Sitting of 6 August 1889

QUESTIONS.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Vice Chamberlain, with reference to pleuro-pneumonia in South East Essex, why Foreign cattle landed at Thames Haven are allowed to be trained through the infected area at Tilbury for London, and English beasts
  534
  are not permitted to be trained through the same area from Stamford for Gravesend; and, whether the Privy Council will consider the necessity of giving Local Authorities some jurisdiction in the matter of slaughter and otherwise?
  THE VICE CHAMBERLAIN (Viscount LEWISHAM,: There is nothing to prevent movement of animals through, an infected area if they are not untrucked, otherwise they can only be moved out by license of the Local Authority. The inconvenience arises from Tilbury Station being included in the area, and if the Local Authority desires that it be excluded an application to that effect will be considered by the Privy Council. The Privy Council are not prepared to revoke the Order which requires the slaughter of animals that have been in contact with animals suffering from pleuro-pneumonia.

  IRELAND—THE BALTINGLASS UNION
  MR. BYRNE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the half-yearly Report of Mr. Robinson, Local Government Board Inspector, dated 20th April 1888, on the Baltinglass Union, drawing attention to the engineer's Report on the defective drainage of the workhouse, pointing out that the health of the inmates demanded a prompt and immediate remedy; whether the Guardians are prepared to have this work done at once but, being without funds for this purpose, desire to borrow the money under the Public Health Act or Poor Relief Act; and, whether he will induce the Local Government Board to advance the requisite funds for this urgent outlay?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: My attention has been called to the Report of the Local Government Board Inspector, drawing attention to the defective drainage of the workhouse of the Baltinglass Union. The Board of Guardians are willing to borrow money to remedy the defects, and the Local Government Board are in communication with the Public Works Commissioners, with a view of ascertaining if a loan can be granted.
  MR. BYRNE: May I ask the right ton. Gentleman whether he is in a position to state when the Land Commission will hold their next sitting in Baltinglass for the fixing of fair rents for Donard and other districts in West Wicklow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that a Sub-Commission is at present sitting in East Wicklow. It will continue its sitting after the Vacation, taking up the West Wicklow district in its turn; but it is not possible at present to give the exact date of the sitting.

  THE SHANNON DRAINAGE WORKS.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that on Wednesday last, when Sir Thomas Brady and Mr. Hornsby, Inspectors of Fisheries, opened an inquiry at Athlone, by order of the Government, as to whether injury was likely to be done to the fishing interests of the Shannon by the drainage works now in progress, and intended to be carried out by the Irish Board of Works, several professional gentlemen, representing the various interests concerned, were present, at great expense, but that the inquiry had to be adjourned to the 3rd instant to Limerick in consequence of the non-attendance of Mr. Crosthwaite, the Board of Works representative; whether Sir Thomas Brady is correctly reported to have stated that "ample notice was given to the Board of Works. It is very extraordinary;" whether Mr. Hornsby stated—
  "If the Board of Works had not common courtesy, they should, at all events, have acted with common sense; but they had shown neither the one nor the other;"
  and, what action the Government intend taking in the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is a question which should be addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury. A similar question was on the Paper yesterday, and I have no doubt that it was answered.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: Yes, Sir; I did answer the question yesterday.
  MR. COX: Will the Report of the inquiry as to the injury likely to be
  536
  done to the fishing interests of the Shannon by the drainage works be laid before the House before the money to provide the cost is voted?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government have no control over the inquiry, nor am I able to state the date when it will be concluded. It is, therefore, quite impossible for me to answer the question.
  MR. COX: This is a Government inquiry.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: All the Government had to do was to put it in motion.

  SCOTLAND—MAIL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether in would be possible to arrange that the mails from Stornoway to the South should overtake the morning mail from Dingwall, instead of being delayed till the afternoon as at present?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: I quite agree with the hon. Member as to the obvious desirability of arranging a correspondence between the Southward Mail from Stornoway and the Morning Mail from Dingwall. But I understand that insuperable difficulties have hitherto interfered with an earlier despatch from Stornoway, and that the expense attendant upon a special service from Dingwall to overtake the Southern Mail at Inverness appears to be prohibitory. I will, however, gladly receive any further suggestions which may serve to facilitate a more convenient arrangement of the Mails.

  THE VENEZUELA PANAMA GOLD MINE COMPANY.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Correspondence has taken place between a British Company called the Venezuela Panama Gold Mine Company, Limited, and the Government, with reference to the confiscation by the late President of Venezuela, Don Guzman Blanco, of their property in the Yuruari territory, now administered by Venezuela; and whether he has any objection to lay the Correspondence upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: Her Majesty's Government have been appealed to by the company on account of the cancelling of their concession, and an adverse judgment of the Venezuelan Courts; but they have not considered that a sufficient case is made out for their intervention. The matter is not one of such public importance as to justify the presentation of the Correspondence.
  MR. S. HILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to see the correspondence?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes; I think there will be no objection.

  CULTIVATION OF SUGAR IN JAMAICA
  MR. ALFRED PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give, with regard to the cultivation of sugar in the Island of Jamaica, the number of properties with under 10 acres, over 10 acres and under 50 acres, over 50 acres and under 100 acres, over 100 acres and under 200 acres, and over 200 acres in canes respectively?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (BARON H. DE WORMS,: From the latest Returns in the Secretary of State's possession, it appears that in 1886–7 there were in Jamaica 68 estates with more than 200 acres in cane; 77 estates With between 100 and 200; 27 estates with between 50 and 100; and 7 estates with between 10 and 50; but he has no information as to the number of properties with under 10 acres in cane cultivation. If the honourable Member thinks it worth while to pursue the question further, the Colonial Government will be requested to prepare a special Return.

  THE ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL AT BLANTYRE.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, with regard to certain charges made against the managers of St. Joseph's Roman Catholic School at Blantyre, of having diverted certain money derived from public grants to other than educational purposes, into which the Education Department held a thorough investigation, the result of their inquiry
  538
  has been that the charges have been completely disproved?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: The charges brought against the managers of St. Joseph's Roman Catholic School related to the alleged incorrectness of the Returns of income and expenditure furnished by them. The matter was the subject of careful investigation, and the managers were asked to produce accounts and vouchers. The examination of these led to the conclusion that there was no case calling for their Lordships' further interference.

  THE SHAH'S VISIT.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a detailed statement of the Supplementary Estimate of £7,650, being "expenses connected with the visit of His Majesty the Shah to this Country?"
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The details are very simple. I stated on May 30 that Her Majesty would entertain the Shah during his residence at the Palace; but that there would be some provision necessary for the purposes of his visit. The sum asked for is limited to the travelling expenses in this country, including cost of special steamers from Gravesend to Westminister £2,665; hotel charges of suite, entertainments, carriage hire, and engagement of the necessary interpreters, £1,835; extra carriages and attendance in London, £2,000; travelling expenses of officers in attendance and other contingent expenses, £1,150. Total, £7,650.

  IRELAND—SEIZURE FOR RENT.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at 4.15 a.m. on 29th July, a bailiff named Wales, assisted by police, forced open the door of Mr. Bernard Reynolds, one of the tenants on the Crocker Estate, in South Donegal, against whom a decree for rent had been obtained at the suit of the landlord, and that, having forced open the door, rushed into the houses and demanded from Mrs. Reynolds, who was only partially dressed, the keys of the outhouses in which the cattle, the sub-

  539
  jects of the proposed seizure for rent, were; and, on the keys being refused, the police and bailiff broke open the doors of the outhouses, and seized the cattle; and whether he will be able to say whether the police in thus assisting the bailiff were acting within their duty.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, who is not at this moment in his place, has requested me to state that he has not yet received the necessary information to enable him to answer the question.

  DISEASED CATTLE.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if it is a fact that at the Liverpool abattoirs a fortnight since certain English dairy cows, although having passed the market inspector at Stanley Market, were, after being slaughtered, seized by the meat market inspector; if Irish cattle run a similar risk of being seized after sale and slaughter, although being certified as sound by veterinary surgeon inspectors at shipping ports and on their arrival in England; and, if such should arise, who will compensate the exporters for their losses?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I have been in communication with the Corporation of Liverpool on the subject of the question of the hon. Member, and I am informed that it is the fact that certain dairy cows from the Stanley Market were, after being slaughtered, seized by the meat inspector as being unfit for human food. The market inspector at Stanley Market examines for contagious diseases only under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, and the cows in question were not suffering from contagious disease, and consequently were not interfered with by the inspector at Stanley Market. Irish cattle run a similar risk of being seized after sale and slaughter if they are found to be unfit for human food and are exposed or deposited for sale. It is not the duty of the veterinary surgeon inspector to certify cattle as being sound; but he passes all that are free from contagious disease. Exporters receive no compensation for their loss
  540
  when meat is condemned on the ground of its being unfit for human food. On the contrary, those who expose for sale for human food meat of this character are, under the Public Health Act, liable to heavy penalties.

  BRITISH SUBJECTS IN EGYPT.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a petition from certain British subjects complaining that they had been illegally confined in Egyptian Government gaols, under Egyptian officials, at Alexandria, instead of being placed in a British Consular prison; whether such complaint was well founded; and, if so, whether the illegality complained of has been remedied; and, whether British subjects have been tried at Alexandria by juries of five, often not Englishmen, but Greeks and Levantines with British passports?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Such a petition has been received, and is now under inquiry; inquiry is also being made in regard to the constitution of juries.

  DISABLING GUNS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any experiments have been made to ascertain what is the smallest size of shot which will disable a 40 or 60-ton gun when the shot hits the large gun on the side of the latter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: The subject has engaged the serious attention of the Ordnance Select Committee, and experiments have been tried. But I am advised that in the interests of the public service it is not desirable to make public either the results or the opinion of the Committee.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I will put a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty on the subject in reference to guns mounted en barbette in the Fleet.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE) BILL.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board will frame rules for the direction of Surveyors of the Board in the discharge of their functions under the new Merchant Ship-

  541
  ping (Tonnage) Bill, especially with reference to the provisions of Section 2 in regard to overdeck light and air spaces?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,: Rules on this matter are in course of preparation, but of course cannot be issued until the Bill has become law.
  MR. SEXTON: Will it be made public?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir; I daresay they might be laid on the Table.

  CONVEYANCE OF SCOTCH MAILS.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Invernessshire): I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the amount of postal subsidy granted to Mr. M'Brayne for conveying the mails by steamer to and from Strome Ferry and Stornoway; whether he is aware that, from the inefficiency of the steamer employed the connection with the railway to Strome Ferry is frequently lost and delays arise in reaching Stornoway, and that these delays have sometimes occurred from the steamer diverging from the direct route and proceeding to Portree to take up goods and passengers; and, whether, in these circumstances, if there be no fixed period of contract, he will consider the expediency of publicly inviting tenders for a direct and exclusive service between Strome Ferry and Stornoway?
  MR. RAIKES: The contract payment for the conveyance of the mails by steamer to and from Strome Ferry and Stornoway is £2,250 a year. I find, upon inquiry, that during the year ended the 27th ultimo the steamer lost the day mail train on 18 occasions. On nearly all of these occasions the failure was attributable to storm, and, having regard to the exposed nature of the passage, and to the fact that the service is performed at night, the explanation is, I think, sufficient. Mr. M'Brayne is a most competent contractor, and I do not see that any advantage to the Public Service would arise from terminating the present contract and publicly inviting tenders as the hon. Member suggests.
  MR. CALDWELL: With reference to that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has considered the sufficiency of the vessel?
  MR. RAIKES: Representations as to the nature of the particular vessel have been made to the Post Office, and we think there is no reason to complain.

  THE MAILS PROM INVERNESS.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he would state generally the data upon which the Department has come to the conclusion that a mid-day service, by steamer, of the mails from Inverness to Fort Augustus would, for the months of August and September, involve a loss to the Post Office of £250; and, if he would give the figures justifying the statement of the Department that the cost of the existing service is considerably in excess of the revenue derived from the correspondence?
  MR. RAIKES: The cost of maintaining the present Postal Service between Inverness and Fort Augustus and the neighbourhood is about £767 a year, as compared with an available revenue of about £525 a year, so that there is already a loss of about £242 a year. If the desired service from Inverness at mid-day during August and September were afforded, it would be necessary to make an additional payment of £200 to the proprietors of the steamer, and the Department itself would incur a further expenditure of about £50 a year. The loss would thus be augmented by £250 a year, and there would be no saviags to set against it.

  CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any decision has been given by the Privy Council in the matter of Christ's Hospital; and what is the present position of the scheme of the Charity Commissioners relating thereto?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: The appeals against the scheme for Christ's Hospital were heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council towards the end of June. At the close of the hearing their Lordships reserved judgment, which has not yet been delivered. Further proceedings in regard to the scheme must await the delivery of that judgment.

  POST OFFICE SORTERS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General when he will be able to give a definite reply to the petition of the sorters employed on Sunday duty in the Circulation Department (Inland Branch), which was originally presented so long ago as 1884, and in respect of which he informed the Member for South West Bethnal Green, in June 1888, that "a decision would shortly be arrived at?"
  MR. RAIKES: The matter to which the hon. Member refers has been very fully 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 day or two.

  THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is correct that William Wallace Brodie, who was recently charged on his own confession with the Whitechapel murder, was, in May, 1887, sentenced to 14 years' penal servitude, and was, in August, 1888, discharged on license; and, if so, of what offence was he convicted, and why was he discharged?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPART-MENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,: William Brodie was convicted in May, 1877, not in 1887, of larceny in a dwelling-house and sentenced to 14 years' penal servitude. He was discharged on license in the ordinary course in August, 1888, after serving rather more than 11 years of his sentence.

  FENIT PIER.
  MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the instructions issued by the Lord Lieutenant to the cesspayers of the Baronies connected with the Fenit Pier Loan, and on faith of which the cesspayers gave a guarantee for£95,000, the following passage occurs:—
  "No portion of it (the loan) can be expended on the present canal, or in payment of the balance of the canal debt due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, or of the instalments of the present loan;"
  but that, in spite of this passage in the instructions, £2,500 was paid to the
  544
  National Bank in discharge of a debt due by the canal, £300 and £290 were paid to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in discharge of the debt due by the canal, and £3,192. 11s. 4d. was paid to the Irish Board of Works in discharge of the instalments on the Fenit Pier Loan referred to in the Lord Lieutenant's instructions as the present loan; whether interest has to be paid and capital repaid by the taxpayers as regards these sums, although these sums were paid by the Fenit Harbour Commissioners in direct contravention of the Lord Lieutenant's instructions, on the faith of which the taxpayers gave their guarantee; and, whether, if these facts be as stated, he will take steps to enforce the instructions of the Lord Lieutenant?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The instructions mentioned in the question were issued by the Lord Lieutenant. The payments enumerated were made from the loan of £95,000 by the Harbour Commissioners. They do not appear to have been justified in applying the capital funds to any of these purposes. It is right to add that it appears from a communication received from their Secretary that they only intended to advance the sums temporarily from the loan and that a portion of the item of £290 has already been paid by the canal funds. It also seems that when the Board of Works ascertained that the first five half-yearly instalments amounting to £3,192 11s. 4d. had been repaid to them out of the loan they took steps to remedy this action of the Harbour Commissioners by applying for a presentment for the amount. This application, however, was overruled by the Lord Chief Baron, whose decision was confirmed in the Court of Queen's Bench, whereby it was held that the Act 43 & 44 Vic. c. 14 guarded against the sums due by the Baronies being accumulated from one Assizes to another. I may mention that it would seem as regards this sum of £3,192 11s. 4d., that the Baronies are not at any actual loss by its payment from the loan, as had it been presented for at the Assizes from time to time as it accrued due, the Baronies would then have been obliged to have paid. The Government are considering the matter as to what steps, if any, they are in a position to take.
  MR. MAHONY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pier has not been properly finished owing to the shortness of funds?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of that fact. I understand the point to be that the Harbour Commissioners have paid interest out of capital and that a loss has thereby occurred. I do not know that that is so, but I think it is very probable.
  MR. MAHONY: It is quite clear that interest has been wrongly paid out of capital, and, therefore, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will take steps to obtain a Report upon the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand the matter, the Lord Lieutenant's instructions can only refer to the future, and not to any improper payments out of capital which may have been made previously.
  MR. MAHONY: Were not the Lord Lieutenant's instructions issued prior to the guarantee of this loan—prior to the time when the taxpayers gave the guarantee? The taxpayers at a Baronial meeting, which was to a certain extent representative, gave the guarantee on the faith of the Lord Lieutenant's instructions. Where the taxpayers give a guarantee for the carrying out of public works under instructions issued by the Lord Lieutenant, is it to be the duty of the taxpayer to see that the instructions are carried out?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I have said, I am not acquainted with the facts of the case, but anything the Government can do to remedy the evil they are prepared to do.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: As this is a question which affects my constituents may I ask whether it is not the fact that this Public Board excluded the Press from their deliberations?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It does not rest with the Lord Lieutenant to secure the admission of the Press to these meetings.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is true that in 1887 certain British pearlers, employing 87 vessels off the North-west Australian
  546
  coast, petitioned the Secretary of State for the Colonies against the grant of responsible government to Western Australia without the recognition of their right to fish beyond the three-mile limit untaxed; whether protests have been lodged by the North-west Pearling Fleet, by the London Chamber of Commerce, and by the Chamber of Shipping against the Western Australia Pearl Fisheries Act passed by the Federal Council of Australia in February, 1889; whether representations have reached him that the principles introduced in this Act will infringe the main principles recognised by the Chamberlain Commission, and may tend to the transfer of the pearling fleet to a foreign flag; and whether the Secretary of State is willing to advise the Crown on this Act on its merits, and what action has been taken in the matter?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: A petition to the effect stated by the hon. Member was received by the Secretary of State in October, 1887, and was referred for the consideration of the Government of Western Australia, and extracts from the Governor's reply were communicated to the parties interested in the Petition. Protests such as are described in the question were also received at the Colonial Office, in more than one of which attention was drawn to the injury which it was alleged must occur to Colonial pearl fishing vessels. The subject of this Reserved Bill has been carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government, who have been advised that it is within the powers conferred upon the Federal Council by the Federal Council of Australasia Act, 1885, and they have decided that they would not be justified in recommending Her Majesty to disallow the Bill.

  IRELAND—EVICTIONS ON LORD CLANRICARDE'S ESTATE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what particulars he can give of the recent evictions on Lord Clanricarde's estate in the Portumna district; whether any further evictions there are in contemplation; what offers of settlement, if any, were made on the part of the landlord and of the tenants respectively; and whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of any correspondence between any member or officer of the

  547
  Irish Government and any persons acting in the interest of the landlord, or of the tenants, with respect to this estate?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not in possession of information which will enable me to answer the question as to further evictions being in contemplation. I understand that a placard offering terms was put up in the district, and that the tenants evicted on June 19 were prepared to accept them if evicted tenants were reinstated. The placard is to the following effect:—
  "As to tenants holding under £50 annual rent—(a) those paying the rent due up to November 1, 1888, to receive an abatement of 4s. in the £1 on all they owe; (b) those not paying up to November 1, 1888, an abatement of 3s. in the £1 on each whole year's rent paid. The cases of tenants holding over £50 annual rent and tenants in towns to be dealt with separately, and as the circumstances of each may require. From tenants who could reasonably satisfy the agent that they were unable to then pay more, half a year's rent would be accepted and fair time given to further reduce the debt. The foregoing abatements not to apply to judicial rents."
  I am not aware of any correspondence which it would be proper to lay on the Table of the House.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Have not a large number of persons been evicted, upon whose behalf more favourable terms than those which the agents have since expressed their willingness to accept, were offered?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am aware that a large number of persons have been offered terms from time to time; but I cannot charge my memory with the fact whether they were in excess or less than those which have been recently offered. I will be glad to find out if I can.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman says he is not aware of any correspondence which he can lay upon the Table. Is it not the fact that the evictions upon the Portumna Estate of Lord Clanricarde have been restrained by means of a correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman himself, as the Head of the Executive in Ireland, and the agents of this estate?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware, speaking off-hand, that there is any correspondence of the kind alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman. But if there is, I still maintain that it comes under the same category.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I received only to-day a letter from Bishop Healy, in which he stated that he intended his letters to the Chief Secretary to be made public.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SEXTON: I wish, if possible, to ascertain upon what principle the right hon. Gentleman maintains before this House that letters addressed to him as the working Head of the Executive in Ireland in regard to the enforcement of the law and of legal rights are to be withheld, if they are preserved in the official records?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It must rest in the discretion of the Head of the Department to publish the correspondence or not; but I entirely deny that the correspondence is official to which reference has been made.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS IN BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the inhabitants of a large and populous district of Belfast are subject to inconvenience and disadvantage by reason of the circumstance that the Falls Road Post Office, which is a receiving office for telegrams, is not a delivering office; and, whether he will constitute it a delivering office?
  MR. RAIKES: I am having inquiry made whether the Fall's Road Post Office can be constituted a Delivery Office for telegrams, and so soon as I receive the necessary Reports I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  RAILWAY CLASSIFICATION.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in conferences between traders and railway managers (arranged in compliance with the Board of Trade Circular of 10th June last), the railway managers contended that the classification mentioned in the Act was a Parliamentary classification which could not be arranged as a working classification; that traders are of opinion that the classification can be compiled as a working classification; and that as a result of this difference of opinion the conferences between the leading groups of traders and the railway managers have proved abortive; and, whether he can take any

  549
  steps to secure that the Parliamentary classification of "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," shall be adapted or compiled so as to serve as a working classification?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The conferences referred to by the hon. Member have by no means proved abortive in all cases, but, on the contrary, in several instances have produced results apparently satisfactory to the traders. I am aware of the contention alluded to by the hon. Member which has been put forward by an important section of traders. But the contention appears to me to be based on a misapprehension. When the Parliamentary classification is fixed there will be nothing to prevent the Railway Companies, subject to the provisions of the law as regards undue preference, from charging a lower rate for any article or group of articles than the maximum rate authorised by Parliament, and if they choose to arrange to charge for any of the articles placed by Parliament in a certain class the rates authorised for a lower class, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so, nor is it in the interests of trade that they should be prevented from doing so. A letter embodying the views of the Department on this point will be shortly addressed to the traders, and so also will a circular announcing the procedure the Board of Trade will adopt at the hearing of objections, and the time when they will commence to hear objections.

  EGYPT.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government intend instructing the Government of Egypt to embrace the opportunity afforded by the success of General Grenfell against the Dervishes, of again obtaining access to the navigable waters of the Upper Nile and the Bahr Gazelle, by despatching a sufficient number of river fighting steamers during the rising of the Nile, for the purpose of obtaining and holding possession of Dongola and Berber, and thus retain the acknowledged strategical and commercial keys requisite for the safety of Egypt as well as the diminution of slavery?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASUEY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension in addressing this question of whether we intend instructing the Government of Egypt to me. We cannot instruct the Egyptian Government as if it were a Department of the English Government. The policy of Her Majesty's Government remains the same as it has always been—that is, to maintain the engagements into which the country has entered.

  RAILWAY REGULATIONS BILL.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is the intention of the Government to extend the Railway Regulations (No. 2) Bill to Ireland?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers will extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.

  SLAVERY IN PEMBA AND ZANZIBAR.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the time has now arrived when Her Majesty's Government should urge upon the Sultan of Zanzibar to decree the abolition of domestic slavery in the islands of Pemba and Zanzibar?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It would be inconvenient, and would not conduce to the objects which my hon. Friend has in view, to make a declaration upon this matter, but the subject must in any case come under consideration in connection with the contemplated Conference upon the Slave Trade. Her Majesty's Government will neglect no opportunity of lessening both the area and the evils of slavery as far as their influence extends.

  AID TO LOCAL RATES.
  MR. ISAACS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the ratepayers of the Metropolis will receive the relief out of the Probate Duties and other sources of Imperial Revenue promised them in the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the financial year 1888–9?
  MR. RITCHIE: Since the 27th of March last a sum of £127,620 has been paid to the Guardians of the Metropolitan unions and parishes in addition to the grants previously received by them. It is very difficult to arrive at

  551
  any accurate estimate of the amount which the Local Government Board will be in a position to pay to the London County Council out of the local taxation account in November next, but it will probably be about £120,000. It will be borne in mind that the sum payable to the London County Council prior to that date would be much larger were it not that the proportion of the cost of the Metropolitan Police, which was formerly paid out of the Parliamentary grant, is now paid out of the local taxation account and deducted from the sums payable to the London County Council.

  IRELAND—FAIR RENTS.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state on what day he will introduce his proposed Bill for accelerating the fixing of fair rents in Ireland; and whether it is intended that the two lay Commissioners are to sit with the County Court Judge of the county as originally indicated?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill to which the question of the hon. Gentleman refers is on the Paper for this evening.

  INSPECTOR OF LUNACY.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that one of the Inspectors of Lunatics in Ireland has tendered his resignation; whether any steps, and, if so, what, are being taken to deal with the vacancy thus created; and whether there is any truth in the report that it is in contemplation to appoint one of the Scotch Assistant Commissioners of Lunacy to an administrative position in the Irish Lunacy Service?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: One of the Inspectors of Lunatics in Ireland has retired on superannuation. The question as to the necessity of filling the vacancy is under consideration. There is no foundation for the rumour that it is in contemplation to appoint one of the Scotch Assistant Commissioners of Lunacy to an administrative position in the Irish Lunacy Service.

  GENERAL WILLIAM SANKEY.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he
  552
  has noticed in the list of shareholders of the "Land Corporation Company," published in the Freeman of 30th ultimo, the name of General William Sankey as a holder of 20 shares in said company; is he able to state whether the said General William Sankey is the same person as the General Sankey who is Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland; and, whether it is in accordance with the rules of the Service that the Chairman of a Public Board, which has to discharge such important functions as those entrusted to the Board of Public Works in Ireland, should be a shareholder in a company with which the Board of Public Works has frequently to deal, and the chief objects of the said company being moreover mainly of a political character?
  MR. JACKSON: There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion in the question. Any of the ordinary sources of information, such as Whitaker's Almanack or Thom's Directory, will show that the Chairman of the Board of Public Works is Lieutenant General R. H. Sankey, not General William Sankey. I am sure that the hon. Member will regret that he should have put the question.
  DR. KENNY: I cast no reflection on General Sankey. I should be sorry to do so.

  BRITISH GUIANA—CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have under consideration the question of conceding a measure of Constitutional Reform to the Colony of British Guiana, similar to that granted to other West Indian Colonies; and, whether he can state a date when he will probably be able to intimate to the Colony the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the subject?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Her Majesty's Government have under consideration the question of a reform of the Constitution of British Guiana, but cannot at present state when it will be possible to make any definite announcement on the subject.

  BRITISH GUIANA AND BRAZIL.
  MR. WATTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether negotiations are now in progress with the Empire of Brazil for the appointment of a Joint Commission of Delimitation to determine and fix a definite line of frontier between the Colony of British Guiana and the Empire of Brazil; and whether he can now give the House any information on the subject?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Proposals were made on the subject by the Brazilian Government some time ago and are still tinder discussion, but the matter is not in a position in which any further information can with advantage be given.

  MR. CONYBEARE.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has received any Medical Report in reference to the health of the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) in Derry Gaol?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not received any Medical Report absolutely up to date; but subsequent to the time of the first question on the subject by the hon. Gentleman the Reports are satisfactory.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I understood that on Saturday last the hon. Member for Camborne wished to send me a Report which I have not yet received. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be forwarded before the Prisons Vote comes on?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot make any promise of that kind, not knowing how far Medical Reports are allowed by the Prison Rules to be sent to private Members.
  MR. MAC NEILL: This is not a Medical Report, but a Report framed by the hon. Member himself.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. S. HILL: May I ask when the Tithes Bill will be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Tithes Rent Charge Bill stands on the Paper for Thursday. If it is not reached on that day, I will inform my hon. Friend when it is likely to be taken.
  MR. S. HILL: At what time will it be taken on Thursday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We shall take it at any time.
  In reply to Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid: We propose to take the Constabulary Vote tonight, and then to go back to the Irish Estimates in Class 2 in the order in which they stand. I think the first is the Vote for the Lord Lieutenant. If the Irish Estimates are not concluded on Thursday, they will be proceeded with de die in diem, and after they are disposed of the Tithes Bill will be taken.
  MR. STOREY: What do the Government propose to do with the Drainage Bills?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to pass the Bann Drainage Bill this Session. I also hope to pass the Shannon and Barrow Bills, but will be guided by circumstances.
  MR. STOREY: I am quite aware that the Shannon and Barrow Drainage Bills must go over until next Session; but I wish further to press my question respecting the Bann Drainage Bill. The Bill has several stages yet to pass through. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a possibility of prolonged opposition from English and Scotch Members, and opposition, too, from the localities. Under the circumstances, I would like to know whether he will not commit the "happy dispatch" and tell us that the Bann Drainage Bill is also to go?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that the Bann Drainage Bill will be taken after the Light Railways Bills. As to the Shannon and Barrow Bills they will have to be dropped.
  MR. CAUSTON: Is it intended to take the London County Council (Money) Bill to-night?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir; it will not be taken to-night.
  SIR W. FOSTER: Will the Notification of Infectious Diseases Bill be the first Order on Friday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot undertake to make it the first Order. The Government must at this period of the Session take the business that remains to be considered when they are able to reach it.

  IRISH RESIDENT MAG STRATES.
  MR. FLYNN: May I ask the Chief Secretary if it will be convenient to take No. 4 of the Notices of Motion—a Return giving the names of the Resident Magistrates with the dates of their appointment by seniority, present salary, and other particulars, as an unopposed Return?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am unable at present to treat it as an unopposed Return. A very comprehensive Return is already before the House.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of certain Magistrates it is alleged that the principle of seniority has been violated? This Return is, therefore, asked for to enable us to judge how far that principle has been violated.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not admit that the principle of seniority is at all binding.
  MR. SEXTON: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will admit that promotion by seniority ought to be the principle except in the case of special merit. We ask for the Return, so that we may be enabled to see whether, where seniority was disregarded, there was good cause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not go to the same extent as the right hon. Gentleman. I quite admit that seniority is an element; but I do not go further.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that former Returns were given very much in this shape showing the seniority, and that it is only recently the rule has been changed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that Returns have been given in conformity to the description given by the hon. Gentleman.

  UNIVERSITIES, &c. (SCOTLAND) PUBLIC MONEY.
  Ordered—
  "Returns of the sums annually voted by Parliament, and of the sums chargeable on the Consolidated Fund, to each of the four Universities of Scotland, and to the Royal Observatory and Royal Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh, for each of the ten years ending the 31st day of March 1889;
  Of the sums chargeable as pensions to the retired Professors of each of the four Universities for the same period;
  Of the sums spent for the erection or maintenance of University Buildings for the same period;
  556
  And separately, of the sums paid to the Professors of the several Universities from the funds of the Deanery of the Chapel Royal in Scotland during the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 263, of Session 1887."—(Mr. J. Campbell.)

  UNIVERSITY (SCOTLAND).
  Ordered—
  Return of Rules made under Sec. 21 of the Act 21 and 22 Vic. c. 83, now in force, with respect to the amount of the Pensions from public funds that may be awarded to Principals, Professors, and other officers (if any) of Scottish Universities, the age at which they may be claimed, and the period of service which must have preceded each claim.
  Nominal Return of Principals, Professors, and other officers (if any) in each of the Scottish Universities entitled, after the required period of service, to retire upon Pensions, with their respective ages, dates of appointment, and the amount, for each of the three years ended the 31th day of March, 1889, of the salaries, fees, and other emoluments which would be taken into account in determining the amount of pension that might be granted in each case.
  And, Return showing, for each of the Universities, the Name and Office of each Person to whom a Pension has been granted from public funds since 1858, with the amount of each Pension, the age at which it was granted, and the date at which any Pension lapsed (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 245, of Session 1887).—(Mr. J. Campbell.)

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT, 1875.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 304.]

