Sitting of 2 August 1889

QUESTIONS

  IRELAND—NON-PAYMENT OF POOR RATE.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many inhabitant householders in Gweedore, County Donegal, who are rated under £4 5s., are objected to in the lists of voters by the clerk of Dunfanaghy Union, by reason of non-payment of poor rate, for which the landlord is liable under the 1st and 2nd Vic, chapter 56, as immediate lessor; if any efforts have been made to obtain payment from the landlords before causing the disfranchisement of the tenants; and, if the Local Government Board will take the matter into consideration?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,: I find that it will take a few days to obtain the information necessary to enable me to answer this question. I must therefore ask the hon. Member to postpone the question until Tuesday, or any subsequent day.

  THE OLPHERT ESTATE.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many tenants there are on the estate of MR. Wybranta Olphert,
  170
  County Donegal; how many of these have had a fair rent fixed in Court; and how many have had a fair rent, out of Court, under pressure of circumstances?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that on the estate of MR. Wybrants Olphert, County Donegal, there are 450 tenants. Of these, 320 have had a fair rent fixed in Court and 40 out of Court. But it appears not under pressure, as alleged. The remaining 90 tenants had served originating notices to have fair rents fixed, but failed to appear when their cases were called in Court.
  In reply to a further question by MR. BLANE,
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid: I do not think that any of the tenants were prevented from appearing by the action of MR. Olphert.
  MR. MAHONY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of the tenants have been evicted because they were unable to appear in Court?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; and if they have been evicted I am afraid it must have been their own fault.

  CHARGE OF ASSAULT AGAINST AN ORANGEMAN.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a summons was issued on the 22nd day of July 1889, at Keady, in the County of Armagh, wherein a Catholic named Bernard Fagan charged an Orangeman named William Morrison with assaulting and beating him on the evening of the 12th July last, and that at the Petty Sessions held at Keady, in County Armagh, on the 25th instant, Captain Preston, R.M., the presiding Magistrate, refused to hear complainant, although both plaintiff and defendant were present and represented by their respective solicitors; and whether this is the same Captain Preston who was removed some time ago from Armagh for partiality to Messrs Warnock and Bell, who were charged with stabbing two Catholics near Armagh?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It appears that the facts are not accurately represented in the question. The presiding Magistrate did not refuse to hear the complainant. The case in question, formed part of other cases in which Fagan was a defendant, and which were unavoidably adjourned. The District

  171
  Inspector supported by Fagan's solicitor accordingly applied that this case should likewise be adjourned. The Magistrates sitting on the Bench unanimously granted it. There is no foundation for the allegation contained in the second paragraph.

  COLOUR BLINDNESS AMONG SEAMEN.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the case, as recently stated in the Daily News, that Government have appointed a Departmental Committee to investigate the subject of colour blindness among the seamen of the Mercantile Marine; and, if this be so, whether the Report of the Committee will be laid upon the Table of the House before the end of this Session?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: The Board of Trade have referred the subject of colour blindness among seamen to a Departmental Committee, which will have scientific assistance in its inquiries into the matter. It will not be possible for the Report of the Committee to be laid on the Table of the House before the end of this Session.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to give notice that I will take an early opportunity next Session of calling attention to this question, and to one or two other important questions connected with the Mercantile Marine.

  MR. CECIL ROCHE, R.M.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has yet seen the reports in the Cork and Kerry papers of the proceedings at Killarney Courthouse whilst a case was at hearing, during which Mr. Moriarty, the defendant's solicitor, was turned out of Court by Mr. Cecil Roche, Resident Magistrate; if he will state whether District Inspector Gray had any right to interpose a statement as to what a policeman told him, before the defendant's solicitor had finished with the witness; whether the latter was right in objecting to the Inspector doing so; was Mr. Roche, the Magistrate, right in preventing Mr. Moriarty from making this objection; and, in view of the circumstances of the
  172
  case, will he order full inquiries to be made into the whole proceedings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The newspapers do not, I understand, contain a full report of these proceedings. There were two solicitors for the defence—Mr. Colles and Mr. Moriarty. The witness was at the time of the incident not in the hands of either of these solicitors, but in the hands of the District Inspector who was prosecuting. The District Inspector was obliged to state his reasons for requesting that the witness's words should be taken down verbatim, and was proceeding to do so, when Mr. Moriarty interrupted him in a most violent manner, and continued to do so, although warned by the presiding Magistrate that the District Inspector was addressing the Court, and was perfectly in order. Mr. Moriarty defied the order of the Court, and was accordingly removed.
  MR. FLYNN: Was not Mr. Moriarty within his legal right in objecting to the District Inspector interposing a statement during the examination of a witness?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Moriarty may have been justified in making observations upon the action of the District Inspector, but what he was not justified in doing was, when the Court ruled that the Inspector was in order, in persisting in violently interrupting the proceedings.
  MR. FLYNN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if Mr. Cecil Roche is a magistrate of "whose legal knowledge and experience the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; that is so.

  ARMY CONTRACTS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Captain Stackpool paid an unexpected visit to Lincoln Barracks on 17th July, and when the contractor brought the meat into barracks examined and condemned it; what was the name of the contractor and the price per pound of the meat; what penalty is inflicted on the contractor in such cases; and whether, a contractor having undertaken to supply good meat at a certain price, the authorities have the power, and exercise it, to purchase meat of the proper quality and charge him with the difference?
  THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. E. STANHOPE,: On the occasion referred to the meat was condemned as bull beef. The contractor was Mr. J. Gillett. It is not customary to state publicly the contract prices; but the price under this contract was about the average.
  MR. HANBURY: What is the average?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: That is just what it is not customary to state publicly. In this case the contractor is liable for the inspector's travelling expenses and also for any loss incurred in replacing the rejected meat. The authorities do possess and exercise the power referred to in the last clause of the question.

  SOCIALIST MEETINGS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is a fact that meetings of Socialists have been suppressed in Archer Street, Westbourne Grove, by the police; if it is a fact that religious meetings are held on the same spot and are not disturbed; if any charge of riot, intimidation, or obstruction has been brought against the promoters of the aforesaid Socialist meetings; and if any of the householders in the district have complained of these meetings?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. MATTHEWS,: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that two meetings of Socialists were held, or attempted to be held, near Archer Street. As such meetings caused obstruction and disorder in the thoroughfare, the police dispersed the first meeting and moved on those who attempted to hold the second. Small religious meetings, not causing obstruction or disorder, have been held at the same place for years, but latterly I am informed that they have been discontinued owing to the action of the Socialists. The police did not bring any charges against the Socialists, as the meetings dispersed quietly. There has been no complaint from the householders. The police must judge, according to the circumstances of each case, whether obstruction is caused or not.

  THE RIVER LEE.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been recently drawn to the foul condition of the River Lee, and to the fact that a boy's death from typhoid fever has been ascribed as the result of bathing in this pestilential water; whether the West Ham Corporation or the Lee Conservancy, or both, are to blame; and whether he will at once take steps necessary to enforce the abatement of a great nuisance?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR.RITCHIE,: The Local Government Board yesterday received a letter from the Poplar Board of Works containing a statement to the effect of that in the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but I have no further information as to the facts. I am not in a position to say whether the West Ham Corporation or the Lee Conservancy, or both, are to blame. In the letter of the Poplar Board of Works it is said that the West Ham Corporation are allowing their sewage to flow into the river at all states of the tide, and I will cause inquiries to be made as to this.

  CRETE.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to give the House any information with regard to the origin and nature of the disturbances that are reported to have recently taken place in the Island of Crete?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: The present disturbances in Crete are stated to be due to the quarrels of political factions in the Island. Members of these factions have attacked, and in some cases murdered their rivals, causing panic in unprotected localities, and the flight of defenceless people to the places occupied by their friends. Demands have been made upon the Turkish Government for reforms, and by one party for the removal of the Vali, but there does not appear to be anything amounting to an insurrection against the authority of the Sultan.

  BEHRING SEA.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding the seizure of the British schooner Black Diamond by the United States Revenue cutter Rush; and whether this country and the United States have yet arrived at any understanding as to the extent of the latter's jurisdiction in the Behring Sea?
  MR. GOURLEY: I wish further to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government have yet received any authentic information regarding the alleged capture of British sealing schooners in and outside Alaskan waters; whether it is true that some of the Dominion sealers carry arms for the purpose of resisting the interference of States revenue cutters in the disputed waters of the Behring Sea; if so, whether this is in accordance with International Law; and what measures Her Majesty's Government intend adopting for the purpose of bringing this long-pending dispute to an amicable conclusion?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No authentic news have yet reached Her Majesty's Government as to the seizures of British vessels reported in the newspapers, and they are not aware that Canadian sealers carry arms for the purpose of resistance. No understanding has yet been arrived at between Her Majesty's Government and that of the United States in regard to the question of jurisdiction in the Behring Sea, nor am I prepared to state what measures Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt; but I need hardly say that they are fully alive to the importance of a settlement of the matters in difference.
  In reply to a further question by Dr. CAMERON,
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid: It would be rather rash to accept newspaper statements of utterances by members of the American Government either in one direction or the other.
  An hon. MEMBER: How about the Press?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have observed in the Press an indication of a very friendly feeling, as the hon. Member has remarked, and I have also
  176
  seen reported conversations upon one side and the other, but it is impossible to take them as being authentic. As I have said, I believe there is a disposition on the part of the two Governments to deal with the question in a conciliatory manner, and the House may be quite sure that no opportunity will be lost by Her Majesty's Government in bringing about a satisfactory result.

  MOROCCO.
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government is now taking action in view of the proposed Conference of representatives of European Powers concerning the position of Foreign residents in Morocco, and with special reference to the abuses incident to the present protegé system; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will give favourable consideration to the proposal for the establishment of duly constituted Consular Courts in Morocco, which shall check the abuses alleged to b9 frequent in the country by Natives and others, who are at present enabled to use their "protection" by European Powers for their personal advantage?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: There is no present prospect of an International Conference concerning affairs in Morocco. I am afraid, therefore, that there will not be any early opportunity of placing the Consular Courts on a better footing.

  ST. PIERRE ET MIQUELON.
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the Treaty of 1713, permission was given to the French to occupy the Islands of St. Pierre et Miquelon, off the coast of Newfoundland, for the purpose of giving them a harbour of refuge for their fishing vessels, it being provided that they should not erect permanent buildings or fortifications thereon; whether St. Pierre et Miquelon has ever been ceded to France; and, if so, when; whether the Government are aware that a battery of six guns has been erected by the French to command the entrance to the harbour, and houses have been erected for a permanent population of 4,000 or 5,000 persons; whether

  177
  the French Government has recently appointed a French Resident and Council at St. Pierre, and whether the right to make such appointments is given under any Treaty; and whether the French Government has the right to let on lease or otherwise dispose of any portion of the so-called French shore of Newfoundland?
  SIR J. FEEGUSSON: In reply to Paragraph 1 and 2 of the hon. Member's question the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon were ceded to France in 1763 in full right, but on the conditions stated, and further in 1783 without those conditions being mentioned, but with the declared purpose of affording harbours of refuge for fishermen. We have heard that some guns are mounted at St. Pierre, and no doubt there is a considerable population. We do not know what is the constitution of the Local Authority; but as these islands are undoubtedly French Territory there must be some such Authority. The only rights ceded to France on the coast of Newfoundland are those of erecting scaffolds and huts for the purpose of catching and drying fish.

  COMMON GRAVES AT BOW CEMETERY.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department is he aware that there are in the City of London and Tower Hamlets Cemetery, at Bow, several hundreds of common graves without the proper means of identification (red posts). And, this being a violation of Clause 6a in the Order in Council of 9th September, 1884, does he propose taking legal steps to enfore obedience in this matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Inspector that he has no reason to doubt that the company are replacing the posts which are from time to time destroyed. The company have from the first experienced great difficulty in keeping the graves properly marked owing to the crowds of persons who trample over the graves at largely attended funerals. I have requested the Inspector to visit the cemetery again at his early convenience, and to report to me on the matter.

  CONVEYANCE OF LETTERS BY RAILWAY COMPANIES.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Postmaster
  178
  General whether he can yet state the results of the inquiry of the Departmental Committee appointed early last Session to consider the question of the conveyance by Railway Companies of letters that have not passed through the post; and, whether he has arrived at a satisfactory settlement of the legal difficulties attending the question?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: This subject was carefully inquired into by a Departmental Committee who made a Report to me recommending the adoption of arrangements to meet the object in view. As a result of this Report, the Inspector General of Mails has been in communication with the Railway Companies; and as soon as I am in possession of their views, I hope to be able to come to a satisfactory conclusion in the matter.

  LOCAL TAXATION LICENSES.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, having regard to the fact that the proceeds of local taxation licenses are handed over to the administrative county in which the licenses are taken out, and not necessarily to the county in which the licensee resides, he will afford facilities for the issuing of such licenses by post offices that are not money order offices, so as far as possible to enable persons to obtain them near their residences, and within the counties in which they live, and towards the rates of which they may be contributing?
  MR. RAIKES: Such a course as the hon. Member proposes would be really equivalent to altering the rank of the smaller post offices. This would, I fear, involve considerable expense, as bonds would have to be given and daily accounts instituted. But I am willing to investigate the matter further before arriving at a final decision.

  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR REPORTS.
  MR. THOMASE. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affair whether there exists in the Foreign Office a subject-index of the published Reports from Her Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Officers abroad on subjects, of commercial and general interest, and on the manufactures, commerce, &c. of

  179
  the Consular districts; and, if so, whether a copy could be placed in the Library of the House?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We do not possess such an index; but a very industrious member of the office has been for some time occupied in the preparation of one. It involves a good deal of work, and I cannot anticipate its speedy completion. The hon. Member will see that a List of the Reports on questions of general interest and their subjects is given with each Report that is published.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that the Report will be ready before the beginning of next Session?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I will look into the matter. If it can be presented it shall be.

  THE NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any part will be taken by the Military Forces in the forthcoming Naval Manœuvres, which may be expected to include a threatened or actual attack on the coasts of the United Kingdom by hostile vessels?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The Military Forces will not combine with the defending squadrons for the defence of the coast during the manœuvres. Such a combination would carry with it no practical lesson unless the Land Forces were mobilised; and, even if the law gave power for mobilization in a fictitious emergency—which it does not— the expense and disturbance of industry would be far too high a price to pay for such an operation. We hope, nevertheless, to derive considerable instruction from these manœuvres. The Naval Authorities who control the Coastguard, the actual watchers round the shores of the United Kingdom, will telegraph to the Military Commanders of districts notice of the approach of hostile vessels. These notices will be recorded, as will the steps that would have been taken on the instant if the forces had been mobilised and actual warfare had existed. Much valuable information will be obtained in this way. At the same time, if points are threatened where defensive works exist, and at which a military muster of forces actually on the spot can take place, the
  180
  firing of a few rounds will be permitted as evidence that the attack is observed and met.
  MR. COSSHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that the trade of ports is interfered with as little as possible?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am afraid I have no control over the movement of Her Majesty's ships.
  MR. TOMLINSON: The right hon. Gentleman has indicated the possibility of the Local Forces taking part in the manœuvres. Will travelling allowances be made?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; there will be no travelling allowances.

  GOVERNMENT STOCKS AND POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the public are not generally informed of the fact that facilities are given for the purchase of Government Stocks through the agency of the Post Office Savings Bank; and, whether he will give instructions that at every Post Office Savings Bank a permanent notice shall be exhibited in a prominent place that
  "Government Stocks may be purchased at this Office, and full particulars as to terms of purchase obtained?"
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member's question I have to state that notices are already issued for exhibition at Post Offices giving information as to investments in Government Stocks through the Post Office Savings Bank, but I will consider whether such information can be given in a more conspicuous form.

  GREYSTONES HARBOUR.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBET: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a Report just made by the County Surveyor of Wicklow to the Grand Jury with reference to Greystones Harbour, in which he says:—
  "The pier protects the harbour from gales varying from north-east to south-east. Before its construction any shingle that travelled from the north was caused to travel back again by gales from the south-east, but now the pier shelters the beach from these winds, so that it has been raised by successive deposits of shingle, and the accumulation over a large portion of the bed of the harbour is now enormous. …

  181
  Within the last eight months an accumulation of five feet six inches in depth has taken place at the inner quoin of the pier. In fact, this point is now dry at low water, where vessels drawing 10 feet could formerly come alongside about two hours after low water;"
  and whether the Treasury will reconsider the question of a permanent north groin, and take steps to have the shingle cleared out of the harbour?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. JACKSON,: The hon. Member has been so good as to furnish me with the Report referred to in his question. I think the material point to remember is that there is ample accommodation for all present requirements at Greystones. This being so, it would, in my opinion, be premature to talk of removing the accumulated shingle, and, as regards the permanent north groyne, I prefer to wait to see the effect of the temporary groynes, the construction of which has been sanctioned.
  MR. CORBET: Will any steps be taken to remove the silt from the harbour?
  MR. JACKSON: In the opinion of the Board of Works it is not desirable to attempt to deal with it now, even if it be found necessary to deal with it ultimately. It is considered desirable, in the first place, to try the experiment of putting in a wooden groin in order to see if that will stop the silting.

  THE CITY POSTMEN.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any steps have been taken to enable the City postmen to complete the day's work within 12 hours; and, when the new rate of pay for extra duty is likely to come into operation?
  MR. RAIKES: A scheme has been prepared for bringing the daily attendance of City postmen as nearly as possible within 12 hours. The change, however, will involve the employment of additional force to which it will be necessary to obtain the assent of the Treasury, with whom I propose to communicate as soon as I have been able to decide upon the details. The question of extra duty rates has been carefully examined by the Department, and I have now under consideration a proposal which I hope to be able to submit to the Treasury in a few days.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Consular Reports and other Papers relating to the condition of Armenia will be in the hands of Members?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: They are in the hands of the printer, and I am led to expect that they will be in the hands of hon. Members on Thursday or Friday of next week. Their presentation has been delayed by the printing of other Papers that have been asked for.
  MR. CHANNING: Will the Papers be in the hands of Members before the Consular Vote is taken?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I think they will. I believe it is impossible that the Vote can be reached next week.

  VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the fact that the education of the majority of the children in the parish of Llangar, County of Merioneth, has for over two years been carried on by voluntary effort, and without superintendence or inspection by the Education Department, and that a new school has been built by the parishioners in accordance with plans submitted to and sanctioned by the Education Department, he will reconsider his decision and allow the School Board to take over the new school and recognise it as a public elementary school?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: The Education Department were unable to recognise the voluntary effort referred to during the last two years, as the education of the children was carried on in a room unfit for the purpose, but the promoters of the new building have been told that they should make their application for annual grant when the school is opened, with a certificated teacher. This they have not yet done, but should the application be made it would be the duty of the Department to refer it to the School Board in the usual course.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) BILL.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will direct the preparation of a Welsh version of the measure dealing with Intermediate and Technical Education in Wales; and, if so, whether steps can be taken to have it published well before the date of the commencement of the Act?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I am in communication with the Treasury on the subject, and will see that no time is lost in the production of a Welsh version of the measure in question as soon as it receives the Royal Assent.

