ever be required.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): My Lords, the great interest which the noble Lord has always taken in the Volunteer Force fully justifies him in
  46
  bringing forward any subject having reference to that force in this House; but I am afraid that the views of the noble Lord on this question and the views held by the Military Authorities hardly go together. I take it that the noble Lord starts with the assumption that the total and entire destruction of the Volunteer Force would ensue if they had to meet an enemy and have not an organised transport. I can quite understand, in the case of a country being invaded, or an expedition advancing from the coast where carts and horses were not easily procured, that dictum as to the necessity for transport being correct; but I submit to your Lordships, in the case of a country like England, with its vast supply of carts and horses, we are in a very different position, and that, as a matter of fact, it would be extremely easy on any sudden alarm to obtain such transport as was required for any Volunteer Forces. The noble Lord has called special attention to certain War Office Circulars, and it is necessary for me to detain your Lordships for a few moments while I explain what occurred in regard to the two experiments made which those Circulars had reference to. As the noble Lord has stated, the result of the experiment made by Sir William Humphreys induced the War Office last year to select 10 infantry battalions to further try the experiment whether carts and horses could be procured and the men to drive them, and whether those carts and horses could be brought out for three days' practice during the time the battalions went into camp. By that arrangement, to pay the expenses of those carts and horses being out for three days the sum of £45 was given to each battalion. The noble Lord appears inclined to cavil at the opinion of the War Office that the experiment was successful, and he instances the fact that, in one or two cases, horses were not picketed. I believe that in a few cases they were not picketed, but that was simply because it was not thought necessary for climatic reasons to incur loss which could be avoided. Whether that was due to the action of Local Authorities or to the Commanding Officers of the battalions, or the Officer commanding the sub-district, I do not know; but it was considered that colds might result to the horses from being picketed out at night,

  47
  and I think that most people will agree that the Officers were perfectly right. At any rate, the opinion of the War Office was that the experiment was eminently satisfactory, and that it showed there was an ample supply of carts and horses for the transport of Volunteers. From what we know of the resources of the country, we have every reason to believe that this applies equally elsewhere, and that the same conditions will be found to exist in other parts of the country. The noble Lord will see that the Circular expressly refers to it as an experiment—nothing more. It was never intended that £45 should be granted to every infantry battalion in the country for the purpose of organising transport; the experiment was solely made to see whether the same thing could be carried out in other parts of the country, and our experience has shown that it can. Then the noble Lord referred to contracts, which, in some cases, had been entered into by Commanding Officers with persons owning carts and horses to supply them under certain conditions of emergency or when required. But it is obvious that we could not allow Commanding Officers to enter into contracts in which we were pledged to purchase those carts and horses at a future time. Clearly, in such a matter, it is necessary that headquarters should have the last word as regards the price that should be eventually paid. Therefore, it was proposed to carry out the idea in another way; that a skeleton form of contract should be sent round to all Commanding Officers of Volunteer battalions asking them to ascertain whether persons owning carts and horses in their neighbourhood would enter into such contracts. That scheme had nothing whatever to do with the scheme which Sir William Humphreys originated; it was a distinct system altogether, and was adopted in consequence of one or two Volunteer officers having entered into contracts. That was to some extent a little misunderstood by Commanding Officers, but at any rate the returns which they made showed that owners of carts and horses were unwilling to pledge themselves in the future to supply them without a price being agreed upon beforehand. But, my Lords, in the meantime, something else has happened. The National
  48
  Defence Bill has passed; and we can now requisition carts and horses, not for a limited period merely, but we can actually take those carts and horses and purchase them for as long as they are wanted. Before that Bill passed carts and horses could only be taken for a day's journey, but now they can be bought out and out at a value fixed; and when there is disagreement the matter may be referred to a County Court Judge. So that we are in a much more advantageous position with regard to obtaining transport now than when we issued the skeleton form for such contracts. As I have stated to your Lordships, we can now take carts and horses when they are wanted, according to the value set upon them at the time by the valuers. My Lords, I do not think it would be reasonable to ask the taxpayers of this country to keep up for what the noble Lord has called "a standing Army, "that is to say for the Volunteer Force, a Standing Transport. I do not see how it could cost less than £10,000, taking it even upon the basis of the £45 each given to the 10 battalions; but whether that is considered a large or a small sum, I am bound to say that in my opinion we should not be justified in asking the country to keep up a Standing Transport Service for the Volunteer Force, because we know that there is an ample supply of both horses and carts in this country which would be forthcoming in the event of any attempt at invasion; and from the experience of the Military Authorities, it is believed that that transport could be adequately organised in the time within which it would be necessary for it to be organised. My Lords, upon those grounds it is, that the scheme for testing the supply of transport in the cases mentioned by the noble Lord has not been pursued, and as regards the scheme for contracting for the supply of carts out-and-out, that has been rendered unnecessary by the passing of the National Defence Act. But it is obviously a very great advantage, as pointed out in one of the letters, that Commanding Officers should keep a register of the carts and horses suitable for this purpose in their neighbourhood, because in the event of emergency, those are the carts and horses which we should be able to obtain and

  49
  organise for transport purposes if they were wanted. I do not think from what I have heard from the Military Authorities that there is any necessity for establishing a Volunteer Transport Service; but such a register to be kept by Commanding Officers as is proposed in the War Office Circular would be of great value. I think it is very possible as the noble Lord has said, that we have not received from the Volunteers the last demand that will be made upon the country's purse in order to make provision for their equipment; but I am glad to hear the noble Lord acknowledge that the last grant made has been an assistance to them. My Lords, I can only say that whenever we think it is essential that the Volunteer Force should be assisted by schemes of a tentative nature such as those which have been brought under your notice by the noble Lord to-night, we shall most certainly carry them out in order to increase the efficiency of the Volunteer Force; but where we do not think they are absolutely essential we certainly decline to put the taxpayers to increased expense.

AUDIT (ARMY AND NAVY ACCOUNTS) BILL.(No. 164.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.