  NEW WRIT.
  For Belfast (Northern Division), in the room of Sir William Ewart, baronet, deceased.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS III.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £889,371, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1890, for the expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
    MR. FLYNN: I think the Irish Members are entitled to complain

    557
    that the Government should have introduced so important a Vote at so late a period of the Session. It is an innovation of the Constitutional system, and of late years it has tended to become more and more the practice of the Irish Executive, and of those connected with the administration of Irish affairs. More than one half of the financial year has now been allowed to lapse, and I presume I am right in concluding that more than one half of the money asked for in the vote has been expended. We are asked to criticise the administration of affairs for which the money is required at a time of the Session when the energies of hon. Members are supposed to be more or less dissipated. It may have been possible on other occasions for the Chief Secretary to tell us that the delay has occurred in order to consult the convenience of the Irish Members; but that has certainly not been the case this Session, because there has been a strong wish that the Irish Votes should be taken at an early period, in accordance with Constitutional practice and the usage of this House, so that the Estimates might be criticised in the way they deserve to be criticised. In regard to the present Vote, the first thing that will strike those hon. Members who are interested in economy is the continuous increase of the sum of money asked for under this head. I find that in 1871 the Constabulary Vote, including that for the Dublin Metropolitan Police, came to a total of £1,016,000, and this year we are asked to vote the enormous sum of £1,587,995, being an increase of 40 per cent. These are startling figures, which ought to make the Committee reflect on the vice of a system which necessitates an increase so enormous and lamentable. In 1875 the Vote rose to £1,208,000; in 1881 to £1,327,000; in 1885, £1,525,000; and in the present year it has practically reached £1,600,000. As a matter of fact, the amount per head of the population of Ireland has very nearly doubled in 17 years. In 1871 it was 3s. 9d. per head, and it is now 6s. 8d. That significant fact is in itself an eloquent commentary on the whole system under which it becomes necessary that so large a sum of money should be raised under this Vote. Comparing these figures with the cost of the police in Great Britain, it will be found
    558
    that in Sunderland it is 1s. 5d. per head; Leicester, 1s. 9¼d.; Dundee, 1s. 11d.; Bradford, 2s. 1d.; Leeds, 2s. 3d., and Birmingham, 2s. 4d. The average cost of the police in the Dublin Metropolitan District is 8s. per head, or more than four times as much as that of principal centres of population in England. These facts are startling in their significance, and ought to invite the serious consideration of every Member of this House who is interested in keeping down the expenditure of the country. But this expenditure, enormous as it is, would not be objected to if it were productive of good to the people in whose behalf it is expended, but not alone is the system bad, but the administration of the system is as bad as it can possibly be. Indeed, that is the reason why the Vote increases so rapidly. The chief duties of a well-organised Constabulary Force are the protection of life and property and the preservation of order. But we maintain that the Irish police are largely employed in propping up the property of a small fraction of the population to the destruction of that of the toiling hundreds of thousands, who form the real buttresses of the prosperity of Ireland. We further complain that the bulk of the money, instead of being expended in the preservation of order in Ireland, is expended in a manner that is provocative of the greatest disorder. The cases which I am about to bring before the Committee I have taken at random, but they go far to proving beyond a doubt that the manner in which the Irish police force is at present administered does not tend to good Government or to the tranquillity of the country. We are informed by the newspapers that not long ago in the County of Tipperary a policeman was brought before County Court Judge Anderson, charged with a wanton assault. It appears that the prosecutor went to the railway station to meet a friend, and seeing that Dr. Tanner was in the train he had the temerity to cry out "Three cheers for the hon. and gallant Member for Mid Cork," whereupon the police-constable James Rippon struck him on the head with his truncheon. The jury found for the prosecutor, with £5 damages and costs. In this case the prosecutor was able to bring the case before a jury and recover damages because he could identify his

    559
    aggressor, and there would be hundreds of similar cases brought before juries if it were not part of the tactics of the Chief Secretary to extend the protection of the Executive to the police in matters of this kind where savage assaults are committed by the police upon an unoffending people. Every application to obtain the name of the policeman by whom an assault has been committed is refused. If the application is made in this House it is met with equivocation and prevarication, and it is impossible to obtain the name of the constable who, as a general rule, has been drafted from some distant place. That is the reason why we have been able to bring comparatively few cases before the Civil Tribunals to expose the proceedings of the constabulary in the way they deserve. I will tell the House as briefly as possible what occurred on the occasion of the brutal assault by the police on my hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan (Mr. Patrick O'Brien). The hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. William O'Brien) was returning from a journey, and the hon. Member for North Monaghan went to the railway platform with some friends and some ladies to meet him. There were comparatively few persons on the platform, because the fact of the return of the hon. Member for North-East Cork had been purposely concealed in order to preclude the possibility of an attack upon the people. The police on the platform placed the hon. Member for North-East Cork under arrest. Mr. O'Brien asked for the production of the warrant, and while the warrant was being produced some enthusiastic gentleman in the rear of the crowd cried out "Three cheers for William O'Brien." An order was immediately given to the police to "Draw batons," which caused them to commit a furious assault upon the bystanders with truncheons and clubbed rifles, not only upon the people assembled on the platform, but on the passengers. Various persons present, including many clergymen, affirmed that the hon. Member for North Monaghan was beaten with truncheons on the back and head and knocked to the ground, and struck while on the ground by some policemen with their clubbed rifles. He tried to rise, with blood pouring from two or three wounds, but was knocked senseless on the pavement, when some
    560
    police bore him off in a cab to a doctor. I have evidence, and I can substantiate it on oath, that the attack on my hon. Friend was premeditated, that before the train arrived he was pointed out by two or three constables, as was also the gentlemen who accompanied him, and the moment the train arrived the assault was made. The reason is believed to be that the hon. Member had been successful that day in holding a series of meetings in defiance of an illegal proclamation which had been issued suppressing meetings near Cork. We asked in this House for an explanation of the assault, and we received two—one by the Chief Secretary, and the other by the Solicitor General for Ireland. The latter dismissed the suggestion that there had been an attempted rescue of the hon. Member for North-East Cork as an utterly absurd and baseless fiction of the right hon. Gentleman's creation, or of that of his subordinates in Ireland, while the Chief Secretary, not knowing what had been said, deliberately suggested, with the airy nonchalance which we all admire, but which is hardly consistent with the grave duties he has to discharge, an attempted rescue as the cause of the disturbance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a fair, straightforward, and honourable answer to this question. Will he assist us by giving the name of the head constable who gave the order to draw batons, the result of which was the wanton assault upon my hon. Friend which I have described. The right hon. Gentleman has already said that the Inspector gave no order, but that the head constable said, "Draw batons." I am not very well versed in the regulations of the Constabulary, and I should like to know whether an order to draw batons is sufficient to justify a brutal attack of this kind? Let us know who gave the order, and we will test once for all before an impartial tribunal the responsibility of the action of the police on this occasion. The nature of the attack can be proved by the results which followed. 14 or 15 persons were taken to the infirmary more or less injured, and the indiscriminate nature of the assault may be seen from the fact that a number of the passengers who were injured were gentlemen opposed to the Nationalist Party, among them being a

    561
    son of Sir John Arnott, of Cork, who was returning from a fishing excursion, and the Mayor's sergeant, who went down to the station to meet his wife on her return from a trip into the country. While the hon. Member for North East Cork was under arrest the train arrived at Charleville, at 12 o'clock at night. A small crowd of persons were on the platform to meet friends returning from Cork, and when it was found that Mr. O'Brien was in the train, some cheers were raised and an attempt was made to shake hands with him. As the train was in motion, a shot was fired by District Inspector Concannon, and two other shots were fired by constables. Had any one been killed by those shots there can be no doubt that it would have been wanton and unprovoked murder on the part of the police. District Inspector Concannon's shot took effect in the thigh of a young man who was sitting on a wall at some distance from the train, and bad it proved fatal all the sophistry of the Chief Secretary would be insufficient to clear the police from the dreadful charge of deliberate murder. In reference to this matter the Chief Secretary appears to have discovered for himself, or to have adopted the most extraordinary theory, that shots were fired by the crowd upon the police. In the first place, the police were in an ordinary train returning from Cork, and there were very few people assembled at the Charleville Station, as I can prove if the right hon. Gentleman will afford me the chance of an inquiry. There were none of the local police on the platform, which is hardly consistent with the fact that a criminal so notorious and so dreaded as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork was known to be in the train. In the second place, the railway station of which I speak is 40 miles distant from Cork. It was a Sunday, and there was no possibility of communicating with the town of Charleville after 10 o'clock in the morning. The crowd who were awaiting the return of their friends beard that the hon. Member for North-East Cork was in the train; they cheered him, and attempted to shake hands with him, and thereupon the constables, headed by their District Inspector, fired three revolver shots. Such grave circumstances demand some more satisfactory explanation from the right hon. Gentleman than that he has yet
    562
    given. Passing from this matter I come to the question of the employment of the Constabulary at evictions in Ireland. I do not believe there can be two opinions in the House that the real cause, or at any rate one of the principal causes, of the enormous and continuous increase in the Constabulary Vote is the manner in which the police are placed at the disposal of every landlord and County Sheriff who requires them. I do not contend that the Constabulary cannot be called upon or cannot be employed by the Executive in the enforcement of law, and the carrying out of evictions; but I maintain it is an absolute misuse of an expensive force of this kind to place them solely at the beck and call of one particular set of creditors in Ireland. It is a matter of some difficulty for the ordinary creditor to get the Sheriff to move at all; but these extraordinary, these unjust debts, take the first place in the estimation of the Executive, because the landlords are their friends, and because in collecting rents they are carrying out the policy which recommends itself to individual members of the Executive. Why, in the name of common sense, should a body of able-bodied constables be placed at the disposal of any body of creditors in a different manner to that in which they are placed at the disposal of ordinary creditors? Some of the evictions in Ireland are carried out, if not under the immediate presence, at any rate under the patronage of the right hon. Gentleman. It is, no doubt, an instructive lesson in law and order to see the Constabulary sitting down near the homes of the wretched people being evicted drinking champagne with the Private Secretary and Colleague of the Chief Secretary. What lesson can the people draw from that? Does it tend to give them any belief in the impartiality of the Irish Government? With regard to the actual presence of police at these evictions, I want to ask the attention of the Committee to one or two instances as showing a close connection between the landlord, the heads of the Irish Executive, and the principal officers of the Irish Constabulary. The Luggacurran evictions were carried out under the immediate patronage of the right hon. Gentleman. There we had the landlords' figures as to acreage, rent, valuation, and arrears, in

    563
    the hands of whom? In the hands of the private secretary of the Divisional Magistrate in charge of the police, the private secretary himself being an officer in the Constabulary. It seems an extraordinary thing that when reporters came down they should, instead of proceeding to the tenant's or the landlord's agents for information, proceed to the private secretary of the Divisional Magistrate, who had obtained his information in the landlord's office. Is that part of the business of the Executive of the country? What business had the private secretary there at all? When he was giving the figures to the reporters around him he used a formula which is very instructive. He said, the tenant need not be evicted if he paid so much. I asked him, "But would that clear the tenant up to the present date, or to the last gale day." His reply was, "Oh, no, if the tenant paid so much he would get a clear receipt up to September, 1886," nearly three years ago. The business of the private secretary or District Inspector was simply to mislead the representatives of the Press present. There are other matters in connection with the presence of police at evictions to be referred to. I have said that evictions are distressing and saddening spectacles. It does seem extraordinary that large sums paid by the taxpayers of Great Britain should be expended upon work of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman says it is unavoidable. He attributes these evictions to the Plan of Campaign. We shall discuss that point on another occasion. But at the Ponsonby evictions there was a force of Constabulary of between 300 and 400, supplemented by a large number of soldiers, all under the charge and command of the notorious Divisional Magistrate, Captain Plunket. Have hon. Members seen the secret letter—secret because it was not intended to be known to us—written by the agent of the estate, in which he practically acknowledged that the landlord's claims were unjust and extortionate, that the tenants' claims were less than just? The letter was written by Mr. Townshend to the Secretary of the Land Corporation, and the writer said—
    "From what I have seen of the Ponsonby Estate, I am sorry to say I believe the Land Commission, if it ever goes before it, will reduce
    564
    the rents on it very heavily.…The existing rents of light tillage land, which might have been fair 15 or 20 years ago, are far above the present value. A good deal of the land I saw I was told was rented at 20s., but it will go under the Land Court at 12s. or 13s., and that is the reason I advised Mr. Smith Barry and the other members of the syndicate to make public as soon as possible that they are only fighting against the way in which the tenants want to cut the rents down."
    I invite the attention of the Committee to the fact that the hon. Member for South Huntingdon (Mr. Smith Barry) can put pressure on the Irish Executive to bring enormous forces of constabulary upon the scene to evict, under circumstances of great brutality and hardship, large numbers of industrious tenants, when all the time the injustice and the iniquity of the whole transaction is actually acknowledged by this letter to the agent of the syndicate, whom the Chief Secretary has not scrupled to defend in this House on more than one occasion. All these are circumstances which ought to cause the Committee to pause before voting the enormous sum of close on £1,600,000 for a force which is absolutely exasperating the people of Ireland, which is so expensive to the people of England, which is not productive of any solid or useful benefit to the country, and which, instead of being used legitimately for the protection of life and property and the preservation of order, is being used as a political machine by the Executive and the landlords of Ireland, and is producing an amount of disorder it would be impossible to counteract, were it not for the help and exhortation which comes from quarters in Great Britain to which the Irish people look with confidence.
    MR. MAC NEILL: Since the Chief Secretary accepted his present post the Irish administration has been characterised by overwhelming cruelty, and the right hon. Gentleman's chief agents in carrying out the policy of cruelty have been the Royal Irish Constabulary. It is, no doubt, difficult for English Members to understand what the Royal Irish Constabulary means. In England the constable is the person to whom the people go for protection and support, but in Ireland he is a member of a foreign force engaged in carrying out a policy antagonistic to the wishes of the people. The Irish police are a military force. They have officers and

    565
    military accoutrements and rifles. They only lack colours to complete their military character. I would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to signalise his administration by presenting the force with colours, upon which "Do not hesitate to shoot the people" would be a, very fitting motto. This order was the first command given under the right hon. Gentleman's administration to the members of the Irish Constabulary. It was telegraphed by Captain Plunket, and that telegram was the initiation of the policy which has characterised the Chief Secretary's three years' administration. I invite the Committee to consider that during the last 10 years there has been a decrease in the population of Ireland to the extent of half a million, while on the other hand there has been an increase of the constabulary by 2,000 men. In no other country with which I am acquainted has there been a steady decline of population, and at the same time a steady increase in the armed men engaged to keep the population down. The cost of the constabulary during the last decade has risen from £1,400,000 to £1,600,000. There is in Ireland at the present moment, including police and military, one armed man to every 17 of the population, not to every 17 fighting men, but to every 17 men, women and children. I submit the reason of this is, that the police are not employed as a protecting force, that they are not employed to enforce just debts between man and man, but that they are employed for the partisan purposes of the Government. I desire to direct attention to three phases of constabulary government in Ireland—namely, to the relation between the Irish Constabulary and the people at large, the relation between the Irish Constabulary and a newspaper called the Times, and the relation between the Irish Constabulary and the landlord class in Ireland. My hon. Friend (Mr. Flynn) has not cited a single case of police brutality towards the people. It will be remembered that the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division (Mr. H. Wilson) and I have frequently asked the Chief Secretary and the Solicitor General for Ireland that the Irish Constabulary should be numbered or lettered for the purpose of identification. The Irish police are clothed in the same uniform as the Rifles, and we all know that as the
    566
    Rifles are used largely for skirmishing their uniform has been adopted in the hope of avoiding detection. Let me give several cases in which the police have acted brutally, and refused to give their names. I find that an aggravated and brutal assault was committed by the Irish police at the Clonmel Railway Station—railway stations seem to be the happy hunting grounds of Irish constables. On the 3rd of March, when Dr. Tanner arrived at Clonmel Station he was cheered by the people. There was the usual baton charge by the police. A reporter from Tipperary was grossly maltreated by a constable, who politely refused to give his name. On the 4th of May, at Kanturk, a Poor Law Guardian was assaulted by a sub-constable. The head-constable, with whom complaint as to the assault was lodged, refused to give the offender's name. At Fermoy the police burst into a meeting which was attended by a Mr. Barry, who had been imprisoned under the Coercion Act, inquired what the people were doing, assaulted men, and refused to give their names. Early in February a crowd in Killarney was dispersed by a baton charge, offence cheering Mr. William O'Brien. On the 23rd of March, at the same place, a crowd was batoned, offence cheering Mr. William O'Brien. The Committee will remember that Mr. Patrick O'Brien was recently assaulted so brutally that for some days his life was in danger, and that even now—a month after the occurrence—he is unable to appear in Court to give evidence in a case vitally concerning himself, and which arose out of one of the numerous libels of the Times' correspondent. A lady, the wife of an English Member of Parliament, desired to attend the meeting at which Mr. Patrick O'Brien was assaulted. Knowing the eagerness of the police to baton and assault I dissuaded the lady from attending the meeting. I feared that if she attended she would be maltreated by the police, who would probably think that an easy way to earn promotion would be to assault the wife of a Member of this House. The police in Ireland are adepts at creating offences. In proof of that charge I need only refer to the notorious Milltownmalbay case. The parish priest of that place having requested the publicans to close their houses on the occasion of a particular trial of an exciting

    567
    character, his sole object being to prevent the least disturbance of the peace, the police visited 26 of the closed establishments, though they were not in want of refreshments, and asked for drink. The drink was refused them. Twenty-one of the publicans were summoned before a Coercion Court and sentenced to one month's imprisonment apiece. Eleven did not apologise—I wish they had all refused to do so—but suffered imprisonment. The conduct of the constables must be very bad to provoke the indignation of the right hon. Gentleman's "removables," and yet they have often drawn on themselves the censure of these not over scrupulous gentlemen. In the Court-house at Let-terkenny on the occasion of one of the numerous remands of Father M'Fadden, a constable named Boyle was seen earmarking the prisoners for another constable to identify. The man was ordered out of Court by Mr. Hamilton, but was afterwards seen sneaking back again for the purpose of carrying on the same operation. Another constable on the occasion of one of the numerous remands of Father M'Fadden was removed from the Court in a state of intoxication. I will not say anything about the note-taking Constable Robinson, who was declared by the Presiding Magistrate to be untrustworthy. The Committee may ask itself why constables like this man Robinson take notes which cannot be relied on. The answer is, because it is better for an Irish constable to convict an Irish Member of Parliament than it is for a military man to get the Victoria Cross. Such is their anxiety to get hold of Irish Members that they have been known after molesting a gentleman to apologise and say, "I beg pardon, but you have a tall hat on, and I thought you were a Member of Parliament." The dealings of the police with Roman Catholic priests, to whose good work in Ireland I can testify, although I kneel at a different altar to them, has been marked by insult and brutality. Father Clarke, of Wicklow, who advised the tenants in regard to the Plan of Campaign, had a warrant out against him; and, though he made it known that he was perfectly prepared to meet it, the police broke into his house to serve the warrant at a little before 4 o'clock in the morning, when he was absent, and terrified some of the female ser-
    568
    vants by rushing into their room. In another case the police went at midnight to arrest a priest who had previously stated his readiness to meet the warrant taken out against him, the object of such proceeding being obviously to terrorise the people. The same thing also was done in another case, the warrant having been in abeyance for five weeks, and the arrest being at last made at midnight. To be persecuted by the Government is a great honour to us, the Irish Members, and by trying to degrade us you only exalt us; and the same may be said of the Irish priests, for whom you simply inspire greater reverence by your action. I will not refer in detail to the death of District Inspector Martin, which took place on Sunday, February 3. I will merely say that on Saturday evening, February 2, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in that speech which we will take care shall never be forgotten while the right hon. Gentleman remains in his present office, and which was addressed to the Liberal Unionists of Dublin, who were ashamed to give their names as being present—in that speech, delivered in absolute unconsciousness of the irony of the situation, the right hon. Gentleman congratulated the miserable toadies and place-hunters who surrounded him on the excellent relations existing between the police and the people. That speech was reported in the newspapers on the Monday morning, and side by side with the report was an account of the death of Inspector Martin. It is a small thing, no doubt, but a straw shows which way the wind blows; and this set the Government are making against priests and Members of Parliament is a straw in the present situation. At the last Spring Assizes, at; the Courthouse of Tralee, an over-zealous constable seeing a Roman Catholic priest listening to the trial went up to him and hustled him out of Court. This peccadillo on the part of the constable was admitted by the Solicitor General for Ireland when questioned about the incident. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted it, and said it was an error of judgment; but I regard these things as not so much errors of judgment as errors of heart, and I say they arise through the systematic attitude of the Government towards the Irish people. With regard to the seat of war in

    569
    Donegal—and I think the use of the phrase "seat of war" is permissible—on the 6th of May the right hon. Gentleman in a moment of candour spoke of County Donegal as being in a state of revolution; but when this expression was afterwards commented upon the right hon. Gentleman said that that state of revolution extended only to one barony. Well, I have often heard of a storm in a tea-cup, but never before of a revolution in a barony. What was the state of Donegal before the right hon. Gentleman's administration? Why that county which now, according to the Chief Secretary, is in a confused and disturbed state was the most peaceful district. I do not know if hon. Members have ever been in a country in armed occupation. If they have not they will hardly understand the state of things which has existed in the County of Donegal—a state of things which one could understand in Russia, but which within the Queen's dominions it is impossible to understand. After the death of Inspector Martin wholesale arrests were made without warrant and without evidence, and passes were given to the peasants to allow them to go to their duties. Constable Mahony—now Head Constable Mahony, for every policeman in Ireland who distinguishes himself by his brutality to the people gets promoted—gave this pass which I now hold in my hand to a peasant, "Please let so-and-so pass," and it is signed by this man. There were wholesale arrests made after the murder of Inspector Martin, none of them, however, on sworn information or warrant. In one case a large number were handcuffed and kept for four hours in an open boat on an angry sea. Is it not amazing that in a country calling itself Christian such brutality should be allowed? I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that they will here more of this at the next Election—you will have it ingrained into every one of you. In Father M'Fadden's case, in which there were no fewer than 14 different remands, a special train was employed on the occasion of each remand to run from Letterkenny to Derry, a distance of 25 miles, when an ordinary train would have answered every purpose. There was frequent and easy communication between these places without the employment of a special train, and it cannot
    570
    be said that the police were afraid of a popular tumult breaking out. I travelled in the special train myself—although if I had been found out I might have got a month's imprisonment at the hands of one of the removables—but this enables me to say how needless was the expenditure. There has been a reckless, wicked, and profligate expenditure on the part of the Administration; and I ask—will the right hon. Gentleman justify that expenditure out of the Constabulary Vote? As to the spying operations of the police the Irish Members do not mind it, but it comes somewhat hard on English Members like the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division. That hon. Member went to Ireland to inquire into the unfortunate state of the people on March 16. He was dogged and followed by the constables from one end of Donegal to the other. He could not go into an hotel without being immediately followed there by a policeman, who tried to find out what he was doing, and where he was going. The carmen who drove him were stopped and interrogated. In one case a tourist who had gone over to see the country went to a Chief Inspector and said it was hard to be pursued by the police, and the answer he received was, "You are a respectable person—we will not mind you. It is only Members of Parliament we watch." One person—a Member of Parliament—however, was allowed to go from one end of Donegal to the other without being dogged, and that was because he was the friend of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. It is only those Members who have the interests of the peasantry at heart who are insulted; the friends of the Chief Secretary and writers in the Times being allowed to wander where they like without being watched. In Donegal the police are quite numerous enough to prevent evicted tenants from returning to their wretched hovels; but they cannot protect the tenants from the robberies of the military. I would here instance again the case of the poor woman whose eight ducks were stolen by the soldiers, and I am surprised that I do not hear the cackle from the hon. Member for South Tyrone with which he greeted the case when it was first mentioned. In another case a girl was brutally assaulted by an Emergency man in the presence of Mr. Harrison and

    571
    another gentleman, and although those two gentlemen swore informations, Mr. Cameron, the police officer, refused to receive them. Mr. Cameron has been promoted, but a man called Markham, who once withdrew the police under his command in order to avoid bloodshed, was degraded. This man did not act up to the Chief Secretary's motto, "Do not hesitate to shoot," and he did not belong to that class, half serf, half squireen, from whom District Inspectors are mostly chosen. He was a man who had risen from the ranks, and consequently had sufficient sympathy for the peasant class to wish to avoid a reckless use of the bayonet on them. I possess a tabulated statement showing that the law is administered one way in favour of the police, and another way against the people. And now I bring this charge against those who have authority over the Royal Irish Constabulary, that whilst it is their proper duty to maintain law and order in Ireland—or, at all events, that wretched substitute which there stands in the place of law and order—they have been transferred to London as the mere dustmen of the Times, and I will show that the men drafted to London were as much the agents of the Times as were Pigott or Houston. Is it not a strange thing that the same men, or the same class of men, who were employed for collecting evidence for the Times were also employed to prevent the collection of evidence on behalf of the Irish Members? It seems to me beyond the possibility of doubt that the men acted upon some hint from headquarters. These men catch the tone of their masters. They know what their masters think with dog-like fidelity and carry out their master's wish, but not like dogs. Dogs generally are actuated by affection, but the Irish Constabulary are stimulated by the low, gross motive—the hope of pecuniary reward. Constables have been known of late to molest men collecting for the Parnell Defence Fund, to seize their collecting cards and disperse a small gathering of Nationalists. Recently also there has been a case of constables tearing down placards asking for subscriptions in aid of the legal expenses of the Irish Members, and three young men who were engaged in innocently tabulating statistics of crime to be produced before the
    572
    Special Commission were followed by police and deprived of their papers—though these subsequently were grudgingly restored after questions galore had been addressed to the Chief Secretary on the subject in this House. How was the Times treated by the Government—of course in their private capacity—according to the statements of Head Constable Quinn, Michael Roche, and Iago—and a better name for a witness for the Times was never devised? Why, it is clear that the police were employed to get up the Times' case. On the 11th April we find there was close connection between the constabulary and the Times. A secret Police Circular was issued to the constabulary early in November, the first sitting of the Commission Court taking place on the 22nd of October. This circular was sent to every police station by every District Inspector with instructions to find out, almost in the language of the Charges Commission, the connection between the League and crime. We have read this circular before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman has exercised great discretion in regard to it, neither admitting or denying it. But we have further evidence; we have evidence of the eyesight of a Member of this House. It happens that the chambers of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe Division overlook Mr. Soames's office in Lincoln's Inn, and he saw Mr. Soames's office looking like an office of the Royal Irish Constabulary, around which Irish constables lounged and smoked, and the men thus engaged week after week are those we are now asked to vote this money for as preservers of law and order in Ireland. Hanging in Mr. Soames's office was a notice, signed by County Inspector Flockton, requiring men of the constabulary to enter their names in a book kept in the office for the purpose. Inspector Flockton was never examined before the Commission. What was he doing there? Coaching Times witnesses. And for this we are asked to pay this Inspector his salary. Further, the connection has been shown between the constabulary and Pigott. So long as Pigott was of value to the Times and the Government he had a guard of honour of the Royal Irish Constabulary; but when he ceased to be of value, the guard dropped their arms and Pigott was allowed to go. Two Irish sergeants

    573
    of constabulary, Sergeants Fausett and Gallagher—I hope they have had promotion for their services—were placed under the orders of Shannon of the Times, and these formed a bodyguard for Pigott. But this guard allowed Pigott to escape after they had got from him on the Saturday a sworn affidavit to be read in the Court on Monday. Then we had Head Constable Preston, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, interviewing convicts in English prisons, at the instance of Mr. Soames, for the purpose of getting up evidence for the Times and to incriminate Irish representatives. We know that he visited Nally and Mullet in prison and held out to them almost any bribe to induce them to bear evidence against Irish Members. So to this further depth were the Irish Constabulary allowed to sink. They were employed to introduce into England the methods of Irish administration to the shame of both nations. Tracey was thus visited, and he was not afterwards examined; but there is good reason to believe that he was offered bribes to give evidence on behalf of the Times. Why were these members of the constabulary placed at the service of Mr. Soames of the Times? Why are we asked to pay their expenses in London when they should have been discharging their duties in Ireland? The Courts of Justice, the Inns of Court Hotel, were swarming with Irish Constabulary, and I am not exceeding the mark when I say that not more than a third of those brought over to London were examined before the Commission. An industrious gentleman has noted the numbers of constabulary present in Court when the Court on one occasion adjourned because witnesses were not ready, and at that time there were in Court eight members of the force in uniform, 10 in plain clothes, five District Inspectors, and four members of the Dublin Police. We have heard on previous occasions how an Inspector endeavoured to get evidence from a man named Welsh, under threat of prosecution for certain insurance frauds in which the man was supposed to be implicated. They were Liverpool frauds, said the Chief Secretary; but, as a fact, the trial would have had to be held in Ireland, for there the frauds were committed. We have Mr. Houston acting as paymaster to the men of the constabulary for their expenses
    574
    during the time they were kept in London for weeks and months beyond the time they could have been required to give evidence; and, as a matter of fact, they never gave evidence at all. Why were these men in London, and why are we to pay their salaries as if they had been attending to their duties in Ireland? Why are we asked to pay these men for time in which they were assisting in an infamous conspiracy? I have described these men as the dustmen of the Times, and now let me touch upon them as the merciless, heartless, cruel bailiffs of merciless landlords of Ireland. Nothing, I suppose, in connection with the cruel eviction proceedings in Ireland sent a greater thrill of horror through this country than the action of the police at the Glenbigh evictions when they protected emergency men, while the latter used petroleum for firing the wretched homes of the evicted tenants. At Falcarragh a new form of police administration was entered upon. Special bailiffs, not the Sheriff's men, but servants of the landlord, were employed; and here we first have the now famous battering ram brought on the scene. My right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Sexton), a man not in the habit of going back from his word, has said that if we do not find out how the expense of this battering ram is paid, we shall oppose vigorously all efforts to get this Vote. Now, after much questioning, we did obtain from the Solicitor General for Ireland the fact that the ram cost £48 18s. 2½d., and that it was sent to District Inspector Law, of Letterkenny. I suppose hon. Gentlemen opposite will regard the Dublin Daily Express as a trustworthy authority, and in the issue of that journal for March 28 we have a description of the battering ram, to the effect that the ram is 15 feet long, mounted on four wheels, suspended by chains from iron uprights, and that the men working the ram have the protection of an iron shield—in addition to the protection they receive here from the Chief Secretary—picks, crowbars, scaling ladders, and other gear was attached, and the whole paraphernalia was sent on to Inspector Law, at Letterkenny. But we have had the greatest difficulty to find out how these expenses were paid. Who paid for this ram?

    575
    Who owns it? I hope now that the Chief Secretary will not exercise any maidenly reserve in this matter. I may refer the Committee to the questions many of us asked about this ram earlier in the Session; but with the exception of the information I have mentioned as extracted from the Solicitor General for Ireland, we have not yet found how this ram has been paid for. On Friday the Chief Secretary informed me that it is an item that does not appear in the Estimates; and yesterday, exercising the better part of that courage with which on the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer we are asked to credit him, the right hon. Gentleman discreetly stayed away and avoided further questioning. Well, this battering ram was received by the police, and the police tested its qualities at Gweedore. I being in the neighbourhood at the time addressed the local Inspector with a courtesy to which he at first responded; but when I asked him for information as to the practice with the ram, our relations immediately became strained, and have so continued since. The ram was brought out for active operation at the Olphert evictions on April 11th this year, to be used against miserable turf hovels that even a kick from the Chief Secretary would demolish. The ram was not actually used then, but it was present. Now, I want to use this battering ram against the police. I know the right hon. Gentleman will say he is accustomed to these strictures, and that after all they are no more than his predecessors, and notably the late Mr. Forster, had to submit to. The late Mr. Forster had a tender heart and a conscience; but the present Chief Secretary has only an uncle and a battering ram. At these Falcarragh evictions the homes were without food—the tenants in the poorest possible condition. I have seen a good deal of misery and destitution and suffering under various aspects, but I confess I have never seen anything so pitiable as the employment of the ram against those wretched hovels and the turning out on the roadside of miserable people with starvation marked on every lineament. On the Good Friday I was present, and saw one of the tenants, a man of 45 years perhaps, waiting for the battering ram to smash his wretched house away. Not a morsel of food had he in the house; his
    576
    potato crop of three acres had failed. On this cold clay floor his mother was lying in a state of stupor; a little child was playing about; starvation was written on the man's face. The usual policeman had followed us to take note of our proceedings, and to him I turned and invited him to join with us in giving the man assistance. To do him justice he did so. I will not give his name, for a black mark might be set against it. It is against scenes of this kind we protest—scenes which are enacted at the instance of the amateur apostle of Church Congresses. What an example of practical Christianity, on the anniversary of the death of our Redeemer! On this Olphert estate the cost of these evictions was 10 times the amount of the rent due; but the landlord derived some pecuniary advantage from letting the wretched hovels of his evicted tenants as temporary police barracks. These things I can prove, though now I only state them. Removing the trappings from the pretence of maintaining law and order, we find that Irish administration is a gross, wicked, villainous, sordid system of tyranny. Those who ought to be the natural guardians of the people are those who, carrying out the behests of the Chief Secretary, have promoted these scenes.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not propose to trespass on the time of the Committee in reference to those questions of administration hon. Members have raised, upon which Members who have been in Ireland are better able to speak than I am. Approaching the Vote from an economical point of view, there are a few questions I should like to put to the Chief Secretary, and that the Committee may be able to understand the position of Ireland in regard to police, I would refer Members to the particulars given on pages 279 and 319 of the Estimates. On page 279 we find it stated that the number of police employed in Scotland is 4,027, and the number in Ireland which are to be provided for by the Vote is 12,810, the population of Ireland not being more than a million greater. The Committee have already voted for the Scotch police £156,125, the total cost, adding everything together, being, I calculate, about £376,000, whereas the cost of the Irish Police is £1,439,000. The

    577
    first question I wish to put is with reference to the pay, allowances, and extra pay. The ordinary pay is £871,000, allowances £77,000, and the extra pay is £34,000, besides travelling expenses. I find the pay of these officers higher than they would receive as officers in Her Majesty's Army, and very much in excess of the pay received by officers occupying similar posts either in the counties or boroughs of England, or in the Metropolitan Police Force. Take, for instance the District Inspectors. You have 36 first-class Inspectors with salaries rising to £350 and £450 per annum, and 90 District Inspectors of the first class with salaries rising from £225 to £250, £275 to £300 a year. But that does not represent the whole of the pay of these gentlemen. If you simply take £200 or £300 a year, it is a very large sum for an Inspector. I find in the Metropolitan Police Force that there are two Inspectors who receive £200 a year; five £195, and 36 £190 a year. The population of Ireland is about the same as that of the Metropolis, and the number of the Irish Police is about 1,500 less than the number of the London Police; and the Irish Inspector is not called upon to perform more responsible duties than an Inspector of the Metropolitan Police. But if the Committee will turn to pages 322 and 323 of the Estimates, they will find six District Inspectors are specially employed on detective duty, each at £120 per annum, and I want to know whether that is in addition to the salary of £300 or £400 a year. Then there are five District Inspectors employed on detective duty at £100 a year, and I wish to know whether that is in addition to these gentlemen's salaries. We next come to an item in these gentlemen's pay for which I can find, no parallel in the Metropolitan Police Force accounts. There are servants allowed to officers of the Irish Force—255 servants, each at £45 per annum, for whom we have to pay £11,475. Now, I cannot make out the 255 servants, unless these officers have several servants each. The Inspector General and Deputy Inspector General are, of course, superior officers, and also the County Inspectors. But, assuming that you give one servant to each District Inspector of the first class, that
    578
    would only give you 140 officers who would be entitled to servants. But you have255 servants at £45 per annum. You ought to pay to the Irish Inspector, as you have to pay to any other public servant, his full remuneration. This allowance of servants is merely an imitation of what goes on in the Army. Then there is a very large amount for these Inspectors' lodging allowances. I presume the Chief Secretary will be able to tell us that these amounts are checked; that they do not represent the estimates, but that they represent actual payments duly vouched for. Then I come to the stationery allowance. These County and District Inspectors receive stationery allowance to the amount of £2,700 a year. When I had the honour of sitting on the Stationery Committee some years ago, I found that in certain instances the stationery was sent, and the allowances were made. I should like a little explanation of this £2,700. Then I come to "special allowances," which I think must apply to the question to which the hon. Member has been drawing attention—special allowances to policemen serving in Great Britain, £1,358. Why are the Irish Constabulary introduced as serving in Great Britain? We are quite capable of managing our own police; and I never heard of the County, Borough, or Metropolitan Police requiring to be supplemented by the Irish Constabulary. But I take it that this is part of the expenditure of the recent migration of the Irish Police to England, where they have been in London, as we know, for some time. But there being a charge for "lodging and fuel," I should like to ask the Chief Secretary where the item appear on the other side to credit. A large number of the Irish Police have been in London on the service of the Times. These men have been paid. I have no doubt that the Times has been put to a very heavy outlay with respect to police witnesses. According to the Treasury rule, when a servant of the public receives pay from a third person, the amount must be carried to the credit of the account, from which the charge for that service is paid. If the House turn to the Metropolitan Police Accounts, they will find that the sum of £169,000 has been received for various purposes. Then we come to the items "receipts from public companies and private in-

    579
    dividuals, £16,659." Whatever service is rendered by the Metropolitan Police to a public company or private individual, that public company or private individual has to pay for it, and the money is carried to the credit of the Metropolitan Police Account. A little lower down on the page we have medical allowances and funeral expenses, £14,696. I make no comment on that, further than to point out that in the case of the Metropolitan Police, with between 1,000 and 1,500 more men, the medical and funeral expenses amount to £10,280. The Irish police under this head cost nearly £15,000; the Metropolitan Police about £10,000; and I do not think that medical attendance costs less in London than in Ireland. I should think that item might be considerably reduced. Then I come to extra pay, £31,800; and the sub-head of this item is "extra pay on account of elections and disturbances. We have to pay for that next year, £3,000. How many elections does the right hon. Gentleman expect next year. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman has provided £3,000—having got the police a million-and a-half—for extra pay on account of elections and disturbances. Well, then, I go a little further. We have not only allowed them £18,000 for their horses, and £2,000 for their arms and saddlery and so on, but there is car hire, mileage, and marching money, £35,000. Then there is another extra for elections again. These extra allowances for elections are to be paid next year; it is not last year's expenditure. Then we have "incidental expenses and contingencies," £1,000. I should have thought "contingencies" was enough. No; we have "miscellaneous stamps on attestation, carriage, clothing, &c," £5,000. Then, besides the £18,000 for forage, we have £3,000 for the keep of horses and repairs of cars. I wish the House of Commons to look at the whole of these items, not from a political point of view, or as raising the question of Home Rule, but simply as a question of administering public expenditure. There is the item of postage, £6,800. That represents, at a penny stamp, the police in Ireland writing 4,400 letters a day. It would be an insult to the House to make any comment upon that.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What is the page of the postage?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Page 319. It is very singular that no details are given of this sub-head. Now, I come to an item in which the House may be always sure to find out extravagance—I refer to pensions. I have always been of opinion that the superannuation and pension allowances to the Metropolitan Police Force were upon the most liberal scale. The entire expenditure under this head on the Metropolitan Force last year was £193,977. The expenditure on the Royal Irish Constabulary for pensions and superannuation allowances was £298,395—that is, £100,000 more. We have been talking about an extra charge of £36,000 a year, but here you have £100,000 more a year for pension allowances for the Royal Irish Constabulary than is incurred for the Metropolitan Police Force. Without raising any question as to whether this Force is necessary, whether you should have four times the police there are in Scotland, I want to know, from a purely economical point of view, why it should cost this enormous sum, so much in excess of similar forces elsewhere; and I should like to know what responsible authority checks this amount? I do not suggest for one moment that the Chief Secretary has personal knowledge of this matter. Sir, these are precisely questions I would have asked and the statements I would have made, had I been sitting behind that Treasury Bench.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: Mr. Courtney, perhaps I had better, as the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with an aspect of the question somewhat apart from that which hon. Members below the Gangway were engaged in discussing, confine the remarks I now make entirely to the observations which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, leaving to a later period of this evening dealing with the allegations brought against the Government by the two hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he would have made precisely the same criticisms and asked precisely the same questions had he been sitting behind the Government instead of facing the Government, as he has done now. But the right