  THE SHOREDITCH VESTRY.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Chairman of the Shoreditch Vestry, which held a meeting on Tuesday last, when the Chief Secretary for Ireland visited the Shoreditch Town Hall, requested the assistance of the police to protect the members of the Vestry against the aggressive attitude of persons in the crowd; whether six policemen arrived at the Town Hall, in response to the written request of the Chairman of the Vestry and the Vestry Clerk, and were sent away by the Inspector of Police present at the Hall without coming and reporting to the Chairman of the Vestry; and, whether it is or is not the duty of the Metropolitan Police, when called on by a Vestry to protect its members, to afford the protection required?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that police assistance was asked on the occasion in question, and that, accordingly, six constables were sent. They were not allowed by the Superintendent who was present to go inside the building, but they patrolled outside. These orders were in accordance with usual practice, and I cannot see that the Metropolitan Police failed to afford the required protection.

  IRELAND—ALLEGED ORANGE OUTRAGE IN COUNTY ARMAGH.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has
  184
  been informed that, on the evening of the 12th July last, a number of Orangemen coming out of an Orange Lodge at Tullynamallogue, near Keady, County Armagh, cursed the Pope, attacked some Catholic boys and girls, and fired guns and revolvers at them; whether Mr. Starkie, the District Inspector, has issued summonses against a number of Catholics, charging them with assaulting William Morris and others of the attacking party on that occasion; and whether any summonses have been issued against the Orange party, who were the aggressors; and whether this is the first time that the Catholics of this district have been prosecuted by the Constabulary for defending themselves when similarly attacked?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that an affray took place about one mile from Keady, between some Protestants and Roman Catholics on the night of the 12th July. Evidence has been obtained against three of the former and five of the latter, against whom summonses have accordingly been issued for hearing at the next Petty Sessions. No person was summoned for assaulting Morrison, nor am I able to say which party were the aggressors, this being a matter which the Court no doubt will determine. A similar party affray occurred in the Keady district in February last. Members of both sides were prosecuted, and the cases stand adjourned to the middle of this month in order to see how the accused would in the meantime behave themselves.

  THE ASHBOURNE ACT.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask if representations had been made to the Government in favour of the extension of Lord Ash bourne's Act to Scotland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. W. H. SMITH,: I have received information to the effect that representations have been made to the Secretary for Scotland's Office as to the extension of the Crofters Act in regard to land purchase. Those representations will receive consideration, although I cannot hold out any expectation that it will be in the power of the Government, without the most serious consideration, to extend the

  185
  system of land purchase in the direction indicated.

  DR. TANNER.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary with regard to the case of Dr. Tanner whether, as Ministers maintained in yesterday's Debate, that the charge against Dr. Tanner (of which he had. solemnly declared himself innocent) had been proved against him, and as he was precluded by the expulsion of his counsel, and the consequent withdrawal of his solicitor from carrying the case to a higher Court, he will be afforded any opportunity now of bringing forward his defence? I should also be glad to know what steps the Government intend to take in regard to the sentence for contempt of Court?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman will see that, to carry out his request, would be altogether beyond the power of the Government, and utterly irrational and unreasonable. Dr. Tanner had full opportunity of producing his defence, and, as he made none, the natural conclusion is that he had none to make.
  MR. SEXTON: Then is it to be understood that the right hon. Gentleman will not allow an inquiry as to whether the sentence of one month's imprisonment with hard labour was justifiable?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a question which does not come before me. If it is desired that the Lord Lieutenant should exercise the prerogative of mercy, of course it should be brought before the Lord Lieutenant in a proper manner, by petition.

  THE DONEGAL BATTERING RAM.
  MR. MACNEILL: May I ask whether the cost of the Donegal battering ram will be included in the Constabulary Vote?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I think I have already given a very definite reply to that. It will not be included in the heading.
  MR. MACNEILL: Under what heading will the Donegal battering ram be included?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Under no heading.
  MR. MACNEILL: Who pays for it?
  [No answer.]
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the battering rams are paid for by the Chief Secretary in his official or private capacity, and under what Estimate it will be taken?
  MR. W.H.SMITH: I cannot supplement the answer of my right hon. Friend. I have no information on the subject, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give every information in his power when the Estimates come on.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give notice that I shall object to any procedure with the Irish Estimates until the information asked for as to who paid for the battering ram is afforded to the House.

  THE TITHES BILL.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, since his statement with regard to the course of action upon the Tithes Rent Charge Bill, he has received a memorial from each side of the House asking him not to take any further action on the Bill during the present Session; and whether this will in any way modify his intention?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir; I have not received any memorial, and was not even aware of their existence.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. It was Lord Salisbury who received it.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Well, Sir, Lord Salisbury has not communicated to me any information of the kind, and as I happen to know that he is not in London at present, I do not think it would be in his power to do so.
  MR. DILLWYN: In view of the answer which has been given, I trust that the Government will as soon as possible communicate to the House the decision at which they may arrive.
  Me. W. H. SMITH: My noble Friend the Prime Minister will be in London on Tuesday, after the discharge of his duties elsewhere, and I will then communicate with him on the subject.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (PILOTAGE) BILL.
  MR. W. SINCLAIRasked when the Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Bill would be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is intended to take Class IV. of the Estimates on Monday. The hon. Member can therefore form an estimate for himself as to whether it is likely to reach the Pilotage Bill in sufficient time to secure its consideration. I hope that it may be possible.

  HOP INDUSTRY.
  Select Committee on Hop Industry nominated of Mr. Biddulph, Mr. Channing, Mr. James Ellis, Mr. AggGardner, Sir Guyer Hunter, Mr. E. Knatchbull-Hugessen, Sir "Wilfrid Lawson, Sir Edmund Lechmere, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Sir Eoper Lethbridge, Mr. Long, Mr. Jasper More, Mr. Norton, Mr. O'Keeffe, Mr. Pomfret, Mr. Stack, and Mr. Brookfield.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That seven be the quorum. —(Mr. Brookfield.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PRINCE OF WALES'S CHILDREN BILL. (No. 358.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to move, in line 5, after "thereof," to insert—
  "Or from such sums as may become available from the discontinuance or abolition of offices in Class 2 of the Civil Service List, and which may be at the disposal of Parliament during the present reign."
  In moving this Amendment, I shall carefully avoid anything like making a SECOND READING speech. It is necessary to explain, however, that the subject of my Amendment has been under the consideration of Parliament for several years, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) has constantly directed attention to several matters connected with the Crown. But the Government have refused to listen to the representations made to them, and now we have the present Bill, which seems to have been drawn for the purpose of foreclosing the Civil List during Her Majesty's reign. I do
  188
  not begrudge in any way the allowance to Her Majesty or to the Heir Apparent to the Throne; but my complaint is not that £36,000 additional should be granted, but that it should be granted upon the understanding that the Civil List shall remain in statu quo during Her Majesty's reign. I believe that the feeling of the country upon this subject is exceedingly keen, but the irritation which exist is not due to the Grants to Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales for the purpose of maintaining the dignity and splendour of the Monarchy, but to the realisation of the fact that there are around the Throne a number of persons receiving nearly £20,000 a year in pensions, and many thousands of pounds more in salaries, which are attached to sinecure offices. The people will remain dissatisfied with the Civil List until these parasites are removed and the sinecure offices abolished. They protest against paying a number of persons who do no service whatever to the State, and simply live upon the industry of the taxpayers. I am afraid that it will be in vain to attempt to allay this feeling of irritation until the long-promised Committee shall have been appointed and shall have reported. We have no objection to maintain the Monarchy in dignity and splendour, but we do object to maintain it for purposes which we think are pernicious and inimical to the best interests of the State. I beg to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, after the word "thereof," to insert the words—
  "Or from such sums as may become available from the discontinuance or abolition of offices in Class 2 of the Civil List, and which may be at the disposal of Parliament during the present reign."—(Mr. Esslemont.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (MR. GOSCHEN,: The Government are unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. The purport of the Amendment is that a revision of the Civil List should be undertaken with a view of seeing whether any saving can be made, and if so of applying such saving to an allowance for the Prince of Wales' children. It has been clearly

  189
  established in the course of the Debates that not only do the Government not propose to disturb the Civil List during the present reign, but it is admitted pretty generally that that is a step that ought not to be taken at present. Therefore, both on account of the compact which has existed between the Crown and Parliament during more than 50 years, and on account of the general inexpediency of undertaking a revision of the Civil List at the present moment, the Government feel that they cannot accept the Amendment.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I concur with my hon. Friend as to the desirability of reducing surplus Court appointments, which are a means of corruption at the disposal of the Government of the day. A large number of excellent young men, heirs to large estates, are captured and taken political prisoners by a Lord in Waiting ship or something of that kind. But although I concur with my hon. Friend I cannot give him my vote, because in the whole of this matter I am publicly pledged to follow the declarations and the lead of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone.) Her Majesty having taken upon herself the burden of providing for the junior members of the Family, Parliament ought not to try to make money out of the Civil List, money which may fairly be taken by Her Majesty to enable her to discharge that very great burden. I am not well up in my knowledge of the Royal Family, but I find from Whitaker's Almanack that Her Majesty has had nine children. The children of four of them have already been provided for, but there are the families of three daughters who still require to be provided for. Her Majesty has taken upon herself that great burden, and it therefore seems to me that we ought in no way to interfere with the Civil List.
  MR. COSSHAM: I contend that the compact alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been observed only on one side, and I support the principle of the Amendment, by which my hon. Friend does not mean in any way to diminish the income of Her Majesty, but to utilise any savings that can be effected in the Civil List. I am afraid that there is nothing that
  190
  tends to bring Royalty more in conflict with the feelings of the people than votes of this kind for persons who hang on to the skirts of Royalty. On that ground I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, although as I have paired I cannot vote for it.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I wish to assert most emphatically, in contradiction to the statement of the hon. Member, that the compact of 1837 has been observed by Her Majesty to the very letter from the very beginning until now, and the applications made to Parliament from time to time have been made by responsible Ministers of the Crown upon their own sense of their duty to Parliament, the Crown, and the country, and in full recognition of the compact originally made.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I hope that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment will not go to a Division upon it. I am quite in favour of the abolition of many of the offices provided for under Class 2 of the Estimates, but I am not aware that any of those offices will be at the disposal of Parliament during the present reign without some specific enactment. Therefore the Amendment does not in terms apply to what the hon. Member wishes.
  MR. C. J. DARLING: In my opinion the Amendment is entirely nugatory, because if money comes to be at the disposal of Parliament it would come into the Treasury in natural course, and need only be left there.
  MR. STOREY: In 1844 a number of these offices were abolished, but the money did not come to Parliament at all. It was retained in the hands of Trustees and handed over to Her Majesty. I contend that every application to Parliament for an increase of the amount to the Royal Family has been a breaking of the agreement of 1837. ["No!"] I shall be glad if the hon. Member who says "No" will endeavour to prove it. The other night it was said that no intimation had ever been made to the Crown that any additional application for a Grant to Members of the Royal Family should not be made, and that no Minister had ever intimated to Her Majesty that none was

  191
  expected to be made. The First Civil List for a whole reign on the new plan was that of William IV. It included the pensions then borne upon the Consolidated Fund—£50,000 a year for Queen Adelaide.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the hon. Member can make these observations relevant to the Amendment.
  MR. STOREY: The proposal of my hon. Friend is that any savings that may be made hereafter shall be retained for public purposes, and it is contended on the other side that that would be a breach of the compact entered into in 1837. I wish to show that, as a matter of fact, no such compact exists. My only object was to call attention to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November, 1837 (Mr. Spring Rice), in which he clearly pointed out that the Civil List were to be regarded as final, and that there were to be no further applications to Parliament for additions. All the engagements which this House has entered into were, I maintain, fulfilled when the Civil List was fixed at £385,000, and that no further contribution in excess ought to be imposed upon the people.
  MR. GLADSTONE: While the Bill has been in Committee, I have thought that I should best promote the progress of Public Business by not taking part in the discussion, the principle and provisions of the Bill having been largely expounded and, as I think, thoroughly understood by the House. But when the statement is made, no doubt in perfect good faith, by the right hon. Gentleman that the compact between the Crown and Parliament has been broken by subsequent applications for Grants to members of the Royal Family, as one who had something to do with the original settlement I do not think I ought to remain entirely silent, and I must frankly adopt the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury. It appears to me that Her Majesty has in the strictest and most absolute manner possible conformed to the declaration which was made in the Civil List when she came to the Throne. In regard to the non-possession of means by the Crown, the state of the case is this—that when the Government in the time of Lord Palmerston considered the question of provision
  192
  for the children of the Queen they looked at the question as a whole. I think, if I remember the figures correctly, that, including the Prince of Wales, the total sum to be provided would have been above £150,000, and excluding the Prince of Wales £100,000 a year. It was the opinion of Her Majesty's advisers at that day that whether the Queen had or had not certain savings on the Civil List—and I am glad she has had them, as Parliament is going to be considerably benefited from them—Her Majesty had no savings and no means at her free disposal which could have enabled her to face such a demand as that for £100,000 a year. With respect to the Amendment immediately before the House, I am unable to support it for reasons which are extremely patent. I take it to be perfectly clear in law and according to the equity of the ease that if any inquiry should be made which should result in savings being made in the present Civil List by the abolition of certain offices, those savings will be absolutely in law and in honour the property of Her Majesty, with which Parliament ought not any more to interfere, and with which I do not believe Parliament will interfere, than with any other absolutely established and universally recognised right. I must repeat the opinion mentioned by my hon. Friend the member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) just now that Her Majesty is about to assume a very heavy burden, and if Her Majesty can be aided by any such savings as those intended in the present Amendment, I would be extremely glad if she could be assisted by any economies which it is in her power, and not in that of Parliament, both in law and in equity to make. To lighten her burden would be the natural, honourable, and only legitimate application of these funds.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Many of the questions raised in these Debates are questions upon which much may be said on either side. I do not think it is necessary to go into the question whether there was a compact with Her Majesty which precludes Her Majesty from asking any additional aid for her children or grandchildren, but I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian that when he says that if Her Majesty were to do away

  193
  with a considerable number of household offices she would have a right to acquire the salaries, he can hardly remember that the Civil List Act was based on a Report of a Committee. That Committee went into all these details and made alterations in regard to the amount to be paid during the reign of William IV., and the Act was founded on that Report, just as the present Bill is founded on the Report of the Grants Committee. It seems to me that if by an Act of Parliament it has been agreed to give Her Majesty £385,000 a year, which Act was based on the Report of a Committee which said so much shall be given to A, so much to B, and so much to C, it would be hardly fair and reasonable, if the salaries were suppressed, that Her Majesty should enjoy the amount saved. These salaries are supposed to be paid in the interest of the maintenance of the honour and dignity of the Crown, and if they are suppressed, the money ought to remain in the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that it would be unfair to insist upon Her Majesty, in the autumn of her life, making great changes in her household. There is a certain amount of force in that, but the Amendment does not insist that Her Majesty should do so. All it says is that if Her Majesty should do so the amount should go in aid of the sum which it is proposed should be given towards the support of the Prince of Wales, and therefore that the taxpayer should be relieved to that extent. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether very lately Lord Spencer and Sir Reginald Welby have not gone into the question whether any of these salaries could be suppressed, and whether the result was not that the office of Clerk held by Lord Alfred Paget was not filled up upon the death of that gentleman. With respect to the Amendment, however, unless my hon. Friend consents to an amendment in its form it will be rather difficult to vote for it. The Amendment speaks of funds "which may be at the disposal of Parliament during the present reign," but the funds to which it refers are not at the disposal of Parliament, but at the disposal of the Treasury.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I mean the Treasury; and am quite prepared to consent to the Amendment suggested.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I have nothing more to say except that I hope the Committee will adopt the Amendment with the alteration.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I cannot consent to withdraw the Amendment, but I will accept the amendment which has been suggested. I have great respect for the Leader of the Opposition, and have given great weight to all he has said as to this Amendment, but I feel that it is part of the duty of Parliament and the Treasury to reform these sinecure offices, and not burden the country with them. We are asked to pass this Bill, and practically to shut up every avenue to economy with regard to Royal Grants during the present reign. I believe the constituencies are not prepared to have this question foreclosed.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to move to omit from the Amendment the words "and which may be at the disposal of Parliament during the present reign."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "and which may be at the disposal of Parliament during the present reign."— (Mr. Bradlaugh.)
  Question, "That the words 'and which may be at the disposal of Parliament during the present reign,' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Question, as amended, proposed.
  MR. HUNTER: I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend hits, from a popular point of view, the great blot in this Bill. The people perceive that there are vast numbers of enormously paid officials whose services are purely nominal. Lord Coventry, the Master of the Buckhounds, receives £1,700 a year, and the Duke of Portland, the Master of the Horse, is paid £2,500 a year. It is these things which shock the moral sense of the community. These men are very rich, and they render no service to the country or to the Queen—I mean no service to the country proportionate to the sums they receive. If there is one instinct of the democracy which is stronger than another—if there is one principle that they will enforce upon the House sooner or later—it is the principle that, with regard to the expenditure of public

  195
  money, there must be some close proportion between the services that are rendered and the money that is paid for them. It was not so, I grant, at the commencement of the present reign. Fifty years ago the persons who were the depositories of political power were not shocked at such salaries as these which are paid to the Duke of Portland and Lord Coventry; but 50 years have made a mighty difference. The people have now a voice in the management of affairs, and those who are responsible in matters of this kind would do well to take heed of the warning which has been given them, not only by these Debates, but still more by the significant Divisions which have taken place upon this Bill, and to apply their minds to removing what, in the minds of the great mass of the people, is one of the great objections to Royalty. Hon. Members must remember that the large majority of voters are persons who are paid between 15s. and 35s. a week, and that the great majority of these are at present making less than £1 a week. A man who has to work an hour in order to earn 6d. or 8d. has a realising sense of the value of a penny, and the amount of labour and suffering it represents, which those in a more fortunate position in life cannot appreciate. It is said it is impossible to give effect to this Amendment, for technical reasons, in connection with the supposed compact established by the Civil List Act at the commencement of Her Majesty's reign. I do not think there is much profit or advantage in discussing at this time of day what is the true meaning of the Act establishing the Civil List. But if the framers of that piece of legislation had intended that the savings of Class 2 should go to the Privy Purse, they employed peculiar language for the purpose. If that was the intention, why did not the Act say so? It provides that any surplus may be transferred from one class in aid of another, which seems to imply that it is only to be done when there is an insufficiency in the class. There is not much advantage in discussing this matter now. I believe the real reason why the point was left in this highly ambiguous state was one highly creditable to Her Majesty. It was that the framers of the Act never contemplated the possibility of a Sovereign spending
  196
  less than £385,000 a year. But whatever view we take of these matters, I think it ought not to be beyond the power of Her Majesty's Ministers to provide even at the latest moment for the abolition of offices which throw an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers of the country. I am certain that while the great mass of the people appreciate the advantages of the Monarchical form of Government as it now exists in this country, and are quite prepared to pay all necessary sums for its maintenance, they will nevertheless set their faces against the whole principle of Class 2, against the principle of honorary or titular or nominal offices bestowed upon rich men and highly paid at the expense of the State. Under these circumstances I shall certainly support the Amendment.
  MR. WALLACE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury criticised with his usual fairness the language of my hon. Friend when he seemed to charge him with reflecting on the conduct of Her Majesty. If my hon. Friend had done so, he would have been guilty of a transgression which must have brought upon him the censure of the Chair. All my hon. Friend could have meant was that the propositions of Her Majesty's Government were of such a nature that they presented the Sovereign in the aspect referred to. It is perfectly impossible that the Sovereign can be spoken of in a sinister manner by any person with a knowledge of the Constitution. The King can do no wrong. A Constitutional Sovereign, who follows the advice of her Ministers, must always be Constitutionally right. We know that the Ministers have placed the Sovereign in a false position; but, at the same time, I know Her Majesty is in a true and right position, because she is doing whatever she is advised by her Ministers. I rose, however, to offer a humble contribution to the discussion on the argument that the application of any savings which may be effected by the Treasury on the Civil List is really not relevant to the present emergency, because those savings become the property of Her Majesty by the act of the Trustees of the Fund, who are, according to law, entitled to devote them in aid of the charges on the Privy Purse,

  197
  if they choose. I do not object to that reading of the law. I shall not dispute the position that any savings in Class 2 may be properly enough devoted to the charges on the Privy Purse, which is Class 1 of the Civil List. I ask whether the maintenance of the children of the Royal Family is a personal and private matter, as is the case in other families, or is it a matter connected with the maintenance of the dignity and honour of the Crown? If it is a duty of a personal and private capacity, I ask what could be a more natural distinction of private and personal funds? I take it that whether the savings go to the maintenance of the family or to the maintenance of the honour of the Crown, they are equally to be contemplated as devoteable—if I may coin a word—to the purposes of the maintenance of the Royal Family. I do not like the way in which Her Majesty's Ministers continue to speak of the bargain or compact which they say exists between the Queen and the nation. In the strict sense of the word there can be no contract between the Queen and her people, because there is no authority by which it can be enforced. The Preamble of the Civil List Act is founded on relations of affection between Sovereign and people. All the difficulty and painful feeling and misunderstanding of this matter at the present moment has been produced by the unwise conduct of Her Majesty's Government in not coming forward and plainly and honestly telling us, the Representatives of the people, that Her Majesty cannot conveniently support all the members of her Family in that style which is consistent with the maintenance of her Family.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am glad to have the opportunity of doing so. I say distinctly that the Queen has not the means of providing for all her children and her grandchildren in a manner befitting their station and dignity. I make that statement in the fullest sense.
  MR. WALLACE: If I rightly understand the right hon. Gentleman I accept his statement with confidence. I desire, however, that there should be no misunderstanding with regard to the matter. I have listened too carefully to the Debate—I will not say to be taken in— but to be misled by generalities. Does
  198
  the right hon. Gentleman intend to convey to the House that Her Majesty's means from all sources, both public and private, are not sufficient to enable her to maintain her children and grandchildren in becoming dignity?
  MR. GOSCHEN: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, as he has further pressed me upon the subject, I will make the matter absolutely plain. What I mean is that if the Queen devoted the whole of her fortune to the children of the Prince of Wales and to her other grandchildren it would not suffice to make that provision for them which I believe the House thinks necessary for their proper support.
  MR. WALLACE: Then I must say that in the face of that declaration any opposition on my part to this Grant is entirely disarmed.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 164.—(Div. List, No. 273.)
  MR. STOREY: I do not know that I need press the next Amendment, but I will formally move it, in order to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman the reason why a particular date has been put in the Sub-section 2 of Clause 1. This sub section provides that the first quarterly payment shall be made on the 5th October, and as this is the 2nd August, I think the first payment ought not to be made until November or December.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 1, in page 2, line 7, to leave out the word "October" and insert the word "November."—(Mr. Storey.)
  Question proposed, "That the word ' October' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The reason for the insertion of this date is obvious. In these matters it has been customary to make the allowances date from the day on which the House has taken Her Majesty's Message into consideration. In this case Her Majesty's Message came down on the 2nd of July. The 5th of October is the first quarterly pay-day after that date.
  MR. STOREY: Then all I can say is I hope a similar course will be adopted with reference to other persons to whom grants are made. My opinion is that the payment should only date from the date when Parliament authorises the

  199
  grant. I will not, however, press my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. STOREY: In order to give some of my friends who were prevented from voting on the second reading an opportunity, I shall divide against the clause. I will only refer to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which appears to have driven my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh out of the House. Her Majesty's Government have assured the House that the total sum under the control of Her Majesty is not sufficient to enable her Majesty to make provision for her grandchildren. That is a most extraordinary statement to be made at this stage of the proceedings. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if that statement was made to the Committee upstairs? Did he furnish, the Committee with any figures which enabled the Committee to judge of the reasonableness of the statement? Did he satisfy the hon. member for Northampton?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: No.
  MR. STOREY: Did be satisfy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle? Did he give him figures which justified him in coming to the conclusion that Her Majesty's resources were not sufficient for the purpose in view? I am not quite of the same temper as my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh, who runs away the moment he hears a Ministerial statement capable of 50 interpretations. I have heard too many to be taken in with a bald statement of that kind. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what, in my opinion, would have been a judicious course for him to take. He should have given the Committee information, and enabled them to form an opinion, and then come down to the House with an explicit statement on the point. I shall take the opportunity of dividing against this clause.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: What was clone in Committee was this—a statement was made as to the amount of Her Majesty's fortune at the present moment, and we were told to treat that as a private communication, and of course have
  200
  done so. Everybody can form his own opinion as to whether the amount of accumulations at the present moment would be sufficient to enable Her Majesty to provide for her grandchildren at her death. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently said that the amount is not sufficient to provide for the grandchildren, whereupon a Scotchman, in rather a weak-minded way, immediately walked out of the House and said he would not vote. I am perfectly convinced of this—and I am not going to state the figures—that if the amount of Her Majesty's fortune was known to the House, every single Scotchman—for they are a careful and economical people—would be of opinion that there is amply sufficient, from the actual savings, to give what may be termed a reasonable fortune to each of the grandchildren. What is called the appanage of an Austrian Archduke is something between £1,500 and £2,000 a year. I hold that the sum of £2,000 per annum, with such a capital sum as would produce that sum, to be left to his children, is; sufficient for each grandchild of Her Majesty. In my opinion, there is sufficient to provide for all the grandchildren, exclusive of the children of the Prince of Wales. Her Majesty is, however, now receiving a larger revenue from the Duchy of Lancaster, and a far larger income, than she received for her private use when she came to the Throne and the Civil List was established; and I contend that out of the accumulations all the younger children can be provided with an ample fortune, and that out of the excess of the private revenue over expenditure an ample amount—a sum greater than £36,000 a year—might without any curtailment in necessary expenditure be granted to the children of the Prince of Wales during Her Majesty's life.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend has just said that he is convinced every Scotchman would agree with him that the savings of Her Majesty were amply sufficient for her grandchildren.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I consider the right hon. Gentleman as belonging to the United Kingdom and not to Scotland.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, but I may tell him that we hold in Scotland that belonging to the United Kingdom

  201
  makes us not still less but still more Scotchmen than we were before. I have not a single drop of blood which is not Scotch nor a single blood relation except those who are Scotch. I wish to accept the challenge of my hon. Friend, and I must say, having thought over the matter from my own point of view, before the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was made, that I respectfully differ from my hon. Friend. I am convinced that if the vast majority of the House examined into the question they would come to a conclusion in conformity with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the insufficiency of the accumulations. I am not speaking of the large and splendid figures with which we have been accustomed to deal in this House in providing £25,000 a year for the Royal Princes; but, forming the best estimate I can as to what is necessary for sustaining the burdens of life only on the footing of a gentleman—which is surely a very moderate estimate to form as to the mode of life of the immediate descendants of Royalty—I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right, and that the means at the disposal of Her Majesty are not sufficient to make provision for her descendants. I cannot see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh was in the least to blame because he was disposed to attach weight to the responsible judgment of a Minister of the Crown. It is said that that statement was made at a late moment, but I may point out that it was not called for before. It should be borne in mind that the Committee has distinctly reported that all the information deemed by them needful to the objects of the inquiry was fully and freely laid before them by Her Majesty.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I appeal to both Front Benches in this matter to enable us to form a judgment for ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us if we were in possession of the facts we should agree that the sum at Her Majesty's disposal is not sufficient to maintain the Royal grandchildren with proper dignity. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian not only confirms this but adds that it is not sufficient to maintain them properly in the station of private
  202
  gentlemen. Will right hon. Gentlemen tell us what sum they would deem to be sufficient? That is the essence of the whole question. If I am to give a blind vote, I would rather do so following my leader into the Lobby; but I intend to say it is a blind vote given in the absence of definite information. I approve of the position taken up by the Member for South Edinburgh.
  The Committee divided: Ayes 179; Noes 48.—(Div. List, No. 274.)
  Clause 2.
  MR. STOREY: The Amendment I have to propose is that the words from "Act" in the nineteenth line to "otherwise" in the following line be omitted. I move it for the purpose of recording my protest against a system under which Parliament is required not merely to make Grants to persons, but also to enable a fund to be formed by accumulations, which fund will be entirely out of the control of Parliament. I make no speech upon it because the matter has been discussed again and again, but I move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in line 19 to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "otherwise" in line 20, inclusive.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  MR. STOREY: With regard to the next Amendment I may say it is intended to place a limit upon the now unlimited control the clause gives to the Prince of Wales and certain officials to distribute the sum in any way they may think best. My Amendment prescribes the amount that shall be paid to each child in the following proportion, five twelfths to the elder son, four-twelfths to the younger son, and to the daughters one-twelfth each. I have a very simple reason for proposing this. Anybody who reads history knows quite well that there have been in times past serious conflicts arising from differences of opinion in the Royal Household, and I can conceive circumstances under which internal differences may affect the distribution. The official persons will always be very much under the influence of the Prince of Wales and will do pretty much as he desires, and the appointment may be made according to favouritism and used as a means of

  203
  punishment or reward. I simply say this that my intention may he recorded though I will not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not move?
  MR. STOREY: No.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Upon the point to which the next Amendment which stands in my name is directed, perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give me some enlightenment. What is to happen in the event of there being accumulations of unexpended funds? I need not go into this elaborately, but it is very evident as I read the clause that there may be considerable accumulations. For instance it is intended to give certain annuities to the daughters of the Prince of Wales and also £10,000 down. Well, suppose one of the younger daughters should die before the demise of the Prince of Wales, and that the sums are allowed to accumulate, and there should be a change in the Sovereignty of the country; then you have a fund hung up high and dry, a fund voted for a specific purpose, and this fund not being required for that purpose ought surely to be paid back to the Treasury.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, at the end of the Clause, to add the words—
  "But should the trustees have in hand any unexpended accumulations of this sum six months after the death of Her Majesty, whom God long preserve, then such accumulations shall he paid into the Public Exchequer."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that we cannot accept this Amendment.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am surprised.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We regard this as a Grant to make provision for the family of the Prince of Wales. The trustees to be appointed are official trustees—namely, the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, and they will be bound to see that the fund is properly distributed. It is obvious that provision may not be required to be made for some members of the family for a year or two, but when it is required
  204
  there is the provision made by the Bill. That there will be accumulations to any considerable amount, for, say, eight or ten years is highly improbable in every sense of the word. The utmost we can hope is that there may be some accumulations during the earlier years that will enable His Royal Highness and the trustees to make such provision for his children as may be necessary and reasonable. Assuming even the possibility of accumulations, then these will be known to Parliament, and will be an element to take into consideration when a new Civil List comes to be settled. Under the circumstances I cannot see there is any necessity for the Amendment.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: It is very evident, and every hon. Member who has paid attention to the point must see it, that I am right and that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The fact is, he did not think of this point, and I have thought of it. The right hon. Gentleman does not want a Report stage of the Bill, but I do not share his view. I should rather like a Report stage, for we have a little more to say upon these matters. But I can perfectly understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not wish for this additional stage of the Bill. He has admitted I am right, for he says the matter will have to be re-considered in the event of the demise of the Sovereign. But surely we ought to consider it now; surely we have had sufficient discussion upon these accumulations; surely we ought to have it perfectly clear that if, on the demise of the Queen, there are accumulations, and the children of the Prince of Wales become the children of the Sovereign, then the money in the hands of the trustees for the benefit of the children, of the Prince of Wales and not of the children of the Sovereign should be repaid by the trustees into the Treasury.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 42;, Noes 175.—(Div. List, No. 275.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Perhaps I may be more fortunate in inducing Her Majesty's Government to accept the next Amendment I have to propose. The point is this: supposing, first—I sincerely hope it may not be the case—but suppose the two sons and the two younger daughters of the Prince of Wales should

  205
  die to-morrow, should there be granted to the Duchess of Fife £36,000 a year during the time she remains the grandchild of the Sovereign? Surely that is not the intention. We want to make a fair and adequate allowance of the £36,000. It is not probable that all the children will die except one, and I trust that none of them may die; still one may die. Supposing, after the allowance is given to the elder son and to the three daughters, the second son were to die. So far as I understand it, it is assumed that the second son will have £15,000 if he marries. Let us suppose he dies, and his wife dies, where is the £15,000 to go to? The elder son is to have £25,000, which is thought amply sufficient. On this happening, is he to have £40,000, or are the daughters to have additions made to their allowances on the death of their brother? It is a bungling arrangement, I have always thought, giving the sum to the Prince of Wales and leaving him to divide it; I have always thought it would be much better to give a specific sum to each of the children; still, we have made the arrangement by this Bill, and I only want to carry out what I believe to be the intention of the Bill that each of the children shall have her or his fair proportion of the sum, and shall not have more if one or two or three of the children should unfortunately die. I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, at the end of the clause, to add the words:—
  "But should any of the children of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales predecease His Royal Highness, during the lifetime of Her Majesty, then such amount as had been allotted annually to the said child shall cease to be paid, and such amount shall he repaid to the Exchequer annually by the trustees."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member trusted that the event for which this Amendment is intended to provide would not occur, and I can assure him we heartily share his hope. The estimate of what would be ultimately necessary to provide for all the Prince of Wales's children was, as the hon. Member knows, a higher figure, £49,000 a year. The question therefore is, what would
  206
  be a fair composition, taking all the chances into consideration, between our original proposal and the proposal subsequently made? The sum of £36,000 was agreed upon, although it scarcely provides the necessary margin. We are not prepared, under the circumstances, to say that in the unfortunate event of the death of one of the Prince of Wales's children any change should be made in the amount of the annual Grant. The House, as representing the taxpayer, is making an arrangement with the Prince of Wales, by which His Royal Highness's family, in all contingencies, will receive the sum now proposed, which sum is smaller than that originally proposed.
  MR. STOREY: The position of things is this—£36,000 a year is given for the five children, and my hon. Friend has put the hypothesis that it may go to one of the children. I will not put such an extreme hypothesis, I will take the less extreme hypothesis that two of the children might die, and in that case the whole of the £36,000 would go to the other three, though the Government themselves agree that £36,000 is ample for the five. The Government would never have come here with a proposition which they did not think ample. They would have thought £49,000 a little better, but they do not think£36,000 insufficient. What I say is that in case some of the children die the money set apart for them ought to go back to the Exchequer. The intention of the Government seems to be to get as much as they can out of the Exchequer and to give nothing back.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 171.—(Div. List, No. 276.)
  MR. M'LAREN: The Amendment I beg to move is to add at the end of Clause 2—
  "The trustees shall make an annual return, to he presented to both Houses of Parliament, stating the manner in which they have dealt with the sum granted to them, and showing the amount of the accumulations, if any."
  I venture to think that this Amendment ought to be considered by the Government on quite different grounds from the other Amendments, the objects of which were, more or less, to diminish the sum to be granted to the Royal Family, and which may have been considered by the Government as conceived

  207
  more or less in a spirit of hostility to the Royal Family. But this Amendment ought to commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury, because it is based upon the solid principle of finance that it is the duty of the House, as the guardian of the public purse, to know in what manner the money voted by it is expended. There is another reason that must have been present to the mind of every hon. Member during these Debates, and that is that if one thing has been more prejudicial to the interests of the Royal Family than another it is the element of mystery which has surrounded these arrangements. It is this element which has created such a great amount of feeling out of doors. There is an idea—which may be dispelled, to some extent, after to-day's Debate—that the savings of the Crown have been exceedingly large; and it is this element of mystery that is so difficult to get rid of. We have had an assurance to-day that these savings have not been as large as some of us believe; but I want to prevent that feeling of dissatisfaction in the popular mind that there are great accumulations being made for the future. Though this Amendment would not prevent the feeling arising in the future, so far as the main sources of the income of the Royal Family are concerned, it would prevent it arising in the future so far as this Grant of £36,000 a year is concerned. We must remember that this Bill is an entirely new development in the matter of Royal Grants. I believe it is absolutely the first time that money voted by Parliament has not been specifically allocated to the person to whom it is granted. This money is allocated to five persons, but in what way the House does not know, and I think the House is entitled to know it. It is likely that the daughters of the Prince of Wales will receive a lump sum, and if that is so, I think it desirable that the House should know it. We should none of us like to see them inadequately considered, and the tendency is to give the sons more than the daughters. The public want to have a guarantee that the daughters will be fairly treated, even though they marry rich men. I trust I am only following the original proposal in asking that the public may
  208
  know how the money goes. We are face to face with a complete change of policy on the part of the Government. So far as I am concerned, it is a change I regret. We should know what we are proposing for each child and let the matter rest there. Then we are asked to place a discretionary power in the hands of unknown persons to a considerable extent. Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales will, no doubt, have the main voice in the disposal of this money, but we are also putting it in the hands of official trustees, and we do not know what views they may take of the manner in which the money is to be allocated in the future. We may reasonably assume that whilst the Queen and the Prince of Wales will naturally exercise the most influence, other views will also be consulted. The Bill is expressly framed on the supposition that there will be accumulations. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has said it is extremely improbable that at the end of eight or ten years there will be any accumulations. He believes there will be accumulations for a few years in order that larger sums may be given subsequently. I do not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I have no means of knowing whether it is likely to be right or not. But if there are to be no accumulations I shall be all the better pleased. In that case the country ought to know the manner in which the money is disposed of. If the money had been allocated in the manner originally intended by the Government this Amendment would have been unnecessary, because Parliament would have known how it went. Now that we are voting a lump sum, I think it is necessary that we should ask for an annual return to Parliament. It would be the more necessary in the unfortunate event, which we hope is not likely to occur, of the demise of one of these five children. If one of the Princesses should unfortunately die, the amount of money set free would be, comparatively speaking, small, but if it should be one of the sons, a large amount would be set free for distribution. I contend that, on sound financial considerations, the House is entitled to know whether the money is allocated in a way that the House and the country would approve of, and I

  209
  cannot conceive why the Government should refuse to accept this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, at the end of the clause, to add the words—
  "The Trustees stall make an annual Return, to be presented to both Houses of Parliament, stating the manner in which they have dealt with the sum granted to them, and showing the amount of the accumulations, if any."—(Mr. W. M'Laren.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and he will forgive me if I say that he has failed altogether to realise the object, and spirit, and intention of the Bill, which is to enable the Prince of Wales, with the sanction of the Queen, to make provision for his own family. The assistance of official trustees, in the persons of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury, for the time being, is secured, but any of those contingencies to which reference has been made could not by any possibility happen. What does the hon. Gentleman desire to do? He desires to give Parliament power to review the discretion exercised by the Queen and the Prince of Wales in dealing with the affairs of their own family.
  MR. M'LAREN: My Amendment does not imply that. The Bill is absolutely clear in stating that the Prince of Wales and the Official Trustees may allocate the money in any way they may think fit.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: But the hon. Gentleman made use of words to the effect that the country ought to know whether the money was allocated in a way of which they approve, and therefore it would be open to the House of Commons and the country to raise a discussion as to whether proper discretion had been exercised. I believe there is a general desire throughout the country that we should not have these discussions in Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) only gave expression to that feeling when he said that the opportunities for discussions of this character should be made much less frequent. There can be no doubt that the provision will be made with due
  210
  regard to the claims of the Heir Presumptive to the Throne, and of the next in succession, and the Princesses. We have stated our view that the Princesses should receive a portion of £3,000 a year, with a Grant of £10,000, and this has to be taken in connection with the provision now made. The House of Commons and the country have had indications of the proportions which the Government thought it right to propose, and the proposition of the Government will no doubt have effect given to it in any appropriation made by the Prince of Wales with the sanction of the Queen and the Trustees. I do not think there is any dissatisfaction in the country with the Grant proposed. I think the proposal has been received with very great satisfaction, except by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), and I dispute his authority to represent the people of the country, although no doubt he represents a large number of his constituents. The principle has been laid down that power should be placed in the hands of the Prince of Wales to make provision for his children with the sanction of the head of the family, the Queen, and with the concurrence of the responsible Ministers, and from that principle the Government cannot depart. The hon. Gentleman says we do not know who the future Official Trustees will be, but I think he may rest assured that as they are to hold the responsible positions of Chancellor of the Exchequer and First Lord of the Treasury they are not likely to sanction any arrangement which is not fully justified by the circumstances of the case. I could not undertake to place before the House of Commons information which would afford the opportunity which I expressly deny to be in the public interest—that is to say, of discussing the discretion exercised by the Prince of Wales with the sanction of the Queen and Trustees, and I therefore cannot accept the Amendment. No doubt hon. Gentlemen know how these Grants are made. ["How?"] They can obtain the information, for hon. Gentlemen seem to know a great many facts as regards this subject.
  MR. BRADLAUGH; This seems to me a reasonable Amendment, and the Return for which, it asks does not necesarily mean review.