    581
    hon. Gentleman has occupied even a more favourable position than that of an ordinary member of a Government, because for a considerable period he was the responsible Treasury official before whom all the expenditure of the country, including the Irish Estimates, came, and it was his business not to make barren criticisms across the floor of the House, but to exercise direct supervision and control. Though I do not wish to cast his official position in the right hon. Gentleman's teeth, yet I must say that it was rather remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman should have deferred to this period of his Parliamentary career the statement he has now made.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not misrepresent me. I made the statement when the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was in office, and I sat where the hon. Member for Preston is sitting now.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's consistency as a Member of the House and when he sat where my hon. Friend the Member for Preston now sits. What appears remarkable was the right hon. Gentleman's conduct when, as Secretary to the Treasury, he was responsible not merely as a Member of this House, but as Member of the Government. I want to know why, holding the views he does, he let the whole thing alone at a period when he was brought face to face with the questions he has brought before us. One reason why the right hon. Gentleman let the whole thing alone may have been that, on investigation, he found, after all, that the expenditure was not without justification, and that, after all, there was no excuse for the severe condemnation which he has passed upon the Irish Constabulary. The right hon. Gentleman began by drawing a comparison between the cost of the Irish Constabulary and the Metropolitan Police. Well, while the number of the police in the Metropolitan area is not very different from that of the Irish Constabulary, the cost is in excess. I am informed that the total cost of the Metropolitan Police is a million and a half, and the cost of the Irish Police is less than that sum. Of course, I am perfectly aware that there
    582
    are circumstances in the condition of London which may lead to the conclusion that it requires a larger police force than is required for a population scattered over a thinly-populated area. But if there are special circumstances connected with London, there are also special circumstances connected with Ireland which render it necessary, and have always rendered it necessary, that a large Police Force should be kept there Without entering into the question of order or disorder—which I will reserve for a later period—I will point out that upon the Irish Police are cast a multitude of duties by various Statutes—duties in no was connected, directly or indirectly, with subjects of political controversy, and which do not fall upon the Metropolitan Police. [Cheers.] That remark is cheered ironically by the hon. Member for Donegal; but the hon. Member ought to be perfectly aware that on them are thrown such duties as the collection of statistics and other matters which have no counterpart in the case of the London Police Force. But it is perhaps enough to say, broadly, that the cost of the two forces is not so different as the right hon. Gentleman stated. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to allude to servants allowed to the force.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Special pay.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As to the special payments, they are made for special services. No other explanation can be given than that special services are required and have to be paid for. Then the right hon. Gentleman complained of the enormity of asking this country to provide £45 a year for each servant of each officer of the force, when that is not required in London. But every one of these officers of the Irish Constabulary is required to keep a horse, and that cost is not thrown upon the police officers in London. If they have to keep a horse, they have to keep a servant; and this expenditure should clearly not be borne by the officer. I would point out to the economical mind of the right hon. Gentleman that in former times the custom used to be that the duties were performed by an orderly at a cost of £80 a year, so that this substitution of a servant for an orderly was a great economy; and it is absolutely impossible, so long as the rule is enforced, that each officer shall

    583
    keep a horse to deprive him of the allowance for a servant. With regard to the stationery allowance, I have no information to give the right hon. Gentleman. I will inquire into the system, and, though I have no reason to believe that it is not economical, I will see that economy is practised. Then, as to the item of special allowances for lodging and fuel for men serving in Great Britain, I am surprised, not at the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on the subject, but at the vociferous cheers of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who apparently think that the item is due to expenditure incurred in bringing over constables to the Special Commission. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it is not a fact that this item is connected with the presence of a large number of police constables in London. ["No!"] The right hon. Gentleman asked if they were brought here for the Times.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I did.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, if hon. Members below the Gangway did not. To that I reply that neither directly or indirectly is this item connected with the Times case. For the last 40 years it has been the custom—as far as I know a beneficial custom—to have a certain number of members of the Irish Constabulary in the large towns of England and Wales, but they are not here in connection with anything that could be described as a political crime. Their duty is to detect ordinary crime committed by members of the floating population that spend part of the year in Ireland and part of the year in England. Then the right hon. Gentleman asked whether there has been any payment in favour of the Exchequer on account of the sums paid by the Times to the officers of the constabulary. To that I answer generally that the dealings of the Times with the witnesses has been precisely the same as in any ordinary case. The ordinary practice with regard to the cost of witnesses and the source from which such cost is defrayed, I have no doubt, has been strictly followed. The right hon. Gentleman next drew attention to what he calls "the magnitude" of the medical allowances. The explanation which I have to give is that where doctors are expected, as they are in Ireland, to make long journeys, considerable expense must often be incurred.
    584
    The concentration of the police force in London is no doubt a source of economy. Similar economy could hardly be practised where a Police Force is distributed over so large an area as Ireland. The heading "extra pay" is very misleading, for it does not represent what any ordinary human being would infer from the name. The pay here referred to is simply the allowance which must always be paid to people who are required to leave their ordinary abodes and to sustain themselves elsewhere. It does not represent pay for additional services, but it represents the additional expenditure incurred by members of the police force when they are required to support themselves in some other place than their own homes. The right hon. Gentleman has made merry over the item of £3,000 in connection with elections and disturbances, and asked whether a General Election is expected next year, as this item appears on the Estimates. But as the same amount was required last year, when there was no General Election, it is only reasonable to suppose that an equal sum will be wanted this year. There are many elections in Ireland in addition to Parliamentary elections, and at any rate the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that there are disturbances. As to the Transport Service in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman must know that large bodies of men cannot be moved without throwing considerable expense upon this estimate. The right hon. Gentleman also criticised the sum spent on postage. He said what an appalling thing—£18,000!
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: £6,800.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, £6,800. That item, no doubt, has increased; but the increase is due to the fact that now great use is made of the parcel post. [Laughter.] The last point to which I need refer is the question of pensions. Undoubtedly, the tendency in recent years has been to improve the position of the Constabulary. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that their pay and allowances, including pensions, are too great, I cannot agree with him. I will, however, point out that I am not responsible for the present scale and rate of pay. If there is any responsibility in the matter attaching to one Government more than another, that responsibility rests with

    585
    the heads of the Party to which the Tight hon. Gentleman belongs. Considering the onerous duties devolving on the force, the extremely difficult character of much of the work which they have to perform, and considering also that the very best men that Ireland can provide are enlisted in the service, I do not think that they are overpaid. The excellent personnel of the Constabulary Force is notorious. We have secured the very pick of the Irish population. I will be no party to the kind of economy to which the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman points, and I will do nothing to injure a force of which, as I hold, Irishmen may be justly proud.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I wish to have one word of explanation in reference to the allusion which the right hon. Gentleman made to me. I never was responsible at the Treasury for the Irish Estimates. The Irish Estimates which passed through Parliament when I held office were signed and presented by my predecessor. I quite agree with the Chief Secretary that my own Party is quite as much to blame for the extravagant administration of the Irish Constabulary as the Party of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not approach this question from a Party, but from a purely economical, point of view. I made a far stronger attack upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton when he was Chief Secretary than I have made to-night; and I should wish to divert this part of the subject from a Party aspect.
    SIR W. FOSTER: Mr. Courtney, I have said on previous occasions that this expenditure was very useless, very dangerous; and the Chief Secretary has not given us that fair answer which we could have expected. I hope another year we shall have a more satisfactory explanation from him. There is one point to which he alluded which does open our eyes a little, and that is, that the Irish Constabulary get extra pay, and therefore have a great interest in disturbances.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I explained, I thought clearly, that there is no such thing as extra pay in the ordinary sense of that word.
    SIR W. FOSTER: It comes out of the pocket of the taxpayers, and we
    586
    object to our money being spent on travelling expenses and conveniences for a military police. I happen to have, probably, a longer experience of the Irish Police than the right hon. Gentleman. Thirty years ago the Irish Police were the pride of Ireland. The physique of the Irish Constabulary is as good now as then, but 30 years ago they occupied a very different position in the regard of the people to what they do now. At that time the cost of the force was about £700,000, although the population was 6,000,000. Now it is £1,500,000, with a decreasing population. The great mass of the people are in bitter antagonism to this military police force, and I protest, as a taxpayer, against this wanton and wasteful expenditure. There is another way in which you can judge of the changed relations between the people and the police. Thirty years ago the privates in the Police Force were often enabled to marry above their stations in life, and you could not have a better test of the popularity of the force than that. But the other day I had a conversation with a young lady of good social position, and she stated that she was compelled to break her engagement with an Inspector of Police, such was the feeling of the district, and so strong the feelings of her own relations. What I wish to point out is that the condition of things is changed very much for the worse. In August last year I went to Abbeyfeale, in Ireland, in order to go over the estate, where 45 houses were being prepared against evictions. I went to the house of the Parish Priest, and when I came out I saw a little picket of police, and further on another squad beside a car. I drove with the Priest to the estate, and saw, to my astonishment, that the police followed in their car—an army of one sub-inspector, one head constable, one sergeant, and one rank and file. That was a disgraceful misuse of the Force. They kept a certain distance from us, but followed us the whole way to the estate, pulling up within a few yards of us. I looked at the fortified houses, and spoke to one policeman who followed me about, in order that no mistake might be made, and in order that he might ask me any questions. I said something about the evictions, and he said it was a bad day for them. It was raining, as if that had

    587
    anything to do with the cause of the misery which was being occasioned. He asked me no questions. I had conversation from time to time with the people, and the officer continued to follow my movements. We drove to another estate, and these men followed us. I say such conduct to a Member of Parliament was an insult to him and his constituents. If the officer had inquired from the Resident Magistrate, he would have discovered who I was. When I told the Resident Magistrate—to whom I had done a kindness by attending in my capacity of a doctor to his daughter, who was suffering from a sickness of a fatal kind—how I had been followed, he seemed ashamed of the indignity to which I had been subjected. My experience is not singular. I took refuge in the Priest's house, and when I came out I found I was watched. We drove to the station and found policemen there waiting for us. During the whole of my stay I and my friends were watched by policemen. Practically, we occupied about one-third of the force of Abbeyfeale. This misuse of public money, this barren use of the police, is a disgrace to any Government or any official who defends it. Similar indignities have been offered to other Englishmen travelling in Ireland. In England we do not allow our police to be used for private purposes without a money charge being made for their services; and if the right hon. Gentleman would introduce that system with regard to the Irish Constabulary, the landlords would be a little more tender in the administration of the law and in the execution of their decrees. Then we have, also, the charges of brutality of the Police Force, in such an instance as that of Mr. O'Brien, who was actually injured the other day. And we had frequently before this House, in the shape of repeated questioning, the telegram in which a Constabulary Officer said—"Do not hesitate to shoot."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman will excuse me for interrupting. That telegram has been grossly misquoted. The words "if it be necessary" have been left out by those who have quoted it; and I suppose that even the hon. Gentleman opposite will admit that those words are not an unimportant part of the telegram.
    SIR W. FOSTER: I admit that these words, to a certain extent, take the sting out of the telegram.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.
    SIR W. FOSTER: But when a man puts the words, "Do not hesitate to shoot" in front, it shows the spirit by which the man is prompted who writes the telegram. If he had been actuated by a different spirit, he would have said probably, "Only shoot in the last resort." I believe that this expenditure on the Irish Police is bad because it creates disaffection among the Irish people. A more humane system should be introduced, for every week we have instances of the brutality of the police recorded. A brutal police means a brutalised people. The people of Ireland are being reduced to a state of bondage by the presence of a Military Force in their country, which is as if under a military occupation. You arrive at a station, and police are there to receive you and to watch you off. If a few people gather around you in conversation, the police come between you. This military spirit is rampant and dominant throughout the country, and the people resent it. It is a system of bondage for the Irish people, a life of bondage, and of licence for brute force; it is a system which is a disgrace to the British Government, and I hope that an end will soon be put to it.
    MR. GILL: I do not know when the right hon. Gentleman proposes to reply to the graver charges which have been made against his administration of the police; but before he does so, I wish to put a few questions to him, chiefly in connection with the incidents attending the arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork. On a recent occasion my hon. Friend brought this matter before the House, but he had to do so under very unsatisfactory circumstances. He was only allowed to make a personal statement, and moreover, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was, by the ruling of the Chair, precluded from making any reply to the statement. I trust, therefore, that this evening he will not treat this as a question which has been disposed of, more especially as he has taken very good care that this evening my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork shall be absent from the House. This is the day on which it

    589
    was necessary that he should be in Ireland in order to take his trial for the alleged offence for which it was thought necessary to arrest him in so summary and violent a fashion some weeks ago, and the day selected for the trial, notwithstanding the protests of my hon. Friend, was also the day selected by the Government for commencing the discussion on the Irish Estimates, and for discussing especially the Vote on which this particular question could be raised. Therefore, I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman has provided for the absence of my hon. Friend, and he has also provided for the absence of the hon. Member for Longford, who he knew would be engaged in the defence of the Member for North-East Cork. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will treat this question as if my hon. Friends were present, and that he will give us a clear explanation of the reasons why the Government adopted the course which they took on that occasion. First, I will ask, why was the hon. Member arrested in the manner in which he was? Why was it necessary to arrest him at all? Why did the Authorities not proceed in the manner in which they have proceeded in a subsequent prosecution—namely, by summons? The day on which the arrest took place was a Sunday, and a day of great excitement and commotion in the City of Cork.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! It dees not appear that the question which the hon. Member is discussing is pertinent to this Vote.
    MR. GILL: I am desirous of discussing the action of the police on that particular occasion.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The conduct of the police is quite pertinent to the Vote; but I understood the hon. Member to be entering into an examination of the reasons why this particular day was selected for the arrest.
    MR. GILL: I was trying to point out that this was a day of great public excitement in Cork, and there was great danger in bringing the police into violent collision with the people on such an occasion. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman why, upon an occasion of that kind, he took a course calculated to result in violence, in bloodshed, and in a grievous disturbance of the peace. Why did he select that occa-
    590
    sion for the arrest of my hon. Friend? The first thing which occurred on this occasion was a baton charge by the police at Bandon Railway Station. The explanation for that charge offered by the Solicitor General for Ireland when this question was raised upon a recent occasion in the House, was that a rescue had been attempted by my hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan; that there was a crowd of persons on the platform which intended to attempt a rescue, and that it was to prevent that that the baton charge took place. Now, that statement I brand as a monstrous fabrication, and whoever put it into the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Solicitor General for Ireland gave them an utterly unfounded and utterly infamous fabrication. There would have been no such thing as an attempt to rescue; there was no such intention in the mind of anybody present, for nobody had the slightest notion that the hon. Member was about to be arrested. A number of his friends, including some colleagues of the hon. Member for North Monaghan, went to meet Mr. William O'Brien on his return from a meeting in another part of Cork in order to accompany him to another railway station from which he was about to take his departure for London. There were several ladies among those present, and this is the crowd which it is suggested would have attempted a rescue. As a matter of fact, it was only when he stepped out of the carriage and a policeman laid his hand on the hon. Member's shoulder and announced that he was a prisoner, that anybody dreamt that an arrest was going to take place. At that very moment, without a moment's warning, and without the slightest provocation, the police rushed violently, baton in hand and muskets clubbed, on the crowd of inoffensive people on the platform, and they felled to the ground my hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan, who is still suffering from the effects of the blow. They struck several people in the crowd, and they committed one of the most wanton and barbarous assaults that has ever been recorded in the annals of tyranny all the world through. Now I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he chose such an occasion for the arrest of my hon. Friend; and, secondly, what was the cause of this

    591
    baton charge. How can he explain the fact that this, violent criminal, whom it was necessary to arrest amidst scenes of violence, bloodshed, and disturbance has since that moment been walking about at large doing as he pleases, I think the circumstances I have narrated show the utter hollowness of the pretence which was put forward that a rescue was projected. Now I come to another grave matter in connection with this question, and that is the firing by Inspector Concannon and his men on the people assembled at the Charleville Railway Station. The Tight hon. Gentleman has explained that this crowd also had an intention of rescuing my hon. Friend, and that they were proceeding in a most violent manner to do so; that they were firing shots at the police in their attempted rescue, and that the police were therefore put under the necessity of firing back again in self-defence. Now, Sir, there is one very plain answer to that suggestion. Mr. O'Brien was arrested about 10 o'clock at night. The telegraph office at Charleville had been closed ever since 10 o'clock in the morning, and there was no possibility in the world of the news reaching Charleville before the arrival of the train in which Mr. O'Brien was being conveyed. What really occurred on that platform was this: A little group of band boys had assembled to meet the deputation which had gone from Charleville to attend the Cork meeting, and they intended to escort that deputation on its return home. When the train arrived, this band struck up a tune, which they were allowed to play right through. Then they commenced a second tune, and marched along the platform in the direction of the carriages, from which they expected to see the deputation alight. When they had gone half the way along the platform, they received the first intimation that Mr. O'Brien was in the train under arrest, and they at once gave a cheer for the hon. Member, and rushed to the carriage door asking leave to shake hands with him. Inspector Concannon, who was in charge of the police, thereupon became exceedingly excited. He drew his sword and declared that these men were about to rescue Mr. William O'Brien. An attempt was made to open the door, as the blinds to the carriage windows were all closely
    592
    drawn, but the police thrust out their rifles and drove the crowd back. Someone thereupon broke a window with his stock, and Concannon and two policemen drew their revolvers. At the same time, one of the porters employed at the station went to the carriage to collect tickets. He pulled open the door and asked for the tickets of the police, but they shouted out that they had no tickets. He told them that they must get some, and they at once hurled him from the carriage and slammed the door in his face. The crowd thereupon groaned, and the policemen, just as the train was moving off, fired three shots from their revolvers. I want an explanation of that conduct. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House any means of inquiring into the responsibility for what might have proved a bloody and atrocious murder? I brand the conduct of the police on that occasion as deserving in the utmost degree of the condemnation of the Executive. The statement of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork is before the House. He has described what occurred between himself and the police after the train had left the station. He has told the House how the Inspector admitted that only three shots were fired. He has shown how, upon examination, he found that all three shots were fired by the police, and with such unimpeachable evidence before him, surely the right hon. Gentleman, if he conducted the business of his office as it should be conducted, would agree to make a thorough inquiry into the proceeding, and to hold a public inquiry on oath, and thereby satisfy the public that the truth would be elicited. These are the heads of the very grave matters I charge against the police this evening. I shall reserve my comments on the right hon. Gentleman's reply until we have got his explanation. For the present I shall not deal at any greater length with the administration of the Police Force in Ireland, my desire being to concentrate the attention of the right hon. Gentleman upon these particular matters.
    MR. O'HEA: I wish to press upon the right hon. Gentleman a few further considerations appertaining to the same occasion. I was witness of most of the events that occurred in Cork in the earlier part of the day, but I was not present at the railway station,

    593
    although I have taken the trouble to satisfy myself as to what occurred on that occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan, knowing that Mr. O'Brien was coming from a distant part of the country, left his hotel accompanied by two young ladies, the daughters of the proprietor, to meet his friend. I have since obtained a graphic account of the occurrence at the station. The party left the hotel about half an hour before the train was due to arrive at the station, and at the time of their arrival there, they found very few people present, although a large crowd of police had mustered. They ascertained from one of the porters at what portion of the platform the carriage in which Mr. O'Brien was travelling would be likely to draw up, and while the Member for North Monaghan was talking to a Tipperary gentleman, a policeman, known to these young ladies, recommended them to go down to the lower end of the platform, because he said they would be quite safe there. Why did he give that advice to the young ladies? The manifest answer is—that the policeman knew that something was going to happen, and that probably a baton charge would take place as soon as the train arrived. I do not propose to go into all the details of the bludgeoning which followed. I may merely remark that one of the persons who was so injured as to have to be conveyed to the hospital was one of the sergeants of the Mayor of Cork, who had simply gone down to hear the cheer given for Mr. O'Brien. He was in uniform, and one would have thought that his uniform would have protected him from assault; but, as a fact, he was so seriously injured that a fortnight afterwards he had not recovered from the beating he then received. But I repeat that I will not go into the details of so brutal and disgusting an occurrence. Comment has been made on the extraordinary methods employed for the arrest of Mr. O'Brien—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. O'HEA: Upon the arrest of the hon. Member for North-East Cork, and I respectfully invite the attention of the House to facts which sufficiently indicate the extraordinary circumstances under which my hon. Friend was arrested. It happened that the following evening I was driving on my way home, when I
    594
    called upon my hon. Friend the Member for East Cork. That gentleman told me that during the whole of the day the front of his office had been patrolled by policemen in uniform, and that the place had also been shadowed by constables in plain clothes, and he gave me certain instructions to carry out in the event of his arrest. While I was in his office a District Inspector, accompanied by the Head Constable and two other constables, entered and arrested him. I suggested to my hon. Friend that he should ask to see the warrant; and when it was shown to him, we found that his name was actually bracketed with that of the hon. Member for North East Cork, and that he was charged in respect of the same offence as had led to the charge against the Member for North-East Cork. Why, I ask, were not both hon. Members arrested on that Sunday? Why did the police distinguish between the two? They knew that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork, was one of the best-beloved of the Irish representatives; that he was sure of an enthusiastic reception wherever he went, and yet the police took the opportunity of a day of great excitement to arrest him. I will give another illustration to show the temper of the police on this occasion. While a man who had spent the day in the country and had not been to any meetings was walking through one of the streets in Cork, he was pushed up against by a constable. He remonstrated with the man, and told him that if he repeated his conduct he would make it the worse for him. He was at once placed under arrest, marched to the Bridewell, and charged with being drunk and disorderly, and the next morning it was proved in Court that he had for three years been a member of a Total Abstinence Association called "The League of the Cross," and consequently was certainly not under the influence of drink. Thus we see what was the temper of the police at the time they arrested one hon. Member in the presence of another hon. Member, for whom they held a warrant for the joint offence, and which they held over till the following day. The Committee will await with some interest and curiosity the answer given to my hon. Friend (Mr. Flynn), and also to the considerations by which I have endeavoured to supplement his remarks.
    MR. BLANE: I think it is not an unreasonable proposition that the Constabulary Force of a country should have some relation to the number of people in the country. The Irish Constabulary Returns, however, show that whilst the population of Ireland has decreased within the last 50 years, the Constabulary Force has increased both in number and expense. I find from Returns presented to the House, that in 1840 there were in Ireland 8,175,000 people. This year the population is only a little more than 4,000,000. One would expect that the force which in 1840 kept law and order very fairly going would be sufficient for the Chief Secretary now; but it appears the right hon. Gentleman cannot work with the same tools that equally distinguished men were fairly successful with in 1840. I find that in 1840 the pay of the Inspector General of Constabulary was £1,300. Nothing appears to have been paid him for allowances, travelling expenses, and the like. Now, however, the salary of the Inspector General is £1,500, and allowances bring up his total receipts to over £2,000. The County Inspectors of 1840 were thought to be well paid at £298. They received nothing for allowances or travelling expenses. Nowadays the County Inspectors receive £450, plus a large amount for allowances and travelling expenses. The first-class District Inspectors in 1840 were paid £150 and no allowances; now they get £300, together with allowances and travelling expenses. When we find that the travelling expenses alone for last year amounted to £38,361, and that in the present year they are estimated to be £41,861, the item is worthy of some consideration. I find that in 1840 the second-class District Inspectors thought themselves very well paid at £120; but the present second-class District Inspectors are not satisfied with less than £250, besides travelling allowances, extra pay, allowances for barrack accommodation, or, in lieu thereof, lodging money. The lowest class of District Inspectors were paid £100 in 1840, and there was no dearth of candidates for the post, but now similar officers are paid £125. The average wages of the heads of families in Ireland is about 11s. or 11s. 6d. per week, but the Irish constables, who are taken from the very
    596
    humblest families, received in 1840 £24 a year, but now they get £62 8s. A soldier only receives £18 4s., and out of that he has a large amount to pay for different expenses. Acting sergeants got £27 14s. in 1840, but a generous British public now pays them £72 16s. Sergeants received £32 7s. in 1840, but the pay has been increased to £80 12s. 6d. Head Constables in barracks received £60 a year in 1840, but now they get £104. Surgeons received £300 in 1840, but now they receive £400 and about £100 for allowances and travelling expenses. The members of the Clerks' Department of the Constabulary, Lower Castle Yard, in 1840 thought they were abundantly paid by £1,000. Then there was a population of 8,175,000; but now, with only half the population, the Clerks' Department costs more than four times as much—namely, £4,845. In 1840 the Paymaster of the Constabulary received £200, but now he is paid £557, plus allowances and extra pay, and, if I mistake not, a clerk all to himself or £48 in lieu thereof. The whole extra pay of the Constabulary in 1840 was represented by 0, but now it amounts to £34,804. The travelling allowances in 1840 were also represented by 0, but I can well understand that now, with marching columns at the beck and call of every rack-renter in the country, the travelling expenses should amount to £38,361. Many gross abuses are disclosed in the discussions on the Estimates; but I defy anyone to show anything so corrupt as the expenditure of the money under this Vote. Now, as to the character of the crimes committed in Ireland, I remember that one read out by the Chief Secretary with great unction was that of a man putting out his tongue to a policeman. An hon. MEMBER: In a threatening manner.] Just so. And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there were a large number of threatening letters. We have over and over again stated that the constabulary wrote threatening letters, sometimes by their own hand and at other times by deputy. £18,800 is set down for postage. I defy any Minister to justify the charge. It is physically impossible for the police in their ordinary work to expend £18,800 in penny stamps. I have seen some of these threatening letters.

    597
    I know that when an officer of constabulary in a particular district wants to be promoted and there is not sufficient crime in his district, he gets threatening letters sent. The place is proclaimed, new barracks are erected, and the officer receives promotion. Only the other day I received a letter from County Armagh in which it is clearly shown how the police get up outrages. It was only a few days ago that a Sub-Inspector named Bigley, stationed at Lurgan, thought he ought to be a County Inspector. He is a man that has got on step by step from the position of an ordinary constable to that of a second-class Inspector. In the constituency I represent this man paid for the getting up of a constituency, and when he got it up he hired one of his agents to swear away the liberties of the rest of the men. He secured the con viction of some 13 or 14 men, and he received promotion in the force. The other day this same man sent out a body of constabulary armed with rifles evidently with no other object but that of firing on three men who were fishing in Lough Neagh. The men were James Robinson, John Robinson, and John Cameron. They hold the Revenue licence; they were pursuing their calling of fishermen; but Sub-Inspector Bigley ordered three volleys to be fired at them. Two bullets went through the boat, and one struck a small iron vessel in which a fire is kept and smashed it to atoms. The fishermen swore an information against the police, but only one of the constables, a man named Myers, was arrested. Nothing will come of the case, because all the forces of the Crown are always brought to bear to protect policemen. If the fishermen had returned the tire, which I think they would have been fairly justified in doing, we should have had the Chief Secretary asserting that a gross outrage on the police was committed. The Irish Constabulary are above the law. The law is nothing to them except they can use it. When it does not serve their purpose, when it is inconvenient to them, they sling it on one side. In the district of Donegal, that I know something I of, the constabulary have endeavoured by every means in their power to get up outrages, and to provoke the people to breaches of the peace. County Inspectors make Returns as to the ne-
    598
    cessity of having large forces in particular districts, and when landlords turn out their tenants in thousands they must necessarily have a large constabulary force in the district by way of protection. Captain Hill, the cousin of one of the Conservative Whips, gets more by reason of the police and military being quartered in his district than the whole of his rents are worth. His tenants may adopt the Plan of Campaign; but the officers who are sent to the Gweedore Hotel are better tenants of Captain Hill than his ordinary agricultural tenants. Now, it is utterly impossible for any Minister to defend this Constabulary expenditure, which has risen from £419,442 in 1840 to £1,439,288. And the latter sum does not include the cost of Dublin Metropolitan Police. The Irish Constabulary are not a civil, but a military force, and yet they are kept up in defiance of the Military Act. The other night, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin said he was thankful that we had not a police system the same as in France. But I know that the conduct of the French Police is far different to that of the Irish Police. The Irish Constabulary are a far more formidable force than the French Force, and I fear that a similar state of things to that in Ireland will soon be setup in England. The action of the police in dispersing our meetings is hardly known in London, and I think that, taking all these things together, it would be well for the House to consider at least some of the matters I have put before it, dating from 1840 to the present year, not one of which can be contradicted by anyone in or out of this House. If that consideration is only given them, I think it will be seen that a case has been made out which urgently demands an immediate remedy.
    MR. H. COSSHAM: The first thing that strikes me in regard to this question is that the home policy of this country, as well as its foreign policy, has the effect of doubling our expenditure. It is said that we must have a large expenditure on the police because it is necessary to maintain a large force, but we should not forget that the police force represents in itself the enormous amount of taxation we have to endure, the cost of the Irish Constabulary and military amounting to 25s. 6d. per head per annum to

    599
    every man, woman, and child in that country. We might, however, govern Ireland for a much less sum if we governed it on the principle of self-government which we adopt in this country. I think my hon. Friends have made out a very strong case, and I cannot but feel that while the suffering is theirs the degradation is ours. Indeed, I have felt a deep sense of degradation as I have heard the tales of sorrow and wrong that have been put before us, but I venture to hope that my Irish friends will recollect that there are many of us here who are not responsible for the state of things they have depicted—a state of things which we will alter as much as we can at the next General Election, whenever that may happen. This Debate has brought out very clearly the fact that the only two places in which the police come into collision with the people are those places in which the people are directly under the management of the Executive—namely, Ireland and London. In other places where they only deal directly with crime the police are the friends of the people, and it is only where they have to deal with the liberties of the people that this relationship is changed. I was much struck by the remarkable figures put before the Committee by the hon. Gentleman who introduced the discussion, as they showed that in 19 years, although the population of Ireland has very considerably decreased, the cost of the Police Force has increased by £571,572. This shows that where we have a statutory policy founded on justice, we can do with a small Police Force, but that where we have a policy like that which the Chief Secretary is trying in vain to carry out, it proves, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, an utter failure, as any policy must be which does not tend to cement the people to us in amicable relationship. If the object of the right hon. Gentleman has been to bring the people into collision with the forces of the Crown then he has been successful; but that is not the object he has to promote, and consequently his policy has been a failure. I think the questions asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) were very remarkable questions, and it may be said that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary never answered
    600
    one of them. In fact, the flippant and slipshod way in which the Chief Secretary addressed the Committee showed that he wished to go round the Cape of Good Hope rather than deal with the matter at hand. I have, however, often noticed the facility with which the right hon. Gentleman evades a straightforward question. He was asked under what item we were to look for the charge for the battering ram, and we could get no direct answer. We have heard a good deal about the increased cost of the police; but, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman cannot say the crime of the country is increasing, because the facts prove that that is not the case. Why, then, should we have to deal with the increased cost of that force at a time when crime is diminishing? For it is not on the Irish ratepayers alone that the cost falls, it is also made to fall on the taxpayers of this country. My constituents have to pay their proportion, and as their Representative I say they pay it unwillingly, and that we have no right to saddle on the hard-worked people of this country the cost of keeping up a force the main object of which seems to be to enforce the payment of impossible rents. This is a policy that cannot long be maintained. Last autumn I had the misfortune to be in Ireland and while there I witnessed some sad scenes. I was present at one case of eviction where the tenant had been bedridden for two years. There were seven policemen round the hut, and 30 or 40 emergency men, there being altogether about 100 policeman in the vicinity, and all this to get rid of a bedridden tenant. At last, after a deal of persuasion on the part of the priest and myself, we were able to get the tenant to pay the rent, which was only £11. I saw, on the same day, the eviction of the unfortunate man James Doo, of whom the right hon. Gentleman has said, the man was not killed by the eviction but by the exposure. He was over 80 years of age, and had lived on the farm for 60 years, and within three hours of his eviction he was a dead man. I do not hesitate to say—much as I loathe the idea of murder in the form in which it sometimes takes place—that in Ireland, where one man is killed by crime, ten men are killed by that policy of brute force, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secre-

    601
    tary is the distinguished representative. The Government are aware that this policy of brute force has never yet succeeded, much as it has been tried, and it never will succeed. The policy I believe in is that of removing the grievances of the people, and when we come to display an honest desire to meet the just demands of the Irish people, and to treat them as brethren and neighbours, we shall save the cost of more than two-thirds of the Police Force we now maintain in Ireland. I believe we shall, before very long, be able to put an end to the present state of things. I want to see a real union, not a union in which the policeman walks with his hand on the man he has arrested. I want also to see the time when the Representatives of the Irish people will no longer be subjected to the outrages they now have to encounter. We, on these Benches, are ashamed of such treatment, and want to wipe our hands of the disgrace of it. I protest against it in the name of the English Liberals, and I ask my Irish friends to excuse my intervention in this; but I want them to know that we sympathise with them in the state of things now going on in their country, and are desirous of helping them to remedy it. The policy of the right hon. Gentleman is, in fact, such that the country is only awaiting the opportunity of getting rid both of him and it.
    MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: I desire to draw attention to one of the incidents connected with the discharge of the magisterial duty in Ireland which has come under my own observation—I allude to the trial of the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. Cox), and the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. T. P. Gill), at Drogheda, on the 8th July. My object is to bring before the Committee the kind of evidence which is put forward on such occasions by police constables—evidence which, though tested and rejected on this occasion, is not, I believe, often tested or rejected. The trial took place before two Resident Magistrates, the defendants being charged under the Crimes Act with having taken part in a criminal conspiracy to induce persons whose names were unknown—namely, tenants on the estate of Lord Masserene not to comply with their legal obligations, and also with having taken part in an unlawful assembly to
    602
    commit such criminal conspiracy. On the 3rd June Drogheda was proclaimed under the Crimes Act, and on the 11th June a meeting was suddenly summoned and held. The two defendants attended and made speeches, which were fully reported in the Freeman's Journal and the Irish Times. The suddenness of the meeting apparently prevented the Magistrates from obtaining the services of a shorthand writer; but at the trial a constable was examined as a witness for the Crown, who swore he had taken, a longhand note of the speeches, and he proceeded to read parts of them which appeared to be fully reported, and were evidently copied from the newspapers, as when tested in cross-examination the witness was unable to take down a single sentence that was read to him, and it was evident from both his evidence and demeanour that he was stating what was absolute falsehood. That was the conviction forced upon my mind, and I think I may say that my friends who were with me were equally impressed with the fact that what he stated was absolutely and physically impossible. I have asked the responsible Executive in Ireland to furnish, the House with the depositions taken down, and which would have shown how the man gave his evidence, but I was told that it was not usual to do that. Surely, then, it is usual in criminal cases to have an inquiry when suspicion attaches to the evidence. I asked the Chief Secretary if such an inquiry had been held; I ask him again whether the circumstances under which this man gave his evidence have been investigated, and why the presiding Magistrate took a day to come to the conclusion that the evidence was unreliable. I have had some little experience—from observations and otherwise—of almost every kind of court in England and Wales—from the court of ordinary summary jurisdiction of the unpaid Police Magistrate—and I unhesitatingly say that if that evidence had been tendered on a charge of ordinary assault before a Petty Sessional Court in England, the Magistrate would have immediately dismissed the charge. I say unhesitatingly, and under a sense of responsibility, that if the Crown Counsel in any Court of Quarter Sessions or any Assize Court in this kingdom had put evidence of that kind in a criminal