  211
  Many Returns are made to this House in which the House is powerless for review. The Amendment would have a good effect in preventing mystery about the administration of these funds. The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for saying that I have not the confidence in Official Trustees which he seems to have. I will give him an illustration. By two Acts of Parliament two sums of money were put in the hands of Trustees, £600,000 in the hands of five Trustees, one of whom was the First Lord of the Treasury for the time being, and £330,000, in the name of five other Trustees, of whom the First Lord of the Treasury was also one. The only First Lord of the Treasury who concerned himself at all was Lord Palmerston; and as to the other sum the First Lord of the Treasury was absolutely unaware that any duties were imposed upon him. Neither did his predecessors appear to have taken any active notice of the matter. That was put in evidence before the Committee which sat in relation to perpetual pensions. While I have no doubt whatever that if the official Trustees were possessed with a sense of the duty imposed upon them, they would fulfil that duty; I think sometimes that official trusteeships of that character become very little regarded as a matter of practice. I think this Bill establishes a dangerous precedent by saying that lump sums may be allocated to the parents for Grants to the children, without Parliament having any knowledge of how those lump sums are applied. Of course, I know that we are utterly powerless as against the expression of opinion by the Government. I had refrained from speaking on these Amendments, but I must, in this case, not only give my hearty support to the Amendment, but I hope the mover will press it to a Division, so that our protest may at least be recorded.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: It is perfectly true, as the First Lord of the Treasury has said, that in terms this is a Grant to the Prince of Wales, but it is in reality a Grant to the individual children of the Prince of Wales. Why should we take all this trouble of appointing trustees if in reality the Grant is not made to the Prince of Wales? There is a wide gulf
  212
  between the demand of the Amendment and the interpretation put upon it by the First Lord of the Treasury. All we wish to secure is that we shall have the healthy moral control of public opinion over the allocations made. We do not want to come here from year to year to find fault with those who will have to report the allocation of money. All we want is to bring to bear that publicity which, as everyone knows on both sides of the House, is the best security for the wise distribution of the funds placed at the disposal of the trustees.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 169.—(Div. List No. 277.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. STOREY: The Government have persistently not listened to our arguments nor accepted an Amendment to this Bill. We are equally persistent, and you shall not get an inch of this Bill without commentary and Division. I oppose the clause because of what it contains, and what it does not contain. I oppose it because it introduces a new method of dealing with public money. Arrangements are to be made for handing over to trustees money which is to accumulate, and to be allocated in proportions which we do not know. I resist the clause still more strongly because the right hon. Gentleman most unwisely refused the proposal on which we have just divided the House. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that if he gave us information it would cause less discussion. But the reason I want information, and I make no secret about it, is that there shall be more discussion. I think there is an enormous disproportion in the Grants to Royal persons, and they should be discussed again and again until the people outside compel Parliament inside to take more reasonable views of these matters. On these grounds I resist the clause, and I will take the liberty of dividing the House.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: As will be perceived by this time, I am entirely opposed to the principle of the Bill, but when a Bill does leave Parliament, as a Member of the House of Commons I want to see it drafted in a respectable fashion. I have done my best to alter this clause, and to make it reasonable. I have failed. Just let me

  213
  point out to the First Lord of the Treasury what he and his draftsman have done. The clause as it stands now is a monstrous and most unnatural clause. And I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that it is possible that the second son of the Prince of Wales may die. He may have married and had a child; yet this amount of money which is allocated to him, call it £10,000 a year, would go to his brothers and to his sisters, and under no possibility by this Act could one shilling of the sum be handed over to his child. That, Sir, is what the right hon. Gentleman has done with his clause. He cuts off the child from the benefit in favour of the brothers and sisters. I really do think that it is unnecessary to say anything more against the drafting of this clause.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The only thing we have to say in reply to the hon. Member is that he is mistaken in his reading of the clause.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman boldly makes the assertion that I am mistaken. I defy the right hon. Gentleman to prove that.
  MR. GOSCHEN: All I can say is that we have taken the best legal advice on the subject. The matter has been fully considered, and the Bill was drafted by a very able lawyer, and others whose legal ability the hon. Member will not question, have been consulted on the point, and the clause was so drafted as to meet the very objection which the hon. Member raises.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I ask any hon. and learned Gentleman on the other side of the House, if he will take the trouble to read this clause, whether he agrees with the draftsman or me in this matter.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 45.—(Div. List, No. 278.)
  Clause 3, agreed to.
  Preamble.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I move to omit certain of the words, "and establish the principle that the provision for the children should hereafter be made by Grants adequate for that purpose, which have been assigned to their parents," that is to say, to the
  214
  grandchildren of Her Majesty. I ask the Committee to look at the scope of the Bill. It seems to me that the words of the Preamble go beyond the title of the Bill, which is "A Bill to make provision for the support and maintenance of the children of His Royal Highness Albert Edward Prince of Wales." It astonishes me that exception was not taken to these words of the Preamble on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the opinion of the Speaker taken as to whether they were in order. I believe they are not, and I hold that the Bill lays down a principle which ought not to be laid down, because the Bill has nothing to do with the children of the younger children of Her Majesty the Queen. I object to any prejudging of what may happen in a future reign. Possibly in a future reign there may be a Civil List that will cover such allowances; but I want to leave the whole matter to the Parliament which will be called together in a future reign. Beyond this, I am against the "finality" of the right hon. member for Newcastle, and do not wish to prejudice the judgment and action of future Ministers. These words go beyond any principle laid down in the Report of the Committee, and beyond all that was contemplated by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. We have heard that right hon. Gentleman lauded to the skies by Gentlemen opposite for the speech he made on their behalf and for the votes he has given this evening and yesterday evening for the Government proposal; and I do not complain of that; but I think it singularly ungrateful on the part of the Government to reward the action of the right hon. Gentleman and the strong and unselfish support they have received from him by dragging into this Bill words that are entirely antagonistic to the views he has expressed. I see the right hon. Gentleman has gone away, or I should have claimed his support in this matter. I now propose to substitute for the words I object to the words which appear in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out from the word "and" to the word "have" in line 20, and insert—
  "Your Majesty's gracious intimation, that no further application to Parliament on behalf, of the children of the younger sons and of the

  215
  daughters of your Majesty will be made during your Majesty's reign."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Preamble."
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think the hon. Member has read in these words more than they meant or were intended to mean. They have no reference to the children of the younger sons or daughters of Her Majesty. The words were taken literally from the Report of the Committee, and I have every reason to believe they met with the approval of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, who believed them to be valuable as a precedent.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not pretend to understand the legal English of words in Acts of Parliament, which very often are not English at all; but I think that any layman reading the words I have referred to will agree with me that there is no limitation to the children of the Heir Apparent, but that they apply equally to the children of all the children of the Sovereign, whoever and where so ever they may be. The word "children" is used as extending to Her Majesty's family.
  MR. GOSCHEN: As I read the words they mean that where provision is made for children it shall be made in this way—not that provision shall be made for all.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the principle is doubtful, but at any rate, although that may be his view, he did not draft the Bill. If the draftsman says the provision was meant to be restricted to the children of the Prince of Wales I am ready to accept that; but I contend that these words do not make such a limitation. Will the right hon. Gentleman make the suggested alteration limiting the Grants to the children of the Prince of Wales? All I want is that this limitation should be inserted in the Bill in char language.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I want the Committee to take note that Her Majesty does not wish to press her claim on behalf of the children of her daughters; but in the Preamble of the Bill we have a reference made to "Her Majesty's family," and I understand the family to be Her Majesty's children
  216
  and grandchildren. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, I think he had better take care, as his words are to my mind very dangerous words. He uses the words "During your Majesty's reign," and as I understand it Her Majesty does not desire that the provision should go beyond her reign; and this was the view of the Committee. We have done with the families of the younger children of Her Majesty, but if we insert the words "during Her Majesty's reign" we may be opening the way for future claims.
  MR. STOREY: What is objected to here is that the words we desire to get rid of would establish a principle for provision to be made OUL of Grants for this purpose which have been assigned to the parents. You thus lay down a principle which will be a guide to future Parliaments and would be quoted as a precedent in future reigns for the new Parliament in regard to such provision. Now, suppose the Queen should die, and a new Monarch should come to the Throne, that Monarch having children; the Prince of Wales has children already, some of whom are now married and all of whom may marry and have families. Under these words of the Preamble of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister of a future day might come to Parliament and say, "It is your duty not only to make provision for the new King, but also for his family and their families." These words, in fact, make a wider application of the public money than was ever made before, and will in effect be the laying down of a principle that will enable future Governments to provide not only for the children of the Sovereign but for the families of the children of the Sovereign. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will consent to insert a limitation which will make the meaning which he himself assigned to the words clearer than they are at present. Will he allow the clause to read thus:
  "To establish the principle that where provision is made for the children that provision shall be made out of the Grants that are made to the parents."
  If he will do that I will not take advantage of his goodness and fairness on the Report. I believe my hon. Friends will say the same.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: NO.
  MR. STOREY: Then I will speak for myself. But if my hon. Friend will not make the promise, I do not see any hope of prevailing on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the slightest change in the Bill. As far as I am concerned I think that this alteration would be an important improvement.
  MR. M'LAREN: I would suggest to the Government that if they cannot accept this Amendment, they should put in words on the Report to make the meaning more plain.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am really unable to give any pledge, as I really do not know what I shall think on Monday when the Bill passes through Committee. I shall devote Sunday to reading the Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government are laying down a principle which may be applied on a future occasion, when the necessity arises that a provision for children should hereafter be made out of Grants to their parents. I cannot hold out any hopes that the words which have been adopted in the Committee by a large majority will be modified.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am satisfied that the words as they stand are all that can be desired. The provision for the children is "to be made, not out of Grants which might be, but which have been, assigned to their parents."
  MR. STOREY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these words cover the case I have put?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It has been laid down for the guidance of a future Parliament that the proper course would be to make provision, not for each child, but for children generally by Grants to the parents.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 17, to leave out from the word "Family," to the word "have," in line 20."—(Mr. Storey.)
  Question put,
  "That the words 'and to establish the principle that the provision for children shall hereafter be made out of Grants adequate for that purpose which have been assigned' stand part of the Preamble."
  The Committee divided: Ayes 146; Noes 42.—(Div. List, No. 279.)
  MR. STOREY: I will not occupy the time of the House many minutes with the next Amendment, but I do hold it is extremely important that there should be a clear and energetic protest on record which may be quoted hereafter, when in a new reign demands are made upon Parliament under cover of the words which are to be inserted in this Bill. It is impossible for us to resist this being paid, but it is not impossible for us to indicate the views of the minority of this House, which may be quoted hereafter, and if the principle is to be laid down its application ought to be limited to the children of the Sovereign and of the Heir Apparent. Therefore I propose the omission of the words "their parents," with the object of inserting afterwards, "to the Sovereign and the Heir Apparent." The Preamble will then read so as to establish the principle that the provision made by the Grant shall be confined to the children of the Sovereign and the Heir Apparent. These words enable us to indicate clearly what we mean.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 19 and 20, to leave out the words "their parents," and insert the words "the Sovereign."—(Mr. Storey.)
  Question put, "That the words 'their parents' stand part of the Preamble."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 38—(Div. List, No. 280)
  THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton, to omit the word "cheerfully," cannot be put without an instruction from the House, as it is part of the framework of the Bill, and it is of so grave importance that it could not be put without special instruction from the House. The Question is that this be the Preamble of the Bill.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: But I object to the Preamble on account of the word "cheerfully" which it contains.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not part of the Preamble. It is part of the granting and enacting words of the Bill, which are not put in Committee at all, and which cannot be modified without an instruction authorising it.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: But I object to the enacting portion of the Bill. I am not cheerful.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is part of the framework of the Bill, which is common to all Money Bills, and I say that it cannot be touched without authority from the House. The Question is that this be the Preamble of the Bill.
  A Division having been challenged, and the House cleared for a Division,
  DR. CLARK (sitting with his hat on): What are the words before the enacting portion of the Bill?
  THE CHAIRMAN: "Granting and enacting" are the special words which are used in all Money Bills.
  MR. STOREY: Is it possible to move to re-commit the Bill?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to the Question now before the Committee.
  Question put, "That this be the Preamble of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 38.—(Div. List, No. 281.)
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read a third time upon Monday next.

  COINAGE (LIGHT GOLD) [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred by the exchange of, or payment for, gold coins, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend "The Coinage Act, 1870," as respects Light Gold Coins.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  REVENUE BILL (No. 315.)
  As amended, considered; Bill read the third time, and passed.
  PAYMASTER GENERAL BILL (No. 348.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed.

  ARBITRATION BILL [LORDS] (No. 267.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I desire, Sir, to move that you report pro-
  220
  gress, and ask leave to sit again. I wish to have this Bill referred to the Grand Committee on Law, which seems to me to be the proper body to deal with it. This is one of the Bills which was slipped through last Wednesday without discussion, and the Government did not even take the trouble to explain its nature. I have an objection to it, but I suppose I should not be allowed to make it at this stage.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The House has charged the Committee of the Whole House with the Bill, and it must, therefore, deal with it.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I will move, then, that the Order be discharged.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That Motion is not in order.
  Clause 1 to 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am not prepared to go into the details of the Bill. I object to the Bill, and my suspicions have been aroused by the fact that the lawyers have not moved any Amendment to it. If the state of the law which the Bill proposes to consolidate had not been a good one for the lawyers there would have been plenty of Amendments proposed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That does not arise on this clause.
  Question, "That Clause 12 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported as amended; to be considered on Monday next.

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL. (No. 360.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. PHILIPPS: I notice that Clause 3 of this Bill raises a question of great importance involving, as it does, the safety of trains and passengers. It provides practically that railway servants shall not work more than 12 hours a day, and I am glad that the Board of Trade are thus beginning to take control over the hours of labour. I heartily approve of this principle, and I only regret that the limit has been fixed at 12 hours. In the interests of

    221
    railway passengers, and in order to secure increased safety for the traffic, I hold that the hours of labour should be shorter, and when we are in Committee on this Bill I shall move an Amendment placing the limit at eight hours instead of 12. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to accept that Amendment.
    DR. CLARK: This is one of the Bills thrown on the Table of the House without explanation. I have been looking at it, and I must say I think it is very unfair for the Government to pitchfork into this House an important Bill of this nature without any explanation. They ought at least to tell us what their intentions are in regard to it. I am glad the hon. Member who spoke last has given notice that, in Committee, he will move to amend the third clause by inserting eight hours for 12. I see, however, that all the Bill proposes to do in this respect is to call on the companies to make a Return of all of their employés who work more than 12 hours, and I should like to see the Bill amended so as to render it illegal for any railway servant to work over 12 hours in one day. It is not right that the safety of the hundreds of thousands of persons who travel should be left in the hands of men who are working more than 12 hours a day. Now, railways are a monopoly, and I consider that Parliament should have more control over them, and that it should step in and prevent men being compelled, through the competition in the labour market, to work longer than is desirable in the interests of the public safety. Clause 4 raises the question of tickets, and I should like to see the Government modify the existing regulations as to return tickets with a view to allowing passengers to use an out-of-date return half on payment of a sum which would make up the difference in price between the return and the single ticket. In Committee we will try and amend this Bill in the interests of the travelling public. But I repeat that I object to this system of throwing a Bill before us without explanation.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TEADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH): I think the accusation of the hon. Member is most unfair. Hon. Members who have given attention to this subject know
    222
    very well that this is the second Bill introduced this Session, and that in moving the first I explained its provisions and effect. Since then I have been in communication with various persons in the country, and have found there would be so much opposition to some of its clauses that it would be impossible to pass it this Session. I therefore withdrew that Bill and introduced this, a modified Bill, carrying out certain important provisions with regard to public safety, to which I believe no objection can be taken. With reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire, it may be well to omit the figure 12 and leave the number of hours beyond which cases of overtime should be returned to be fixed by the Board of Trade from time to time. Any attempt to limit the work of railway servants to eight hours a day and no more would, in my opinion, be not only an impossibility, but would be hurtful, if it could be carried out. What would happen if a man had been at work eight hours and an accident happened? Is he not to remain in order to give what help he can because he would be breaking the law? If the hon. Member for Caithness presses his view the only result will be to make it impossible to carry the Bill this Session. I would further say that there are provisions in the Bill of great importance to the public safety at which the hon. Member has not apparently even looked. The first clause, for instance, provides that the Board of Trade may from time to time order a railway company to do within a time limited by the order any of the following things:—To adopt the block system on all or any of their lines, to provide for the interlocking of points and signals on all or any of their lines, and to provide for all their trains carrying passengers continuous brakes, complying with certain requirements Let me state briefly to the House some of the facts which appear in the Report to the Board of Trade upon the accidents which have occurred on railways in the United Kingdom during the year 1888, which Report will shortly be in the hands of hon. Members. I find that these accidents are separated under several heads. Head C relates to accidents from trains entering stations at too great speed. The Report