    603
    charge before the jury, the Judge would have immediately invited him in a significant manner to withdraw from the prosecution. But on this evidence we were sent back to Dublin. The Court adjourned. We came back from Dublin, and absolutely the Counsel for the Crown was, I will not say allowed, but invited to address the Court after Mr. Bodkin had put forward proofs convincing to every one's mind of the absolute injustice of continuing the case. The case dragged on almost to the end of the second day before the Resident Magistrate acquitted the gentlemen charged. Now, I hold it my duty to bring these facts under the notice of the Committee. I think they throw a lurid light on what is going on in Ireland. If it is possible for a police constable to give such evidence and have it rejected, and to continue employed in the force and to be allowed to get up evidence of this sort—the only evidence very often which can be brought forward—then I ask the Committee and the country what is there which can be called a semblance of justice in the administration of law in Ireland?
    MR. W. REDMOND: I shall move a reduction of this Vote for the Royal Irish Constabulary, but I may say at the outset that it is impossible for Irish Members to refrain from thinking what a vain and hopeless task it is to present the grievances under which the people of Ireland suffer before this House and the Government, when we know that the Minister who is responsible for the administration of the law in Ireland, and who controls the Police Force in that country, said only two or three months ago, in a speech publicly delivered in this city, that he and his Government treated with silent contempt the hon. Member for Cork and those who followed him. It is natural that, under these circumtances, I somewhat reluctantly condescend to address a few remarks to the right hon. Gentleman or to his colleague in the Irish Government. Over and over again, on the floor of this House and throughout the length and breadth of this country, our ease has been stated against the Royal Irish Constabulary; and although the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in the few words which he uttered to night, treated very lightly the charges which
    604
    have been made, still I think the speeches which have been made by English as well as by Irish Members show that throughout England the people are now becoming thoroughly acquainted with the true nature and object of this so called Police Force in Ireland. The Chief Secretary sneeringly pretends to believe that there are no serious charges to be made against this force; but I think that what we have heard goes far to prove to the people of Ireland, who have borne so much suffering for so long a time, that at last the English people recognise that this Constabulary Force is not a mere Police Force, but that it is simply a power used to enable one class of the inhabitants of the country to trample upon the rights and liberties and property of the rest of the people of that country. Now, it is commonly supposed that in the people of Ireland there is an inbred instinct of opposition to policemen, and it is often stated, as a matter of course, that the Irish people natarally object to the police and rebel on every possible occasion against the constituted authorities. But I do not believe hon. Gentlemen will contradict me when I say that there are no people on the face of the earth who would object less to the existence of a proper and necessary Police Force than the Irish people, and it is simply because we have got a so called Police Force in Ireland that allows crime to exist, and spends its time in interfering with the political life of the country, that we complain in this House and attempt to show the people of England that the Constabulary Force is used in Ireland, not for the purpose of putting down real crime and outrage, but for the purpose of maintaining the ascendancy of the landlord class in Ireland, and of the landlord government which, unfortunately, has the control of the police at the present time. We are not objecting to the Police Force in Ireland as police, but we do object that while there are parts of Ireland wherein moonlighting takes place and crime is allowed to exist, yet the Police Force is simply used for the dispersal of meetings which ought to be free from disturbance, and which certainly have no intention of disturbing the public peace; and while the police are engaged in shadowing Members of Parliament and interfering with public meetings in Ire-

    605
    land, the real perpetrators of crime and outrage are left alone, and are not interfered with at all. Now, in the course of my journeys through England to address public meetings I have often been asked how it is that, year after year, crime recurs in certain districts with extraordinary regularity. I have been asked, for instance, why it is that in given parts of Kerry moonlighting frequently takes place, and in answering I never could use an argument more powerful and more convincing than that at the very time these crimes are going on, the whole Police Force in Ireland is being used to disperse public meetings and to arrest Members of Parliament for so-called crimes, which were brought into existence by the Coercion Act, passed by this House two years ago. I honestly believe it would be impossible to find an Irishman in this House, either a Conservative or a Nationalist, who would for a single moment utter the slightest complaint against the Police Force in Ireland were its efforts directed against the authors of real crime and outrage. But the reason why we do complain here, year after year, when the Votes for the Royal Irish Constabulary come to be discussed is because we know from the experience of our daily life in Ireland that this vast sum of money is expended in supporting a large force of men who are not policemen, but who form a military body engaged not in the work of preserving the peace, but in work which is really responsible for disturbing the peace. Whenever the peace of Ireland is disturbed, it is upon such unfortunate occasions as the occasion of Mitchelstown, where a number of innocent people—an unarmed body of men met together without the slightest intention of breaking the law—were charged and set upon by these men for whom we are now asked to vote money as protectors of the peace. We know that on this occasion at Mitchelstown three unfortunate men were shot down in the streets of their own peaceful town by members of this force, which the Chief Secretary eulogised with so much warmth. The right hon. Gentleman in his cool, calm, cynical and sneering manner, said he regarded the Police Force in Ireland as the pick of the Irish people. That sentiment comes very well from the right hon. Gentle-
    606
    man, but I want to know whether it is a sentiment which is calculated to strengthen the hands of men who want to gain respect in Ireland and to govern the Irish people. I want to know whether it is not rather a sneer and an insult to the millions of Irish people, who hold that the police have misbehaved themselves, and who are told to-night by the Chief Secretary that the police are the pick of the population, and that on them alone depends the maintenance of law and order and of civilisation in our country. Had the right hon. Gentleman said the Police Force in Ireland were the only portion of the population that really and sincerely supports the Conservative Government to which he belongs, then he would have made a perfectly accurate statement, but when he comes here and tells the Irish representatives who have been insulted and imprisoned, tracked, and shadowed, and spied upon by these policemen—when he tells us that these policemen are the pick of the Irish population, and that they are the people of whom Ireland ought to be most proud, then I say he is adding a fresh insult to the long list of insults which he is never tired of flinging into the teeth of the representatives of the Irish people, who are elected as freely and as constitutionally and as justly to represent the Irish people in this House as the right hon. Gentleman and those who sit behind him are elected to represent their particular constituencies. The Chief Secretary, in his reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, who took to task on economical grounds the administration of the constabulary, said that the police of Ireland were undoubtedly well paid, because they had exceptional duties to perform, and he said they were men of such a class that it was necessary to pay them highly for their services. Yes, but he had not the hardihood or fairness to say what were the exceptional duties which the Royal Irish Constabulary are called upon to perform, and which necessitate their being paid at this extraordinarily high rate. He did not tell the House that they had to be ready at all times of the year, and at all seasons, in the middle of summer and in the depth of winter—that they had to be always at the beck and call of a few men, who, for selfish reasons, insist on depopulating whole

    607
    tracts of country, and driving men, women, and children out of the houses in which they were born. They are highly paid, but the word pay is not a proper description. It ought to be described as bribery, pure and simple, for I do believe that unless the Government paid the enormous prices which they do pay for the maintenance of the constabulary, they would not be able to maintain in Ireland a body to do the degrading and miserable and un-Christian work which the Royal Irish Constabulary do to their fellow-countrymen, day after day, on the occasions of these terrible evictions. I am sure that if the people of Great Britain understood that they are called upon to pay annually a million and a half for the maintenance of an armed force in Ireland which is used chiefly for evicting purposes, they would not so easily agree to the payment. It is impossible for any person who has watched the work of the Royal Irish Constabulary to ignore the fact that they are employed in the interests of the landlord classes, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary refrains from telling the House what are the exceptional circumstances for which they are paid, he does well, because directly the people of England find out that they have to pay for the support of these men with their rifles and bayonets—not to put down crime and outrage, not to keep the country in a state of peace and order, but simply to be at the beck and call of the landlords to hunt unfortunate people from their homes for rents which they cannot pay—they will refuse any longer to sanction the maintenance of the force for that purpose. I think the history of civilisation affords no parallel to the scandal of the maintenance of a force like the Royal Irish Constabulary for the purpose of attacking a political party of the State, and for the purpose of enabling a class which is a small minority of the population to harass and treat with injustice the rest of the people who live on the soil of Ireland. If the Chief Secretary desires to make out a case for the Vote, let him get up and tell the House what crimes have been brought to light by the Royal Irish Constabulary within the last twelve months, and how many murderers have been brought to the scaffold through the instrumentality of that Force. Thousands of pounds are, I
    608
    see, put down for the Detective Department. What crimes have that Department discovered, and what outrages have they put an end to? Have they put an end to moonlighting? Have they swept crime from those portions of the country where outrage and injustice breed crime amongst the populations? No! You are going to pay a million and a half for the maintenance of a body of men who have been engaged—not in tracking murderers down, but in dragging to prison 26 of the lawfully-elected representatives of the people; for a body of men who have been engaged in dispersing political meetings at the point of the bayonet all over Ireland; for a body of men who have not hesitated, at the word of command, to dye their bayonets red with the blood of their fellow-countrymen, when the only crime committed by these men has been to denounce the miserable system of rule under which they live. When we speak of Mitchelstown, the Tories sneer and say we are never tired of talking of it. Why, if such an event had occurred in England, I venture to say it would have been a watchword for Englishmen for generations, and I predict that upon the very first occasion when an armed force of the Queen on the soil of England shoots down three English citizens for no crime except that of exercising the right of public meeting, you will have a revolution in the country which will render it impossible for such a thing to occur again, either in England or in Ireland. The only thing I regret is, that something of that kind does not occur in England, and I do not believe that even the best disposed of the English people towards Ireland really understand what we have to suffer at the hands of this military force which is called a Police Force. Mitchelstown is not an isolated case. Year after year, if you refer back to the records of the Royal Irish Constabulary, you will find they have done the same thing. I, Sir, in my very brief and short experience of public life in Ireland, can enumerate half-a-dozen cases in which the Royal Irish Constabulary have, in interfering with political meetings, shed blood in much the same way as they did at Mitchelstown. I remember a case at Ballyragget, in County Kilkenny, where a man was done to death by the police—where, when he was flying be-

    609
    fore them, they were not satisfied with merely pursuing him, but they stabbed him through and through the back with their bayonets. I remember when the police fired into a crowd of children at Belmullet, and wounded several of them. And these are the men for whom the Committee are to day asked to vote money! These are the men described by the Chief Secretary as the pick of the Irish population, but who really resemble those bravos and free lances who will, for the sake of money, carry war into the land of any unoffending people. I say it is not in the nature or in the hearts of the Irish people to have a dislike, a loathing, and a distrust such as they have for the Royal Irish Constabulary unless there is good reason for it, and if the police of Ireland are unpopular they have earned that unpopularity by the course of conduct which they have pursued. I, for one, would never allow this Vote to pass in the House of Commons without entering my most sincere and emphatic protest against a system whereby a real Police Force is denied to Ireland. I will never consent to Vote a single halfpenny for the continuance in Ireland of this military body merely for the purpose of supporting and sustaining the landlord class. I challenge the Solicitor General for Ireland to get up here and state upon what occasion the police in Ireland were ever brought to task for exceeding their duty, and upon what occasion they were ever brought to justice when they shed the blood of innocent persons. I know of no such occasion. I know of coroners' juries composed of conscientious and God fearing men who have deliberately set themselves to find out the truth in these cases, and who have brought verdicts of wilful murder against the police. This was done in the case of Mitchelstown, and in that of Ballyragget, as well as in other cases. But what was the result? After such a verdict has been returned, I have seen the police officers, against whom these verdicts were returned, walking up and down the public streets smoking pipes and laughing in scorn and derision at the peasantry, who were so foolish as to imagine that a policeman, whatever his grade, would be made amenable to the law. I complain that not only have you never punished these men, but you
    610
    have never even gratified that craving for justice among the people by giving them even an inquiry into the conduct of the police on these occasions. You take no pains to show that the police would not be allowed to exceed their duty, and can any Englishman wonder if the people of Ireland believe that the police will be held blameless no matter what they may do, no matter what crimes they perpetrate? Can it be wondered at that the Irish people believe this when they see these outrages committed by the police, and when they see no attempt made by the Government to punish even the most flagrant offenders? Does the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, with all this knowledge, think he is going to conciliate Ireland and disarm opposition when he gets up, and, instead of offering some hopes that justice may be done, or that an inquiry will be instituted, he deliberately and in a sneaking manner tells us that this force of men, whose hands are dyed with the blood of innocent people, and are hardly free from the blood of one of our own colleagues in this House, comprises the pick of the Irish population? I am quite certain that the result of this Debate will be to show the Irish people more clearly than ever that it is impossible to get any real appreciation of Irish grievances and Irish wrongs from Members of the present Government. It may be said it is a proper thing to give instances of police insult and interference in Ireland. Now, in my seven years' experience as a Member of this House, I have some knowledge of the Force, and I venture to say I have never spent a month in Ireland without repeatedly being the subject of insult from these men. It would be difficult to make Englishmen believe the unwarrantable manner in which Irish policemen intrude themselves into private dwellings, and order the people, without the slightest authority, to disperse. I remember that in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for the College Green Division of Dublin, I some time ago attended a meeting in the County of Wexford which was called to protest against the action of the Government in instituting certain proceedings which subsequently they were obliged to forego because they were miserably beaten. While the people were as-

    611
    sembled, two policemen came up and I ordered the meeting to disperse. They had not the slightest authority to do so, and it was only at the solicitation of my hon. Friend and myself that the people went away quietly and no disturbance occurred. I believe that nine-tenths of the collisions which occur between the police and the people are caused by the unwarrantable interference of the police with the people when they have no legal right to interfere. Now I come to the circumstances connected with the arrest of the hon. Member for North-East Cork, and I want to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland to explain the statement which he made in defending the conduct of the police in firing from the train at the crowd on Charlesville railway platform. He said that the crowd fired at the train, but he gave us no proof of the statement; and I say that there was never a more scandalous trick, or a more disgraceful piece of Parliamentary tactics intended to prejudice our case. I challenge him now to produce his proof, and I want to know will he grant an inquiry into what took place on this occasion. We maintain that the police acted in a most reprehensible manner in firing upon an unarmed crowd of inoffensive people, and I should like to know what can be the objection to the institution of an inquiry. I suppose the Government think that it might damp the ardour of the police if they granted an investigation into circumstances such as these, and that if the force received another telegram, "Do not hesitate to shoot," they might not fire so readily if they had reason to fear that an investigation would follow upon their conduct. I, therefore, fully expect that the right hon. Gentleman will refuse to grant an inquiry. I suppose he will refuse to believe the statement of the case which the Member for North-East Cork has seriously made to this House, and I suppose at the same time, while refusing to believe what the Irish Members say, and to grant the inquiry asked for, he will continue to eulogise the Constabulary Force.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: There are things upon which the Committee ought to have explanations from the Chief Secretary. We have discussed on two occasions, first, the attack upon the Member for North Monaghan, and secondly, what is called the Charleville
    612
    incident; but on both occasions the discussion took place with little or no official information. The time has now come when information must be in the hands of the Government, and the Committee ought to have it. I am one of those who believe that the police have not always been well handled, and that on several critical occasions they have been badly handled. So strongly do I feel it that if the hon. Member moves for an inquiry I will vote for it. There is another thing which the Government ought to grant. A complaint is made that the Irish police are not numbered. They are numbered in Dublin, Belfast and Cork. I do not see why they should not be numbered in every part of the country. Having said these two things, I will also say that I will be no party to any general attack upon the police, who have done their duty in difficult circumstances and, all things considered, fairly well. An hon. Member has said that the police are present at evictions for private purposes, and that the landlords ought to pay for their services. Why are the police present at evictions? I am old enough to remember that evictions used to be carried out without the presence of the police, or when they were present in very different numbers. But hon. Members below the Gangway have been advising the people for two or three years back to resist evictions, to barricade their houses, and to resist the officers of the law. The sheriff goes to carry out the law, and the Executive is bound by law to protect the sheriff. Hon. Members below the Gangway know well that the Government are bound to protect the sheriff, and therefore to send the police to protect him. Let hon. Members stop their illegal acts and the Government will not send the police.
    An hon. MEMBER: Stop the evictions.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Let the tenants pay their rent. The hon. Member for Donegal talks of people who have applied to the Chief Secretary for appointments, as if the hon. Member never held an appointment himself and never applied for it. I wish he had been here to listen to what I have to say.
    Several MEMBERS: Do not make the charge behind his back.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I would make it as freely before his face.
    An hon. MEMBER: What appointment do you refer to?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I will now deal with his speech.
    MR. GILL: I rise to a point of order. The hon. Gentleman accused my hon. Friend of having held a disgraceful appointment.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I never said anything of the kind.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The interruption is irregular.
    MR. W. REDMOND (addressing Mr. Russell): You are a coward.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL (to the Chairman): I wish to ask if that language is in order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Did the hon. Member for North Fermanagh use the term?
    MR. W. REDMOND: I used it certainly.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Then I call on the hon. Member to withdraw it.
    MR. W. REDMOND: On a point of order, I wish to ask if the hon. Member for South Tyrone was in order in making a statement of a most damaging character with regard to an hon. Member who is absent from this House.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member for South Tyrone was not guilty of a breach of order. I call on the hon. Member for North Fermanagh to withdraw the words he used.
    MR. W. REDMOND: Of course I bow to your ruling in the matter, but if the hon. Member likes to meet me outside I will repeat the words.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not made the withdrawal in a proper way.
    MR. W. REDMOND: With great deference to you, Sir, I beg your pardon, but I did withdraw the expression. What I said was that I withdrew in deference to your ruling the words to which you objected, but I would be glad to have explanations with the hon. Member on the point outside.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a satisfactory explanation, and I call on the hon. Member to withdraw the fresh words he has used.
    MR. W. REDMOND: Of course I withdraw anything you wish me to.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Well, Sir, I take the hon. Member's speech. He talked of the issue of passes by the police in the county of Donegal. What were the facts with respect to the issue of these passes? After the murder of Inspector Martin the police made no effort to arrest anybody for 48 hours; but when they began the work of arrest they made up their minds that the persons wanted were within a certain area, and round that area they drew a cordon. People whom the police knew to be perfectly innocent then came to them and asked for a "bit of paper," as they called it, authorising them to pass through the cordon. The responsible police officer issued no passes except on the personal request of individuals. Another case which has been brought before the Committee was that of a policeman who was ordered out of Court on the ground that he was intoxicated. It is true that the man was ordered to leave the Court; but the Committee should have been told that two days afterwards he was sent to a lunatic asylum, where he still remains. The unfortunate man was not drunk when he appeared in Court, but was becoming insane. Another instance of police brutality that has been brought before us is that of a constable telling some excited man at Clonmel Station to go to the devil. Then we had the old story served up to us about Widow Coyle's ducks. We have heard of these ducks all through, the Session, and now we are told that they are going to rise and condemn us at the General Election. I think the police were badly handled on the occasion of Father M'Fadden's arrest; but I maintain that, with that exception, they have all through this Donegal business acted with great prudence, caution, and moderation. The hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire (Sir W. Foster) complained that when he visited the County of Limerick he was "shadowed" by five or six policemen. I think that was a regrettable incident, and I am very sorry that it should have taken place; but there is something still more regrettable—namely, that some English Members of Parliament should have gone to disturbed districts in Ireland and assisted the people to defy the law. If English Members, weighted with their Parliamentary responsibility, aid the people to defy the law, they must not complain

    615
    if the police think it necessary to "shadow" them. I regret that it should have been necessary to "shadow" any Member of Parliament; but, in the circumstances, I cannot blame the police. There are people who can go through Ireland from end to end without being "shadowed." I will tell the Committee why.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: Because they libel other Irish Members.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The observation of the hon. Member is very disorderly. I must beg him to restrain himself.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: I was merely saying that they are able to do it because they libel other Irish Members.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to make such an observation.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The reason is that the police have no cause to shadow them because they go to Ireland with no intention to rouse ill-feeling, and do not advise the people to defy and break the law. I maintain that any English Member of Parliament who keeps within the law can travel from end to end of Ireland and need not fear the smallest interference from any policeman.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Debate has turned upon two very distinct questions, one being the purely economical question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler), and the other the question raised by the hon. Member below the Gangway. With regard to the economical question, my right hon. Friend pointed out that, although in London there are 1,500 more police than in Ireland with about the same population, the actual cost of the police is in Ireland £200,000 more than in London. These figures are, I think, very striking indeed, and deserve the most serious attention of the Committee and the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in his speech resorted again to the old tu quoque argument. I am ready to admit that under the present administrative system in Ireland it would be extremely difficult for any Chief Secretary to make any serious change in the emoluments of the police. As long as the existing system is maintained the good will of the police
    616
    force will be so necessary to the Government that no Chief Secretary would dare to incur the unpopularity of that body. But this is really only another argument against our whole system of administration in Ireland. Assuming, however, that the emoluments of the police must remain unaltered, is it absolutely necessary that the force should be maintained at its present strength? Ireland is a very poor agricultural country, and the part of the United Kingdom which can best be compared with it is Wales. Now, Wales has a population of 1,350,000 and only 900 policemen. If the same proportion were observed in Ireland her Police Force would number 3,150 instead of 14,500. The Police Force of Ireland relatively to her population is therefore four times as large as that of Wales. Nobody can fail in Ireland to note the superabundance of policemen. At every railway station there are two constables, and for their presence no one had ever been able to give me a satisfactory explanation. Another way in which the police are employed was in dogging the steps of the leaders of the Nationalists in rural districts. This very day I have received a letter from a leading tradesman in Castlereagh who complains that for months past he has been constantly pursued by two constables. I believe that the object of this surveillance is to prevent him from attending any meeting of the local Leagues, but he says that it is absolutely futile, for he can always evade the men who are watching him when he wishes. Then there is the question of the "shadowing" of Members of Parliament and other gentlemen who go over to Ireland from this country. Last autumn I complained myself in the House of having been shadowed by the police wherever I went, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary did not deny it, but justified it by saying that if I went to Ireland again with the same object probably the same course would be followed. It is an indignity to Members of Parliament, dishonourable to the Government, and altogether unconstitutional for the police to dog them in this way when they have committed no offence whatever. I willingly admit that the Constabulary are often placed in a position of great difficulty and responsibility, and that at times

    617
    they no doubt receive considerable provocation; but, even making every allowance for them, it is impossible not to see that in the last few months there has been a considerable increase of roughness and brutality on their part towards the people. Even the hon. Member for South Tyrone has said that the police have not always of late been very well handled. We have not yet heard from the Government any defence as to the incidents at Cork and Charleville; but the action of the police on those occasions appears to have been extremely rough and brutal, and calculated to provoke a conflict with the people. Again, on the occasion of the removal of Dr. Tanner from Tipperary to Clonmel, the people who cheered Dr. Tanner were immediately attacked by the police, 20 persons being batoned by them and seriously injured. There is practically no redress for injuries of that kind. If an appeal is made to the Magistrates by the sufferers, the story told by the police is taken as gospel, and the evidence of any number of respectable persons on the other side is disbelieved and rejected. The Chief Secretary himself has repeatedly spoken of attempts to disparage the statements of the police as gross calumnies. In the case of Denis Healy, who was charged with being present at a League meeting, the two Resident Magistrates ignored all the evidence for the defence, and sentenced the accused to six months' imprisonment with hard labour—a punishment very harsh and excessive, even if the offence charged had been fully proved. In another recent instance three men were charged with stoning the police on their return from an eviction on the Ponsonby estate. There was not a scrap of evidence to show that the accused men had thrown stones, and the Magistrates said the only doubt arose from none of the police having actually seen the men throw stones, but they were convinced the men were in the row, and they must give bail for their good behaviour or go to gaol for three months. I have no doubt that it is the line taken by the Chief Secretary in this House when complaints are made of such matters which gives the cue to the Resident Magistrates. The Constabulary Force is in the position of a kind of Prætorian guard in Ireland, and the
    618
    Government dare not interfere with it or with its emoluments from the fear of weakening its authority. It appears to me that the present position of things as regards the police is indefensible and deserves the most serious consideration of this House; and for my part I cannot conclude without condemning the action of the police and the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in this House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has told the House that he is quite certain that I have to defend a great many things which I should be very reluctant to defend under any other circumstances. But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that however that may be I have no reluctance, and that I feel no disinclination in defending the character of the Irish Constabulary. As I have said before, I believe the Irish Constabulary have shown themselves throughout circumstances of the most difficult and trying character, a Police Force of which any country might be proud, and which I believe to be superior to the Police Force which exists in any other country in the world. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford has for some reason or other I do not know what, been left to lead the Opposition in their attack upon the Government in the matter of the Irish Constabulary. I have watched with amazement the condition of the House above the Gangway opposite, during a considerable portion of the evening, and I noticed that while two important speeches were being delivered, that the solitary occupant of those benches was an hon. Gentleman whose name I do not know, but who was fast asleep. Not a single Member on the Front Opposition Bench was present. When I reflect that on the Front Opposition Bench usually sit two Gentlemen who have held the office of Irish Secretary, I really cannot conceive why the Leadership of the Opposition was left to the right hon. Gentleman whose only connection with Ireland has been that he refused on a critical occasion to accept the office of Irish Secretary. Now I do not propose to go at length through certain parts of the speeches delivered from below the Gangway opposite. I do not complain of the tone of those speeches; they are, as compared

    619
    with what we have heard in previous years, moderate and reasonable. Hon. Members will forgive me if I do not go at length into some of the wonderful fictions we have heard tonight—such as that we heard from the hon. Member for South Armagh (Mr. Blane) who told us that the police were habitually occupied in the part of the country with which he was acquainted in getting up crimes, in writing threatening letters partly in their own hands and partly by deputy, all for the purpose of increasing the number of their body who are required to preserve peace and order. Well, I think that is a kind of accusation I may be forgiven for passing by without further comment. There have been a good many vague attacks against the police made, sometimes without name, date, or place being given, sometimes without sufficient details to enable the truth of the matter to be found, and sometimes at such short notice that it is impossible for anyone who holds the position of Chief Secretary to find out the true version of the story which it has pleased hon. Gentlemen in the full glow of their eloquence to present to the House. But I propose to deal with most of the specific points which have been raised, and the first of these has reference to the actual number of men in the Constabulary Force. It has been said by various speakers, and it has been repeated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, that the number of the police in Ireland is totally disproportionate to the population. Well, in the remarks I made earlier in the evening, I pointed out that the cost of the Irish Force is not at all extravagant, as compared with the cost of the Metropolitan Police; but with regard to the actual numbers of the police I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has joined in the attack on this point, because at the present time the number of the police is smaller than it was in 1869 and in 1870, when crime was at an extremely low point in Ireland. It is very much less than it was in 1882 when the right hon. Gentleman was in Office, and it is exactly at the same point as it was when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was the Leader of a Government which brought in a Home Rule Bill. In 1870 there were
    620
    13,200 police in Ireland; in 1882 the number rose to 14,800, and it has now sunk again to a little over 12,000, which is the figure at which it stood at the introduction of the Home Rule Bill. If hon. Gentlemen, therefore, complain of the number of police in Ireland I hope they will not fall into the mistake of the hon. Member for Bristol and attribute the numbers to Conservative as opposed to Liberal policy. It has nothing to do with either. Both Liberal and Conservative Governments have felt it to be absolutely necessary to keep the police very much up to the present figures; and the highest number ever reached under any Government was in 1882, not under a Conservative, but under a Liberal Government. I hope hon. Gentlemen who have taken the trouble to study the Estimates have noticed the fact that whereas the two most important augmentations in the present year's Vote have been due to the auto-tomatic action of Acts of Parliament, which prescribe the amount of pay and pension, the two greatest diminutions in the Vote have been due clearly to the improved state of the country. While the augmentations are due to certain Acts of Parliament, for which the Liberal Government and not the present Government are responsible, the diminutions are due to a decrease in the transport of constabulary from one part of the country to another, and to other causes which are directly traceable to the improved state of the country, Passing from these more general accusations to certain specific accusations brought against members of the Constabulary Force, I will first deal with the statement of the hon. Member for South Glamorgan, with regard to the evidence given by a policeman of the name of Robinson in the case of two hon. Members of the House, recently brought before a Court under the Crimes Act for speeches alleged to have been delivered in futherance of the Plan of Campaign. The hon. Member appeared to think that this case was a most remarkable illustration of the wickedness of the present Irish administration. I confess I could not entirely follow the hon. Gentleman in his reasoning on this point. It appears that the two Members

    621
    in question were acquitted, so that the monstrous proceedings of an Irish Court of Justice are in the mind of the hon. Member for South Glamorgan (Mr. S. J. Williams) illustrated by the fact that the two Gentlemen were not found guilty of the offence with which they were charged ["Deal with the policeman!"] I am dealing with the argument of the hon. Member in the order in which he developed it, and though it may not be pleasing to hon. Gentlemen opposite I am justified in so doing. As far as I understand the case, which the hon. Member has taken some trouble to inquire into, the Magistrates were of opinion that the constable's evidence was not trustworthy, and that the report, which he stated to the Court was one he had derived from listening to the speeches, was not, in their opinion, a trustworthy reproduction of the notes taken by that constable on the spot. I quite admit, if that is any consolation to hon. Gentlemen, that this was a grave accusation to bring against the constable, but what has not been sufficiently dwelt upon by hon. Members opposite is that the speeches, according to the Freeman's Journal, were actually delivered, and that the account given of them in Court was not inaccurate; so that in all probability, if that account had been supported by evidence of which the Court could have taken cognizance, the hon. Members in question would have been found guilty. The hon. Members themselves will not deny that.
    MR. GILL: The right hon. Gentleman has entirely mis-stated the facts of the case.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Very well; the hon. Member will have an opportunity of explaining. It is said that the constable, instead of trusting to his long-hand notes of the speeches made, doctored them up from the report in the Freeman's Journal. But it has not yet been denied that the speeches were delivered as reported in the Freeman's Journal. Of course, the fact that they were reported in the public Press is not legal evidence; but if those reports were accurate, it is sufficient ground for thinking that the hon. Members were guilty of the offence charged against them.
    MR. GILL: The right hon. Gentleman has entirely overlooked the point, which is, that this policeman in Court swore that the notes of the speech which he read out wore taken verbatim at the meeting, and that what was produced was a transcript of those notes, whereas it was proved in Court that this was a perjured statement, and that the policeman had copied the speech from extracts here and there in the Freeman's Journal. He was guilty of perjury.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member was one of the two Members accused on this occasion, and after his explanation, I suppose it now may be taken that the hon. Gentleman did deliver the speech, as reported in the Freeman's Journal?
    MR. GILL: On this point of personal explanation, may I say that I do not rise to explain my position before the House. I have been tried before the Court, and I am prepared to defend my position on any proper occasion. The question before the Committee is the conduct of this policeman, and the object of my interruption was to correct the mis-statement of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is very good. I quite understand the point of accusation against the policeman, and it is as the hon. Gentleman has stated it. But what I wish to point out, in answer to the hon. Member for South Glamorgan, who adduced this incident in proof of the iniquities of the administration of the Law in Ireland ["No, no,"] and that the police were improperly employed.
    An Hon. MEMBER: The hon. Member was called to order for alluding to the administration of the Law.
    THE CHAIRMAN: No doubt the hon. Member for South Glamorgan was called to order, but he was somewhat persistent in spite of that. The right hon. Gentleman is not repeating that offence.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will assume for the sake of argument—I am sorry that this interruption may destroy the continuity of the record of what I am saying—that the policeman doctored the long-hand notes which he took with the help of the Freeman's Journal; that the report of the Freeman's Journal was accurate; and that

    623
    if the report was accurate the recollection of the policeman was substantially accurate also, and that the two hon. Gentlemen were presumably guilty of the offence charged against them.
    MR. GILL: I am sorry again to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman on a personal matter, but I really would submit it is most unfair that the right hon. Gentleman should be placing on Irish Members the necessity of defending a position which they have already had to defend in a Court of Law, instead of arguing the point before the Committee, going off into extraneous personal matter to which I submit he has no right to allude in this manner.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not called upon to make any statement. The question is simply as to the evidence produced.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was explaining the relation which the evidence of the policeman had to the broad equities of the case, as brought before the Committee by the hon. Member for South Glamorgan. This was the case which, in the opinion of the hon. Member, "threw a lurid light upon the Administration of the law in Ireland." This was the hon. Member's sole case; it was his standing example of the iniquities of the Irish Administration. It was a ease in which a policeman grossly transgressed his duty ["Perjurer." "Was he punished?"], in which the evidence was so carefully sifted by the Magistrates that it was rejected, and the two hon. Members were acquitted; yet in which it is not denied that they were guilty, and yet we are told by a Welsh Member that this is a typical example of the iniquity of the administration of the law in Ireland as carried out by Magistrates and Policemen.
    MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: I am sorry I have not heard the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I must disclaim the sweeping assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that I brought forward this as a typical case of the iniquity of the administration of the Law in Ireland. I brought it forward as duty impelled me, as an instance which came under my notice of the kind of evidence which appeared to prevail in Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, the hon. Member brought it forward as the
    624
    kind of evidence that convinced a Court of Law in Ireland, but as a matter of fact the evidence did not convince the Court of Law. The hon. Gentleman was not, unfortunately, in the House when I began, but certainly he told us in a strain of rich poetical metaphor that this case threw a lurid light over the administration of the Law in Ireland. I am certain he will not disclaim the phrase; indeed, I thought he seemed rather proud of it. Now, when the hon. Member speaks of a case "throwing a lurid light" I conceive that in my mild and more prosaic language I do not misrepresent him when I describe it as a typical example. And now I pass to the various incidents connected with the arrest of the hon. Member for North-East Cork. The hon. Member for Louth has attacked me because the hon. Member has been prevented from being present in the House this evening. Now, for my part, I have taken great pains to secure the attendance of the hon. Member this evening. As soon as I heard that the trial was to take place on Thursday I wrote to the Attorney General for Ireland saying that after what had passed in the House I thought that the case should be postponed. I believe that telegrams were also sent to the hon. Member himself and to his solicitor saying that the case had been postponed.
    MR. CHANCE: I am the hon. Member's solicitor, and I got no telegram up to 7 o'clock.
    MR. GILL: I went to the train with the hon. Member at 8 o'clock last night, and he had received no communication then.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member for North-East Cork only arrived this evening in Ireland. In any case telegrams were sent. As soon as I heard that the trial was to be on Thursday, I took what steps I could not only to have the trial postponed, but to have the hon. Member informed that the trial was to be postponed. Besides, there is no reason why the hon. Member should have left London last night even if the trial were not postponed. He might have been at the trial on Thursday, and yet be in the House during the course of the present Debate.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in the fact.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Corrections of fact are not points of order. The hon. Member may make his statement later; he is not entitled to interrupt now.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry the hon. Member for North-East Cork is not here, and pass from what after all is not material to the main issues before us. It has been asked why procedure against the hon. Member was taken by arrest instead of by summons. I greatly prefer procedure by summons, and I have done my best, and shall do my best to continue the procedure by summons; but it is perfectly impossible for the Irish Government to give effect to the practice if hon. Members choose to disobey the summons, or, as the hon. Member for North-East Cork has done, escape from the Court after he has nominally obeyed the summons, and career about the country making speeches. [Cries of "Manchester."] I have no objection in the abstract to speeches by the hon. Member, whether made in Manchester or anywhere else; but if the hon. Member is going to take advantage of procedure by summons instead of by arrest to disobey the summons and to make speeches, it does not lie in the mouth of the hon. Member nor in the mouths of his friends to complain of the Government if they abandon process by summons and adopt that by arrest. But it is well known that Mr. O'Brien is not the greatest sinner in this respect. There are other hon. Members who have been proceeded against by summons, and who have simply regarded the summons as an indication that their business was to evade arrest by the police and career about the country. It is in connection with this arrest that the terms "recklessness" and "brutality" have been used about the police, and that the injuries were inflicted which are said to have been inflicted, and which I have no doubt were inflicted on the hon. Member for Monaghan, though I have no official information on the subject. I have no official knowledge on the subject, but, as far as I recollect, what happened was this. There was a considerable crowd collected at the station to meet the Member for North-East Cork. One hon. Member has said that nobody knew that the Member for East-Cork was going to be arrested,
    626
    and that therefore the crowd could only have been collected to welcome him. That may be perfectly true; but does it follow that when the hon. Member was arrested this crowd assembled to welcome him would not attempt to rescue him? What happened was this. The crowd surged forward. The officer in charge of the police gave the order to draw back in preparation for a charge. After that order he was himself driven by the advancing crowd against the railway carriage. The officer, therefore, could take no further part for the moment in the proceedings, and the police very properly charged against the crowd to prevent further conflict. Whether it was in the course of that mêlèe that the Member for Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) was injured I do not know. [Cries of "You ought to know."] I am told I ought to know. From what source? [Cries of "The Police."] The police probably did not know the Member for Monaghan by sight. The police cannot be expected to give information of a person of whom they very likely knew nothing. The police do not know at this moment at what period of the day's proceedings the Member for Monaghan was injured, and I do not know myself. The only information I have is from the speeches of Members opposite or the reports of the Nationalist newspapers. I should deeply regret if the injuries of the hon. Member were of a serious character. I know the hon. Member for Monaghan was unfortunately not able to be present at an interesting trial the other day. But, although the hon. Gentleman was not present at that trial, he was present at a demonstration on Sunday, and walked for two hours in the garden of the hon. Member for Cork. On Monday also he went to a neighbouring town; on Tuesday went to the fireworks; and on Wednesday morning went to the steps of the court-house to see whether his case was coming on. If, then, on Thursday he found himself so unwell that he was prevented from subjecting himself to cross-examination in court on Friday, there is some hope that his illness is not wholly due to the injuries which he received at the railway station. Now I come to the incident at Charleville. The first point I have to note is the statement that the mob at

    627
    Charleville, collected at the station, could not have known that the hon. Member for North-East Cork was in the train and had been arrested. It is asserted that the crowd had assembled to welcome the Members who had gone to take part in the deputation at Cork. I give no opinion as to whether the crowd knew that the hon. Member for North-East Cork was in the train or not; but I wish to point out that there was no obstacle to their knowing. It is said that the telegraph office at Charleville was shut at ten o'clock in the morning; but everybody must be aware that if a telegraph clerk was in attendance—and I believe a clerk was on the spot—there would have been no difficulty in tapping the wires and finding out what messages were being sent. There was no difficulty in ascertaining whether the hon. Member had been arrested. Whether that information was obtained or not I do know, nor is it material to the case. What is material is that at the station there had assembled a large, disorderly, and excited mob, who showed every disposition to rescue the Member for North-East Cork, and might very likely have rescued him if they had not been prevented by the police. The hon. Member for Louth has stated that all that was collected at Charleville Station was a little group of band-boys who wanted to shake hands with the hon. Member. I would ask hon. Members to study their own Nationalist newspapers. The Cork Examiner states that on the arrival of the hon. Member there was a tremendous crowd with a band playing "God save Ireland"; that the people were wild with excitement, wanting to get Mr. O'Brien out of the train; that the police fired, but the people showed determination and dared the police to come out and fight. I admit that is not conclusive evidence on the whole case, but it is conclusive against the contention of the hon. Member for Louth that all that was collected was "a little group of band boys wanting to shake hands with the hon. Member for North-East Cork." Let the Committee compare the magnitude which these incidents take as represented by the Nationalist Press in Ireland, which wishes to excite the
    628
    people, with the magnitude they bear in the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite who wish to reassure the English public. In that comparison the Committee will find the whole secret of the method adopted by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they are dealing with Irish questions before the English constituencies. The hon. Member for North-East Cork gave an account of the Charleville incident as it appeared to him. It is absolutely impossible to reconcile the story as told by the hon. Member with the story as I have received it from the various police officials concerned. But I feel sure that the inaccuracy is not wholly on the side of the police officials. If we could have taken the account of the hon. Member for North-East Cork, which I have not the least doubt was delivered with his ordinary good faith, we should have been led to believe that no injury whatever was done on that occasion to District Inspector Concannon except a slight dent on his helmet. As a matter of fact, that gentleman received a severe blow on the head and his left arm was so seriously injured that he was threatened with the permanent loss of it, and prevented from attending duty for, I think, a fortnight. There has been some conflict of evidence as to whether the crowd fired or not. If, however, it be true, as the Nationalist journals assert, that there was at Charleville on the arrival of the hon. Member a tremendous crowd, wild with excitement, waiting to get at the hon. Member, and desiring to fight the police, I think that even if the police, a small body of men, six in one carriage and about six in another, showed undue excitement in the matter, their action ought not to be seriously condemned by any man who realizes the situation in which they were placed. For my own part I regret that it should even be found necessary for any officer of the Irish Constabulary to use any weapon of any sort or kind. I think it would be far better that they should, where it is possible, confine their energies to directing their men; but that I am to bring an accusation against these gentlemen on the facts presented to me, even in the Nationalist journals themselves, is a course which I for one absolutely decline to take.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: Were orders to fire given by the officer in charge?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe they were. Now, Sir, I pass from that. Two hon. Members, the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire (Sir W. Foster) and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) have complained that when they went to Ireland they were shadowed by the police. Well, I am very sorry any hon. Member should be subjected to inconvenience, and if the Irish Constabulary knew the right hon. Member for Bradford as well as I do I am certain they would never take the trouble to shadow him. But the right hon. Gentleman must recollect that everybody is not as innocuous as he is, and there have been cases where Members of this House have gone to places where an illegal conspiracy was in existence, amd have been known to sympathise with it and to do their best to propagate and promote it, and under such circumstances the police would not be doing their duty if they did not watch the movements of those hon. Members. In watching the hon. Member for Ilkeston, who was going to look at houses which had been barricaded in order to resist the officers of the law, the police might have made a mistake, but I cannot say it was a very blameworthy one if they thought the hon. Gentleman was a person who sympathised with such proceedings. I suppose they thought the hon. Gentleman looked a suspicious character. I think they were mistaken.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he said at the time if I went there again I should be treated in the same way.
    MR. BALFOUR: I do not think I could have said that. I must have overrated the right hon. Gentleman's importance at the time. The hon. Member for Donegal has raised a question with reference to the action of the police in regard to the battering ram. The battering ram has been a fruitful topic for the hon. Member, and I am the last person who would desire to destroy the hon. Member's monopoly, but I must inform him that the reason the battering ram does not appear in the Estimates is that it has not been paid for out of Public Funds.
    MR. MAC NEILL: On April 15, 1889, the right hon. Gentleman said that if there were any cost at all it would fall upon Public Funds and would appear in
    630
    the Estimates. On April 16, the right hon. Gentleman's legal adviser, the Solicitor General for Ireland, was able to inform the House that the cost of the battering ram was £48 18s. 2½d. There has, therefore, been a cost. Where does it come from?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member has entirely misapprehended my answer. Of course, if the taxpayers were asked for the money it would appear on the Estimates, but if they were not asked to pay it would not appear.
    MR. MAC NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an English answer? Once for all, who pays for it?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The only question the hon. Gentleman has a right to ask me is whether the Government do or do not pay for it.
    MR. MAC NEILL: You said that it would be paid for out of public funds.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is entirely mistaken on that point. I am perfectly ready, however, to defend the use of the ram, although its cost does not appear on the Estimates. It is unnecessary to go further than the Donegal evictions to see the enormous advantage which the ram was to the people themselves, if to no one else. The use of any instrument which shortens the painful scenes which hon. Gentlemen think it right to get up at the time of evictions is of immense benefit to all concerned. The Freeman's Journal gives an account of the scene at an eviction on the Olphert estate which happened before the use of the implement so dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Donegal. The account states that the house was prepared for attack, the doors and windows being removed and obstructions erected. When the emergency men rushed forward with crowbars to remove the obstruction, the men in the house opened a fusilade of stones upon them from the windows, encouraged, and perhaps directed, by the shouts in Irish of their

    631
    friends on the neighbouring mountains, and drove the attackers away. The emergency men again rushed forward and succeeded in pushing down the first obstruction at the entrance, but found a second. Then the slates were knocked off immediately above their heads, and these dangerous missiles came down in such a shower about their ears that they were driven back, to the frantic delight of the crowd and the evident gratification of the besieged. After several hours' fighting the besieged garrison only surrendered when the military were about to fire. Had the surrender been delayed a moment or the order to fire hastily given there might have been heavy loss of life. That, Sir, was the kind of eviction that went on upon the Olphert estate before the battering-ram was used. Now, in the later evictions, no less than eight evictions have been made by the same party in a day, although every preparation has been made for resistance, owing to the mere fact that the battering-ram was present. The battering-ram has been present, but not used on many occasions, and it has only been actually used two or three times in the whole of Ireland. The mere fact of its being known that it is there causes the resistance to be brought to summary termination. I am prepared to defend the use of the instrument on any platform in England. In the interests of humanity alone we are bound to use every legitimate method of terminating as rapidly as possible those painful scenes which it is the policy of hon. Gentleman opposite to get up. They have said that the police are at the beck and call of the landlords for the purpose of exacting unjust rents, and that they are used, not in the interests of law, but in the interests of a class. I entirely deny it. The police are bound to protect the officers of the law in the execution of their duty, whether the debt is due to a landlord or a tradesman, and that duty the Government will fulfil so long as I have anything to do with it, whether the creditor be a tradesman or a man whose rights, hon. Gentlemen think they may sweep aside because he is a member of an unpopular minority.
    632
    One hon. Member said that the police of Ireland were being used to buttress up the property of the few. Does the hon. Member think the property of the few is less sacred than the property of the many? Does he think that because a man belongs to a class whom it suits a certain set of politicians to attack that, therefore, he is to be deprived of the elementary rights of citizenship? That is not the theory of the Government. We mean to protect the officers of the law in carrying out their duties for the exaction of debts, which the Legislature has taken every possible precaution shall not be unjust. It is asked, in reference to the Ponsonby Estate, "Are you going to lend the forces of the Crown to exact rents which would be cut down by the Land Courts?" But the offer of the owners of the Ponsonby estate was that every tenant should have the right to go into the Land Courts. [Several hon. MEMBERS: "No, not the evicted tenants"] Yes, the evicted tenants. And as to tenants in possession, the owners have offered to every tenant liberty to go into Court to have a fair rent fixed, and, if reductions are made, to make them retrospective with regard to arrears. Terms at once more just and more liberal could hardly be offered by any landlord. Members below the Gangway would lead the House and the country to believe that there was profound discord between the police and the people of Ireland. This is wholly incorrect. During the last two years the tendency of events has been towards bridging over the separation and diminishing the difference which had heretofore existed between police and people. There never was a period within the last ten years in which the people and the police were on better terms than now. That improvement has been continuous. Hon. Gentlemen know it, and if they will only cease from their peculiar methods of pacification, I will undertake to say that in the course of a comparatively brief period the relations between the police and the people will be as cordial as the relations between any people and police on the face of the globe; and inquiry into facts will show that, in circumstances which would have tried the temper and the judgment of the wisest men, the Irish Police have shown themselves, as I

    633
    think, superior to any force of whose doings we have any authentic record.
    MR. MAC NEILL: I am sorry to interrupt the Debate with reference to a personal matter, but remembering that if you give a falsehood 24 hours' start you cannot overtake it, and hearing that the hon. Member for South. Tyrone has during my absence, and without having given me the slightest intimation of his intention, stated that I, having obtained one Government office, had applied for another—
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: No.
    MR. MAC NEILL: What did you say, then?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What I did say is in the recollection of the House. I was referring to those observations in the speech of the hon. Member for South Donegal in which the hon. Member said that those present at the Liberal Unionist Banquet to the right hon. Gentleman opposite had since applied for appointments. It was then I asked. Has the hon. Member never held a public appointment himself?
    Several hon. MEMBERS: Government.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I never said "Government."
    MR. W. REDMOND: You did.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for North Fermanagh has used an expression quite unparliamentary, and must withdraw it unequivocably.
    MR. W. REDMOND: I am not quite sure, Sir, what it is I am to withdraw.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member mean that he does not understand me?
    MR. W. REDMOND: Yes, Sir.
    THE CHAIRMAN: He has flatly contradicted a statement made by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and it is that flat contradiction he must withdraw.
    MR. W. REDMOND: Will you allow me a word of explanation, Sir, and if you still think it my duty, I will withdraw anything I have said. What I meant was to correct the statement of
    634
    the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who really did say in his speech that the hon. Member for South Donegal had extracted from the Lord Lieutenant a Government situation. That was what I and others understood him to say.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question of accuracy or inaccuracy of statement is nothing to the purpose. The statement made by the hon. Member for South Tyrone may have been most inaccurate; but the hon. Member for Fermanagh contradicted him flatly and committed a gross breach of the order of this House. I call upon him to withdraw.
    MR. W. REDMOND: Under the circumstances you mention, Sir, that the accuracy or the inaccuracy of the statement has nothing to do with the case, I, of course, Sir, withdraw at your direction.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am sorry that I should have been interrupted in making an explanation. What I said, and said advisedly, was this: Knowing the painful feeling caused when the hon. Member brought a charge against absent Gentlemen who could not defend themselves, I simply asked whether the hon. Member had not held a public appointment himself, and whether he had not applied for it. I knew that he held such an appointment under the Benchers in the Four Courts, and I believe he had applied for it. (Loud cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Shame," and various interruptions.)
    THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot but observe the unparliamentary conduct of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. Their interruptions are of the most unseemly fashion. It is impossible to identify from whom the interruption proceed; but I do hope that some Members sitting there will endeavour to restrain their colleagues from indulging in exhibitions most derogatory to the character of this House. I think the hon. Member for West Kerry made some comment on what I have just said?
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: I am quite ready to make any apology for any irregularity, if you, Sir, will only specify how I have offended.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I believe that the hon. Member for Donegal held the appointment under the Benchers, and that the Benchers derived the money with which they paid him from the public funds.
    MR. MAC NEILL: I do not think after that explanation that I need say anything.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish to say that in the heat of debate I used an expression towards the right hon. Gentleman opposite which was perfectly in order, but was of a kind which, I think, ought not to be used in Parliamentary debate. I desire to express my regret at having used it.
    MR. T. HARRINGTON: Before I proceed to deal with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I may be allowed to say, in reference to the unpleasant incident that has taken place, that the feeling displayed by hon. Friends near me found vent in expressions of indignation at the attempt to calumniate them by unfair insinuations. We have looked on the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) as the chief calumniator, and I think the manner in which he has referred to my hon. Friend the Member for South Donegal is only a specimen of that oratory which he is in the habit of presenting to the people of England who know nothing of the case, of ourselves, or of him. But now I should like to refer to the speech we have had from the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It is a speech, of course, of which his party are proud; but all I can say is that if his party have any hopes of the Government of Ireland, any hope of tranquillizing the Irish people, and of making them accustomed to English rule, this is not the character of speech to bring about this result. If there is anything, in addition to the conduct of the Irish police, calculated to irritate Irish feelings, and to excite their natural hostility against
    636
    the Government and the Government system it is such a sniggering, drivelling speech as we have listened to to-night in defence of the Government. It really was no defence; nothing more offensive to the feeling of the people, nothing more calumnious of their motives was ever offered to an intelligent assembly. In the face of the events that are passing in Ireland, in the face of the complaints that are made night after night by representatives of the Irish people as to the conduct of the police throughout Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman has either the hardihood or the folly to say that there never was a time in the history of Ireland when the feelings between the people and the police were better than they are now. If we credit the right hon. Gentleman with sincerity when he made that statement, it simply proves that he is incapable of judging the situation in Ireland, and unfit for the position he holds. Never has there been a time in the memory of any man living, when the relations between police and people have been so strained as they are at present; never has there been a time when any Government in Ireland has set itself so deliberately to work to produce these strained relations. That is not the state of things the right hon. Gentleman wishes to bring about he will say. But the policy which has hitherto been pursued by the Irish Government appears to us to be animated by the deliberate desire and intention to create bad blood between the constabulary and the people. You do not trust the people of Ireland. The Chief Secretary regards not only the Irish people but the representatives of the Irish people as liars. He treats every statement made by Irish representatives as a calumny, and such being the case it must be hypocritical to pretend that there can be happy relations between his officials and the people of whom he forms so low an estimate. The hon. Member for South Belfast will bear me out when I say that, not only under the present Government unfortunately, but for years back the policy has been to bring about a hostile feeling between the police and the people, and the officials who encourage this feeling are the most trusted. When in times past the Member for South

    637
    Belfast wished to hold a meeting of his Orange brethren to celebrate the glorious memory of which he is so proud, police were whipped up from the South of Ireland, all Catholics, because it was supposed that they would be animated by feelings of hostility towards the crowd they were intended to keep in order. The hon. Member will not deny that it has been the subject of complaint in the House.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I have only to say that the statement of the hon. Member is perfectly without foundation. I have never attributed to the Government any desire to bring about a conflict between the police and the people.
    MR. HARRINGTON: I must confess I am very much surprised at the innocent statement of the hon. Gentleman who, I believe, was the one who originated the phrase "Morley's Murderers." Does the hon. Member mean to say he has never referred to the police as "Liveried Assassins" and "Morley's Murderers?" Everybody knows it was so. I regret it as much as anybody else. At the beginning of his observations the Chief Secretary declared it to be a monstrous allegation that the Irish Police would have anything to do with the writing of threatening letters or getting up outrages; but the right hon. Gentleman must have very little know, ledge of the country if he does not know that in many instances policemen have been convicted of such offences. The police in fact have a direct interest in the increase of the number of threatening letters, because that leads to an increase of the police in the district and an increase of the rates of that place. When it is necessary for us to do so we can justify that statement by many instances. But now I ask the Committee to consider what is the result of the defence the Chief Secretary has made on behalf of the Irish Police? and I will ask any hon. Member if, since the Chief Secretary took office, he has ever ad-
    638
    mitted any fault against the Irish Police? Irish Representatives are always liars, no matter how specific their allegations are. Their allegation is made light of, and denied by the Chief Secretary in the very same terms; and he takes every opportunity, by eulogiums, to encourage the police in similar conduct in the future. Let me take one instance of what I mean. Take the case of the man Hanlan, who was stabbed by the police at Youghal. He was stabbed by one of 32 policemen as he was running away. Obviously there was no necessity for violence, for no resistance was offered. At the inquest I represented the next-of-kin of this unfortunate man. What, on this occasion, was the conduct of the County Inspector? He refused to allow any of his men to make any statement in relation to the occurrence. How, I ask, is it possible for any people to have confidence in an Administration which allows such conduct as this? The same story was repeated at Mitchelstown, where three men were shot by the police in the public square. The right hon. Gentleman has no information of the injury inflicted by the police on my hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan. Yet he has a system of police espionage that ought to furnish him with any information he desires. Do we not know that the extraordinary item for postage in these Estimates includes the cost of telegrams to notify the movements of Irish Members? Why, I never have to attend a trial in any part of Ireland but I receive information from official sources of cypher telegrams being sent and received by the police announcing that Harrington passed at such a time on his way to such a trial. The right hon. Gentleman boasts of the vastly improved condition of affairs in Ireland, and this at a time when Irish Members of Parliament can scarcely dare to hold a meeting of their constituents without running the risk of being batoned by the police and subsequently lodged in goal. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman is only at the beginning of the struggle.
    It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

    REGULATION OF RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL. (No. 360).
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. MURPHY: Last night I put down some Amendments to this clause, but I am informed, Sir, that as you have already put the question that the clause stand part of the Bill, it is not open to me to propose them at this stage. Before we proceed further with the Bill I should like to hear the views of the President of the Board of Trade in reference to them.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I have no objection to the provisoes which the hon. Member has placed on the Paper; but I think they had better be moved in the form of a new clause. They provide for what the Board of Trade seek to provide; and although I think they may be unnecessary, I can see no objection to accepting them. With regard to the proposed omissions from the first clause, I think they would injure the efficiency of the clause, and I could not agree to them.
    MR. MURPHY: I think the President of the Board of Trade has met me very fairly.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 2 agreed to.
    On Clause 3.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member for Lanarkshire has placed on the Paper an Amendment, substituting 8 hours for 12 hours in this clause; but I think it would be better not to define any particular hours in the clause, but rather to leave the number to be fixed by the Board of Trade from time to time. I think it is obvious that it would be better to have an elastic clause, because what at one time and under certain circumstances might be proper would at another time possibly
    640
    be injurious to the public safety. The clause, as I propose to amend it, will read—
    "Every railway company shall make to the Board of Trade periodical Returns as to the persons in the employment of the company whose duty involves the safety of trains and passengers, and who are employed for more than such number of hours at a time as may be from time to time named by the Board of Trade."
    Amendment proposed, Clause 3, page 2, line 6, leave out "12" and insert "such number," and same clause, same page, line 7, after "time," insert "as may be from time to time named by the Board of Trade"—Agreed to.
    MR. CHANNING: Will the Return be made in the same form as the Return obtained by a noble Lord in another place, and will that show the intervals the men are off duty?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: The Returns will be in the same form as those moved by Earl de la Warr in another place. I presume that will meet the views of the hon. Member.
    Clause 4 agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, after "fare," insert "from the place whence he started," (Mr. Johnston.)—Agreed to;
    Clause agreed to.
    MR. R. K. CAUSTON: I beg to move the new clause which stands in my name. I think it speaks for itself. I do not think there can be any real opposition to the proposal, and I am only surprised such a provision was not adopted many years ago.
    New clause—
    "From and after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and ninety every passenger ticket issued by any Railway Company in the United Kingdom shall bear upon its face, printed in legible characters, the fare chargeable for the journey for which such ticket is issued; and any Railway Company issuing any passenger ticket which does not bear upon its face the fare chargeable as aforesaid shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings for every ticket so issued, to be recovered on summary conviction, and it shall be the duty of the Board of Trade to enforce such penalty."—(Mr. Causton,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I have no objection whatever to the principle of the clause, but I would suggest that, as the railway companies have on hand large numbers of tickets, the date on which the clause should come into operation should be fixed by an order of the Board of Trade. The time fixed by the clause would not be quite fair to the companies, but I will fix as early a day as possible. I may also point out that difficulties might arise in cases where there were different routes from one station to another place. If the hon. Member will accept a clause which I think will meet his views, I will move it.
    The clause is—
    "From and after a date to be fixed by order of the Board of Trade, and subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be allowed by such order, every passenger ticket issued by any railway company shall bear upon its face, printed or written in legible characters the fare chargeable for the journey for which such ticket is issued, and any railway company issuing any passenger ticket in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings for every ticket so issued, to be recovered on summary conviction."
    MR. CAUSTON: I think the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is a reasonable one and I accept it, and if it is worked out in the spirit I take it that it will be, there will be no necessity for me to introduce my Bill another Session.
    The Clause proposed by Mr. Causton was by leave withdrawn.
    The New Clause proposed by Sir Michael Hicks Beach was read a second time and added to the Bill.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to move the SECOND READING of the new Clause in my name.
    Question proposed,
    "That the following new Clause be read a Second Time:
    'Whenever any Railway Company shall be ordered by the Board of Trade to provide any appliances, or execute any works, or incur any expenditure under the provisions of this Act, which would properly be chargeable to capital account, it shall be lawful for such Company to furnish to the Board of Trade
    642
    an estimate of the cost of providing such appliances, executing such works, and carrying out such order generally, and thereupon the Board; of Trade shall, upon the application of the Company, fix and determine the amount which would properly be capital expenditure, and the Company may, from time to time, issue debentures or debenture stock in priority to or ranking pari passu with any existing debentures or debenture stock of such Company bearing interest at a rate not exceeding five per cent per annum to an amount not exceeding the sum so fixed and determined, and any money raised under the provisions of this Section shall be applied in carrying out such requirements of the Board of Trade and to no other purpose whatsoever, and no other authority save the certificate of the Board of Trade shall be requisite to authorise and validate the issue of such debentures or debenture stock.'"
    Question put, and agreed to, and Clause added to the Bill.
    Bill reported as amended: to be considered to-morrow.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL. (No. 356).
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn, and Leave given to present another Bill instead thereof.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY (No. 2) BILL.
    Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 367.]
  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolution [5th August reported.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.
    CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

      CLASS IV.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £2,104,339, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for Public Education in England and Wales, including expenses of the Education Office in London."
      Resolution read a second time.
      Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      MR. S. BUXTON: I desire to ask for information as to the position of the architects of the Education Department. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to

      643
      explain the system, or to state that he proposes to put an end to it. I do not intend in any way to reflect on the present architect. I have had personal knowledge of his work in connection with the London School Board for some years; but my view is that no public officer ought to be placed in such a position.
      MR. H. GARDNER: I wish to raise a question of some importance to agricultural constituencies. Last night I had an Amendment down to this Vote; but, as I understood it was of some importance that the Vote should be obtained at that sitting, I refrained from proposing it. Now, the question I desire to raise is as to the granting to both political Parties the right to use school-rooms in villages for holding public meetings. This is a question of pressing importance, and it is in the earnest hope that the Vice-President of the Council will give the House some satisfactory assurance on the question that I venture to bring it forward, even at this late hour. During the last four years I have tried to get the verdict of the House on this question; but I have not been successful in the ballot. If I may be permitted to say so, I think it is a matter for regret that the wisdom of this House cannot devise some more reasonable means of determining whether proposed legislation is important or not. We had a conversation on this subject two years ago, and the right hon. Gentleman then said it must take its turn with other topics. I have had a Bill on that subject before Parliament for the last two Sessions, but have not been fortunate enough to get it considered. It is well known that in the agricultural constituencies the use of these schools is not given with equal justice to both sides. I have made inquiries in 30 counties, and in 24 of them the schools have been refused to the Liberal candidates, and have been granted to the Conservatives. All I desire is to get equal advantages for both political Parties, and I therefore trust I shall get a satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman.
      MR. CONWAY: Last night I assented to this Vote being taken on condition that the President of the Council to-day gave me information on two points. We have conceded in theory freedom of classification, but the Code does not give it in practice, and I hold that teachers ought to have greater freedom in working the classes as they like. I hold that the system of payment by results has totally failed, both in Board and voluntary schools. The children dislike it, and the teachers at their annual conferences denounce it, and the result is that the £8,000,000 now spent on popular education does not produce such beneficial results as it should. I therefore hope that before the right hon. Gentleman again brings in his Code he will make it less rigid. With regard to reforming the system of inspection I should like to point out that the sub-inspectors are drawn from active teachers. It was admitted that they do their work well and that the introduction of them has saved the country £12,000 a year. I think that promotion to the higher ranks of inspectors and chief inspectors ought to be open to them. And I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give this matter very careful consideration. Lately there has been before this House a proposal for pensioning School Board teachers in London, but why should not provincial teachers also be pensioned? I think teachers throughout the country should be brought under the scheme. I ask hon. Gentlemen to consider whether it is not within the power of the Department to arrive at some superannuation scheme that will give satisfaction to the teachers so far as providing for their old age. They are good servants of the State and ought not to be thrown at the end of their career on the world. The State ought to take them by the hand.
      MAJOR RASCH: I have an appeal to make to the favourable consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, because in the part of the county of Essex which I represent we have not ordinary soil and therefore cannot erect as substantial schools as the permanent officials of the Education Department re-

      645
      quire. One great place of difficulty is the neighbourhood of the Tilbury Docks, where we have a school. The school has always paid its way, but owing to the fact that within a foot of the surface we came to water, we are unable to put up a substantial structure. I hope the Vice President will be able to see his way to rescind the order to which I have referred, and let us in Essex do the best we can on the sub-soil on which God has planed us.
      MR. CAUSTON: Last night little reference was made to the objections to the new Code made by the teachers. I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, during the Recess, consider seriously the objections the teachers have raised, and will not be discouraged by the hon. Member for the Evesham Division (Sir R. Temple) and others who are trying to alarm him and the House with regard to expense. The hon. Baronet said last night that if the ratepayers choose to elect School Boards who spend their money right and left they alone are answerable. The ratepayers want efficient and good teachers, and generally they will not grudge expenditure upon education which will really bring about increased efficiency.
      THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: I cannot complain that these points have been raised tonight, because I am aware that at the close of the discussion last night several hon. Members waived their right to speak in order to allow the Government to take the vote. The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. S. Buxton) has referred to Mr. Robson, who is called the architect to the Department. Mr. Robson is not a Civil servant in any shape or way, but is a professional architect, who is consulted by the Department with regard to plans of school buildings as to how far they meet the requirements of the Department. The Department have allowed this gentleman to be consulted as a professional expert by school managers
      646
      before they commence their buildings as to how they can best meet the requirements of the Department, and he has been allowed to receive a fee, in all cases limited to live guineas, upon giving his advice. [An hon. MEMBER: "Is he paid by the Department also?"] The Department pay him by salary. I admit this is a system which may be liable to some abuse. It is a system which I have always looked upon with some jealousy. If the opinion once prevails that school managers cannot pass their schemes of building without the payment of a fee to this gentleman it would be very difficult to retain the system. But I am bound to say that in every case brought to my knowledge, I have found the greatest difficulty in proving that there has been any abuse; but I will promise hon. Members I will watch the working of the system most jealously, and that if I find any abuse is occurring under it, I will at once take steps to put the whole matter on a different basis. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. H. Gardner) raised the question of the use of school buildings for election meetings. I say at once, I believe it is to the advantage of hon. Members on this side of the House that every possible opportunity should be afforded hon. Members opposite to promulgate their political opinions, and I shall be glad at all times to consider any practical proposal to bring about so desirable a result. But I must remind hon. Gentlemen that there are one or two difficulties to be grappled with. In the first place, a vast number of these school buildings are essentially private property, and to compel the use of these buildings for political purposes is, in a certain sense, an invasion of private right. Again, these buildings are essentially for the purpose of elementary education, and we are all aware that at times of political excitement there are such things as stormy meetings. This fact was appreciated in the Bill introduced the other day, because in the Measure there was the provision that the candidate should be held responsible for any damage done. Then we have also to consider what is to happen to the scholars in the morning after a stormy meeting the night before. As to the candidate being held responsible for damage done, I can quite understand the

      647
      case of a candidate who is adopted generally by a political party. He would probably be a responsible person, but there is such a person heard of in our political existence as the carpet bagger. Supposing this visionary element is introduced into a political contest. How are the unfortunate managers of the school to recover damages? Again, the school building is only to be adopted as a place of political meeting, provided another suitable place cannot be found. I have had some experience of political contests. I have held meetings in barns, and I have held meetings in a jam factory, where I spoke from a platform erected on the top of a boiler. I believe that political meetings may very well be held without putting such a strain upon our school resources as the hon. Member indicates. But I do not put these objections forward in any captious spirit, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he will bring in a Bill next Session dealing with this question it shall be met in a fair and candid spirit. The hon. Member (Mr. Conway) has referred to two or three points connected with the proceedings of yesterday. On all the points he raised he has my sympathy. I assure him that in our proposals we mean the freedom of classification to be a reality. As to inspection, I promise the hon. Gentleman I will institute a reform in the system. I am in complete accord with one of the chief proposals of the Royal Commission on Education. I think our teachers should be admitted to all classes of inspectors, and I also promise the hon. Member I will bring the scheme of teachers' pensions suggested by the Royal Commission to the attention of my colleagues. I wish I could give my hon. Friend the Member for Essex (Major Rasch) a more satisfactory reply than I am in a position to give him. My hon. Friend says that in the neighbourhood of the Tilbury Docks it is difficult to raise a substantial building, but I am informed that in the proximity there is a very substantially built Roman Catholic school, and that there are other brick buildings. I deeply regret I cannot meet the hon. Gentleman's views. The Department will not sanction the use of iron buildings for any great length of time. This building was sanctioned for one year on
      648
      the understanding that a more substantial building would be substituted.
      MR. MARJORIBANKS: As to the holding of meetings in schools, the right hon. Gentleman directed his objections entirely to the point as if it was not the custom to hold meetings in schools at all.
      SIR.W. HART DYKE: I understand the proposal is that the granting of the use of schools may be made compulsory.
      MR. MARJORIBANKS: That is the proposal of my hon. Friend, but the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were not directed to that point at all. His argument was it was dangerous to allow meetings to be held in schools, because there are occasionally stormy meetings, and children might not be able to occupy the school the next morning. What we complain of is that in some parts of England the use of schools is only allowed to one political party. As far as my experience goes the noisy meetings to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are generally the meetings addressed by Gentlemen who sit opposite (Ministerial cheers.) I am very glad indeed hon. Gentlemen corroborate my assertion, because it is a very material one to my argument. If these noisy Conservative meetings maybe held in school rooms as at present, it is clear that to allow quiet Liberal meetings cannot possibly interfere with the studies of the children the next morning. Certainly if my hon. Friend goes to a Division as a protest against the action of the Government, I shall support him.
      MR. WINTERBOTHAM: This matter is so important to the representatives of rural constituencies that I am going, with very great regret at this time of the night, to move a reduction of this vote by £100. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is quite unsatisfactory to us. We have not got those jam factories at our disposal, which the right hon. Member alluded to, we have not all got barns in our villages belonging to farmers able or willing to lend them, and while I wish to

      649
      say the great majority of the clergy and the school managers are perfectly fair and reasonable and offer their schools to both sides, there are a few obstinate and narrow-minded clergymen scattered through the constituencies who refuse the use of their schoolrooms to Liberal candidates. These schools are supported to a large extent by national funds, and were built largely by public funds, and I maintain it is monstrously unfair that the use of them should only be granted to one side of politics. I beg to move the reduction of the vote by £100.
      MR. SPEAKER: That Motion cannot be put as I have already put the Question, that the House do agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
      MR. WINTERBOTHAM: Then I must meet the Question with the direct "No."
      MR. J. G. TALBOT: If this matter is to be pressed to a Division, I think something should be said on this side. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwickshire on a somewhat limited knowledge of Party politics. He seems to think that Conservative meetings are disturbed by Conservative speakers. Surely, if Conservative meetings are disturbed, they must be disturbed by gentlemen of his own persuasion. The real question is, whether we are going to make a complete change in our educational system. Schools, both Board and voluntary, are provided for elementary education, and now we are asked to set these places apart for political meetings. In the case of a political campaign, we might have meeting after meeting evening after evening. In such a case what would become of the evening classes, which hon. Gentlemen opposite, as well as we on this side said so much in favour of? They would be entirely suspended during the whole of a political campaign. Who would be the losers? Why, the scholars. These things can only be done in this country as so many other things are done, by arrangement, by voluntary effort, and by compromise. I think it would be a piece of monstrous tyranny on the part of this House to lay down a hard and fast rule that the use of
      650
      schools should be granted for political meetings, whenever demanded, no matter how responsible or irresponsible the man demanding them might be.
      MR. H. GARDNER: That is not my proposition.
      MR. J. G. TALBOT: That is one of the inconveniences of the situation; we really do not know what the proposition is. I trust, however, that the House, in the interest of fair play to both sides, will never consent to the suggestion which has been made to it.
      MR. CHANNING: The hon. Member for Oxford University seems to know very little about village life, because he does not seem to know that the village school in many of our villages is practically the only place of meeting. I desire to bear my own testimony to the courtesy of clergymen in my own division, who have put their schools at my disposal for political meetings, and who also have granted me the use of Sunday Schools, and in one case a distinctly ecclesiastical building—the old Bede House at Higham Ferrers. But in many other parts of the country the use of the schools is systematically refused. In no case have I heard of the slightest damage to the schools. I was simply astonished when I heard the Vice President dwell upon the absurd difficulties created in his imagination, and then go on to say that he would give candid consideration to any Bill which my hon. Friend might bring forward next Session. If the right hon. Gentleman is sincere in his wish that Liberals should have access to the schools, why does he not bring in a one or two-clause Bill which he could easily pass even at this period of the Session?
      SIR J. SWINBURNE: The hon. Member for the Oxford University asks who would be the losers by the schools being used for political meetings, and suggests that they would be the scholars. I deny that altogether. Let both sides express their views freely, and then we should not hear quite so much of the gross ignorance in Dorset, Hampshire, and other south country counties. We have heard of the schoolrooms being damaged, but we know that now schools are let for lectures, exhibitions, and the like, and

      651
      that the managers merely ask that the; persons using them for such purposes should undertake to make good any damage done and to defray the cost of cleaning and lighting. Suppose a candidate was a carpet bagger, a deposit of £5 before the school was used would settle the matter at once. I do not wish to be disrespectful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must say his objections appeared to me to be quite childish. If these schools are to be used, then they ought to be open to the use of both parties, and 1 see no objection to that. 1 feel astounded that the right hon. Gentleman should say they are private property. Are they not supported by public grants?
      MR. P. J. POWER: In connection with election proceedings in the North recently, some reverend gentleman asked me not to say anything against the Tory candidate, and to my surprise I found that this was because they hoped for favours from the Conservative Government, and the ground of their hope was the pressure on the Government of the present Home Secretary. I did my best to show them on what a broken reed they were relying, by explaining how the right hon. Gentleman was once a Member of my own Party.
      The House divided:—Ayes 106, Noes 48. (Div. List No. 283).