    223
    says that of these one accident might have been avoided had there been a continuous brake upon the train; that in another accident the automatic action of the vacuum brake prevented any rebound or consequent injury to the passengers; and that in a third the non-automatic vacuum brake failed to act on the connecting pipe becoming detached, which could not have occurred had the brake been automatic. Under another head, E (Collisions at junctions,) the Report says:—
    "Of two of these collisions a proper system of block working would probably have prevented the occurrence, and one collision, had the whole instead of a third of the vehicles been fitted with continuous brakes, might have been entirely prevented or its effect lessened."
    The accidents at sidings were 16 in number, and three of them were due to the want of absolute block working, two to want of an efficient continuous brake, and in two instances attention was drawn to over long hours of work. Under the head of collisions between engines or trains meeting in opposite directions there were eight accidents. One of these was due to an improper mode of working the block system; one to a disregard of the rules for working, and the absence of block working; one to a want of proper interlocking arrangements. In one instance the continuous brake appeared to have done good service. With regard to the terrible accident at Armagh, by which 78 persons were killed and 260 injured, the official Report to the Board of Trade says:—
    "This terrible collision would in all human probability have been prevented had the excursion train been fitted with an automatic continuous brake instead of (as it was) with only a non-automatic continuous brake. … Had the block system been in operation the ordinary train would have been standing at Armagh platform. … and the results of the collision would have undoubtedly been much less serious."
    I think I have said sufficient to show the House the importance and necessity of provisions contained in the Bill which will enable the Board of Trade to enforce upon recalcitrant railway companies regulations which experience has shown to be necessary to safety, and I trust that hon. Members will do their best to aid me in passing the Bill into law.
    MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.): I am sure that we who have followed the history of this question will entirely
    224
    acquit the President of the Board of Trade of a desire to smuggle the Bill through the House or in any way to disguise the nature of its provisions. The proposals now before the House have been repeatedly discussed, and at some length by myself and other Members of the House. There are certain points in regard to this Bill to which I should like to draw attention.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. CHANNING continued: The hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Philipps) has drawn attention to the question of overtime and to Returns proposed in the Bill, and I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the House to the fact that the wording of the clause does not correspond with the overtime Returns to which the Board of Trade consented, and which were moved for in another place by Lord Do La Warr. These included a column, giving the number of instances in which railway servants, after having been more than 12 hours on duty were called upon to resume work without an interval of nine hours' rest, and giving the number of hours of rest before they were sent out again. I wish to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this should be made quite clear in Clause 3. I am glad to hear he is willing to make the rule for the number of hours an elastic one; and I heartily support the view that anything like a compulsory eight hours' clause would be an impossibility for railway work, and, in fact, the majority of railway servants are against it, and I sincerely hope no hon. Member will imperil the Bill by the attempt to carry such a clause. In these observations, which I desire to make brief, I cannot help expressing my very great regret that certain portions of the original Bill as introduced by the right hon. Gentleman have, owing to the difficult position in which we are placed by the approaching close of the Session and the strong objections raised by some hon. Members, been withdrawn. I am especially sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to retain the clause in reference to coupling. Of course I should not be in order in discussing the clauses now, but I should like to say

    225
    that the Executive Committee of the principal organisation of railway servants have expressed very great regret that this question of couplings has not been dealt with. I think, if the President of the Board of Trade had introduced a coupling clause more in the form in which I dealt with the subject when I had a Bill before the House, and which merely demanded a certain standard of safety in the matter of couplings, instead of drawing the clause in a way that excited special opposition, it is probable the objections might have been met. But I refer to that and to other points more with the view of emphasising them, that they may be dealt with in the future. I do not understand that the right hon. Gentleman admits in the least that he was wrong in introducing these provisions in the original Bill. I believe he does not abandon the principle of dealing with the danger of men going between the buffers of the wagons, and does not abandon the possibility of dealing with this question in the future. I would say the same in regard to another clause omitted from this Bill, the provision as to subways. Upon this very strong feelings have been expressed by groups of people in many parts of the country who have been in communication with myself, and whose views I have felt it my duty from time to time to bring before the notice of the House and the Board of Trade by the best means in my power. It is a subject I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman has not dismissed from his mind. I am sure he must be as aware as I am of the great importance of providing for the safety of the public at any rate at crowded junction stations. The right hon. Gentleman naturally bases his Bill on the terrible accidents that have occurred owing to the use of non-automatic brakes, and the partial failures of companies to carry out the "block" system. I have given as much attention perhaps as any Member of the House to the very careful, the admirable Reports of the Inspectors of the Board of Trade, and I think the railway companies do themselves injustice when they quarrel with these Reports. These Reports are most fair to the companies, while the real cause of an accident is indicated with scientific accuracy. A railway company which has
    226
    distinguished itself by its admirable safety arrangements,—the Brighton Railway Company,—two years ago issued a return of the number of instances in which the automatic brake had prevented serious accidents on their line. Now when we have a company voluntarily coming forward and giving this testimony, and when we have these Reports of Inspectors as to the value of automatic brakes, the case for the present Bill is greatly strengthened. I am sorry that there is no provision in reference to communication between passengers and driver and guard. I will not trouble the House with instances, but there are many in which accidents might have been prevented or mitigated by electric or other means of rapid communication. I mention these matters simply to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, if he has not the opportunity now, give some undertaking with regard to them in Committee, that he will deal with them, meeting the objections of the companies as far as possible, but insuring the safety of the public and railway servants. Meanwhile I support the Second Reading of the Bill most heartily, and hope it will pass unanimously.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not intend to discuss the Bill now, as the right hon. Gentleman has intimated his intention of considering Amendments to Clause 3. I only wish to say that in the returns furnished of the number of hours of employment, day and night work should be distinguished, because the night work involves the greater strain, and also the intervals of rest between the periods of employment should be marked. I desire also to express regret that anything like opposition to the Bill should have been offered from this side of the House, and my opinion that it would be unwise for Parliament at any time to impose restriction on the hours of labour.
    MR. MOLLOY: I sincerely regret that the Bill was not introduced sooner. As to the appearance of opposition from this side, I can only say that, so far as I know, there will be none that will impede the passage of the Bill into law. There are some points of the Bill that I would like to criticise in a friendly spirit, but I will not do so now because we shall have another opportunity for doing so.

    227
    But I think the right hon. Gentleman if he looks at Clause 1 again, will see that it is somewhat confined and limited in its character to special kinds of brakes. I should like to see powers taken by the Board of Trade to enable them to introduce such rules and regulations as would cover future inventions for the same purpose. I am sorry to note the absence from the Bill of any attempt to deal with what I must call something more than the convenience of third-class passengers. This class of passengers are the mainstay of the whole railway system of the country, but they have to undergo sufferings upon long journeys, such as those in a better position are hardly aware of. I think it is monstrous that these, the strongest supporters of the railway companies, should be treated in the way they are. I will not go into details with which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is well acquainted. I will confine myself to a general allusion to sanitary arrangements, and when the proper time comes will endeavour to introduce legislation for the better treatment of those who are compelled to travel long distances by cheap and slow trains. I seize the present opportunity of giving public notice that next Session I shall oppose the introduction of every railway Bill, private or otherwise, which does not contain provisions for the better accommodation of third-class passengers. I hope that an honest attempt will be made to secure humane treatment to persons who are compelled to go long distances third class by slow
    MR. M'LAREN: I wish to express my acknowledgments to the right hon. Baronet for having introduced this Bill, and I hope he is determined to press it should it meet with opposition. I cannot, however, but express my regret that the coupling clause has been omitted. No doubt the clause as it stood was too stringent, but it is a most important question, and involves the lives of many of the servants of railway companies. The coupling clause was the one clause which made the Bill valuable to railway workers, for there are a sad number of men killed every year by being crushed between the buffers of goods trucks. It is a matter for consideration whether
    228
    one ought not to try even in the Committee stage to obtain a clause on this subject. I should be sorry to do anything to imperil the Bill, but if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to introduce some more moderate clause than that which was originally in the Bill, or to accept some moderate suggestion from an independent Member, I am sure it would meet with little resistance—so little resistance that it would in no way endanger the passing of the Bill. If the Government choose to pass the Bill they can do it, as everything depends on the place they put it on the-Paper as an Order of the Day. Though I think the original coupling clause was too strong, and gave the Board of Trade too much power, I think a modified clause might be carried without much opposition. But even if the Government do nothing as to coupling in this Bill, I earnestly hope it is the intention of the right hon. Baronet to deal with the matter in some satisfactory manner next Session. It is not right that a few interested persons—not railway companies so much as owners of private railway wagons—should be allowed to stop legislation which is so essential to the working men of the country. I do not think the majority of the House would approve of such opposition as that to which I refer, but even should there be strong opposition, I do not think the Government could spend its time more advantageously to the interests of the country than in pressing forward such Bill. I did not hear the speech of the right hon. Baronet in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. Probably he referred to this matter, but if he did not, perhaps he will be kind enough to take note of what I say, and will deal with the subject, if not this Session, at all events next year.
    MR. BRUNNER: I do not know how it may be with Gentlemen who differ from me in regard to this matter, but I must say for myself that I was altogether unable to understand the observations of the hon. Member behind me (Mr. Molloy.) It would be a very serious thing if the Government in its attempt to protect the lives of passengers by rail, and the lives of working men, should take on itself to decide what form of carriage

    229
    what form of coupling and break, is the proper form for railway companies to use. I am of opinion that the lives of passengers and railway men will be safer in the long run, if these matters are left in the hands of those who understand them best. I cordially approve of the pressure of public opinion being applied, through this House or through the Press, to railway managers, to compel them to consider both the safety of the public and the safety of their men; but if we endeavour in this matter—as we have, in my opinion, sadly too often endeavoured in the past—to give Government officials the power to decide what is the precise form of appliances which shall be used in connection with railways, we shall not be providing for the safety of the public or the safety of railway servants. I am glad now to miss from the Bill the clause providing that the form of the carriage shall be such as is approved by the Board of Trade, and with regard to Clause 4, which may possibly lead to a little confusion, I should like to ask a question. Clause 4 proposes that a passenger by a railway shall either produce a ticket or pay his fare, or give the officials his name and address. The bye-laws of a good many companies provide that if a passenger is found in a railway carriage without a ticket he shall be compelled to pay the fare from the point at which the train started. I do not think it ought to be put in the power of the Railway Company to demand this as a matter of right. The officials ought to be in the possession of evidence on the subject, and if they are not I think they ought to be left to suffer from the consequences of their default. At any rate, it does frequently happen that a passenger without a ticket has not in his possession, and probably has not in the whole world, the amount of money necessary to pay the fare from the point at which the train started. I do not know whether it will be convenient or even possible to clear this matter up on this clause, but if it can be done it should be done. I trust that Parliament will do this act of justice, and will prevent railways for the future from making this claim.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

    FACTORS BILL [LORDS] (No. 310.)
    As amended, considered.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: I should generally be very chary of proposing to alter any Bill which has gone through the Grand Committee; but, as a matter of fact, when the clause to which I take exception was under discussion in the Committee, several of those who were interested in the question happened to be absent, and the Committee was by no means full. I would ask the Committee to look at the clause. It says—
    "When a mercantile agent is with the consent of the owner in possession of goods or documents of title to goods, any sale, pledge, or other disposition of the goods made by him"
    should be valid. Now, surely, this is sufficient. But if the words "when acting in the customary course of his business as such agent" are retained, they will impose on the purchaser the additional obligation of proving that the sale or pledge is in the usual course of business as such agent, and throw an additional obligation on the purchaser or lender. I have consulted several mercantile Members of the House, and the hon. and learned Members for Inverness and Dumfries, both of whom think that these words ought to be omitted. I am sorry that they are not present. But it was not expected that the Bill would have come on so early. I believe that the words would open the door to endless litigation, and I hope the Attorney General will consent to omit or modify them.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words "when acting in the customary course of his business as such agent."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL (Sir E. WEBSTER,: The hon. Baronet brought this question before the Grand Committee, and I stated at the time that, so far as I could judge of such a technical matter, I thought the clause an exact representation of the law as it stands. I have consulted Lord Herschell and my learned Friend the hon. Member for Inverness. Perhaps the substitution of the words "when acting as

    231
    a mercantile agent" will meet the views of the hon. Member. If he will withdraw his Amendment I will move to insert those words.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and will accept his suggestion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, to omit the words "customary course of his business as such agent," in order to insert the words "ordinary course of business as a mercantile agent."—(Sir H. Webster.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    MARRIAGES (BASUTOLAND, &c.) BILL [LORDS.] (No. 352.)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: It is quite understood, I think, that the point raised by me rather informally on this Bill yesterday will be dealt with?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: We are prepared to provide for instructions to the High Commissioner not only as to the particular point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, but also as to the other conditions as to notice, and the application being made by the survivor of a marriage.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    COUNCIL OF INDIA BILL (No. 281.)
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I consider this Bill to be one of great importance, and I must express my surprise at the Government having tried for months, without sufficient discussion, to pass the Bill after 12 o'clock at night, when those who are opposed to it happen to be away. Not only I, but many Members who sit on the Benches opposite, have a good deal to say about this question. The Bill is a most important one, and I must say I think we have been hardly used in having had the Bann Drainage Bill put down before it.
    232
    It was only by accident that I found out that the Bann Drainage Bill was not to be proceeded with, and it is only because I happened to intimate to several Members who are interested in this Council of India Bill what I had discovered, that anyone at all interested in it is present to discuss the measure. In the few words which the Under Secretary for India addressed to the House at five minutes to 12 the other night, he spoke of the Bill as intended to effect an economy in connection with the Council of India. Well, in my opinion, if this be a matter of economy, that economy might be effected in another way by a reduction of the salaries of the Members, instead of a reduction of their numbers.
    MR. T. C. BARING: I rise to order. To the best of my knowledge, the hon. Member has already spoken on the Motion.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member is entirely wrong. I was speaking at 12 o'clock the other night, when the Debate stood adjourned, and I think it very wrong on the part of the hon. Member to attempt to burke discussion. I am sure that the gentlemen serving on the Council would be willing to serve at reduced salaries of £800 instead of £1,200, most of them having either pensions, annuities, or other employments. I said the other night that I believe a large reduction in the number of members of the Council means the beginning of the end—the beginning of the attempt to get rid of an independent Council and the approximating of the body to the position of mere Civil servants. I doubt whether the Council is as efficient as it ought to be, and I think we ought to make it efficient or get rid of it altogether. The burning point of this most important question is whether we are to have a real Council to control the Secretary of State for India and to act as a buffer between Parliament and India, or to have a limited number of councillors whose advice the Secretary of State may take or leave. I say you ought not to make the change now proposed without a full and complete inquiry, but limited to the machinery in this country for controlling the Home Government of India. That is an inquiry which was promised by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington when he was Secretary of

    233
    State for India. That promise has been repeatedly made to us by different Secretaries for India. We have been repeatedly promised inquiry into the Home Government of India, but no less than 31 years have elapsed since we formally took over the Government of India, and yet the long-promised inquiry has not come. It has always been acknowledged that inquiry is absolutely necessary in regard to the control of the finances of India. The Act regulating the matter has been open to a variety of constructions, and has led to great differences in practice, and the question is whether we are to have a Council entrusted with real power of controlling, or a mere body of expert advisers to the Secretary of State. The intention of Parliament by the Act of 1858 was to make the Council analogous to the Board of Directors of the old East India Company, which acted as a kind of buffer between Parliament and the Indian Government. One of the clauses of the Act is to the effect that the Council is, under the general direction of the Secretary of State, to transact the business in the United Kingdom in relation to the Government of India. No doubt subsequent clauses give the Secretary of State power in exceptional cases to overrule the Council, but that is a very different thing from governing by the Secretary of State advised by the Council. The power of the purse is a very great power. Who controls the purse controls the country. By another clause of the Act of 1858 the Secretary of State has no power in financial matters to overrule the Council, and in such matters he can do nothing without the consent of the majority at a meeting of the Council. That seems to me a very strong provision indeed, and one that puts the Council in a very independent position. And I have authority for that reading. I find that the Under Secretary for India, who, always ready enough and successful enough in claiming for his Department whatever authority was its due, when pressed as to the question of finance asserted that the House had carefully divested itself of control over the finance of India. But notwithstanding this declaration, it was different in the India Office. British Ministers who had held office as Secretaries and Under Secretaries
    234
    of State did not like to be controlled at all, and therefore they did all they could to whittle away the control over the finances intrusted to the Council of India by Parliament. The doctrine that had been held by several Secretaries of State was that the finances were not controlled at home, but that they were controlled by the Government of India; and attempts had been made successfully to restrict the control of the Council to petty grants of money made in this country. If Her Majesty's Government wish to weaken or destroy the Council of India let them do so fairly in the light of day by a measure aiming at its object directly and frankly explained to Parliament, and not by a measure of this character, attempted to be rushed through its stages at midnight and at the fag end of the Session. Let the country have a fair opportunity of considering all that was involved. We must remember that India is an enormous empire with an enormous income, great provinces, and a vast population whose interests there must be great difficulty in representing. As a matter of numbers I do not think 10 is sufficient. For years there has been no representative of Bengal, with its 70,000,000 of people, nor of Assam, and the Central Provinces, and Burmah. These are great departments which are not represented, and which ought to be represented. My hon. Friend, who is likely to second this Motion, has a Motion on the Paper which seems to be very reasonable, and which suggests that there is no representation of the medical department, to which India owes so much, and to which, in future, I hope we will owe a great deal more. I think it is most desirable that on the Council of India you should have a representative of medical men. And I believe it is not so much a matter of money if you desire to establish a Council which shall control the Secretary for India, for there are plenty of Anglo-Indians of great experience and ability, who seek not so much for money as for honourable employment in connection with India; and many admirable men, both paid and unpaid, would render most excellent service to the country. For my part, I very strongly object to that part of the Bill which does not directly diminish the number of

    235
    he Council, but leaves to the discretion of the Secretary of State for the time being whether he will do so. Seeing the period of the Session at which we have arrived, I do not think we ought to hurry the matter. At the present time there is only one vacancy in the Council. It might he filled temporarily, and the Government might grant a limited inquiry, not going into the whole question of the Government of India, which I grant is far too large. ["No!"] That is my opinion. I should be very glad if we could get it to be a large inquiry; but I ask for the limited inquiry which the noble Lord the Member for Paddington promised. This Bill only deals with the Home Government of India, and I want the inquiry before anything is done. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not press this Bill too hurriedly at the fag-end of the Session, but that they will take a little time, and give the inquiry promised, and then, if necessary, bring in a Bill next year.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "This House, while approving of any economy or reduction of salary that may he possible, does not approve of a serious change in the Council of the Secretary of State without a full inquiry into the constitution and working of the official body in this country by which the Government of India is supervised."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR W. GUYER HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I find by the rules of the House that I am precluded from submitting the Amendment which I have on the Paper, in consequence of one having been proposed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, and I can, therefore, only express approval of its terms—
    "That no change in the constitution of the Council of India will be accepted which does not make provision for a medical officer being placed on that Body."
    I think the Council of India is not a sufficiently representative body. It was established in 1858, on the transference of the Government of India from the East India Company to the Crown. By the Act of 1858 it was settled that the Council of India should consist of not less than 15
    236
    members. By Clause 10 of that Act it is provided that the major part of the Council shall be composed of persons who have served or resided in India 10 years. Clause 16 states that after its first formation the supplying of vacancies in the Council shall rest with the Secretary of State. How is it, then, I would ask, that during all those years between 1858 and the present time there has not been an Indian medical officer appointed to the Council? If the Council it is to be a representative body, surely it is only reasonable and just and fair that a medical officer of Indian experience belonging to one of the largest Departments of the Government of India should be entitled to a seat on it. Since the Indian Council was instituted there have been many Indian medical officers who have received the fullest confidence of the Government, and were decorated by the Crown on account of the way in which they have carried out the important duties confided to them. Statistics of the greatest importance affecting the health, welfare, and prosperity of 250 millions of people are received from the Medical Department in India every year by the India Office; and yet there is not an officer on the Council of India who is, in my opinion, in a position to deal with them. Clause 10 does not in any way preclude a medical officer from being appointed, and I therefore ask how it is that a medical officer has never yet been appointed to deal with these huge statistics received every year from India? The present Bill contemplates a reduction of the Council from 15 members to 10 at the option of the Secretary of State; but before such a power is conferred on the Secretary of State, I think some inquiry ought to be made into a matter which is of such grave importance to the people of India. I trust that the House will take into serious consideration the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, and not pass the Bill until there has been a full inquiry into the constitution of the Indian Council.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Sir, I have no intention to oppose this Bill, which is a small one. I suppose the Government will at once say that it is difficult enough to get a small Bill through this Session, and that a large one would be impossible. But I have

    237
    some justification for making one or two observations. Very early this Session I obtained a first place in the Ballot for a Motion relating to the Government of India at borne and abroad. I am deprived of that by the Government. I obtained afterwards a second place, and was deprived of that, too. The difficulty of those who consider the Indian question is that there is no occasion with you in the Chair, Sir, on which it is possible to be sure of any discussion relating to Indian affairs. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has moved an Amendment, which, if it became the substantive Motion, I should ask to amend, because I utterly differ from him in thinking that any such limited inquiry as he proposes would be sufficient or useful. The reason why I do not oppose the Bill is that it is better to have some economy than none at all. But the economy is not made certain by this Bill. It is in the discretion of the Secretary of State for India for the time being, and there is a very strange peculiarity of change in the wording of the Bill, so far as it deals with these appointments. I do not know whether it is a draftsman's peculiarity, or whether there is a hidden meaning in it. The Bill speaks of these appointments by Her Majesty; but, for some reason or other, the Secretary is substituted for Her Majesty. I quite agree, if the appointments are to be on Ministerial responsibility. There is the difficulty, in relation to the Secretary for India, that we have no means of objecting to him. In the case of every other Member of the Government, the salaries being paid out of the Votes, we have some opportunity of dealing with the various questions which arise. The whole cost of the Indian Home Government is paid by the people of India; the House has no control over it; and there is no manner of means by which we can make the Secretary for India or the other Indian officers amenable to this House, except in direct Vote of Confidence in the Government, which it would be almost impossible to get anyone to listen to. I object that there is much greater need of the general reform of the Legislative Councils than the reduction of the India Council. I object that there is no evidence that the Council of the Secretary of State for India keeps itself en
    238
    rapport with the Indian people. And it is perfectly certain that there are no sort of relations between it and the English Parliament. The only thing the Secretary for India does, in answer to questions he may be presented with from different portions of this House, is to give us as little information as he possibly can and when it is of comparatively little use to us. If that is all that the Council for India does, I say there is no justification for its existence. I understand the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy to be puting in a sort of plea in formâ pauperis for a number of estimable gentlemen connected with the Government of India, with a view to their employment here. That is not a view which commends itself to my mind. There is no evidence, as far as the House of Commons can deal with the matter, that the Council is of the slightest help to the Government of the country. It is suggested that people of India regard it as standing between them and many legitimate reforms, and that they are therefore opposed to its continuance in its present form. When next Session comes, if it ever arrives, I propose to try and submit a scheme of reform for the Council of India, and I can only now express my deep regret that the Government should bring in this amending Bill not dealing with the whole affairs of India, but limited to such a small matter, withholding at the same time all information concerning it. Apparently, the Under Secretary for India has made no inquiries into this matter. If he has, he has kept the result to himself; but I do suggest that the answers he has given in the House this Session have shown his utter incapacity with regard to it.
    GENERAL SIR LEWIS PELLY: I notice that whenever an Indian question comes before the House a certain number of hon. Members are anxious to have a count, while the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy is always ready to extend the subject of the Debate. On this occasion the question before us is exceedingly limited, and it is contained within one clause. There is a great deal to be said for what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has stated as to the necessity for some inquiry to be made in regard to a certain Constitutional matter; but that is not the business before the House,

    239
    and we must confine ourselves to discussing the provisions of this clause. Now, I see it is provided that the Secretary of State, if he thinks fit, shall place on record his intention to abstain from filling up any vacancy on the Council. Supposing, however, that a vacancy occurs on the Council, and the Secretary of State does not record "his intention to abstain from filling any vacancy in the Council of India," it is possible that the vacancy might remain for an indefinite period, and I think that such power should not be left to the Secretary of State. There should be some sort of proviso introduced into the clause stating that such intention shall be recorded within a specified period so as to render it obligatory on the Secretary of State either to fill the vacancy or record his opinion within a short period of time. There are many other points concerning the India Council which I should like to deal with, but I fear they do not fall within the scope of this Bill. It has often occurred to my mind that we might have fresher blood in the India Council. There is no reason why men serving in India and passing from appointment to appointment should not pass, say, five years in England and then resume their careers in India. In such a case the man appointed would not remain long enough in England to forget his Indian work, or to deviate from the rules and traditions of the Indian Service, while his experience in both countries would be fresh and valuable to both. As the India Council is merely a consultative body, it might also be of advantage to introduce two, or probably more, experienced, trained, and highly-placed natives of India on it, so as to more amalgamate the Home and Eastern opinions into that Indian Empire, which is after all, as Mr. Disraeli said, a matter of considerable importance to this country. I think also that a consultative body of Indians might advantageously be constituted in India. One great defect in India as compared with this country is the Empire lacks a great and expressive body of upper middle class, and middle class; while we in England are a compact, well-organized body right through the social system from the Sovereign to the masses. There should be a sort of Council in
    240
    India somewhat resembling our Privy Council, on which Indian gentlemen of the highest positions could be called up to serve when the Viceroy should chose to receive them. Such a Council would, I think, enable the Viceroy to consult Indian opinion, and to receive suggestions on any great or delicate question of taxation or political change, and thus to render this Body a channel for communicating with the taxpaying population of India.
    MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL: I do not think I should be justified in forcing a Division on this Bill, although I must confess that I am opposed the principle which it embodies. I look upon it as a feeble attempt to change the administrative system of India, while I cannot help thinking that any effort to grapple with the reform of Indian Administration ought to be complete, final, and far-reaching. Now, Sir, this is a proposal to reduce the number of members of the India Council from 15 to 10. What is this Council? I have no hesitation in saying that the India Council, whether designedly or not, is so afraid that it screens from the eyes of the people of this country the true nature of our Indian Administration, which is a despotism, pure and simple. The India Council is one of the many contrivances—and some of them are of astonishing ingenuity—by which the people of this country are kept unenlightened on Indian Government. Mr. Disraeli, in 1851, asked what is the Government of India? Now, Sir, I do' not know in whom the Government of India lies or on whom to fix the responsibility, but I say that this Council of 15 men is one of the many screens by which the responsibility of officials to this House is kept in the dark. John Bright once compared the Government of India with that of Russia; he said that both were precisely the same, only that the population of India was three times that of Russia. I imagine that hon. Members who have preceded me in this Debate will agree that any true and effective reform of this Council ought to lie in the direction of placing it in touch with the people of this country as well as with the people of India; to make it, in short, a truly representative Council. I do not think that at the present time there could be an absolutely elective

    241
    Council, but I do say that the representative element might be gradually introduced both as regards India and as regards the people of this country. I think the introduction of this Bill is a striking testimony, small as it is, to the efforts of the earnest men, among whom the junior Member for Northampton stands foremost, who have in season and out of season pressed the subject of India on the attention of this House. I do not, however, think the Bill will do much good; on the contrary, it is rather calculated to do harm, but it is significant as showing at all events that the Government are conscious of what is happening there; it shows that they are keenly alive, first of all, to the growing interest and sympathy of the people of this country with India; secondly, to the rise of public opinion in India itself; and, thirdly, to the necessity of making special provision for the great calamities and famines which occur there. This Bill is really a kind of concession to the feeling in England that something must be done—a kind of salve to the national conscience, But, after all, what is proposed is a poor remedy. To reform the Government of India by knocking five men off the present number of the India Council is simply to give a shabby coat of moral whitewash to the sepulchre of corruption and misgovernment in India. I think the term "Indian experience," as applied to members of the Council, is too vague; it might cover the case of an hon. Member who has travelled for a few months in India.
    An hon. MEMBER: Ten years' residence in India is the qualification.
    MR. MACNEILL: I thank the hon. Member. That point had escaped my notice in the examination of the Indian statutes. After all, what do the members of the Council do? what power have they? They have a right to enter a protest, if they do not appove of the action of the Secretary of State; but as a fact, from 1858, when the Council was established, down to the present time, there is no record of a single protest on their part, and we are utterly in the dark as to what goes on in the Council. Should all the 15 object to the action of the Secretary for India, they have no power to stop him; he can carry the day in spite of them.
    242
    In fact, they seem to do nothing but receive their salary. The Government of India is an irresponsible Government, and I agree that there should be a complete and thorough investigation into affairs connected with Indian Administration in this country. The proper method of reform is not to reduce the number of the members of the India Council by five, but to modify its constitution and introduce the representative principle. We want this country to take into its own hands the direct responsibility for Indian Government; we want the Indian Government to become directly responsible to Parliament. An Act was proposed during the Premiership of Lord Palmerston, which provided that the Secretary of State for India should be assisted by nine officials, and it was very bitterly opposed. Then came Mr. Disraeli's Act, which proposed that the Council of India should consist of 18 people, nine to be nominated by the Government, and the remaining nine to be obtained by some system of election; for instance, four were to be nominated by English natives in India, and five were to be elected in great commercial centres—such as London, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and Belfast. That, however, was not carried. I do suggest that instead of initiating reform by reducing the number of the India Council, it would be better to introduce the elective principle as far as regards five of the members, of whom two might be elected by the English population in India, for one of the bitterest complaints of Englishmen in India is that they have no voice whatever in the management of the affairs of that country. There is a still stronger objection to the Bill, and that is that the Council of India as it stands is a complete reversal of the system under which it was established, and any change in the Council at the present time would be to endorse that reversal. I am sorry there is no one of Indian experience on the Treasury Bench to answer me.
    SIR R. N. FOWLER: The Secretary for War is here.
    SIR GEOEGE CAMPBELL: Move the adjournment of the Debate.
    MR. MACNEILL: I hope the natives of India will see how their interests are

    243
    treated in this House by the Government of India. I have the interests of the natives at heart; I have the interests of suffering humanity at heart. I have taken the trouble to go into these matters; I make certain charges against the Government of India; and if those charges are wrong then they ought to be refuted. Why is the responsible Minister of the Crown not present tonight? Again, I repeat that this Council is one of the many contrivances for concealing from the people of England the true nature and the despotism of the Indian Government. I will take the hint of my hon. Friend and move the adjournment of the Debate, on account of the Under Secretary of State for India not being in his place, or perhaps I had better do it at the conclusion of my speech. I charge the Indian Government with having reversed their policy since 1870. I say the original arrangement was that all Government measures should be initiated by the Indian Government and reviewed by this Council of 15 gentlemen, and that, finally, the Secretary for India should either approve or veto the Bill. But that is now all reversed. This Council is a mere gingerbread organisation. I ask the House to bear this in mind, and to attempt to realise the sufferings of the 200 millions of their fellow-subjects in the far East. Let it exercise its great powers on behalf of these people, let it appreciate its vast responsibilities towards them. For whom does this Council legislate? Whom does it advise? The State income of India which these gentlemen have the power of dealing with, is almost an incalculable sum. It amounts to £77,000,000, and of that amount not one penny is contributed by the free will of the people. In 1837 the income of the United Kingdom was £30,000,000 less than that of India is now. I have always found that Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, when their instincts as gentlemen and Christians and human beings are appealed to are ready to respond to the appeal, and I ask them to look at the facts of this case in the interests of humanity, and not to allow matters of this kind to be rushed through the House of Commons at the fag-end of the Session with only a few Members present and the Under Secretary of State absent.
    244
    Any reform of this Council should in my opinion be based on the elective principle. If there were only 15 members elected even by the English speaking people of India, would the Under Secretary stay away now? Of course he would not. His 15 members are simply Gentlemen who will envelope him in a cloud of irresponsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) has said he is glad Indian affairs are not administered on a Party principle. Theoretically he is right, but I am sorry in some respects, for I think that if this were a mere Party question we should have numbers of men present on both sides of the House. It being a question which affects the happiness of millions, we have not a responsible Minister of the Crown present even to read what his Indian instructors tell him. Fox, in 1797, went out of power, and lost wealth and many friends on account of an Indian principle. I was recently reading some of Fox's private correspondence at the time the Debate was coming on that was to crush him, and he said—
    "I do not care for myself. I do not care for my future career. I have felt it incumbent on me, and my imperative duty when so many millions are, I know, dependent on my exertions, to do my best for them."
    Where, I ask, is that feeling now? Are we to abandon these people? Certainly, as far as I have power in this House I will not do it. I will now move the Adjournment of the Debate.
    MR. SEXTON: I think the Motion is quite justified. I listened attentively to the speech of my hon. Friend. It showed not only deep feeling for the people in India, but a close acquaintance with the facts bearing on their condition, and I think it is not considerate to the House, and not fair to the people of India themselves, that the Minister who ought to attend to this business should not pay my hon. Friend the ordinary respect of being present during the Debate. By way of emphasizing the complaint of my hon. Friend, I beg to second his Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Mac Neill.)
    THE SECEETAEY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: The Government are not able to assent to this Motion for Adjournment, and I am surprised that, of all people in the world, the hon. Member for Donegal should have made it. He has made a speech to which he expects the Government to reply, and, in order to give them the opportunity of replying, he moves the Adjournment of the House, and so prevents them replying. I am quite sure that on second thoughts he will see that it is much better to afford us an opportunity of replying to his arguments. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) is not present. His absence is unavoidable, but I think he is one of many who were not aware that this Bill was likely to come on at this time. It is quite true that my hon. Friend represents the Government of India, but it is also true that the Government of India is represented by Her Majesty's Government as a whole. I do not allow for a single moment that India is represented solely by my hon. Friend. Every Member of the Cabinet is as responsible, and much more responsible, than my hon. Friend the Under Secretary.
    MR. SEXTON: As the right hon. Gentleman undertakes to reply himself, and explains the absence of the Under Secretary, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw the Motion for the Adjournment.
    MR. MACNEILL: I beg to withdraw the Motion.
    SIR R. N. FOWLER: I would remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War was, during three years, Under Secretary of State for India, and during the five subsequent years represented the Conservative Party on Indian questions on the Front Opposition Bench, so I think the House will feel that it will not suffer by the Government of India being represented on the present occasion by my right hon. Friend.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR E. LETHBRIDGE: I must say I share very strongly the regrets that have been expressed
    246
    that the Government have felt it to be their duty to press on this unfortunate Bill at the fag-end of the Session, and at a period when so many hon. Members who take an interest in the question are absent from the House. The hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill) laid much stress on the fact of the absence of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India. I do not attach much importance to that fact, though I am quite sure my hon. Friend will regret very much that he was not present when he knows that this Bill has come on. In support of what was said by the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir R. Fowler), let me say that there is, perhaps, no Member of the House unconnected officially with India, whose words are more thoroughly accepted upon Indian questions, than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Stanhope). I regret the course Her Majesty's Government have felt it their duty to take, all the more because I am convinced that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India and my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State are, in pressing on this Bill, animated by admirable motives in themselves. I have no doubt that the motive that they have put before the House prominently—namely, that of saving £6,000 a year to the taxpayers of India, is the real and sincere motive which influences them, but behind them are those who have motives other than that very excellent one. I say that is an excellent motive; and any proposal that tends to cut down the home charges of the Government of India deserves the full and most careful attention of the House. The reduction of the home charges of the Government of India is in my opinion what ought to be the key-note of every Indian financial reformer; but surely it will be admitted by the Government that some sort of inquiry as to the best form of reduction of expenditure ought to be instituted before rushing through a Bill of this character almost without explanation, merely on the ground that it does save £6,000 a year. After all, what is £6,000 when we consider the enormous charges that are placed on the taxpayers of India for the sustenance of the India Office year after year?