    TECHNICAL EDUCATION BILL. (No. 27).
    Order for Committee read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND; ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 252).
    Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

    BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES) PREVENTION [EXPENSES.]
    Resolution reported—
    "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 prevention and punishment of Bribery and Corruption by members of Public Bodies."

    COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES [EXPENSES.]
    Resolution reported—
    "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, in certain eases, 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 agreed to.

    JUDICIAL RENTS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the fixing of Judicial Rents in Ireland."—(The Solicitor General for Ireland.)
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: Are we to have no explanation of this?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: On a former occasion my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary stated the object of the Bill, which I hope in a day or two will be in the hands of hon. Members. Shortly stated, the Bill is to facilitate the fixing of judicial rents, and examination of the lands, dispensing with a hearing in open Court where both parties consent.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to say I shall feel it my duty to oppose the Bill on all future stages.
    MR. DILLWYN: May I ask under what rule are we now going on. It is past one o'clock, at which hour I always understood business should cease.
    MR. SPEAKER: Under the resolution passed by the House in April last, which provides that contested business being passed, the Orders of the Day shall be gone through in the usual way, and also under the First Standing Order of the House.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask cannot what is proposed in this Bill be done without legislation at all?
    MR. MADDEN: A Bill is necessary, and when it comes to be seen I do not think it will excite much opposition.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour and Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 368.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord Elphinstone and the Lord Harris to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, for the consideration of the Official Secrets Bill, Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 191.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, with Amendments: The Report thereof received; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
ARTILLERY AND ENGINEERS COMMISSIONS.

  QUESTIONS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: My Lords, seeing the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War in his place I beg to ask a question of which I have given him private notice. Your Lordships may remember that a few days ago, in answer to a question which was put to my noble Friend, he stated that some 30 commissions in the Royal Artillery and Engineers were to be placed at the disposal of Coopers Hill College. The question I have to ask my noble Friend is, whether the Engineering School of the University of Dublin will be allowed to compete for those commissions? They were allowed to do so on
  426
  a former occasion, when commissions were thus allotted, and it seems to me rather an injustice to exclude that School when it is turning out the highest class of engineers. What the authorities of that School ask is either to be allowed to compete with the Coopers Hill men, or that a certain number, say six, of those commissions should be allotted to them, or that the allotted commissions should be thrown open generally for competition to such Universities as possess engineering schools. It seems to me rather hard that the Coopers Hill School should be allowed that advantage against older colleges and schools. My Lords, the University of Dublin asks no favour, but only justice in this matter, and I trust my noble Friend will be able to give a favourable answer to the question.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): My Lords, the offer of 30 commissions in the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers having now been made to the Coopers Hill cadets, it will not be possible to throw the competition open to all educational establishments where there are engineering schools. Coopers Hill was selected for the offer of these commissions because the Military Authorities found on previous occasions, when other establishments than the Royal Military Academy supplied successful candidates, that those who came from Coopers Hill required no more training at the School of Military Engineering at Chatham than Woolwich cadets, whilst those who entered by open competition required a year longer at Chatham—namely, three years instead of two. As these gentlemen are admitted, as it is, some years later than Woolwich cadets, this delay is obviously a serious matter.

JUDICIAL FACTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 202.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c., without Amendment; and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
PRIVATE BILLS.
Standing Orders considered and amended, and to be printed as amended. (No. 213.)
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) BILL. (No. 201.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, I have to ask your assent to the Second Reading of this Bill, a Measure which I hope will settle a controversy which has existed for a considerable period. In the year 1881 a Committee, which was appointed by the noble Earl opposite, who then filled the place which I have now the honour to occupy, reported in favour of a system of intermediate education for Wales at considerable length and inconsiderable detail. Since that time many attempts have been made to legislate in the matter; but either from want of time, or more particularly from the want of unanimity on the part of those interested, legislation has not taken place, and Bills which have been brought in on, I think, three or four occasions have passed away into the limbo of Bills, alike unfortunate, and have not come to any real result. I am very sorry that on this occasion my noble Friend Lord Aberdare, who was Chairman of that Commission, is absent, and unhappily from illness, but I have his assurance that if he had been here he would have given his hearty support to the Bill which I have brought before the House. My Lords, the Bill is a very simple one, and I do not propose, in saying a few words in its favour now, to make any remarks upon the Bills which have preceded it, except to say that with regard to the measure introduced this year in the other House it was read a second time with the assent of the Government, on the distinct understanding that it was not
  428
  assumed to be accepted in its details, but that the interests of intermediate education in Wales were of such a character that it was desirable, at all events, that a measure should be passed in the course of the present Session. In consequence of that understanding we took the Bill into consideration, and by degrees framed Amendments which have been accepted by the authors of that Bill; and though, perhaps, they may not have been satisfied with everything done by us, they have seen that it is likely to advance education in Wales, and they have considered it advisable to give way on some points in order to ensure that result. My Lords, Wales has been for a long time in a very peculiar position, being poor and without endowments for this purpose. Within recent years three colleges have been established at Aberystwith, Cardiff, and Bangor, and the Government have given them considerable grants of money by which they have been able to do an increasing work. But day by day it is found that the young men who come up to them are very ill-prepared for the education which the colleges have to offer. There are not the means of providing adequate education within the Principality, and this Bill has been pressed on all hands with a view of supplying that deficiency in secondary schools. This will be the first occasion upon which the Government has given for this kind of education the promise of a direct grant of money to aid the contributions of the counties. The Bill provides that the counties may have power to rate themselves up to ½d. in the £1, and provision is made that if upon inspection the schools are found to be adequate for their purpose, and to be carrying on work which is advantageous to the Principality, a grant may be made, in no case exceeding the sum found by the counties. But, my Lords, the mode in which we have dealt with the question in this instance need not be made a precedent elsewhere, for the circum-stances existing in Wales, as I have pointed out, are very peculiar. Hardly any of the counties in Wales have endowments of any value, for those which exist are very small ones, so that in comparison with England they are very deficient in those means of education which we supplied to so large a degree

  429
  in the English, counties. In the endowed schools of Wales there is room for 2,846 scholars, but the attendance is only 1,546; nor is the education, though in some instances extremely good, such as to be practically suitable for the class of boys who generally need intermediate schools. Your Lordships observe that this is a Bill for providing intermediate or technical education. It embraces the two, and by the definition which is given in the Interpretation Clause you will see that it is intended this should be rather a kind of scientific and commercial education than the usual classical education given in such schools. It includes branches of science, such as those for which grants are made by the Department of Science and Art, the use of tools, modelling in clay, shorthand, and subjects which may be of use to the youths in trade or commerce, but it will not include the teaching or practice of any trade, industry, or employment. So that your Lordships will see the design of this measure is that throughout Wales schools may be provided at which boys will receive the kind of education which will best fit them for commerce or for the trades in which they may afterwards be engaged. Under the Bill which was previously introduced, provision was made that there should be a Board of Education for the whole of Wales, which was to supersede the Charity Commissioners. We did not think that was either workable or a good system in itself, for there would not exist the impartiality which is found in the Charity Commissioners. Besides, there seemed to be no reason why the Charity Commissioners should be excluded from the work which it has been doing extremely well, and which it is perfectly competent to do. We propose, in this Bill, that there shall be a Joint Education Committee of five in each county, three of the members being appointed by the County Council and two fey the Government, and that the Charity Commissioners shall send an assistant Commissioner to sit with them but not vote. In that way the initiation of the scheme will begin with those who have a thorough knowledge of Wales, and, at the same time, the Government will be in a position to take part in the deliberations, and to give effect to its wishes. Tour Lordships will observe that in the
  430
  later part of the Bill the matter is to be taken up in the ordinary way by the Charity Commissioners, and that though powers are given to this Joint Committee to commence, there is no power given them to carry into effect projects, but that the Charity Commissioners are to exercise their functions as in ordinary cases. It seems to me to be very much in accordance with what was designed by the Committee appointed by the noble Earl opposite. The Report says that it may be hoped, when the wishes of the Welsh people come to be properly understood, those with whom the settlement of the question rests will make the necessary changes, and that they will act wisely in changing the character of the education, as time and alteration of circumstances may prove it to be unsuitable and unnecessary for any useful purpose. There will be an opportunity of changing the kind of education on the part of the Charity Commissioners, and they will be empowered to form schemes, even where, though there are no endowments, there are payments made out of the rates on the part of the ratepayers and on the part of the Government out of the public funds. The Joint Committee might find a difficulty in entirely formulating schemes, and therefore they have power to put forward proposals for schemes which the Charity Commissioners, with their staff and means of carrying them into effect, will undoubtedly be able to do more effectually and efficiently than a Body which may be, perhaps, even more intimately acquainted with the wants of Wales, and which may therefore very well be empowered to bring forward proposals. In this way the feeling of the body of ratepayers in Wales, who have been to a certain extent irritated at finding themselves contributing largely out of the rates to elementary education, without having educational resources for themselves, has been consulted. My Lords, I do not propose now to go into the details of the Bill. It will work with the Endowed Schools Acts, and will be made part of them, and they must therefore be read together. First of all will come the initiation of some scheme by the Joint Committee, the composition and constitution of which I have described. Those schemes will then fee carried to the Charity Commissioners, and they

  431
  will then come before the Education Department in the way in which all Charity schemes are dealt with. If there be any legal questions to settle, they will have to be disposed of by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and therefore there is every opportunity provided for anybody who objects to anything under this system to object. Finally, if still opposed, the projects will be laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament, and there will be ample opportunity afforded, therefore, for discussing them. I think, therefore, your Lordships will agree that we have taken care that no rash schemes shall be either initiated or completed by any one of the parties who are entrusted with this work. I do not think I should be doing any good by going into the details of the Bill, which will be more properly reserved for the Committee stage; but I think I have explained to your Lordships sufficiently that this is a Bill which meets a want which has been put forward and advocated strongly ever since 1881. It is a Bill which, I confess, to my surprise, I have found accepted by all parties in Wales. Those who objected to the Bills hitherto, on the ground that they interfered too much with the old system in operation, are ready to take advantage of this Bill; and though they who were alarmed at the measure read a second time in the House of Commons are quite ready now to give their adhesion to the Bill before your Lorships. My Lords, I believe there is now an opportunity, such as there has never been before, of securing by this Bill a general system of secondary education in Wales; and, therefore, I commend it to your Lordships, and request for it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Viscount Cranbrook.)
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I must beg the House to consider this Bill for a moment in a different aspect from that in which it has been presented by the noble Lord the President of the Council. The details he has referred to are no doubt very good, and the amendments which the Government have introduced into the Bill render it a much safer measure for effecting its object. But what I want to call your Lordships' attention to is the grave principle involved in the Bill, which was hardly
  432
  alluded to by the noble Lord, and which was not in the slightest degree alluded to in the other House or in any of the Debates on this measure—I mean the principle of subsidising from general taxation the intermediate and technical education of the country. That is a principle which is not recognised—distinctly disavowed—in England. The educational Treasury grants given in England to national schools are restricted to elementary education. I am well aware that attempts are being made to stretch the term "elementary" very considerably, and from time to time it has been stretched by what I cannot help considering the very dangerous by-legislation which is now permitted by Departments of State, and over which Parliament has very little control. In fact, Parliament hardly hears of what is done in the Council Office until it is too late to be modified or rectified. But, although the Education Department, by its Code, seems to have stretched elementary education over a great deal that is very much higher than elementary, it professes, or the Acts of Parliament profess, to restrict the charge upon general taxation in respect of education to what is elementary, and so far the poorer taxpayers of this country are assured that they will not be called upon to pay the expense of the education of the richer classes. It is this assurance which has led to a much better kind of provision for intermediate education and for technical instruction in this country; that is to say, the provision which is made by private interest, by great manufacturers, by guilds, by endowments, and from private sources of every possible kind. That suits better not only the spirit of this country, but the interests of intermediate, and still more of technical education. It is better that education of that kind should be provided by those who are interested in it, and who are far more competent to supply it appropriately than the State could possibly be under any circumstances whatever. This Bill represents a demand on the part of Wales for exceptional treatment in this respect. Upon what ground is Wales to make a demand for exceptional treatment in this matter? Wales distinctly claims it in formâ pauperis, upon what has been called in the other House "the generosity of

  433
  England." They say that they have fewer endowments in Wales than in England. The land of Wales, the minerals of Wales, the enterprise of Wales, are quite sufficient for all public purposes required by that country. Why have they not provided by endowments for this purpose in Wales as in England? Endowments are the secured contributions of past volunteers. As to poverty, unless they mean poverty of spirit, there is no ground whatever for making such a claim. The fact is, as one can only gather incidentally from the Debates, the feeling is not so much that the endowments for education are small, as that the endowments for that purpose in Wales have been chiefly made by Churchmen. It is an anti-Church feeling, which is gradually diminishing in Wales; it is kept up only by agitation, and by the plan of shareholding in Dissenting chapels there. That is clearly the ground on which this demand is made. What can be a better proof of it than the clause in this Bill, which provides that the schools which are to be supported by public taxation are not to have any distinctive religious instruction whatever, and that any prayers, in the schools from day to day, shall be so arranged that the scholars can conveniently withdraw from them? That, my Lords, lets out the spirit of the Bill. The question is, whether even that spirit might not be more easily met than by admitting the principle of the charge on public funds. The terms of endowments might be widened. I observe that Mr. Gladstone, almost the only Englishman who took part in these Debates (and he is partly a Welshman) took the eleemosynary line too. He said that Wales had been neglected by England. Poor Wales neglected by its Patron! I thought that Wales was part of England, and had the same spirit as the rest of the country; but he thought that England should show more sympathy for Wales. Mr. Gladstone has not always thought so, for he himself, a few years ago, proposed the disendowment of Aberyst with College. And that, my Lords, leads me to the second argument which has been used in defence of this Bill—namely, that the principle of public support for higher education has been admitted by the public grants to
  434
  Colleges which have been made in Wales, in Scotland, and of course in Ireland. I maintain that public grants to national colleges are no precedent for public taxation for intermediate schools. These schools are local, and have no similar claim upon the national funds. Technical instruction also is special with regard to various kinds of trades, and public grants to national colleges are no precedent for providing out of public taxation instruction in particular trades, which the State cannot undertake generally and everywhere. But the danger is this: if we extend this system of grants to intermediate schools, and to giving technical instruction, what will become of the existing schools? Poor as Wales is, there are a good many middle-class schools all over Wales, and very good ones. What is to become of those schools if the State is to set up schools in competition with them? We know something of the competition of State-aided schools against the higher-class schools in England; its effect has been to starve a great many of them, because they have been unable to compete with the Treasury in affording the same kind of education which can be given in State-aided schools more cheaply. What is to become of those schools if this Bill passes? What is to become of the private munificence, which is now being shown much more readily from year to year for the purposes of intermediate and technical instruction, when this Bill passes for supplying it to Wales partly at the expense of the Treasury? Is it to be stopped? My Lords, it certainly will be stopped. I observed that in the Debate in Committee alarm on this point has been already taken by some. They said—
  "We are afraid if this Bill passes that some of the efforts which are now being made by private munificence will cease, such as the grant recently made by one of the London Companies."
  I think it was the Haberdashers' Company, which was alluded to. That is surely a dangerous thing. The best education from private sources would be stopped. We know already in England how State undertaking has checked the work of such men as Armstrong, Mather, Whitworth, and others who are doing the work infinitely be or for the technical

  435
  instruction required in various lines of art than anything the State can do. We Englishmen might, perhaps, consent to let this had principle he introduced into Wales if it were to he confined to that part of the country; but we know perfectly well that the principle once adopted will spread, and that we shall have it introduced into England. In passing this Measure we shall be introducing the very thing we are trying to avoid. In the other House the first day of Committee was entirely consumed in urging that Monmouth-shire should be included, and upon upon the second day of the Committee the Government gave way on that point, and consented that Monmouth-shire should be included. Depend upon it, my Lords, Monmouth-shire is the thin end of the wedge in introducing this principle from Wales into England. I do not think it possible, even if I wished it, to arrest the progress of this Bill. For various reasons it has been at last assented to after eight years of discussion in Parliament, from the date of the Report of Lord Aberdare's Committee, alluded to by the noble Lord the President of the Council, which by the-bye expressly stated in its Report that these intermediary schools should precede the colleges. The colleges have made more rapid progress in Wales. They found there a most favourable soil for the growth of demands upon the Treasury of England. Mid-Wales having obtained the grant, the people of North Wales said they must have one too, and immediately South Wales said the same; and now there are three grants of £4,000 a year each for those three colleges, which Lord Aberdare's Committee said should certainly not precede the schools required to give the requisite preparatory education Upon that there has been framed a Measure which seems to me to be a somewhat lax mode of acting upon the principles of that Report. I should have thought that the right kind of Bill would have been one which would, in the first place have relaxed and widened the too narrow endowments in Wales; and, secondly, have encouraged more endowments being made as in England for these purposes. Wales, moreover, comes upon England to assist her as if England had a surplus age of endowments; but the endowments of
  436
  England for educational purposes are not equal to her own requirements at this moment. We look to those endowments as our chief private aid to supply the middle class education required. All the endowments in England for this purpose do not exceed £200,000 a year, a sum perfectly unequal to the requirements of the middle-class in England for intermediate education. We have to do for ourselves England, as distinguished from Wales, a great deal more than they are called upon to do. Depend upon it, the only thing to prevent mischief being done will be their doing what is wanted as it is effected in England, that is, by local self-support. I do not propose to arrest the progress of this Bill; but I desire that hereafter nobody shall be able to say the Measure was passed without a protest against Government support for intermediate and technical education, and without a most hearty outcry against the extension of that principle now to be introduced into Wales to the disadvantage of English education.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I shall presently say a word or two upon the arguments which have been put forward by my noble Friend who has just sat down; but before I come to those arguments I have, on the part of my noble Friend Lord Aberdare, who I am sorry should be absent from this Debate, to express the great regret he feels at his inability to be in his place to-night. My noble Friend has all through his life been a true friend of education, and has devoted great attention to this subject in Wales. He has especially done signal service there by the part he has taken with regard to intermediate education. I therefore deeply regret my noble Friend's absence, and the cause which prevents him from being in his place. I rejoice that this important subject has received so much attention during the present Session of Parliament, and that a Measure of intermediate education for Wales has safely passed through the difficulties which have hitherto overwhelmed it in another place. I sincerely trust, differing from my noble Friend who has just sat down, that the Bill will pass safely through your Lordships' House, and will become law. Now, my Lords, the Report of the Committee appointed in 1880 has been referred to, and I should like to say something upon it, as I was responsible

  437
  for the appointment of that Committee. Since then a great deal has been done to promote higher education in Wales by University extension and attempts at assisting intermediate education. The noble Lord said the recommendation of Lord Aberdare's Committee was that intermediate education should have been extended before higher education was extended in that country. I am not sure, as I have not been able to refer to the passage in the Report, whether he was altogether correct in his statement; but they did lay stress on the necessity of an improved system of intermediate education in Wales, with the view of preparing young men for the higher education which has also been demanded in that country. The Government of which I was a member is responsible for making the aid given to University education in Wales precede any measure with regard to intermediate education. We did it for this reason, that we saw there would be very great advantages in carrying any measure for intermediate education through Parliament; and, on the other hand, we were able of our own motion to give grants to increase and improve University education in that country. My Lords, I think the course we took has been amply justified by the event. There certainly have been very considerable difficulties in dealing with this subject, and eight years have gone by without any measure having been carried with regard to intermediate education. First, as to the result of our action in recommending that grants should be made to several University colleges in Wales. They now amount, I think, to £12,000 a year, £4,000 a year being given to South Wales for a University college at Cardiff, £4,000 to North Wales for a University college at Bangor, and to Mid-Wales the grant to the University college at Aberystwith was at first £2,500, but it has now been increased to £4,000 for that college also. The result has been extremely satisfactory. When the Report of the Committee was made there were only in public University colleges in Wales 57 students. The average number of students at Aberystwith has been for the last three years 149; the average at Cardiff has been 146; and the average at the University college of Bangor 175. That, my Lords, is an eminently satisfactory result, and
  438
  I maintain it justifies the action which the Government of that day took in giving those grants towards University education in Wales before they dealt with intermediate education. There certainly is great need for the increase of intermediate education in Wales. The noble Lord the Lord President of the Council put forward one matter as an argument in favour of it, but I will add another which can be found in this very Report of Lord Aberdare's Committee. It is there stated that it has been calculated that to give proper intermediate education to the people in England there ought to be accommodation at, I think, the rate of 16 per 1,000 of the population. If that rate were applied to Wales, there ought to be accommodation for 15,700 pupils. But the accommodation in public intermediary schools in Wales really only amounts to something over 2,000, and the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council mentioned that, owing to various circumstances, the unsuitability of the education provided, and possibly the constitution of the Governing Body, not nearly that number are found in the places of intermediate education in Wales. I say, therefore, that that argument is a very strong one as to the necessity of supporting intermediate education in Wales. Now, I will come to another point which my noble Friend also referred to—namely, the fact that for the first time a proposal is made to give direct grants to intermediary schools. He objected to that, but I confess I do not agree with him, and certainly not with regard to Wales, where, I believe, it was absolutely essential that some assistance of this sort should be given. It may be said that up to the present time assistance has been given to intermediate education through the instrumentality of South Kensington, and the large payments which are made for science and art subjects through that portion of the Education Department. But those grants are entirely given for particular subjects. They indirectly help a school, but they do not directly help it, and they certainly would not start an intermediate school in a locality where an intermediate school is wanted. Now, the reasons why in Wales there is such a need for this Government grant are very plain. Wales, it may be said, is

  439
  an exceedingly poor country in comparison with England. There are, no doubt, some districts where the minerals are very rich, but the large proportion of Wales is exceedingly poor when compared with England. Then the Welsh people are exceedingly anxious for education, but the public endowments for intermediate education and for all charitable purposes fall far below the endowments in England. I believe it has been computed—and I get this from the same source—that in England the average endowments for all charitable purposes, per county, amount to something like £55,575 per annum, whereas similar endowments in Wales, per county, amount to only £1,921. If we take the endowments in particular counties, of course they vary extremely. Some counties have much larger endowments than others, but whereas the most poorly-endowed county in England, Cornwall, has an endowment of over £4,000 a year, the large County of Glamorgan, with a population of something over half a million, as endowments only to the amount of £1,921. I hear that my noble Friend cheers that statement, and therefore I hope he will agree with me that the necessity for some additional endowment for intermediate education in Wales is conclusively shown by the figures which I have declared. My noble Friend said it was better to leave the endowment of intermediate education to the private munificence of individuals, but how is it that in Wales this private munificence has not created the endowments necessary for intermediate education? I think if there had been a large desire to do there what has been done in many parts of England—namely, to endow intermediate education, we should have seen much larger endowments in that country than now exist there. I therefore do not at all agree with my noble Friend that we ought to stay our hands and refuse to assist this poorer country in regard to intermediate education; for, from all I have seen and heard on the subject, I believe that if something is not done in the manner proposed to be adopted by this Bill, intermediate education will not thrive in Wales. My Lords, I do not wish to dwell at too great length on this subject, nor shall I go into the details of the Bill; but I should like to refer to one matter besides that
  440
  to which my noble Friend has referred. I should like to mention one important clause in the Bill which deals with the initiation of schemes. That, to a certain extent, is a new method of dealing with charitable and educational endowments. Hitherto, it has been necessary either for the Governors of an institution to propose a scheme, or for the Charity Commissioners themselves in certain cases to do it. It was found that this, especially in Wales, prevented any new schemes being brought forward at all, and therefore it has been proposed in various ways to create some body, directed by popular opinion in the country, to start new schemes where new schemes are necessary. I think originally we proposed a different scheme to this. A different method for giving initiation to schemes was proposed by the Government of which I was a Member in the year 1885; but since that time a great change with regard to all Local Government has taken place owing to the great measure which was passed by Her Majesty's Government last year—namely, the measure which constituted County Councils throughout England. That gives at once a popular body which can deal with matters of this sort, and though I confess I should have preferred to have seen the initiation of schemes given also to these Councils, I think the compromise which has been arrived at between the Government and those who promoted this Bill is a wise one. Now that the County Councils are started, there is a body created which would be able to initiate any schemes, and also to reform some of the old endowments which have not the confidence of the country. Those two points—namely, that of granting direct assistance to the intermediate schools in Wales, and that of giving a new body, partly elected from the County Councils, power to initiate schemes, seem to me very important points to be dealt with, and I heartily rejoice to see them form part of this measure. My Lords, I shall not detain the House any longer, but I sincerely trust that the hopes which have been entertained in Wales with regard to the possibility of enjoying an enlarged system of intermediate education by a measure of this sort will not be disappointed, but that this measure will bear excellent fruit, and will give the people of Wales who

  441
  so much desire it an easy and efficient means of intermediate education for their children.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I ask your kind indulgence while I offer a few remarks on this Bill, and I the more require your indulgence because I take the same view which my noble Friend did who answered the Lord President of the Council. I am afraid those views are not shared by very many of your Lordships. My noble Friend truly remarked that now for the first time Parliament is preparing formally to authorise the establishment and maintenance of schools for secondary or intermediate education by means of rates supplemented by grants from the Treasury, which are in no case to be more than equal to what is raised by the rates. As I expected, the principle of aid to education, above mere elementary education, by the State has, it has been urged, been recognised by the grants which have been made latterly to Welsh Universities. The noble Earl who has just spoken gave what he considered conclusive evidence of the value of those grants and of their good effect. I must say it seems to me a very different thing giving a grant to a University which the Welsh would certainly call national—at any rate it cannot be considered as less than provincial—in comparison with the establishment of a number of local intermediate schools supported by local rates. This is the first instance of the extension upwards (with the exception of those grants to the Universities) to the middle class of that system of public educational alms which was initiated as regards contributions by rates from one kind of property only, real property, less than 20 years ago, and which have been supplemented out of general taxation, the original grant, a very small one, £30,000, having been given just half a century ago. The injustice of levying so large a contribution or tax upon one kind of property alone (because ratepayers are none the less taxpayers) does not strike me as nearly so objectionable as the evil of impairing the independence of the middle class, and accustoming them to look to public grants and public aid from the rates as the wage classes have, as I have already pointed out, been accustomed to rely upon them of late
  442
  years. And, secondly, there is the evil of discouraging—in fact, more than discouraging—of extinguishing, practically, all chance of voluntary gifts or bequests being made for educational endowment. Who does not lament that there has not been in Wales in past times more public spirit and educational zeal shown? Take the rich County of Glamorgan, with its wealth of minerals, and we shall see that Wales has no reason to be proud of that absence of educational endowments which we have just heard described. No one, after these contributions from rates and taxes have been established by Act of Parliament, would, as I say, be at all likely to give or bequeath anything for the purpose of educational endowment; and perhaps all the less, because confidence in the devotion of endowments to the purposes which were dear to those who have founded endowments has been very much shaken by some of the legislation which has taken place latterly. But besides those two evils, there seems to me to be a third, and a very serious one, that of subjecting the higher education of the country, at least the higher secondary education, as distinguished from the elementary, to bureaucratic control. For the first time we find the Education Department brought into official connection with secondary education. The tendency, I fear, will be to increase the applications for grants, and assistance from rates, and with these increased applications, if they are yielded to, will come a very natural, and I cannot say otherwise than a legitimate demand for control and interference on the part of the Government. I know that one ex-Minister of Education, Mr. Mundella, has avowed again and again his earnest desire to see the Education Department entrusted with considerable control over the secondary education of the country. Well, if the Education Department is armed with such greatly increased powers as he and some others desire for it, instead of looking to our great ancient Universities, we shall find those engaged in the secondary and higher education of the country looking to it for guidance and leading. It is quite true that the Universities for a long time were too stagnant and too obstructive; but now for some time they have been awakened to their responsibilities and duties; and now, though

  443
  happily independent of State control, they are very much under the influence and guidance of the tide of enlightened public opinion, though fortunately uninfluenced by the mere passing waves of popular blame or applause. It would be in my view a very great misfortune if a Political Department were to supersede the great ancient Universities as our chief guides and leaders in the higher education of the country. But this may be considered, I think, as a step in that direction; my fears may not be all realised, but I would venture to predict that after a great show of advance in the first instance we should find stagnation and routine. I will give your Lordships an illustration. I do not know whether I have used it in your Lordships' House before, but I know I have used it elsewhere, of Brunei's famous block-machinery, which was much in advance of what was known up to that time, and of its continuing to be used and proudly shown by dockyard officials long after it had been superseded and replaced in all solvent establishments by newer and better, and more efficient machinery. I think, my Lords, the same thing would apply to education. And though, as regards really elementary—not what is called "advanced elementary education"—which that high authority, Bishop Temple, says ought to be called "non-elementary education"—such very great changes or advances in the methods of teaching are not likely to be required; anything more fatal to national progress and the development of the national intellect than stagnation or routine in the higher education of the country I can hardly conceive. That, I think, is too likely to be the consequence of the higher education of the country being entrusted to a Political Department. Then, my Lords, there is the further fear of jobbery; because though in the first instance the right man is anxiously sought to fill a new and important post, after a while it is not the man that is sought for the place, but the place that is sought for the man; and political results are often what are mainly looked to even now as they have been in a certain number of instances within my own lifetime. Under democratic Governments, and our own is one which tends to become more and more democratic, we do not find any diminu-
  444
  tion of jobbery and corruption. In the United States jobbery in political bodies and in administration is a by-word among the educated classes there. In France and Germany the people are weighed down by the heavy weight of taxation, a taxation not merely levied for the support of their gigantic armaments, but also to provide for needless placemen and jobbers in public works. It is this fine end of the wedge as my noble Friend has called it, this introduction of Government aid, and of State and rate aid, in dealing with secondary education that I confess alarms me. I do not mean at all that Her Majesty's Government or its opponents, except perhaps a few of them, are contemplating any such development of the principle involved in this Bill as I have described. I believe the history of it is very much more simple. We now find Wales putting forward a plea of poverty, The Welsh found the Irish putting forward claims on the ground of poverty, and getting, by a certain amount of lawlessness and by much clamour, a great part of their demands. Accordingly Wales sought also to get something from the Public Treasury. The Government, besides this object of advancing Welsh secondary education, has undertaken the task of conciliating Welsh feeling in emulation of their opponents who, it is notorious, attributed to the opposition of the Tory Party, a good deal of the delay of this measure, which, whatever it did for education, it was likely to cause a considerable amount of public money to be spent in Wales. But what we have had urged on behalf of this Bill, founded on grants to the Welsh Universities, shows how very readily precedents of this sort are followed. As my noble Friend said, it is in vain for us to resist this measure, supported, as it is, by Her Majesty's Government and by their predecessors, who had previously themselves brought in a measure very much of the same kind. All we can do is earnestly to protest against it, and to entreat the Government to reflect on the very serious consequences of the further development of the principles involved in this Bill.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, as I believe no noble Lord intends to move the rejection of this Bill, or to give it really any serious opposition, and as I believe that all the noble Lords who

  445
  have spoken agree that the Welsh people are much interested in the results which will flow from this measure, I think it is a great pity that such a Bill as this should pass, or should appear to pass, in this House in any grudging spirit. I think, as long as we are a United Kingdom, there can be no harm in the Government doing as my noble Friend has accused them of doing, for it was almost an accusation—that is to say, conciliating Welsh feeling in this matter. And there is no doubt, as the Lord President of the Council has said, that the circumstances of Wales in this matter are peculiar. My Lords, I have every sympathy with the opinion expressed by the noble Lord who began this discussion, that we are very apt to adopt new principles in incidental Bills, which may afterwards have a wider application. But I am afraid that is the whole history of English legislation. The English people do not go in for grand principles all at once—they go step by step. That has been the whole history of our Constitution. Still, when I look at this Bill which it is said embodies a principle now for the first time introduced, I am not struck with the great dangers which are involved by it, as my noble Friend has urged, or with the mischievous tendencies as he has pointed out of the new principle embodied in this Bill. He says it is a new thing, absolutely new, for the State to give public money for intermediate education. My first question is what is meant by intermediate education? Is it possible to draw any clear line of distinction between the elementary education below, and the superior education above? Where does elementary education end? The Government has given State money both for the lower education, and for the higher education. But our whole system is one in which primary education is mixed with intermediate education. I may recall that under the old parochial system of Scotland it was quite common for boys to go high up in Latin, Greek, or mathematics for a very small addition to their fees. Those primary schools in Scotland were endowed by the State, and the Universities were also endowed by the State. By a Bill which is now in your Lordships' House a further sum of £41,000 a year is to be given to higher educa-
  446
  tion in Scotland in its Universities. Now, my Lords, I ask what is the abstract basis of a principle which attempts to draw the line between primary education on the one hand, and superior education on the other, and distinguishing intermediate education for the middle classes. If your Lordships look at this Bill you will see that practically no line is drawn except to exclude schools which teach nothing but the three R's. It provides that—
  "The expression intermediate education means a course of education which does not consist chiefly of elementary instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic, but which includes instruction in Latin, Greek, the Welsh and English language, and literature, modern languages, mathematics natural, and applied science, or in some of such studies, and generally in the higher branches of knowledge, but nothing in this Act shall preven the establishment of scholarships in higher or other elementary schools."
  No line is attempted to be drawn there, and I hold it is impossible to draw a line between these different kinds of education. My Lords, this Bill is needed for Wales; it is adapted to Welsh circumstances, whether they have or not the original endowments which we possess, and I see no reason not only why we should decline to assent to this Bill, but why we should not assent to it heartily and willingly.
  LORD KENSINGTON: My Lords, I should be very loth that this Bill should be read a second time without taking the opportunity to say I deeply regret that the noble Lord who spoke from behind the Government Benches should have thought it his duty to make the strong attack which he did upon the Nonconformists of Wales. I think it is a very great pity for any sectarian quarrels in any shape or form to be introduced in discussing a measure of this kind, which has been demanded for years in Wales by Nonconformists and Churchmen alike. I will not follow the noble Lord into that matter in any shape or way. I merely wish to say that I think he was mistaken in the view he propounded to your Lordships that grants from the State in aid of these intermediate schools would have the effect of stopping private enterprise in such undertakings. Has the past shown that such is the case? As soon as the Government gave grants to the Colleges of Bangor, Cardiff, and