    247
    It is a mere bagatelle; and, therefore, I think the House before it assents to the proposition to make this infinitesimal reduction in the expenditure in the India Office, might fairly demand to be informed whether there are not other means of saving which would save a great deal more, and do no greater harm to the efficiency of the administration of India. I maintain that this reduction of expenditure begins at the wrong end. It is almost generally admitted that the power of the Secretary of State is rather too large than too small. It is universally admitted that his knowledge of the special wants of India must rather be too little than it can ever be too great, and that the only check or control over the despotic power of the Secretary of State in exercising the supreme ultimate power over the affairs of India is the advice of this consultative Body, the Council of India. I do not wish to attribute ignorance of Indian affairs to the noble Lord who now rules at the India Office, because I am aware he has given his best attention to, and endeavoured to inform himself of, every concern of the great dependency of India; but it is almost in the nature of things necessary that the supreme ruler of all the India Office, the Secretary of State, should be, to a large extent, ignorant of the special circumstances of the various provinces of India. I maintain that to diminish the number and the authority of those who constitute a check on the despotic power of the Secretary of State is clearly to maim and to injure that check; it is clearly to quench the sources of light to which the Secretary of State can alone look to obtain a correct appreciation of the various facts that are put before him. This Bill might fairly be called a Bill to render the Secretary of State absolutely despotic, and absolutely independent of Indian public opinion. Probably it will be said that ten is a number sufficient to attain the objects for which the Secretary of State's Council is constituted. Before we can assent to the proposition that the number of 10 is sufficient, and that the number of 15 is therefore redundant, it is only fair the House should obtain from Her Majesty's Government some information as to the present constitution of the Secretary of State's Council, and as
    248
    to how far it is representative of the various countries that form that great Empire, and of the very numerous and divergent interests that have to be considered in India. In the first place, I would ask Her Majesty's Government to inform the House whether there has been any attempt made to obtain upon the Council of the Secretary of State any representation, whether adequate or inadequate, of the opinion of the natives of India. I would ask, are there any representatives of the Princes and the Chiefs of India, those whose hereditary rank or present position there entitles them to consideration in these matters? It will not do for the Government to tell us they could not induce these Princes and Chiefs to come over here. Why, in the Distinguished Strangers' Gallery of this House we sometimes see these Chiefs. We meet them at various social functions in the City of London. We know, as a fact, that they do come and reside for long periods of time in this country, and I do think that if the Government were to make the attempt there would be very little difficulty in obtaining some adequate representation of the Princes and Chiefs of India in the India Office at Westminster. I ask, has there been any attempt made to obtain a representation of the opinion of the English educated natives of India—that class which is sometimes called, I hope not opprobriously, the Baboos of India? I am convinced there is not a single official connected with the Government of India who would not gladly welcome some opportunity of consulting that opinion and of knowing what are the wishes of that increasing and important class in India. The junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) attempts to speak on behalf of the English educated natives. He speaks with great ability, great intelligence, and great industry; but, of course, he does not speak with that authority that would attach to the utterances of an Indian gentleman speaking in the Council Chamber at the India Office. Then, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Sir Guyer Hunter) has already laid before the House the claims to be represented in the Council of India of that great Medical Service which, from the earliest period in the history of our connection with India,

    249
    has taken a most important and honourable share, not only in their own scientific and technical work, but in the general administration of the Empire. There are also many other great scientific and technical Departments, to which allusion is often made in the House of Commons, and which are sometimes known as the Uncovenanted Departments. The members of these Departments are more numerous than those of the regular Civil Service, and yet, never in the history of India, has a single representative of these bodies ever found a place in the Secretary of State's Council. Now, let us consider for a moment whether, apart from the question of representation, it is expedient that the members of the Council should be diminished. Surely, first of all, we should inquire whether it is not possible that some methods might be devised for improving and strengthening that Council. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) told us very rightly that the best thing that could happen for the interests of India would be that the Council should be not only thoroughly representative, but also should have more power to insist upon its opinion being listened to by the Secretary of State. I do not for a moment suggest that the expert advisers of the Secretary of State should be permitted to have power by law to override the settled opinion of the Secretary of State, still less the settled policy of Her Majesty's Government. This House recognises that in all Indian questions, as in all other questions, the policy of Her Majesty's Government must be paramount, and that, therefore, no experts, whether at the India Office or anywhere else, can be allowed to override the opinion of the Secretary of State and the settled policy of the Government. But I do think there might be some method devised by which the experts at the India Office should be strengthened rather than weakened, as they will be by this Bill. I would suggest they might have the power of demanding the publication of the Minutes of Dissent, which we know are recorded at the India Office. What happens at present? The Minutes of Dissent are put in the pigeon holes and never heard of again. [Mr. STANHOPE: They can be moved for. It is suggested they
    250
    can be moved for in this House. Yes, but if they are moved for how often will the Government produce them? I have known occasions when they have been moved for, I think, by my right hon. Friend himself, and when they have been refused. If the experts had power by law to require the publication of the arguments by which they had endeavoured to influence the the opinion of the Secretary of State, it would be a very different reform to that which is proposed by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State—namely, to do away with a large section of the Council altogether. I admit that, in all probability, the abolition of a large number of the technical expert advisers of the Secretary of State will render the life of the Secretary of State and the Under Secretary of State, and especially the life of the Permanent Under Secretary, and of permanent officials, a somewhat easier one. Possibly there will be less friction; but I maintain that friction is a wholesome element in our Administration, and ought not to be absent from the India Office any more than it is absent from any part of our Administration. Why, the policy of the Government in every other Department of the State can be discussed here in Committee of Supply, can be discussed at full length, conversationally and otherwise; but there is absolutely no opportunity for a free and general discussion of the grievances of the 200 millions of our Indian fellow-subjects. Therefore it is all the more necessary that this Council to whom falls the power and the duty of offering to the Secretary of State the advice which might otherwise be offered in this House, should be strengthened rather than weakened. If that Council be done away with, it is quite possible there will be no impediment, or, at any rate, very little impediment, to any attempt to carry out all the elaborate theories that have been worked out in the arm-chairs of philosophers in England. But that is not what we want in the administration of the Indian Empire. There is no one who feels this more than the Secretary of State for War. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government to listen to the protests that have been made this evening unanimously from

    251
    every part of the House against this Bill, the effect of which will be to increase the despotic power of the Secretary of State, and to perpetuate his unavoidable ignorance. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, and then, on the strength of the inquiry, to come down to the House and present us with a full and elaborate measure of reform which will confer lasting benefit on the Empire of India.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: In addition to expressing the regret I naturally feel at the absence of the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir J. Gorst), who is much more recently conversant with the subject than I can attempt to be, I have also to express my regret that I have not heard the whole of the Debate. I missed one or two of the earlier speeches, but much of what I have heard scarcely comes within the scope of the Bill. The hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Northampton have proposed that there should be a general inquiry into the administration of India, and have urged that inquiry should precede legislation. I quite agree that the time may come, and come soon, when it will be desirable that there should be such an inquiry. There have, periodically, been such inquiries. But this opens out a larger field than is necessary at the present moment. The hon. Members who have spoken have advocated abolition of the Council as it is at present constituted rather than an inquiry into its working. Perhaps it is worth while, therefore, in a few words to explain the grounds upon which the present Council was established, and the grounds upon which I think it may fairly command public confidence. The Council of the Secretary of State does not attempt to govern India, and it was not constituted for that purpose; the Council of the Secretary of State is mainly a Court of Review, and as such it was constituted. When an hon. Member speaks of the Council as an ingenious device for screening the action of the Government of India from the observation of Parliament and this country, all I can say is, that it was deliberately adopted as a means by which the policy of the Government of India should be reviewed and made known to the House of Commons. The three main objects attempted to be
    252
    achieved in the constitution of the Council are—first, that it should consist of independent members, men who have served their time in India and are selected for the Councils when, for a considerable period of years, they are in a position of absolute independence——
    MR. MAC NEILL: There is a special provision for their re-appointment.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I am quite aware of the provisions of the arrangement to which the hon. Member refers, but I do not think for a moment that any of the eminent gentlemen who have been placed on the Council, and who, I am quite sure, have retained the confidence of the governing classes in India and in this country, I am quite sure that they are incapable of being influenced in their proceedings and their advice by the consideration of whether or not their services will be continued at the end of a term of years. I repeat, they are a body perfectly independent of the Government of the day, and I am bound to say they continually show their independence, differing, as they often do, in the strongest manner from the policy of the Government of the day, and doing their very best to turn that policy in the direction they think best for the good of India. In the second place, the Council is chosen from men of Indian experience, men who have had experience in all parts of India, so that at any given time there are members of the Council who have had experience of any part of India concerned in any particular matter. Lastly, the Council is composed of men with fresh Indian experience. I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is desirable that the Secretary of State should have the advantage of council from men whose experience of India is fresh rather than from men who have spent a great number of years in this country after leaving India. They are men, too, who are entirely independent of our Party politics. That is of foremost consequence to the Government of India, and anything tending to a diminution of that independence of Party politics would inflict a grave harm upon the Government of India. Now, several hon. Members have spoken of the desirability of placing the Minutes of dissent before the House of Commons; but that, I believe, would be one

    253
    of the most mischievous proceedings that could possibly be taken. There are occasions when, no doubt, it is highly desirable that these Minutes should be produced. There was a famous occasion of which I had full knowledge at the time of the Afghan War, strong feelings were raised among men of Indian experience and there were great differences of opinion on the Council of the Secretary of State, and in such cases I believe it is greatly to the advantage of the country that men of Indian experience should have the opportunity of placing their opinions before Parliament. But if that is going to occur over and over again and, perhaps, every year, the result will be we shall have Members of the Council playing to the Gallery of the House of Commons and not thinking solely and entirely of the interests of India as they do at present. Members of the Council being but human, and possibly Party men, would naturally have in view the presentation of their opinions to Parliament; and it is utterly impossible to conceive that the conduct of the business of India in the Council of the Secretary of State would be so satisfactory as it undoubtedly is at the present time. One suggestion for a change in the Council is that it should become a purely representative body. That is a matter which, as the House is aware, was a good deal considered at the time when the Council was originally constituted. Among other proposals was one that the commercial interests of this country should be represented on the Council. Well, I think, and in this I am expressing my own individual opinion, that there is no danger, constituted as the House of Commons is, of the commercial interests of this country not being fully considered in matters relating to the Government of India. The commercial opinions of the country can be heard in the House of Commons, and they are heard, and they undoubtedly exercise, in regard to Indian commercial matters, an influence which many people connected with India think excessive, and certainly I do not see any reason for increasing it. Then as to the proposal for native representation on the Council of the Secretary of State, that is a suggestion I am sure no hon. Member could make who has thought
    254
    out the objections and the consequences. It is a suggestion that no Government could think of adopting unless they saw their way to establishing it on a principle very different to that indicated to-day. The question before us now is whether the Council of the Secretary for India is too large or not. There is no doubt that the reduction of the Council in the manner proposed would conduce to economy, and in matters of India administration economy is of the first importance, but the Bill is not primarily based on considerations of economy. The question is whether or not a Council of 15 is the best that can be imagined for the business to be transacted. This is a matter which, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy knows, has often been considered both in the House and outside. There have been proposals for 7 members, for 10 members, and again for 18; but every hon. Member who has been connected with the India Office has had to consider the subject. It fell to my lot when I was at the India Office to give close attention to the subject, and I confess the conclusion that I arrived at, and the conclusion that I am sure has been arrived at by almost all who have since been connected with the Government of India, is that the Council is too large. It is composed of members entirely devoted to the service of India who give the greatest possible assistance to the Secretary of State, but what I believe would be achieved by reducing the number of members would be an increase in the sense of responsibility upon each individual Member. The weak point about the constitution of the Council is that with so large a number of Members the sense of responsibility upon each is not sufficiently great. Therefore the ground upon which I would commend the Bill to the attention of the House is, that I believe a moderate reduction of the Members on the Council will tend to increase the sense of responsibility, and will render the assistance which the Council gives to the Secretary of State for the time being more efficient and more satisfactory than it has been in the past.
    *SIR W. PLOWDEN: We have a new and most curious argument in support of the Bill

    255
    from the right hon. Gentleman. We were told a few nights ago by the Under Secretary for India that this Bill was advanced in the interest of economy; but we are now told by the more responsible Minister of the Crown that this is not so much a matter of economy as to secure greater responsibility by reducing the number of members on the Council. Of course, the logical conclusion to the right hon. Gentleman's argument would be the Government proposal to reduce this Body, which cannot be relied upon, to feel a due sense of its responsibility, to proper limits. But that is not what is done by the Bill. It is far from what is attempted to be done. The Bill does not reduce absolutely, but only gives a permissive power to the Secretary of State to reduce; and yet we are told by the Secretary for War, in the most guileless manner—in a manner, I confess, we should not have listened to from the hon. Gentleman who represents the Government of India in this House—that the sense of responsibility is to be largely developed by reducing the number from 15 to 10. But the Bill does not reduce the number on the Council to 10.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: A discretion is left to the Secretary of State to retain the assistance of any member whose services may be so valuable that it is desirable he should not be excluded from the Council.
    SIR W. PLOWDEN: Very good; I accept that statement, but an absolute reduction of 15 to 12 would still give room for the addition of gentlemen whose services might be considered indispensable. If the right hon. Gentleman's argument for responsibility is good, the reduction to 12, at all events, should be absolute and. not permissive. I regret extremely that while we are permitted two or three hours for the discussion of a petty Bill like this, we cannot have a single discussion throughout the Session on the great questions that arise on Indian administration generally. Two points have cropped up in this discussion, and one has been dealt with in an extraordinary manner by the right hon. Gentleman. I was grieved to hear him commit himself to the expression of an opinion that it was not possible in any regulated manner to accept the principle of representation on the Council—a principle
    256
    that has been strongly advocated, not only on this side, but by Gentlemen sitting opposite. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that any such suggestion comes from those who have not thought out in full how the representative principle could be recognised in any way. Now that is a matter that has been thought out.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The representation of natives of India on the Indian Council was what I referred to.
    SIR W. PLOWDEN: How the representation of the Indian people could be applied to the Indian Council the right hon. Gentleman cannot see, but it is really a simple matter to deal with. Though it has not been prominently brought before the British public it is notorious to those conversant with Indian administration that the representative principle is thoroughly adopted and is at the bottom of the whole system of village administration in Northern India; so you have that as a good starting point. From that system which is admitted and has gone on from century to century in the north of India you might adopt a method that would give a real native representation on the Indian Council. There is no difficulty that the Local Government of India could not deal with in this matter. Upon this special matter—the reduction of the Council—I will only say that a Bill of this nature is most undesirable —we want a much more thorough reform. If it is desirable to reduce the number of members on the Secretary of State's Council it should not be done in a permissive manner, it should be done at once, not leaving open the possibility very much on the cards at present of there being no reduction at all. Economy is a very small matter and does not come within the consideration of the Government; the main and important matter is that the Council should be constituted in the best manner to secure the end you have in view. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the freshness of experience on the Council, and there I confess the freshness of the right hon. Gentleman's view rather startled me. I take the last case but one of the appointment of a Gentleman to the Indian Council. Sir John Strachey is a distinguished man in

    257
    Indian affairs, and has held the highest office in India having been for a short time Viceroy, but he was not appointed to the Council immediately on his return home; he was left out in the cold for a considerable time, and not until after he had resided in England for some years was he appointed, and, meantime, men very much his juniors were oppointed. I take this as an illustration to show that the formation of the Council is not precisely carried out in the way indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. I will go a little further in examination of the principle upon which the Indian Council is constituted. It is composed almost entirely I might say entirely of officers who have held high positions in the Indian Government, but who from the very nature of their position, were cut adrift from Indian opinion for years before they left India. The men who really know what is going on in India occupy a much more subordinate position. Those who administer districts or command regiments are brought into touch with native opinion, and can tell you what are the native views; but the men you select for the Council are those who have been Lieutentant-Governors, or who have filled high offices which altogether shut them out of touch with native opinion for years before they leave India. It would be much more desirable to appoint men fresh from active administration, and who would afterwards go back to India. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Richard Temple) is ready to repudiate all I have said, and I admit he is a high authority on Indian subjects, but he cannot deny that, occupying the high position he did, he was not able to consort with or listen to the voice of public opinion among the natives of India, and therefore, to that extent he would be a less satisfactory representative than those much younger in the Indian service than himself. I shall oppose the Bill with the greatest satisfaction.
    SIR RICHAED TEMPLE: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, who has just sat down, must not suppose that I am at this late hour going to answer him in detail, or to discuss with him what may or may not be the value of such knowledge as I have acquired in India in the positions
    258
    I have held there from the bottom to the top. The only thing I shall allude to is the disparagement which he seems to cast on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War. I venture to assure my Parliamentary comrades that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was distinguished by very sound knowledge of Indian affairs, and that he has preserved his recollection quite accurately, although he has recently been occupied in a different sphere of public duty. This Debate upon a small point regarding the Indian Council seems to have been made a peg on which to hang a discursive dissertation on everything in general regarding India; but may I endeavour to recall the attention of the House for a moment to the real question before us? The question is not whether India is well or ill governed, whether the natives are happy or the reverse, or whether the representative system is good as compared with the present system, but simply whether 15 members or 10 members should be the number of the Secretary of State's Council in London. That is the plain and simple issue the House is called upon to decide. It so happens that legislative sanction is necessary to enable the number to be altered from 15 to 10. It may appear strange that the attention of this sovereign assembly of British Members should be for a moment turned to so small a subject, but it happens to require legislation, and therefore the opinion of the House must be taken. The question is whether 10 or 15 is the best number for the Council. The hon. Member who has just sat down is quite under a mistake in supposing that the Secretary for War said that economy was not to be considered in the matter. What the right hon. Gentleman said, as I understood, was that not only economy but efficiency is to be considered, but certainly economy is not to be disregarded. Why the very Gentlemen who now disparage this economy are those who for years have been urging the attention of the House to the growing home charges of the Government of India, and now the first time an attempt is made to save a few thousands without any sacrifice of efficiency we find them objecting. Now

    259
    do ten Members constitute sufficient strength for the Council? I will ask the House for a moment to consider what representation the number of ten would give. You might have two distinguished officers as representing the Army, one the European, one the Native Army. You might have three distinguished Covenanted civilians, one for each of the three great provinces of India. You might have one eminent Jurist of the position of the late Sir Henry Maine, one officer of engineers as representing all the great railways and public works in India; you might have a gentleman drawn from the commercial classes of India; one representing the banking community; and you might have one drawn from the medical service considering the growing importance of all matters relating to medical and sanitary science, and I say this in deference to the distinguished authority on my right, the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Sir Guyer Hunter). That gives you the number of ten, and I would ask the House to consider whether that would not give a fair representation of the great elements of Indian Administration setting aside always the question of representative institutions. It is said this reduction would diminish the check upon the despotic power of the Secretary of State. But why? Can it be said that the number of 15 afford a better check than the number of 10? Surely it is not numbers that constitute a check; it is weight, power, and capacity upon the Council? I quite agree with my right hon. Friend, there is more likely to be a sense of responsibility in a smaller than in a larger number. Though I have not had the honour to sit on the Council of India, yet I have had a great deal to do with Councils in my life, and I must say I greatly prefer a small to a large Council. The House must remember also that besides the members of the Council of India, there are Secretaries in each Department, each one an officer of the widest Indian experience, and of the highest public character. And now as to the publication of the Dissenting Minutes of members of the Council. Whenever these relate to any matter of great public importance, and it is of public advantage that they should be published, they can be moved for and
    260
    given. It will be in the recollection of the House that last year, in relation to an important matter, to which the attention of the House was called, I had the honour to move for some of these dissents, and at once they were granted by the Secretary of State, and laid on the Table of this House. So much for the measure before the House, which, I submit, is well-framed, and deserving of our support. But there are just one or two other things that have been mentioned to-night by the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. MacNeill) which ought not to pass without challenge from this side. In the first place the hon. Member made remarks reflecting unduly on the zeal and public spirit of the members of the Council in England. No more deserving body of public servants exists. They do not sink into an inert state, as the hon. Member supposes. They are thoroughly representative men of the highest character, of the widest experience, and the most distinguished record, and they continue to apply themselves in the evening of life to their duties and the Public Service with all that assiduity and diligence that they have always evinced in their prime. The hon. Member also said something as to the sufferings of the people of India. Well, I do not deny that there is misery in India, but it is nothing like the misery you have in London or in any centre in Europe or across the Atlantic. From my personal knowledge of India I can affirm that there is no country in the world, civilised or uncivilised, where there is so little misery —apart altogether from the cases of famine—as India. And those cases have served to bring into action some of the most humane and beneficent exertions in the annals of mankind. The hon. Member may shake his head as he likes, but that is the imperishable record which the British Empire in India has achieved. Then some mild sort of aspersion has been thrown upon the House of Commons with regard to its conduct of Indian affairs. I am bound to say that the new democracy under the recently extended franchise has returned more Members to the House of Commons who are acquainted with Indian matters than there have ever been in

    261
    any previous Parliament. In my opinion the House exercised a wise discretion in relegating its powers to the authorities whom it has by its own legislation constituted in India. It is quite right that there should be a controlling power in England, but you can have only one Executive Government, and that must be in India. The hon. Gentleman opposite and his Friends would transfer the Government of India to this House—to their side of the House I suppose. They look forward to having the Government on their side.
    MR. MAC NEILL: Yes; very soon.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: Well, it is the duty of this House to set up a good Government in India, and, having established it, to leave it alone. Supposing the Government were transferred to England I would ask whether this House is fitted to exercise the authority. Looking at the factions into which the House is divided, and the party spirit which governs our debates, we cannot say that it is. In this very debate hon. Members on the other side of the House have all spoken against the Bill, while we on this side are speaking in favour of it.
    MR. BBADLAUGH: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I commenced by saying that I did not oppose the Bill.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I did not hoar his speech, and I am sure that with his usual impartiality the hon. Member would not speak against the Bill from a Party point of view. But I think my remark is applicable to the other speeches from the opposite Benches. Then the proposal has been made by the hon. Member for Donegal and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton that an elective element should be added to the Council in London. That is a matter the hon. Member for Northampton has taken great interest in as regards the Council in India, and there is something to be said for it in India. But it is proposed to put Indian representatives on the Council of the Secretary of State for India in White-
    262
    hall, and I am astonished that my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington should have advocated that the Indian Princes should be represented on this last-named Council. How are they to leave their States and their governments, and cross over the water to England?
    SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: When I spoke of Princes and Chiefs of India, I, of course, did not mean—and the hon. Member will know I could not mean—the Princes of the independent or feudatory States of India, but those great noblemen of India who are customarily known there as Princes or Chiefs.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: The same thing applies to the great noblemen. How are they to leave their estates and their great interests in India in order to come and legislate here? But all I desire to do is to express my dissent from any such arrangement. If you had a representative Council of that kind established in London it would gradually claim to absord a great deal of Executive power, and then you will have the people of India subject to a dual Government—one sitting at Calcutta, the other in Whitehall. That would greatly endanger the stability of our Empire in the East. With these few general remarks I beg to record my hearty support of the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

    WINDWARD ISLANDS APPEAL COURT BILL [LORDS]. (No. 353.)
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed.

    BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES] PREVENTION [EXPENSES].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved. "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the expenses of the prosecution, in Scotland or Ireland, of any offence under any Act of the present Session for the preven-

    263
    tion and punishment of bribery and corruption by members of public bodies."
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

    COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES [EXPENSES.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, in certain cases, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Expenses of Arbitration under any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the regulation of Cotton Cloth Factories."
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

    MOVABLE DWELLINGS BILL (No. 316.)
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. STEPHENS: As the hon. and learned Member for Stockton (Sir H. Davey), and other Members, intended to oppose this Bill, and waited in the House a considerable time with that object, I think I must appeal to the sense of fairness of the House by moving, Sir, that you report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Stephens.)
    MR. BURT: It is a considerable time since the Second Reading was carried, and the hon. Member has had ample opportunity to put down any Amendments. I must say I consider him rather unreasonable in making a Motion of this kind.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I would appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion. This is a Bill which, perhaps under a different form, has been before the House for a very long time, and although the hon. Gentleman may have some objections to the measure on matters of detail, I cannot think he can wish that the law should remain as at present in such a state that persons living in vans should go about
    264
    from one end of the country to the other without supervision either as to sanitary matters or education. This Bill, without inflicting any hardship on any class of the community, will provide for the sanitary regulation and education of these people. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That Clause I stand part of the Bill."
    MR. STEPHENS: I am strongly opposed to this Bill and as I think this clause in particular is entirely unworkable and most cruelly oppressive, I propose to vote against it. The authority under the clause is the County Council, and, as the House is aware, the County Councils are new bodies, and they already have duties more onerous and extensive than they are able to discharge. This is sufficiently proved by the fact that only a short time ago a Bill introduced into this House to transfer a great number of duties of various kinds to the County Councils was deprecated by the County Councils, or at any rate by some of them, and I was deputed, on the part of the County Council of Middlesex, to ask that the time for placing those duties on the County Council should be deferred. When you come to look into this Bill the extraordinary unworkable character of it is at once apparent. The County Councils in most counties meet at rare intervals. The County Council of Wiltshire, for instance, meets only about four times a year. This means that the administration of this Act will be practically transferred to an official, and that official cannot be under any effective control. There is no need to point out the very great risk of corruption which might ensue. How is the registration to be carried out? Is the van to be taken to the inspection, or is the inspector to go to the van? I presume that the van will have to travel to the office of the inspector. In many counties there will be a journey of some 40 or 50 miles to the office of the County Council, and if you take a van which is always horsed in such a manner as to travel only a few miles a

    265
    day an immense journey like that, the obligation of undergoing inspection will be of an intolerably oppressive character. The section includes tents, and I am told that, under its provisions, it would really not be safe in this warm weather for a man to sleep in his own garden under a large umbrella because of the way in which this clause is drawn. It is certain that those who camp out up the river will have to get their tents registered, and will have to take it to the District Authority for the purpose of registration. The whole thing is most vexatious and full of interference without any good purpose. It puts everybody under a kind of ticket-of-leave. For what advantage, I ask, are so much irritation and annoyance to be created together with such a desire to evade the law?
    MR. CHANNINGrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. STEPHENS: As far as the main purpose of the Bill is concerned, of course it is to regulate the poor people who go about the country in these travelling vans, carrying goods from village to village, and often visiting places which are inaccessible by any other means of supply. It would be impossible for the van people to maintain themselves under the provisions of this Bill, and, I think, that if it is the intention that these persons should be in their present mode of life completely suppressed, that object should be carried out more frankly than is the case under this Bill. In many of these villages there is but one shop, and that rules the whole situation.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not speaking to this clause, but to the Bill as a whole.
    MR. TOMLINSON: As the clause is now worded the owners of moveable dwellings have to apply to the County Council. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend how applications are to be made to the County Council when it is not sitting?
    MR. RITCHIE: Really my hon. Friend must not hold me responsible, for all the details of this Bill. I imagine that the County Council for the purposes of the Act will appoint proper officers who will perform the duties under their supervision.
    MR. T. C. BARING: In the place in which I live, on the borders of Middlesex and Hertford, there are a great many of these vans which habitually travel to the villages.
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    CORPORAL PUNISHMENT BILL. (No. 12.)
    Order for Committee read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    RAILWAY STATIONS (NAMES) BILL (No. 296.)
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

  MOTION.

    WOMEN'S DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Haldane, Bill to amend the law relating to the political and other Disabilities of Women, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Haldane, Sir Edward Grey, and Mr. Thomas Ellis.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 363.]

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, brought up, and read.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 301.]
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 301.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to the Audit (Army and Navy Accounts) Bill; County Court Appeals (Ireland) Bill, with

  267
  Amendments; that they have passed a Bill, intituled—
  "An Act for consolidating enactments relating to the construction of Acts of Parliament, and for further shortening the Language used in Acts of Parliament." [Interpretation Bill [Lords.]

  PRIVATE BILLS (ALTERATION OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION.)
  That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider and Report under what circumstances, or upon what conditions, if any, Private Bills altering the terms of the Memorandum of Association of Companies ought to be allowed to pass, do meet in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room on Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  Lords Message considered.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee, appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords "to consider and report under what circumstances, or upon what conditions, if any, Private Bills altering the terms of the Memorandum of Association of Companies ought to be allowed to pass," do meet the Lords' Committee in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room on Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint their Lordships that this House hath directed the Select Committee, appointed by them to join with a Committee of the Lords, "to consider and report under what circumstances, or under what conditions, if any, Private Bills altering the terms of the Memorandum of Association of Companies ought to be allowed to pass," to meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room on Tuesday next, as desired by their Lordships.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee appointed to join with the Committee of the Lords have power to agree in the appointment of a Chairman of such Joint Committee.

  INTERPRETATION BILL [LORDS.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 364.]

  PLEURO PNEUMONIA.
  Address for—
  "Return showing the number of outbreaks of Pleuro Pneumonia in the district of each Local Authority in Great Britain in each of the last three years, the number of Diseased and of Healthy Animals slaughtered, and the sums paid as compensation, after deducting any receipts for salvage, in the following form:—

  Local authority

  Number of Outbreaks reported.

  Number of cattle slaughtered.

  Net compensation paid—

  Total net compensation.

  Diseased.

  Healthy, but in contact.

  For diseased animals.

  For healthy animals.

  County

  1886

  1887

  1888

  Borough

  1886

  1887

  1888

  Total for Geographical County, including Borough.

  1886

  1887

  1888

  Similar Return for Ireland.
  And, Summary showing the total for Counties and Boroughs respectively for England, for Scotland, for Great Britain, for Ireland and for the United Kingdom."—(Sir E. Birkbeek.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.

Preamble
The Earl of MORLEY sat Speaker.
PARLIAMENTARY AGENTS.
Rules to be observed by the Officers of the House, and by all Parliamentary Agents and Solictors engaged in prosecuting proceedings in the House of Lords upon any Petition or Bill; considered and amended, and to be printed as amended. (No. 206.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILE. (No. 191.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I need detain you but a few minutes in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is really of the nature of an omnibus Bill for certain very small and simple but very necessary Amendments of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. The chief Amendment which it makes is to restore the law in regard to one particular point to what it has been thought to be for 20 years until a case was brought by an appeal to this House in the month of May last, when by the unanimous decision of the Lords present it appeared that the state of the law was not what for that long period it had been supposed to be. The point was this: For more than 20 years it has been the custom for the captain of a ship when in a foreign port to give a bill of exchange upon the owners of the vessel whereby he thought he could give a good security
  162
  for the purchase of any necessaries which might be required for the use of the ship or the crew while in a foreign port. Your Lordships will see that if the captain can pledge the value of the vessel in security by means of a bill of exchange that bill would, of course, very easily be discounted upon reasonable terms, and the security would be undoubted. For 20 years, as I have told your Lordships, it was considered that it was really the law that the master could pledge his owner's credit in this way. All the Judges sitting in the Court of Admiralty, one after the other, have given effect to the law as thus stated—Dr. Lushington, Sir Robert Phillimore, MR. Justice Butt, and Sir James Hannen. Upon appeal to this House that was declared not to be the effect of certain clauses in the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. It is, I think, obviously a reasonable Amendment. It is asked for with the unanimous voice of the whole shipping community. The other clauses of the Bill are few in number and are simple. The second clause makes it clear that when seamen are paid off in foreign parts they are to receive their wages according to the actual rate of exchange. A practice has grown up in recent years of making a contract that when seamen are so paid off they are to be paid according to a fixed rate of exchange. Circular after circular has been issued by the Board of Trade warning the men that this provision in their contract is likely to operate very greatly to their disadvantage, but they do not appreciate the importance of it, and it is found necessary to make the practice contrary to law. Another clause in this Bill applies to all passenger ships, however propelled, the right of the Board of Trade to survey them. Up to the present time that right is only ex-

  163
  tended to ships propelled by steam, and as the propelling of ships by electricity is a new invention, the terms of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 do not cover the case of ships propelled by electricity. This is an Amendment that is obviously necessary in the public safety, and can, I think, give rise to no dispute. I have been, I may mention to your Lordships, delaying the progress of another Bill amending the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854—that which bears the title of "The Advance Notes to Seamen Bill," which has already been through a Grand Committee—for the purpose of putting the clauses which are now contained in that Bill into this Bill, and thereby avoiding having two Bills amending the same Act passing through at the same time. I propose, if your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, to refer it to the Committee which deals with Bills relating to law. I now beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

POOR LAW BILL (No. 195.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BALFOUR: I ask your Lordships to allow me to move this Bill on behalf of the noble Lord, Viscount Torrington. It is not by any means a long Bill or one difficult to understand. The first clause has reference to making certain provision for the case of children who, having been deserted by their parents, are brought up at the expense of the Guardians of the Poor. At the present time there is no sufficient or adequate protection for the interests of the children against being handed over to the care of their relatives or guardians if those relatives or guardians are obviously unfit to take charge of them. This Bill in no sense goes over the same ground as that which was the subject of discussion in your Lordships' House a few days ago, because before this Bill takes effect it is a condition precedent that the child concerned must be deserted by the parent, or must have been the subject of an immoral assault. The object of the first clause of the Bill is to extend the legal pro-
  164
  tection of the Guardians in the case of boys until they are 16 years of age, and in the case of girls until they are 18 years of age. There is obvious reason, in the case of girls, why the protection should be extended a year or two longer at that dangerous age. Your Lordships will, I think, see that there is no likelihood of the Guardians being unduly anxious to maintain the children at the expense of the rates if those who would otherwise have to maintain them are of sufficient character to discharge their duty; but, if any dispute arises, there are provisions in this clause whereby a Court of Summary Jurisdiction may decide between the parties upon any case brought before them. The second clause of the Bill codifies, and in some respects simplifies, the conditions under which money can be borrowed for permanent works by Poor Law Authorities, subject, of course, always to the discretion and approval of the Local Government Board. The third clause of the Bill entitles the Asylums Board to receive patients who are suffering from diphtheria. According to the present state of the law, they can receive patients suffering from smallpox or fever, and a legal difficulty has been raised as to whether diphtheria properly comes under the term "fever." Another clause of the Bill entitles the Asylums Board to let for hire ambulances for taking patients who are suffering from fever from one place to another, even although they are not going to the hospitals under the Asylums Board. It is obviously for the public advantage that carriages which are used for fever patients should be used for no other purpose, and the ratepayers will not be in any way put to undue expense, if, as is provided by this Bill, the Asylums Board make reasonable charges for the services which they thus render. The Bill contains no other provisions than those which I have mentioned, and I ask your Lordships to read it a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a,."
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I cannot pretend to know anything about this Bill, which has just come from the Commons, but I think the noble Lord should make a little further explanation. It seems to me that Bills on the same subject are started by different persons,

  165
  some by Government and some by individual philanthropists or theorists of various kinds in the Lower House, while that House is occupied, or at least excited by more attractive subjects, and passed with very little connection or correspondence one with another. Here is a Bill, the first clause of which gives the Guardians power to deal with deserted children, and to take care of them till the age of 16 and 18. It seems to have occurred to the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading that this stands much on the same ground with another Bill now before us, called the Bill for the Better Protection of Children, which enables a Court of Justice to hand over a child abandoned by his parents to relations or to persons to take charge of it. The noble Lord said the two Bills were distinct, because in the Bill for the Better Protection of Children, or as it was first called the "Cruelty to Children Prevention Bill," the condition precedent was abandonment by the parent, whereas the condition precedent in this Bill is desertion by the parent. So far as there is a difference between abandonment and desertion, I do see some little distinction; but it really does seem to me that the Bills are so much of the same nature that they ought to be embodied in one measure. If the law on a subject of this sort is scattered about in different statutes, it is most confusing to Magistrates. Moreover, I would ask the noble Lord whether the Poor Law at this moment does not provide for Boards of Guardians taking charge of deserted children. I would also ask the noble Lord what would become of those children of whom the Boards of Guardians take charge, when they turn them out of doors? There is no provision whatever for the care of the children, or the placing them out in industries, or the putting them in the way of earning their livelihood. The method adopted by this Bill is similar to that which is contained in the other Bill before your Lordships at this moment—namely, that if there is found out to have been a total mistake the Magistrate may hand the child back to his parents. That is a very rough way of dealing. But what I think most important is for the noble Lord to say why these two Bills are not incorporated together into one Bill. I suppose one has been intro-
  166
  duced by the Government and the other by some philanthropic individual in the Lower House; but they certainly deal with the same subject, and there is a very great mischief in having two Bills on the same subject.
  LORD BALFOUR: I can only speak again by the indulgence of the House; but in answer to the question the noble Lord has raised, I can assure him that there is really no comparison at all between this Bill and The Adoption of Children Bill to which he refers. That Bill is not before Parliament just now, having been either withdrawn from the cognisance of or rejected by this House. I am not quite sure which; but that Bill proceeded entirely upon different lines.
  LORD NORTON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but the Bill I referred to was intituled The Cruelty to Children Prevention Bill, and is now intituled The Protection of Children Bill.
  LORD BALFOUR: This Bill is entirely different from that one, and has nothing at all to do with it, and does not cover the same ground. The noble Lord is under a misapprehension when he says that the law at the present time is adequate. The law at the present time is this: that no matter what has been the condition of the parent, no matter how completely a parent has deserted a child or left it to the charge of the Poor Law Authorities, the parent can at any time come to the Poor Law Authorities and claim that the child shall be handed over to him. Numerous instances occur of this sort of thing happening: a dissolute parent absolutely deserts his child and it is maintained for years by the Board of Guardians at the expense of the ratepayers; as soon as that boy or girl comes to be of an age when his or her labour may be of use to the parent, or when in some way or other the parent can make money out of the child, then the parent comes to the Board of Guardians and demands that the child should be restored to him. Now, I venture to think that that is an obviously wrong and unfair thing in the interests of the child and in the interests of the State. If parents voluntarily discharge themselves of their obligations, and desert their children for a long period of years, and remain of such a character as to make it

  167
  distinctly against the best interests of the child that it should be handed over to them, I do not think it an extravagant thing that the law should put the presumption the other way from what it is at the present time, and say that that child shall remain under the care of the Board of Guardians. If the noble Lord will look at the first clause of the Bill he will see that every reasonable care is taken to make sure that if the parent or Guardians can make out a proper case in his or their behalf, the child shall be handed over. I think it is almost certain that the noble Lord cannot have read the Bill before he came into the House, or he would not have made the observation which he did with regard to it. I assure him that under the existing law the parent, however unfit he may be, can claim to take care of the child and claim to have it handed over to him. I think the noble Lord will see if a mother deserts her daughter, and for eight or ten years that daughter is brought up at the expense of the Board of Guardians, and the mother remains, as some unfortunately do, of dissolute and abandoned habits, that just at the age of 16 or 17 it is obviously of the greatest possible disadvantage to the girl that she should be handed back to the care of the mother. This Bill does not pretend to cover the whole ground of the powers of Boards of Guardians; it is only an amending Bill, and the Board of Guardians will have the same power in regard to the children that they have under the General Law of seeing that they get situations, and of, so to speak, apprenticing them and of looking after them for the earlier years of their life. The Bill does not profess to cover the whole ground, but what it does do is this—it enables Boards of Guardians to make good their claim to children who have been deserted, and to take of them in the way that they would if they had been under their care in district schools as orphans or without any parental relationship at all. I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will be satisfied and will allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, having had many years experience as a Chairman of a Board of Guardians, I must be allowed to say that I think it is very desirable that children should be pro-
  168
  tected against the evil authority and influence of dissolute parents, who fulfil none of the duties of a parent towards them during their tender age; but who, as the noble Lord has just said, intervene at an age when the child, having almost ceased to be a child, becomes in some way a source of profit or advantage to them. I think that all reasonable precaution is taken against an abuse of this power, because a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, if satisfied on the complaint made by a parent that the child has not been maintained by the Guardians, or has not been deserted by the parent, or that it is for the benefit of the child that it should be either permanently or temporarily under the control of the parent, may make an order accordingly. It seems to me really that all reasonable security against abuse is given in that first clause, and that it is a power which will generally be used by Guardians with advantage to the children, and with advantage to the community to which those children belong.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING TONNAGE BILL (No. 174.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order): Bill reported without further Amendment, and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
SETTLED LANDS ACT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 203.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the SECOND READING read.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to introduce a small Amendment into the Settled Lands Act of 1882. It proposes to confer on the owners of settled land power to insert in building leases an option of purchase to be exercised within a limited time. It is a very small change, but I believe it will be found useful. I know that its absence has been found inconvenient in several cases, and, therefore, I ask your Lordships to allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord Balfour to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, for the consideration of the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.