  447
  Aberystwith, large sums of money flowed into those colleges either as donations, subscriptions, or endowments. I confidently believe that when this measure becomes law the same thing will take place as regards intermediate schools of the future. I hope the Government will not think it presumptuous on my part if I venture to tender to them my best thanks for the interest they are taking in the question and the support they are giving to this measure. I believe it will prove the greatest blessing to the country. I hope the noble Duke also will allow me, as a Welshman, to tender him my best thanks for the speech he has made, if I may venture to do so. I should say that I myself would have preferred that the whole of the members of Committees should have been appointed by the County Councils; but, still speaking for myself alone, I most willingly, frankly, and freely accept the compromise. I go still further, and I say that I believe it will work well, and that I am sure Wales will be greatly benefited when this measure becomes law.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 179.)
House in Committee (according to order.)
Clauses 1, 2, and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4.
THE EARL OF MINTO: My Lords, the perhaps rather impertinent Amendment which I have to submit to your Lordships has for its object the correction of two faults as they appear to my mind in the construction of the County Councils, and in the position of the County Councils. The first fault which I think exists in regard to these Councils is that, under the present constitution, there is likelihood of too little variety in the character of the representation under the system proposed, because there is too great a uniformity in the electoral divisions under this Bill, and the persons returned from them I think are likely to be too much of the same class and description. I think if you add to such electoral divisions under the
448
Bill the duty of electing one member for the County Councils in country districts the representatives from those electoral divisions will be of a very monotonous and uniform class, and I think a little variety in the representation would be desirable. In that point of view I suggest that the Parochial Board of each parish should nominate one representative to the County Council. The words by which I propose to effect this object are the identical words which are used in the Bill itself in regard to the constitution of the District Councils. I think, my Lords, by adding that to the representation already proposed by the Bill, you would give variety of the representation. Then I have this other object in view, and I think it is the more important object of the two; in my opinion the County Councils are too narrowly restricted in point of number. In proposing to reform old institutions, I think it is desirable that you should as much as possible found your reform on the old lines which have prevailed in the country before. We have had County Government in Scotland for a great length of time, only not of the popular description now in vogue; but as a matter of fact the County Government in some counties has been under the superintendence, at all events, of a very considerable number of persons. The numbers have not been very greatly restricted. So long ago as the last century, and down to 1832, the persons entitled to take part in the County Government were all the freeholders, large and small, if I am not mistaken. It is quite true that, practically, only a small number of those freeholders did trouble themselves with the county administration, but there were no disabilities or restrictions upon the whole number taking part in it if they chose, and, in fact, the governing body was rather a numerous body than a very narrowly-constituted body such as is proposed by this Bill. Up to the year 1832 the whole of the freeholders were what one may call the governing body of the county. In 1832, in the Reform Bill of that year, a clause was inserted handing over the duties and functions of those freeholders to what were called Commissioners of Supply. The chief qualifications of the Commissioners of Supply at that time was the possession of land or heritages to the value of

449
£300 a year. This went on for 22 years. Far from being alarmed in those days at the number of persons who were qualified to take part, though they frequently did not all do so, in the County Government, in the year 1854 the numbers of those persons were very largely extended. The qualification of Commissioners of Supply up to the year 1854 was the possession, as I have mentioned before, of lands or heritages of the value of £300 a year. At that time, by a Valuation Bill applying to Scotland, the qualification was lowered to £100 a year, and so I believe it remains at the present time. There are many reasons why it is not desirable to limit the number of these County Councils. I cannot understand the alarm which seems to be felt by the Government in so narrowly limiting their number. It is very undesirable, I think, that you should prevent people, who have a right to take part in County Government, participating in it. I am not acquainted practically with more than one or two counties, but I am perfectly certain that I have never seen the least inconvenience arise from the fact of the numbers of the Commissioners, though they are considerable, being so large as they are. I think as regards counties you should consider that you have to take your members for the counties from long distances, and that it is sometimes extremely inconvenient for them to attend; and it is on that ground inconvenient, I think, to limit the number of persons who might devote themselves to the business of County Government. Then you may often have a difficulty in finding persons to do Committee work, and sometimes difficulties may even be experienced in finding a quorum. Those occasionally are matters of difficulty, and the result is that persons in the immediate vicinity of the town are more called upon to act, and that those who live at a greater distance do not take the part which it is desirable that they should do in carrying on the work of County Government. I wish to show, my Lords, how very large and serious the reduction of numbers is according to the scheme under this Bill. It is very possible that persons who are connected with the large and populous counties may have an experience different from mine, but I wish merely to show how great the change is in
450
point of numbers under this Bill. I will go to the largest county, though I admit it is scarcely a fair test, as it is quite an exceptional county, and that is Lanarkshire. The number of Commissioners of Supply there is 674. The proposal under this Bill is that the Councillors shall be 90 in number. According to my proposal, which is that one representative should be added to the Council for each parish within the county, that would add 40 more members to the County Council, and even adding that number would only bring such a county as Lanarkshire up to the total of 130 instead of the 674 persons who are at present privileged to take part in the County Government. Then in the other counties the same contrast prevails. In Ayrshire there are 310 Commissioners of Supply, and the proposal under this Bill is that the Council shall be only 62 in number henceforth. I would, by my proposal, add 40 representatives of parishes, and that would bring up the total to nearly 100. I maintain that nearly 100 Commissioners for so large a county as Ayr is not too numerous. It is, in fact, a very small number to appoint. I will not go through all the other counties, but I may mention that in the county of Perth there are 263 Commissioners of Supply, and the proposed number of Councillors for that county is 50. Fife has 242 Commissioners of Supply, and the proposed number of Councillors is 60, and so on in the same rate of proportion. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a very large diminution indeed. Then for the less populons parts in the South-East of Scotland, in which I am more interested personally, and which I have greater knowledge of than other parts, the county of Berwick has 92 Commis-missioners of Supply, and it is only henceforth to have 34 County Councillors. If my proposition were accepted, 32 more would be appointed, making 66 in all. Then the county of Roxburgh has 155 Commissioners of Supply, and the number of Commissioners will be 36. So that you are to choke off two-thirds of those who have already had the duty of attending to this county business, and unless there is some very good reason for such a large diminution I venture to think that the proposal which I make to increase their numbers is a very desir-

451
able one, and accordingly I move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment proposed, page 1, line 16, to leave out "the Councillors of."—(The Earl of Minto.)
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): My Lords, I have listened with the greatest interest to the remarks of the noble Earl in moving his Amendment, but I am bound to say that all he has stated might, it seems to me, have been much better said on the SECOND READING of the Bill, because the whole of his proposal would go directly against the principles of the Bill as it has passed the House of Commons and in this House the other evening. The whole principle of the Bill is that the counties of Scotland should be divided into single electoral divisions, and that each one of them should return a single member. The noble Lord's first remark was that there would not be sufficient variety under the proposals contained in the Bill. I do not know that the proposal of the noble Earl—namely, that in every single district there should be members from the Parochial Boards, that is to say, from every parish, would introduce variety. I think no variety would be added by that; and not only do I think so, but I think that under the proposals of the Bill there will be sufficient provision for variety in the representation on the Councils. I do not think, therefore, that the proposal of the noble Earl would have any beneficial effect. Then the noble Earl objects also to the reduction in the numbers of the County Councils. As I said just now, the whole principle of the Bill is not directly to reduce the number of those who would have to administer County business, but, as a matter of fact, the principle and object of the Bill is to transfer the powers at present exercised by existing to new bodies, and I think the figures given by the noble Earl himself go rather to show that the proposals in the Bill will have rather a beneficial effect. He stated that in the county of Lanarkshire there are 674 Commissioners of Supply. Now, the House of Commons consists of only 670 Members, and does the noble Earl really mean to say that to administer the county business of Lanarkshire requires as many representatives as to
452
administer the entire business of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? I think in the County of Lanarkshire, at any rate, it is very desirable that the business of the county should be administered by a smaller body than now exists, and, as I have indicated before, I am quite unable to accept the proposal of the noble Earl. It would be quite contrary to the spirit of the Bill, and it would entirely upset the constitution of the County Councils; because, if that were carried out, the leading members or some of the most important members of them would be those not selected by the county, which is the intention of the Bill, but those selected by the parochial bodies. As I have said, that would be entirely contrary to the principle of the Bill, and on those grounds I am afraid I am unable to accept the proposal of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF MINTO: I may remind the noble Marquess that on the SECOND READING of the Bill I took occasion to pronounce a strong eulogium on the manner in which the present system has been worked in Scotland, and that system was one by which much larger numbers were qualified to take part in the county business than actually did take part in it. The tendency of that was that the persons who did participate and give their time to the business of the county, did their work well and efficiently, though the great majority of the 674 were absent. The great majority of the Commissioners of Supply in Lanarkshire stayed away, but others did the work exceedingly well. I have the noble Marquess's own voucher in support of that statement.
Amendment negatived.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, in moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I have only to point out that the principle adopted by Her Majesty's Government in framing this Bill, is that there shall be one Member for each electoral division. I think, in this respect, it may be regretted that there is the disadvantage attached to this system, as it appears to me, that in Scotland, at least, it will make a contest, in the first instance, almost inevitable in every place, and if you had larger electoral divisions each represented by two members, a door would be

453
opened to conciliation and compromise between different parties and different persons representing different interests, and I think that there would be very likely, in some cases, at least, a harmonious agreement to elect representatives to represent the different interests. At the present moment there will be certainly a greater number of contests under this system as proposed by Her Majesty's Government. Contests are to be regretted in themselves, they are a positive evil, first, inasmuch as they will be productive of a considerable amount of expenditure, and secondly, because they will leave animosities and misunderstandings behind them. But in addition to this, I agree with my noble Friend behind me that the result of the various contests of this nature in Scotland will very possibly be the election of persons of a very inferior character. In these small electoral divisions contemplated by this Bill in Scotland there will probably be in numerous cases—in almost every case—a majority, sometimes perhaps a small majority, but still a majority, of a single complexion. I think it likely that the result in many cases will be the election of a uniform class of persons in whom there will be a very inadequate representation both of Conservative feeling and of proprietary interest. My Lords, I do not wish to embark on the perilous course of political prediction, in which persons of much better judgment than myself are apt to be confuted by the event, and I trust the results of the present measure may be better than those which I anticipate from the want of variety in the character of the persons elected. But, at any rate, the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper does not contemplate any radical alteration of the principle which has been adopted by Her Majesty's Government. I do not attack the general principle here of one Member for each electoral division. My Amendment contemplates conferring a discretionary power upon the Secretary for Scotland to meet a difficulty which I am afraid will be found in framing these electoral divisions. I think there are small counties in Scotland in which the persons charged with the duty of framing the electoral divisions will not find it possible to so constitute a sufficient number of those electoral divisions if
454
they are properly constituted as to give a sufficient number of persons to form an efficient County Council. I instance, as examples of those small counties, the County of Selkirk, the County of Peebles, the County of Nairn, the County of Kinross, the County of Bute, and some others. I will take the County of Selkirk as an example with which I am more particularly familiar, as I am connected both by birth and property with that county. My Lords, I understand it is the intention of the Secretary for Scotland to adopt 20 as the minimum number of members of the County Council. Let us see how that principle will be applied to the County of Selkirk. The noble Marquess proposes, I believe, to have 12 electoral divisions in the county, and he intends to add to those, eight delegates from a single Royal and Parliamentary burgh in order to complete this minimum number of 20. Now what is the constituency in the County of Selkirk? There will be approximately 759 voters who are to select 12 County Councillors. Divide 756 by 12 and you will find there will be only 63 electors for each electoral district, a very inadequate number as it seems to me. But I would ask the noble Marquess to consider this. The complement of 20 in the County of Selkirk is filled by sanctioning eight representatives from a single Parliamentary burgh, and that Parliamentary burgh at this moment has less than 7,000 inhabitants. But my Lords in a very short time, probably before two years have elapsed, the Burgh of Selkirk will have more than 7,000 inhabitants, and then that burgh will have a claim—I do not know whether that would be so absolutely, but certainly an equitable claim—to be withdrawn from the county and to become a perfect municipality by itself in all respects. The eight representatives must therefore be struck out of the County Council, and then how will the noble Marquess get eight representatives to make up the 20 from the County? He will have to divide this little thinly populated county into 20 electoral districts, and in that case each representative will be elected by 38 persons! Now I think that is really reducing matters to an absurdity, and the same result will, more or less, be discovered in other counties. I do not think I need go into particulars on the subject. My proposal is to give to the

455
Secretary for Scotland a discretionary power of sanctioning the election of two representatives for one electoral division when he finds that properly-constituted electoral divisions cannot be formed and that the proper number of competent Councillors cannot be elected upon that system. The power given to the Secretary of State is simply a discretionary power only to be used in case of necessity. I beg, my Lords, to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved in sub-section 1, page 1, line 20, after "electoral division," insert—
"Incase, however, the Secretary for Scotland should he satisfied, after due inquiry, that under the foregoing provision, in consequence of exceptional conditions affecting any county, a sufficient number of County Councillors for the efficient transaction of business would not be obtainable, it shall be competent for the Secretary for Scotland to direct the election of two County Councillors for each electoral division in that county."—(The Lord Ettrick [Lord Napier.])
LORD WATSON: My Lords, I should have thought that there was a great deal to be said in support of the Amendment of the noble Lord if this Bill had not already made provision against the evil which he anticipates. He fears, apparently, an absorption in course of time of part of the county constituency in burghs. If that should be the case it would be competent for the Secretary for Scotland at once to double the number of the County Council by directing that two County Councillors should be elected for each division instead of one. My Lords, the 50th section of the Bill provides that
"On the representation of a County Council"
—which I apprehend will be the first to experience the want of members—
"or of a Town Council the Secretary for Scotland may at any time, after the expiry of the powers of the Boundary Commissioners, by order provide for all or any of the following things:"—
I need hardly read them all, but the first Sub-section (a) is—
"For altering the number of County Councillors, the number, contents, and boundaries of electoral divisions, and the assignment of Councillors to counties and burghs."
It appears to me that these provisions are amply calculated to meet the evil which is anticipated should it ever exist, and that it gives a discretion of a much more unlimited kind than the noble
456
Lord proposes, because it does not direct that the Council shall be at once doubled, but that such number of members shall be dded to it as shall be necessary to make it an efficient body.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: As I read it, this clause does not authorise the election of more than two representatives for each electoral area.
LORD WATSON: That is so, but that it seems to me is not an unqualified evil. Power is given to deal with electoral divisions as well as with the number of representatives.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: Then you will reduce the constituency to so small a number that there will be a representation for 10, 20 or 30 electors; so that you will produce this inevitable result that in the County of Selkirk there would be a representative for 38 persons. It seems to me that would be a ridiculous result, and I would ask whether it would not be better to have more representatives for a larger area than a single representative for so small an area.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, there is, no doubt, a great deal to be said in regard to the force of some of the remarks of the noble Lord opposite. But at the same time, I must point out that in introducing his remarks he at once traverses the principle of the Bill that there should be one representative for the area. That is the principle which he objects to having enforced.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: In exceptional cases.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: In a Bill of this kind it is undesirable to have exceptional cases, and I think it is very much that the principle of the Bill should be carried out throughout from beginning to end. With regard to the county of Selkirk, of which the noble Lord has spoken, he is perfectly right in saying that 20 would be the minimum number of Councillors, but, at the same time, I have pointed out that there is nothing final in that number, and that the Secretary for Scotland has power to increase or decrease those numbers to whatever may be thought desirable in the interest of any County Council. If it turns out that the representatives for the County of Selkirk are too small in number, it is quite in his

457
power to divide that county into smaller districts with a larger number of representatives. With reference to what the noble Lord has said with regard to the possibility of there being only 38 electors for each County Councillor under the Bill, I have pointed out that as the Bill stands there is no provision for taking out of the county a burgh which may increase its numbers. At present the burgh which he refers to has less than 7,000 inhabitants, and it will continue therefore to remain in the county; so that I think his fear will not be realised. With regard to the districts, if the districts are to be so lessened as to be reduced to the number of 38 electors, it would come to this, that instead of 38 individuals electing one County Councillor, under the noble Lord's proposal 76 electors would elect two County Councillors; it would be very much the same thing. I do not think there is any great difference in the result. Having pointed out that it is entirely in the discretion of the Secretary for Scotland at any future time to settle the number of the County Councillors, so that if there appear to be too many he can reduce the number, and if they are too few he can increase them; I think, under the circumstances, as that can be done, it is undesirable to alter the principle of the Bill. I would, however, point out this, that should it appear desirable in any future case to empower the Secretary for Scotland to deal with differences under his powers, there is nothing to prevent his powers being added to if necessary by future legislation. If the noble Lord objects very much to the position of the County of Selkirk in particular, I would suggest this to him, that the whole of his remarks would tend to the County of Selkirk being added to one of the neighbouring counties.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, this clause gives to the Secretary for Scotland the power of determining the number of Councillors to be elected to the County Councils, and on this I only propose to say one word. The noble Lord has referred us to a paper which contains his first idea of
458
the numbers which he thinks are the proper numbers for the Councils of the various counties. I could not have supported either of the Amendments which have just been moved, but at the same time I am bound to say there is a good deal of argument to be put forward upon both of them, because your Lordships will remember that the Commissioners of Supply are the body who have hitherto conducted the administrative business of the counties. In every case the Commissioners of Supply enormously exceeded the numbers of the Councils which are proposed for the future. One does not expect, of course, that all the Commissioners of Supply should take an active part in the business, or that they should have an understanding of all local business; but there is a great difference between such a body as was spoken of by the noble Lord in Lanarkshire—namely, 674 Commissioners of Supply—and such a body as 55, which is proposed for the Council by this Bill. I wish to point out to your Lordships my reason for thinking that the noble Lord has cast his figures a good deal too low with regard, I might say, to all the counties. I take this objection here because I think it is the most useful course that I can take; and I hope the noble Lord will take some means of ascertaining what really are the wishes of the people in the various counties upon this matter. I do not mean for a moment, of course, to suggest that the wishes should be studied of unreasonable people who consider that their county will be distinguished or otherwise in proportion to the number of County Councillors elected. I do not say that their opinion ought to be listened to. But, on the other hand, I am quite certain that the numbers at present proposed will not give popular satisfaction, and I must say that I think myself that they are too small. I hope the noble Lord will take some means or other of ascertaining this, and that he will, at all events, listen to any representations which may be made to him. For instance, I can quite conceive that the Commissioners of Supply, after seeing this paper, will themselves meet or will appoint a Sub-committee to make a representation with regard to its contents. Of course, the Commissioners of Supply represent owners only, but there are other public bodies such, for instance,

459
as the Road Trustees, who represent tenant farmers as well as owners. Again, I may take such an authority as the Local Authority with regard to the administration of the Cattle Diseases Acts. I hope the noble Lord will listen to any representations which may be made by any public bodies of the sort; because, after all, we have only one object in view now that we are giving a largely increased popular representation in this matter of county government—we want the Bill to be such as will satisfy the country, and I would point out that, while it is perfectly true that the numbers of the County Councils might be made too large, yet, on the other hand, if we make them too small, as is proposed by this paper, I am confident we should have a number of most unnecessary and objectionable contests. I think that is a very important point indeed, because in the counties of Scotland we have a number of men who have been in the habit of attending to county business, and have distinguished themselves in that Department, such as the business of the Road Trustees, and other business of local importance of a similar character; and it is most important, I think, that those men should be on the new Councils. It is most important they should not be opposed, if possible, but if we restrict the number of seats there will be a great many persons who, for the first time, will see a chance of getting on the Councils, and who will come forward not caring whom they supplant. The result will be a large number of contests, and in many cases possibly, the election of most undesirable County Councillors who ought not to have obtained seats. I have thrown out these remarks for the purpose of inducing the noble Lord to consider this matter, and to consider whether he is not putting the limit of numbers too low. I think it would give general satisfaction in Scotland if he found himself able to say that if representations are made to him by public bodies or by individuals such as I have suggested he will give them consideration.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Before my noble Friend answers, I should like merely to say this. I have not studied very closely the Paper which he has laid on the Table of the House, and which is to be obtained in the Vote Office, but
460
I believe it gives a résumé of the intended numbers for the counties. I would earnestly suggest that the noble Marquess should not be in too great haste to fix the numbers, but that he should hold himself open to listen to recommendations from the various counties, public bodies and persons interested. We must remember that the whole of this is an experiment. We have had a stereotyped system in Scotland which has worked admirably. We were not there as regards County Government in the same position as they were in England. We were not in a state of chaos. Our County Government powers were not scattered among half-a-dozen different bodies. Undoubtedly this system is somewhat of an experiment. I confess I do not quite sympathise with my noble Friend, Lord Minto, who seemed to wish, to have the numbers of these bodies increased, so that they would be almost like great Local Parliaments. He mentioned the case of the County of Lanarkshire, which, under the existing system, has between 600 and 700 Commissioners of Supply, but I should like to know from him, whether he can give the House any information as to the numbers of those Commissioners of Supply who have really attended to the county business. I apprehend that a very small number of those 600 or 700 Commissioners of Supply have ever attended or given their attention to the business of the administration of the county. I may say that I am acquainted with what goes on in one of the largest counties in Scotland—namely, Argyll. We have there a very large number of Commissioners of Supply, but I know that the business of the county has been conducted by very few of them. I do not think I ever saw more than 40 members assembled at Inverary to conduct the county business, and generally the business was conducted by about 30 to 35 gentlemen. And why did not the others attend? Simply because they had perfect confidence in those who did attend. But I am afraid that confidence will not be given in the new Councils at first. Undoubtedly it is an experiment. There is, I think, a good deal to be said upon the suggestion of my noble Friend that as such large powers are given to the Secretary of State he should add to the districts, and not cut up the counties into districts as proposed. But in many

461
cases that would be ridiculous. I will take Selkirk as an instance. A large part of the County of Selkirk is purely pastoral. It is a mountainous district. People talk of the Highlands as being cleared of population, but in that respect they do not compare with Selkirk. My noble Friend himself has not a single crofter on his property in that county. The whole county is divided out in large farms, and it would be impossible for it to be cut up into smaller divisions. I do, therefore, urge very strongly that the noble Marquess should not be in a hurry to make up his mind conclusively on the question how many Councillors should be appointed, and how many divisions there should be for each of the Scotch counties.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: In Selkirk the work is usually done by some 50 or 60 Commissioners of Supply; but when a vacancy has to be filled up a large number of them attend.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, I should like to say one word with regard to the County of Fife, with which I am intimately connected, because I see the number of Councillors put down by the noble Marquess for Fife is 60, which I quite admit is large enough for a County Council. I do not agree with the noble Earl in wishing to see these Councils composed of very large numbers. But what I should like to point out to the noble Marquess is this—that of those 60, 44 only represent the county itself, 16 being representatives of Royal and Parliamentary burghs. I will point out to the noble Marquess that there is a portion of these bodies—namely, the District Councils, on which the parochial representatives are to sit. When you come to that part of the Bill you will find that in the County of Fife we shall have considerably fewer representatives than those from the parochial bodies. Under those circumstances, we shall find that what was intended to be the superior body—namely, the County Council, will be in a difficult position as regards their relation to the District Council. I mention this matter to the noble Marquess for his consideration. In the County of Fife there are 63 parishes; therefore, the whole 60 members whom he has allotted to it would not give one representative each to the parochial bodies. I think it might be well to consider before the number is
462
absolutely fixed whether that number should be increased or not.
THE EARL OF MINTO: With regard to what the noble Duke has said, I think he rather misapprehended my Amendment. I stated that Lanarkshire is an exceptional county, and that there are at present 674 Commissioners of Supply in that county; but even if the proposal I make were adopted, that every parish in the county should send from its Board one representative, in that very large county that would only amount to 130 persons. Now, I do not think 130 representatives are too numerous for such a county as Lanarkshire.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the main object, as I understand, of the observations of the noble Lord, is that in many instances the number of the County Councillors would be too few as compared with the number of Commissioners of Supply. That point really arises upon the principle proposed by the Bill; but that proposal and principle not only affect Scotland but England. The Local Government scheme for England of last year had exactly the same effect; the number of Councillors now is not at all equal to what the number of Magistrates had been under the previous system. In. answer to the appeal of the noble Earl and the noble Duke, I would merely say that this proposal which I have laid on the Table of the House is purely a provisional one. So far as the observation of the noble Duke goes, as he has anticipated, I have taken the opinion, of those who are really responsible for the government of the counties in the matter; but, at the same time, as I have said, the proposal is purely provisional, and I should be glad if, as has been suggested by the noble Earl, the Commissioners of Supply or other bodies or individuals would send the Government their views as to what they consider the proper number for constituting the Councils. I may say that the principle on which I went in drawing the provisional plans now before your Lordships was this. First I took the number of parishes in the county, and having ascertained the number of the parishes I proposed to give one representative to each parish. Having then taken the population of the parishes into consideration I proposed, as nearly as possible, to give a proportionate repre-

463
sentation to the burghs which, sent representatives. That was the general basis upon which I proceeded in accordance with the views of the counties themselves. As the noble Earl has stated, the number of representatives from the County of Fife does not quite coincide with the number of parishes, and this affords an example of a case in which, on the representations of those loyally interested, I have made a variation in the original proposal.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, as the noble Marquess has referred to the case of England, I should like to say a few words with regard to the county representation here. I was in several of the English counties last autumn, and I found considerable dissatisfaction existing with regard to the number of County Councillors. It was thought they were fixed too low. It may be that the people in the counties have since become reconciled to the smaller numbers, but I think it would be worth while if the noble Marquess would ascertain what has been the expression of feeling generally upon that point.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I cannot entirely join with the noble Lord in that view. My impression is that the feeling he has referred to will become very materially modified after the first meetings of the Councils have been held. It is a very different thing wishing to become a member of a large body, and afterwards finding that the room is, perhaps, too small for their accommodation. I think that might be found to be the case, and that prudence would cause them to deprecate any increase in their numbers.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8.
THE EARL OF MINTO: Before Clause 8 is finally disposed of, I should like to hear from the noble Marquess generally what his views are as to the destiny of that class of burghs which are contemplated by this clause. Burghs having more than 7,000 inhabitants at this moment are endowed with the whole constitution and privileges of independent communities; but burghs having at the present moment less than 7,000
464
inhabitants are incorporated, and perhaps wisely, for certain purposes with the counties in which they are situated, retaining, however, their independent Town Councils for their internal and domestic affairs. Some of the burghs in Scotland having more than 7,000 inhabitants are comparatively stagnant or reactionary burghs, places which have, in fact, no distinctive industrial character, and which are not in a state of progress; but some of those burghs which have very nearly 7,000 inhabitants are burghs which are extremely active and progressive, and their populations are increasing very rapidly; and I would like to know from the noble Marquess what is to become of them when they shall have more than 7,000 inhabitants. Why are they not to have all the privileges which are accorded to burghs of 7,000 inhabitants at the present moment? Supposing a burgh having only 7,000 or less than 7,000 inhabitants acquires in two or three years' time a population of 8,000, 9,000, or 10,000 inhabitants, with every indication of progress in population and constitution. Are they not to have the power of acquiring the independence and the status accorded to other burghs which would then in those respects be inferior to them? The noble Marquess has under Clause 50, as Secretary for Scotland, very large powers of altering and of giving new limits to co-institutions; but I would ask ought not the burghs themselves to have some claim to a more perfect constitution? Does he intend to keep these burghs of more than 7,000 inhabitants as part of the counties in future?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The question raised by the noble Lord is a very wide one. As the Bill stands there is no power to do what he suggests, namely, to give to burghs of less than 7,000 inhabitants, but which are likely to increase in population, additional powers so as to put them in the position at present of Royal burghs of above 7,000 inhabitants. I presume the noble Lord is referring only to the Royal burghs?
THE EARL OF MINTO: Yes, to the Royal burghs.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Then I would point out that 7,000 is the number which has been fixed by the Bill in consequence of a recommenda-

465
tion of a Committee of the House of Commons in regard to the Burgh and Police (Scotland) Bill of last year. They fixed 7,000 as the number under which it was desirable that boroughs should not have their police management. At the same time 7,000 is a very low number, and while that number has been adopted as regards existing burghs; I think there is no reason why the number should be altered even if the population increases. In England the number where the burghs have their own police management is fixed at 25,000. However, that is the provision in the Bill, and there is no power to make any alteration in it at present. Of course, if any burghs should increase in wealth and population so far as to make it desirable that there should be a change made with regard to having the control of their own affairs, there is no reason whatever why a Bill should not be brought into Parliament for that purpose.
THE EARL OF MINTO: It would require a special Act.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No doubt it would require a special Act.
LORD HAMILTON: The noble Lord has said, as I understand, that this Bill refers only to Royal burgbs.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: To Royal and Parliamentary burghs.
LORD HAMILTON: Then I would point out that he has just put an Amendment into the Bill which uses the words "any burgh." He does not say "any Royal burgh." I merely want to know whether that is a mistake or not.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: It is meant to refer to Royal Burghs in that clause, not to Police Burghs.
LORD HAMILTON: Then I do not understand why the word "Royal" is not used here.
LORD BALFOUR: There are a certain number of burghs which are not Royal burghs, but are Parliamentary, and under this Amendment they are put under the same category.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: That is so. The Royal and Parliamentary burghs are put in the same category.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11.
LORD HAMILTON: On this clause the Amendment which has been put
466
down by me on the Paper is with regard to the levying Income Tax. It is, to insert the words—
"And provided that nothing in this Act contained shall affect the powers and duties of the Commissioners of Supply with respect to the appointment of Commissioners for general purposes under the Property and Income Tax Acts, the assessing and levying of the Land Tax, and the division and allocation of old valued rent."
We have a very good system for that purpose in Scotland, which works well and economically, and I am told that, without some Amendment in this Bill, that system will be upset. I am also told that, unless some means are taken for filling up the Returns to the Income Tax Commissioners, we shall be in the happy position in Scotland of not paying Income Tax at all.
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 26, after ("mentioned ") insert—
("And provided that nothing in this Act contained shall affect the powers and duties of the Commissioners of Supply with respect to the appointment of Commissioners for general purposes under the Property and Income Tax Acts, the assessing and levying of the Land Tax, and the division and allocation of old valued rent.")—(The Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I think what the noble and learned Lord has stated answers the objection. Under the Bill the body of Commissioners of Supply is kept up for one purpose only, namely, that of electing members to the Council and this would give them other powers not contemplated by the Bill. The noble and learned Lord has pointed out that the powers and duties are transferred under section 101, and therefore the fears expressed as to the non-payment of Income Tax will not be verified
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 12.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, on Clause 12 I confess I should almost have preferred to take exception to that clause altogether, because it appears to me to be one of the blots remaining on the Bill. But this matter was discussed in another place, and the Government seem so determined to stand by the arrangement that I think it scarcely worth while to move an Amendment for

467
the omission of the clause. At the same time I desire to enter my protest against this particular arrangement. With regard to the clause as it stands, it appears me to that it is almost unworkable. The noble Marquess on the Second Reading of the Bill pointed out that the Commissioners of Supply at present were the chief administrative body in the county, and he paid what I think was a very fairly deserved compliment to the manner in which they have discharged their duties. All those powers of administration are now swept away from the Commissioners of Supply entirely by this Bill, because, although there is a reservation as to those powers in Clause 11, that clause is not with regard to the Commissioners of Supply in the future, but with regard to the Joint Committees. Therefore the Commissioners of Supply will not be in future as in the past, members of an administrative body, but their representative will only be one of an electoral body. The Commissioners of Supply simply become an electoral roll. I venture to say there will be considerable difficulty experienced in the management of this electoral roll of the Commissioners of Supply. It is an entirely voluntary arrangement, and as it stands, I think it will not answer. I know from experience that gentlemen do not take the trouble to enrol themselves on such a roll, because I know many eases which have occurred within my own knowledge in which gentlemen whom it was desirable to have on certain committees in the county could not be put on those bodies, because they had not taken steps to enrol themselves on the list of Commissioners of Supply. There is no public official to do it, and it is left entirely to the Commissioners of Supply themselves. I do not see why that should be the arrangement under this Bill, and the more so as the Government themselves under the measure with regard to parochial bodies which they introduced into the other House, had an arrangement which would have been perfectly sufficient for the purposes of this Bill, that is to say that there should be a separate column under the head of "owners," in which would be placed only those who had that qualification. I do not see why if the Government insisted upon having a list of those owning
468
a certain franchise they should not have done the same in this Bill, and thereby have obtained a regularly-framed roll. The only reason I can suggest for the course the Government have taken is that they wish to shelter themselves to some extent behind the time-honoured name of the Commissioners of Supply, and so give the Joint Committees to be established a little more dignity than they would otherwise have. At any rate there is this to be said about it, that the Commissioners of Supply, as the noble Marquess has just stated, will in future have no existence whatever except for an electoral purpose; and therefore, my Lords, there will be no one to act for them or to make arrangements on their behalf. That is the reason why I have put down the Amendment standing in my name en this clause. I do not see whether the meeting is to take place before or after the meeting of the County Council. I am told that under the English Act the same thing occurs, but in that case it applies to the Justices who have a separate existence for other purposes as well; but as the Commissioners here have no separate existence I do not see who is to act for them. If the matter had only had reference to this clause it might perhaps not have been worth while to add these particular words; but the same objection will occur upon a subsequent clause of the Bill where the Joint Committee is instituted, because in Clause 18, which appoints the Joint Committee, it is left in doubt what the number appointed by the Commissioners of Supply and the County Council respectively should be. There again the same question will arise as to how that matter is to be decided. I understand that it has been done in England by the County Councils. A deputation was appointed to wait upon the Justices on the subject, but as the Commissioners of Supply are only to meet on one day, and that the day of election, I do not think that would be a satisfactory arrangement. It seems to me the only way you can get out of the difficulty suggested is that you should lay down in the interests of all concerned, that one body should meet before the other. In that case it seems to me the administrative body of the county, that is to say, the County Council, should meet and determine what number of members should serve on the Joint Committee

469
and that the Commissioners of Supply should elect a like number. The only other way out of the difficulty that I can suggest at all—I do not know whether it will be approved by the noble Marquess—is that he should undertake another of those arithmetical problems which he has been grappling with, and should lay down the numbers as I have suggested; but I think the better way would be to omit the words which have reference to that matter.
Amendment moved in page 5, line 34, to leave out "either before or" (The Lord Elgin.)
LORD HAMILTON: My Lords, I feel so very strongly against this clause that I do not like to let it pass without saying a word against it. I understand County Councils in England have worked well because those who have hitherto taken part in county business have worked with the Councils. But in Scotland the Commissioners of Supply, who have done the county work hitherto, and who are therefore ear-marked, as it were, in connection with it, are put aside in order to carry out the mere purpose of electing a member with the view of controlling that which is to be done by the other body. I think if we do not have class feeling manifested to a certain extent, if such a distinction is made, Scotchmen are more forbearing than I take them to be. In this way those gentlemen will only be a check on the body which really does the work. I confess I do not see how it is to act.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I think, my Lords, this discussion has turned away entirely from the Amendment which is proposed before the Commitee. The question upon the Amendment is whether certain words should be struck out, or not. We have diverged from that matter now, and got into a discussion as to whether it is not a right thing that there should be a body of Commissioners of Supply maintained, as well as of County Councillors. I really do not know which of the two questions we are discussing. I am perfectly prepared for my own part to discuss the second question, but I think that anything I could say in answer to the objections made would be better postponed until the discussion upon the clause referring to the Joint Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I will follow the example which has been very properly set by the noble Lord, and decline to go now into the general discussion raised, and I will deal simply with the Amendment itself. The noble Lord says this must be taken in connection with the Amendment upon a clause which occurs later on. The whole of his objection goes to this—that the number of the members of the Commissioners of Supply should be the same as those appointed by the County Council, that is to say, if the County Council appoint only three, the Standing Committee of the Commissioners of Supply would only appoint three.
THE EARL OF MINTO: I understand that is the proposition in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No; the proposition in the Bill is that they are to be appointed in numbers not exceeding seven, but each body is entirely independent as to the numbers they may appoint. The Commissioners of Supply might appoint, for instance, two, and the County Council seven, or vice versâ. It is entirely in the option of each body to appoint up to seven members, but not more. I think it would be exceedingly undesirable that the number should be less than that proposed by the Bill—namely, 15. There are seven to be appointed by the Commissioners of Supply, seven by the County Councils, and then there will be the ex officio Sheriff, who would make the number altogether 15. If, for any reason, the County Council desire to have a similar representation to the Commissioners of Supply, they would have nothing to do but to appoint a like number of their own representatives. I think it is very desirable that the number should be kept up to 15 as proposed by the Bill; and holding that view I am not disposed to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord. As regards getting over the difficulty mentioned by the noble Lord at the beginning of his remarks, I do not see that in omitting the words as to the time of meeting, whether before or after the meeting of the other body, would solve that difficulty at all. The difficulty as to the members elected from the Commissioners of Supply or any one officially acting would remain just the same. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR: I would call the noble Lord's attention to the proposal in Clause 82, Sub-section 2, which provides that the Commissioners of Supply may continue to perform the duties which they have up to the present time carried out in that respect; therefore the Commissioner elected may act as the Convener just as he does now. The system provided by the Bill is, I think, more elastic in providing that the Commissioners of Supply may meet either before or after the County Council than if they were bound only to meet afterwards.
LORD WATSON: I think, my Lords, the course which is being taken is undesirable. We are discussing a future clause upon this Amendment.
LORD ELGIN: The object, I suppose, is that there should be seven and seven appointed, and the Sheriff acting ex officio. The remedy which the noble Lord suggests to us is that one of the bodies need not appoint the whole number of seven, but the only result of that would be that the body so acting would thereby be merely placing itself in a minority on the Committee. My object was to point out that one body should meet first, and that there should not be an unseemely competition which of them should meet first in order to settle what the numbers on the Joint Committe should be.
THE EARL OF MINTO: I would point out that there is another Amendment prohibiting the election of the Convener on the day on which the Council meets. I think the noble Lord had better consider whether the insertion of the words "on that day" would not be advisable, so that the Commissioners might be competent to transact business of various kinds which might come before them.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The words seem to me to be harmless, and I should not object to them probably, but I think they would be surplusage, and therefore I do not think there is any necessity to insert them in the Bill. I do not think that the danger the noble Earl contemplates is likely to arise.
THE EARL OF MINTO: It appears to me there might be a doubt whether the Commissioners of Supply are competent to undertake these duties.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: If the noble Earl wishes to insert the words
472
in order to make it clearer, I have no-objection.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: Surely the-noble Marquess has misunderstood the Amendment. It is not merely a question of making the clause clearer. It seems to me plain that the Amendment means that the Commissioners of Supply may transact other business than the convening of the Committee. That is as I understand it.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Then if that is the explanation of it I cannot accept the Amendment. I do not know whether that being so it will be withdrawn by the noble Lord.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: Upon Clause 14 I wish to draw attention to the-proviso that nothing in this section shall transfer to the County Council any powers under the Contagious Diseases Act. This proviso deals with the question of the inspection of dairies as I understand it, though it is not very clear under the 4th sub-section of Clause 11. The inspection of dairies is transferred with the other powers of the Local Authorities under the Public Health Act to the County Councils, or rather they are to be administered by the District Committees; but this clause retains the inspection of dairies in burghs of under 7,000 inhabitants in the authorities of the burgh. This-takes us back to a question which arose in 1886, when this amendment of the law was passed. Before that the inspection of dairies was under the Act which was passed in 1878 vested by the Privy Council in the Local Authority, which acted under their instructions; but by the Act of 1886 it was transferred to the Local Government Board in England—which means the Board of Supervision in Scotland and to the Parochial Authorities. My Lords, this is considered rather a serious matter by those who take an interest in the work of the Local Authorities. In the County of Fife, for instance, we have been very much of late subjected to outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia, and the history of those outbreaks is rather instructive. Since the-beginning of this year there have

473
been no less than 15 outbreaks of pleuro, and all those 13 have taken place in dairies. It seems to me that raises a very legitimate question, and that for the protection of the counties against the ravages of this disease it is very important that the Inspectors acting under the Local Authority should have powers of inspecting dairies and the cattle in them; because the Act of 1878 distinctly laid down that the inspection not only of the dairies themselves, and of the milk vessels, and other things, but also of the cattle should be under regulations carried out by the Local Authority. I think I might, perhaps, venture to illustrate the inefficiency of the present system by stating that when the Act transferred the duties from the county with which I am more intimately connected it had appointed regularly qualified Inspectors to the Board. Well, the result was that the Parochial Board in my parish appointed its own Sanitary Inspector to inspect the dairies. He was a very excellent man, no doubt, for he held the respectable position of town plumber, and he carried on those duties till he died. I do not suppose he knew much about cattle disease, but no doubt he did his best. Since then we have appointed a veterinary surgeon as Sanitary Inspector in order that he might inspect the dairies. I venture to think that with many of these smaller authorities there is practically no inspection worth the name at all, and the result is that if we leave out of the Bill these small burghs under 7,000 inhabitants we shall leave hot-beds for promoting this disease which the counties are incurring great expense in trying to stamp out. In my own county we have spent between £4,000 and £5,000 in compensation under the Acts referring to Contagious Diseases, and we, therefore, feel very keenly if we are to be subject to outbreaks, notwithstanding all we may do, in places which are not under proper inspection. I, therefore, move that this proviso be omitted from the Bill.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 35, to leave out from "provided," to "1886," in line 38.—(The Earl of Elgin.)
VISCOUNT CRANBBOOK: The noble Lord has adverted to a change made in 1886. The first is a very simple one. I can only say that the powers to which
474
he refers were vested in the Local Government Board, and taken from the-Privy Council, because the cleanliness of dairies and the effect of the want of it upon human food are matters for the Local Government Board, but I am not aware that the Privy Council is deprived in any way of the superintendence of the law relating to diseased cattle and their inspection.
LORD HAMILTON: The question which really seems to me of importance is, by which authority these duties will be performed, whether by the County or the Burgh Authorities. It seems to me they would be better discharged by the Burgh Authorities within the limits of the burgh. The burghs are intimately connected with the discharge of the duties imposed under the Public Health Act, and I think they are more likely to perform the duties in connection with these Acts than the County Councils would be. I would therefore strongly support this proviso, thinking it best under the circumstances.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The question raised by the noble Earl is of great interest, and one in regard to which in the County of Fife there has been a great difficulty in consequence of a want of proper supervision over dairies. But what I should like to point out to the noble Earl is, that this Bill does not propose to deal with any question of that kind; all it does is to continue matters as they are. No doubt a very great deal might be said for some alteration of the system, although I gather that the noble Lord prefers that the system should remain as it is. The effect of the Amendment would be simply to transfer the powers of inspection of cattle in dairies, and to secure the cleanliness of milk pails and other duties of that description. The noble Earl has stated that this power was taken from the Local Authority under the Contagious Diseases Act, and given to the Public Health Authority under the Act of 1878. All this Bill does is to keep things as they are. I am sorry to be continually declining Amendments proposed by noble Lords, but it appears to me I should not be justified in going into matters which affect the Public Health in a Bill of this kind. I would therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16.
LORD WATSON: On Clause 16 I have to move an Amendment which has for its purpose to ascertain whether the Chairman of the Body when it is formed, is to be the Convener of the County. There is no provision in the Bill for the election or appointment of a Chairman.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: Is it not better that the Road Board should elect their own Chairman? It might very easily happen that the Convener of the County would be a very fit person, but he might not be willing to undertake the duties; therefore it seems to me better that the Chairman of the Road Board should be treated as the subordinate of the Council.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I think the Convener should be ex officio Chairman, but in his absence they would elect their own Chairman.
LORD WATSON: Does it necessarily follow that the Convener would be on the Council at all? There is nothing to secure that the Convener is to be a member of this Road Board. The noble Marquess says that the Convener is to be the Chairman?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The Amendment is not mine.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: You cannot make Chairman of the Board a man who is not on the Board at all.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The Road Board is merely a Committee.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I would suggest that the better way would be to appoint a Convener who should be ex officio Chairman.
LORD WATSON: After what has taken place I desire to withdraw my first Amendment.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: Then there is to be no Chairman at all?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No; no Chairman; they will appoint their own Chairman.
LORD WATSON: I do move the second Amendment which stands in my name, because I think this unfortunate body should not be entirely without a Chairman.
Amendment moved, in page 8, line 27, after the word "Act," to insert the words, "and shall appoint their own Chairman."—(The Lord Watson.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I will not object to that Amendment now; but I should like to consider it on Report.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: The object of the Amendment which stands in my name is to provide an agency by which the benefit of telegraphic and telephonic communication may be extended to the more remote and isolated districts in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and to other parts of the country where those benefits are not at the present moment enjoyed. It is known to many of your Lordships that there exist many inhabited places in the Highlands which are from 20 to 30 miles from the nearest telegraphic station. In the border districts, too, there are many inhabited places which are between 10 and 20 miles from the nearest telegraphic station. Those districts suffer considerable inconvenience and disability. They have need, of course, for summoning medical assistance, they require access to the markets and intelligence concerning the markets—and it is in these latter respects that the fishing districts are principally affected. This matter has reference also to all ordinary circumstances of life and social intercourse. Those disadvantages affecting the wilder and more isolated districts of Scotland are being now more generally felt by the inhabitants, when they compare their condition with that of people in the more populated districts of the country. The evils attached to this state of things were strongly presented to the Crofters Commission in which I took part, and their existence was confirmed by the Report issued by that Commission. Those evils were warmly represented to the Government, which has not been insensible to them, I am glad to say. The same evils have not attracted so much attention in reference to the pastoral and other districts of the country. But I desire here to say the Amendment which stands in my name is a

477
recommendation of the Commissioners of Supply of the county with which I am connected. I doubt not that those evils are fully recognised by the noble Marquess, who has become well acquainted with the condition of the Highland districts by recent inquiry, and who is familiar with the wants of the Border Districts by the ties of birth, property, and hereditary association. The noble Marquess may contend that the instrumentality of the agency which I recommend on this occasion is not the right remedy, and I therefore ask your Lordships to put to yourselves the question what are the alternatives before us. If the districts, which are now without telegraphic and telephonic communication, are to be furnished with those facilities which are so necessary in modern life, it must be either by voluntary combination on the part of the people, or by the action of the Government, or by the action of some Local Authority, acting in co-operation with individuals, and with the Government. I wish I could believe that those disadvantages and disabilities affecting extensive portions of the country are likely to be remedied by simple spontaneous action. I think that action must either be on the part of the proprietors, or the tenants, or it may be both. As far as I have been able to ascertain, we cannot expect to obtain a general facility or remedy of this character from the proprietors. In some cases, no doubt, an opulent proprietor, or a rich shooting tenant, may of his own motion, or for his own purposes, obtain telegraphic communication either by paying down a round sum to Government, or by engaging his property or his credit for a certain number of years. But so far as I have been able to ascertain much is not to be hoped from the proprietors. In the district to which I have referred, many of the proprietors are not resident, that are not therefore keenly alive to the necessities of the case. In others, the proprietors are suffering from great pecuniary disabilities and discouragements, and they are either unwilling or unable to subscribe, and even those who would be able or willing to subscribe to such a purpose, cannot join in such contracts, as they would be unable to transmit them to their heirs and successors. The proprietors cannot form
478
an incorporated body which would be able to make engagements, and undertake contracts with the Postmaster General, or with the companies which are concerned in these constructions. With regard to the tenants, the case is even worse, because the position of the tenantry is at this moment so precarious and transitory in some parts of Scotland that one could not expect they would pledge their credit or their property for any prolonged period. Now it may be said that the duty should be undertaken by the Government. Government has not remained, I am glad to say, insensible to the claims of the Highland districts in this matter, but I do not think it would be possible to expect that Government should supply this want entirely at their own risk. The Government I think would do well to come to the assistance of localities which cannot help themselves. They would do well to incur some temporary loss if necessary, but they could not be expected to do everything. Their action would be facilitated no doubt if some co-operation were afforded to them on the part of the County Councils. There should be, in fact, some local agency which would have power to enter into contracts and engagements with the Postmaster General, to afford guarantees, it may be, against loss, to raise a rate or to have the power of raising loans, though I think that would not be necessary for this purpose. If this power were once conferred upon a recognised authority the rest would be easy. It may be urged that in principle it would be unjust for the Local Authority to tax the whole area of the country for the benefit of the more distant and the less favoured portions of it. I admit it would be necessary, perhaps, if the Council undertook this duty, that they should undergo some partial loss and some burden for a short period. I contend, however, that the burden put upon the ratepayers would not be an excessive one. I do not think too much is to be expected from voluntary agencies in the way of entering into direct contracts with the Government for the execution of such works; but I do think if the County Councils were empowered to enter into such contracts, the execution of those works within the county might be carried out much more economically than would be the case if the works were

479
executed simply by the Post Office. It may be also said that the people in the more populous districts of the country, although not directly interested, are indirectly interested in this matter, inasmuch as it is to the interest of the inhabitants of villages and remote places throughout the country to have facilities of intercourse with their neighbours and customers in other districts. It may be pointed out that if those facilities of intercourse were extended to the remoter parts of Scotland there would be a very considerable increase in the value of property in the districts so improved. Even now the first question asked if anybody is taking a property or renting a shooting in the remoter parts of Scotland is "How far is it from the Post Office?" or, "How far is it from the nearest Telegraph Station?" I think, therefore, it is to the common interest of the County Councils to promote works of this nature, and I do not think it can be affirmed that in the terms of my Resolution there is any financial danger attached to the proposal. The power which I propose to confer upon the County Councils with the view of enabling them to enter into contracts with Government for the execution of these works would be entirely voluntary on their part. If they chose to undertake this duty they might do so, if not they might abstain. But I entirely agree with the remark which fell from the noble Lord on the Second Reading of this Bill that one of the dangers we have to apprehend from the passing of this measure is, that when the County Councils meet for the first time they may be compelled to justify their existence and their action, by undertaking perhaps, rashly, a number of improvements, and so increasing their scale of county expenditure, which was so wisely limited in former times by the Commissioners of Supply. In ease there should be any inclination to extravagance of this nature, I have guarded my proposal by inserting a proviso that the power, which would be discretionary on the part of the Councils, shall only be exercised with the assent in all respects, first, of the Joint Committee which includes the Representatives of the old Commissioners of Supply and, secondly, the Secretary of Scotland. I beg to move the insertion of the clause which stands in my name.
Amendment moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following new clause:—
"18. In addition to the powers and duties transferred or transferable to the County Council under the foregoing clause and under other provisions of the present Act it shall be competent for the County Council to raise money by rate or loan for the contraction, maintenance, and working of lines of telegraphic and telephonic communication, to contract engagements with the Postmaster General, with other County Councils, with companies, and with other parties for these purposes, and to acquire and lease lands, houses, and other property requisite for the same, subject, however, to the consent of the Standing Joint Committee of the county constituted under the provisions of the present Act, and subject also to the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland."—[Lord Napier and Ettrick.)
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I think there is a great deal primâ facie to be said for this proposal of my noble Friend. When he was kind enough to mention it to me a moment ago it did not occur to me that there was any objection to it, but on thinking the matter over it seems to me that I may suggest one objection. I do not know whether he has had much experience of dealing with Departments of Government which are under the control of the Treasury, bat if he has I think he will see that the result of his Motion would be to arrest the telegraphic communication of the county. I feel sure of that. It is a terrible Department. I will mention a case which will be familiar to my noble Friend. He has visited the Hebrides, which have long wanted telegraphic communication. In those Islands some years ago proposals were made to us that if we guaranteed a certain return the Government would agree to lay down a submarine telegraph. After making inquiry I found it was extremely probable that the guarantee would be a very onerous matter, and looking forward like a Scotchman I had a shrewd suspicion that the number of people interested in that demand for the telegraph would very soon compel the Government to take the required step without any guarantee whatever being given. And it, in fact, turned out to be so, for in the course of a couple of years the submarine telegraph was extended to those islands; it is now in full operation there, and not a shilling has been guaranteed by anybody. Look at the operation of this clause. The Treasury Department would say at once that they

481
would not expend a shilling unless you would give a guarantee, which, of course, would give the Treasury a pull upon you in that respect. I have had the honour more than once of being Postmaster General, and I know very well what the pressure has been from various Local Authorities to get local accommodation, and I know the strength of the veto which has been placed by the Treasury on every attempt which was likely to be a loss to the Treasury. We at the Post Office were constantly vetoed by the Treasury because the proposed improvement was not likely to pay. I remember on one occasion Lord Palmerston said to me, "I hold that the Post Office is not a Department at all; I hold that the revenue of the Post Office ought to be expended on further improvements." I said, "I agree with you, my Lord, but you hardly know what the difficulty is." If propositions of this kind were acceded to the people in every little village would consider that money should be expended upon them. I feel quite certain that if such a clause as this was passed it would be a weapon in the hands of the Treasury, and that not one shilling would be given without the assessment of the parish.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Your Lordships will not expect me to enter into the controversy which has arisen between noble Lords on this matter. It is not possible for me on the one Hand to enter into the action of the Treasury, or on the other to discuss the action of the Post Office. I think you will be content to accept from the noble Duke his experience as Postmaster General, and I think that the difficulty which has arisen in his mind is one which will commend itself to the judgment of your Lordships. Apart from that question I am not surprised that the Chairman of the Crofters Commission has taken this opportunity of doing what he thought to be in the interest of the inhabitants of the Western Islands. I agree with what he has said, as evincing a desire to improve the position both of the landlords and tenants, and as to the very great difficulty in either landlords or tenants combining, together or separately, for providing such guarantees as might be required for carrying out the necessary works. As the noble Lord has referred to me personally, I should like to say that I
482
fully appreciate what he has said. I entirely endorse all he has stated about me—namely, that I am fully acquainted with the evils which exist in those districts, and I can only add that it is my earnest wish to remove them. But the difficulties which have been suggested by the noble Duke may serve to show what my difficulties have been in that and other matters. Apart from what has been said by the noble Duke, I am again under the necessity of asking the noble Duke not to press his Amendment, because, as I will again remind the House, the object of this Bill has been to transfer from the Commissioners of Supply to the County Councils simply the powers which they already have. I think your Lordships will consider that it is certainly not desirable to give to the County Councils an increased power of expenditure at the beginning which might be more than the rates of the county could probably bear. I can quite appreciate what the noble Lord has proposed as a safeguard—namely, that any such expenditure should be subject to the sanction of the Standing Joint Committee, and also of the Secretary for Scotland. But I do not think that would be an efficient safeguard for this reason—looking at it from the pecuniary point of view, both the Standing Committee and ultimately the Secretary for Scotland might say the expenditure was not justified by the rates which would follow. Yet on the other hand, the plea ad misericordiam would be so great that neither the Joint Standing Committee nor the Secretary for Scotland would feel justified in refusing the application. It is my most earnest desire to do what I can for those districts, but I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment to a Division.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: After what has fallen from the noble Duke and from the Secretary for Scotland, I do not intend to press this Amendment, and I trust I may be permitted to withdraw it. At the same time I must confess that I do not admit the cogency or validity of the arguments of the noble Duke. I am forced to believe that the Post Office Authorities may be actuated by greater liberality at the present time than they were at the time when he presided over that Department. At the same time I do firmly believe, after con-

483
siderable reflection and calculation on this subject, that considerable development and great advantages might be attained by the co-operation of private parties or Local Authorities with the Postmaster General in these matters; and that telegraphic communication might be prudently and gradually extended in a variety of directions with no material charge to the counties. However, after what has fallen from the noble Duke and the noble Marquis, I cannot do otherwise than withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn, and Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18.
Amendment moved in Sub-section 2, page 11, line 6, to insert, "The convener or in his absence the vice-convener, and."—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to provide that the convener of the county who is appointed to the County Council shall be ex officio a member of the Standing Joint Committee. In a few words I wish to explain my reasons for this proposition. You are going to have a popularly elected body, which elects its own chairman to be called the convener of the county. You then also empower that body to elect members not exceeding seven in number to the Joint Standing Committee along with the representatives of the Commissioners of Supply and the Sheriff, or the Sheriff-substitute in his absence is to be the ex officio member of this Committee. That makes up the number to 15. As a matter of working I think the convener of the Council should be an ex officio member, and in his absence the vice-convener of that Committee. I press this very strongly, because the experience which I have had on a County Council in England has shown me that it is most desirable that the chairman presiding over the meetings should be in touch with all that goes on at the meetings. We have appointed the Chairman of this Council to be a member of all committees to be appointed from time to time, and we found this has certainly facilitated the procedure and facilitated business in a very marked degree. Supposing the Chairman of the Council does not
484
know what is going on in Standing Joint Committee, I think there might perhaps be a certain amount of friction, which, would be avoided if the convener acted ex officio as member of the Standing Joint Committee. I should certainly prefer that course if we are to have ex officio members from the outside, and I also prefer to have the convener as an ex officio member. For those reasons I hope the noble Marquess will agree to my proposal.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am afraid again I must ask the noble Marquess not to press his Amendment. Of course, I do not say a word theoretically against the convener being ex officio the Chairman of the Standing Committee; but that Committee is a very important body, and the composition of the Committee was a matter of great consideration before it was proposed as it is now in the Bill. That provision was made in the way which was thought most desirable for the advantage of the counties. If the convener were made ex officio a member of the Standing Committee it would raise the number from 15 to 16, and there might be a deadlock, because the Chairman has no casting vote. The reasons I gave at first are those which would induce me now not to assent to the proposition of the noble Lord—namely, that the provision was very carefully considered, and that any addition to it would throw it entirely out of gear.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I will not press my Amendment, but I think it shows some hesitation in accepting the verdict of these popular bodies—that you cannot trust the convener whom they might elect.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I must protest against the words which has been used by the noble Marquess. There is no "distrust" whatever.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Amendment moved, in page 11, line 70, after "thereof," insert—
"Provided that such Sheriff shall not he entitled to vote on other subjects than those that come within the cognisance and jurisdiction of the Standing Joint Committee in its capacity of Police Committee, in succession to the Police Committee under the Police Act of 1857."—(The Earl of Minto).
THE EARL OF MINTO: In regard to Clause 18, Sub-section 2 which provides that the Sheriff of the County is to be ex officio a Member of the Standing Joint Committee, in so far as the Police Committee is concerned, nothing could be more proper than that he should be on that Committee. But it does not stop there. The Sheriff being ex officio on the Standing Joint Committee has jurisdiction beyond what is at all reasonable. He is one of the Standing Joint Committee which has to raise money for the construction of roads, widening of bridges, and other public works. I think it is quite inconsistent with the principle of this Bill that he should have jurisdiction in these measures. Accordingly the proviso which I beg to propose is that the Sheriff shall not be permitted to vote in regard to these public works.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The noble Lord who spoke previously referred to the distrust of the Council shown by not making the Convener an ex officio Member of this body. What is now proposed would show, I think, considerable distrust of the Sheriff who is practically the head of the police, and the highest authority in the county. To ask him to take part only in measures which are to be decided by the Joint Committee of which he is a Member would put him in an extremely doubtful position.
LORD HAMILTON: I cannot help thinking there is a great deal in the Amendment proposed. It does not follow at all that the Sheriff resides in the county. He frequently resides in Edinburgh, and never goes near the county at all. What you are proposing to do is this: you place him on this Committee, and give him the power of going into all these questions, of laying out the money of the county upon various works, and you put him in the same position as any Councillor or Commissioner of Supply who is directly interested in the work in question. Of course, if it is impossible to persist in the Amendment it would be useless to divide the House upon it, but I think there is a great deal to be said in principle for it.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I think what the noble Lord has just said is an argument in favour of having the
486
Sheriff on the Committee. If he is there the suggestion does not arise, and I do not think the argument strengthens the case of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Lord has missed the point. It is perfectly right that the Sheriff should be a Member of the Police Committee. He always has been a Member of it, and a moat important Member, and I should not at all desire to depose the Sheriff. But when you get to questions of spending money, that introduces quite a new question into the business, and for that purpose I cannot see any necessity or object for putting in the Sheriff. The noble Lord has spoken of the great powers of the Sheriff. We have the Sheriff in everything in Scotland, and it may be said that we have too much of him in this case. The Sheriff is a ubiquitous individual, but perhaps you may have too much of him.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: I have the greatest respect for the Sheriff in Scotland. He is the highest Executive Authority and Head of the Police. He is responsible for the police management and peace of the county. That he should be responsible for the peace of the county is an excellent arrangement; but when it comes to be a question of expenditure, the question then arises that the Sheriff has no property there, and he may have no special knowledge of the economical position of the county. Though he might advise, I think he ought not to have any power of voting. In fact, from what I know of Sheriffs generally, I do not think that the Sheriff would vote, and if he has the power of voting I think he will abstain from doing so, and that he would withdraw should occasion demand.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: This is an example of the inconvenience of mixing up two things in the same question. It is not very easy to find out of what proportions this Committee is to consist. The noble Marquess told us that there was no obligation on the members to elect the full number; but in his remarks just now he says the Sheriff is to be the fifteenth person, and that for that purpose it is necessary he should vote on all subjects. But if members did not elect their full number, the balance for voting purposes would be disturbed.

487
It seems to me a strong matter that, on a question of finance, upou which, as I pointed out, the Sheriff may have no knowledge, he should be the absolute arbiter between what I am afraid in some cases may be two opposing parties. I think, therefore, there is a great deal to be said against the Sheriff voting on measures of finance; but, at the same time, my Lords, I venture to think that the manner in which the noble Earl proposes to carry out this proposition is not a very convenient one, and it is not a very convenient thing that one member of a Committee should be restricted, and he alone, as to the subjects with which he is to deal. I do not know that I should be prepared, therefore, to support the noble Earl in that particular Amendment; but I think it does show that the position of the Sheriff on the Finance Committee is a very inconvenient one.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I very much agree with the general tone of the observations of my noble Friend who has just sat down. The Sheriff is not a ratepayer necessarily on the one hand, and on the other hand it would, I think, be invidious in the form now proposed to exclude him from voting on the Committee of which he is a member. I do not agree with the noble Marquess in the suggestion that the Sheriffs have no knowledge in these votes. I think they have. They are in communication with all parties in the county, and they have by virtue of their office and position a judicial and impartial mind. Speaking generally of the gentlemen who occupy the position of Sheriffs, I feel sure that they are well qualified and I should always be very glad to have their opinions even on questions connected with expenditure. I hope, therefore, the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: I would submit to the noble Duke that it is not a question of giving an opinion merely. Let the Sheriff retain his seat. He would be at liberty to give his opinion, he would be there as a member though not as a voter. Up to the present time the Sheriff has been a member of the Commissioners of Supply; he sits there as I have often seen him. He is frequently referred to there by the members of the Commissioners' Body, but I think he abstains a great
488
deal from voting. He is a Consultative officer and he does not vote. When there is the least suspicion of any question of his being afterwards called upon to act in his judicial capacity he does not vote, and I do not think practically he would vote, at least in my county, on money questions.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I sincerely hope this Amendment will not be agreed to, because this seems to me to be a very valuable provision. I think the noble Lord is mistaken if he supposes that the Sheriff is not there acting with the Commissioners of Supply with as full powers as the rest. It is certainly not my experience that if present he abstains from voting. But if the suggestion were carried out to make him merely a Consultative member and not to vote, the Sheriff would go away if he could not back up his opinion by his vote. I venture to think in the great majority of cases, if there is to be any serious conflict between the Commissioners of Supply, the Members of the Committee, and the Electoral Members, which I certainly hope will not be the case, that to have gentlemen of this description—these judicially minded persons—on the Committee would be a most valuable thing, and though the Sheriff might not, if he felt there was a pinch, record his vote, still I venture to think he would give his vote upon broad general grounds, and really I have every confidence that if it comes to contests, which I hope it will not as I have said before, between the County Councillors and the Commissioners of Supply, you could not put the decision of any questions which may come before the Committee in safer or better hands than those of the Sheriff or his substitute. I hope, therefore, the clause will be adhered to.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The noble Lord (Lord Elgin) talked of the opinion I expressed upon this matter; but I think he was mistaken in what he said. What I recollect to have said was that it was not incumbent either upon the Commissioners of Supply or the County Councillors to appoint the full number of seven. If the noble Lord will look at the clause it says, "such number not exceeding seven." That shows that the numbers need not come up to seven. It also states that six shall form a quo-

489
rum of the Committee, and that also shows that the whole number need not be present. On the other hand I particularly pointed out what one object was of not making the election of the Commissioners of Supply depend upon the election by the County Council. It was in the hope of keeping them quite separate that it was provided the full number should not be appointed up to seven. I would also refer to what I said as to the odd number 15 being best. That was in view of the full number being appointed.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: May I ask one question? If one body appoints four members, must the other only appoint four?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No, the other body may appoint seven.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: Then the numbers will not be equal.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: That is their own fault. Of course if there is a, very small number present there will be no quorum.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: You might have this anomalous state of things, that the quorum is to be larger than the body actually sitting.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: One really cannot anticipate all the exceedingly improbable difficulties which occur to noble Lords.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: That is rather an important point I think if you happened to have a larger quorum than your entire body.
LORD WATSON: In that case it simply lays a statutory duty upon those two bodies of electing a number larger than the quorum.
THE EARL OF MINTO: I want to ask how the Commissioners of Supply are to be dealt with? I see the numbers are given, and in those numbers the ex officio members are stated. In the county of Lanark, which has been already referred to, I think there are 36 ex officio Commissioners of Supply. I think the noble Marquess ought to give an explanation of that, and state whether all those Commissioners are qualified to vote.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: All those who are qualified Commissioners of Supply would have the power of voting.
THE EARL OF MINTO: That is to say the whole Commission?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed, Clause 18, page 11, line 17, to insert at the beginning of the sub-Section the words—
"The Standing Joint Committee shall meet on such days 'and at such intervals as may he determined at the first meeting of the Committee in each year, and."—(The Earl of Elgin.)
THE EARL OF ELGIN: According to this sub-section no meeting can be held except upon six days' notice to be sent by registered letter. It was pointed out on the Committee of the County to which I belong, by the Chairman of the Police Committee, that at present there are statutory fixed sittings of the Committee, and that it would be inconvenient, to say the least of it, if no meeting of the Standing Joint Committee could be held except upon six days' notice supposing they were not statutory fixed meetings. It is in order to meet that difficulty that I have proposed the Amendment which stand in my name. Of course, the noble Marquess might object to the words, and might prefer to introduce them in another shape; but I think it is necessary that there should be fixed regular meetings of the Standing Committee of Police at any rate.
LORD BALFOUR: Is not that rather a matter of arrangement for the Committee? If the Committee wished to do so they could do it under such bye-laws or standing orders as they choose to adopt for themselves. Notices can be sent on the days which have been previously arranged for.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Amendment moved, to leave out Subsection (7) and insert—
"Capital works shall include the erection or re-building of buildings, the construction or re-construction of roads and bridges, the construction or extension of drainage or water supply works, and the acquisition of land, or of any right or intesest or servitude in or over land or water for the purposes of any capital work."—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, I have an Amendment to omit Sub-section 7, and to insert another section in its place. This is the point which I called attention to on the Motion for the Second Reading. Under

491
this Bill all the highways in Scotland will in future be managed. Up to this time there were a number of Local Acts still in existence in Scotland which were not touched generally by the Roads and Bridges Act of 1878, although in one direction they were touched, that is to say, that the Roads and Bridges Act of 1878 enabled the counties which enjoyed the benefits of Local Acts to have extended powers of rating. In most of the Local Acts which I am aware of, there was a limit fixed to the rating. In Aberdeen it was 6d. in the £1, 3d. on the landlords, and 3d. on the tenants. The Roads and Bridges Act extended this provision, and Section 103 of that Act enabled those acting under it to exercise unlimited powers of rating. By this Bill, all those Local Acts are done away with, and although I deprecate it very much for old associations sake, still, it is necessary, no doubt, in a Bill of this sort. You repeal the provisions with regard to the method of election of Road Trustees, and you provide in the first place that the County Councils shall be elected; then, that the District Committee shall be formed; then that the District Committee, with one member nominated from the Parochial Board, shall be the Board to manage the roads and highways. These District Committees elected in that way will have the entire rating powers which the Act of 1878 confers. You give them full and absolute powers in that direction, and in Sub-section 6, which has just been carried, you say that no works involving capital expenditure shall be carried out without the consent in writing of the Standing Joint Committee. Now you come to Subsection 7, which defines what these capital works are, and you find they include the erection and enlargement of buildings, bridges, and so on, and any large works the expenditure upon which is not wholly provided for out of the rates for the current financial year. What is the position into which we are now to be launched? Before 1878 we had a little hold over these Road Trustees. My noble Friend pointed out the extravagance which in some counties they were guilty of; but I can say, from my own experience, that we have carried out economically the system under which we worked. You will now have these works carried out by a small Body, with
492
one nominee from the Parochial Boards, able to raise whatever rates they like, and able to carry out enormous works and even to acquire land. I do not know what works they may not launch into. This is a very dangerous power to give these District Committees, and my proposition is to leave out the words with regard to the enlargement of buildings and widening of roads, and to limit their powers as to providing for these works out of the rates for the current financial year, leaving these District Committees to come to the-Joint Standing Committee if they really wish to get these capital works carried out.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I concur with the noble Marquess that perhaps the powers given under this clause are too wide, and therefore I am quite willing to accept the principal part of his Amendment. The only reason for including the enlargement of buildings and the widening of roads-was that the expenditure upon them, may, on the one hand, mean almost nothing at all, though, on the other, a large outlay of capital may be involved by them. With regard to the latter part of the noble Marquess's Amendment, I am willing to accept it.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: Is the noble Marquess willing to strike out from the words "water-supply works"?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Down to line 40.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: Surely, my Lords, that is a very important alteration. As I understand the clause as it stands in the Bill, the matters which come under the cognizance of this Joint Committee are simply these matters-which are to be provided for out of borrowed money, and not matters which can be met out of the current rates of the year. The words which the noble Marquess now proposes to strike out are exactly the words which keep them to that matter only. That is as it stands in the Bill. Beyond that I do not see that there is so much objection to be taken to it; the District Committees could carry out any similar works which it might be necessary for them to do, so long as they do not exceed the amounts which they get on the current rates of the year, but if all capital works are to come under the cognizance of the Joint Committee I ven-

493
ture to say that very serious inconvenience will arise. Under these words as they stand now, without the Amendment, you could not rebuild a culvert without coming to the standing Joint Committee and getting their consent. It seems to me the principle of the clause, as it stands in the Bill, is a correct one. If I may make a suggestion on the clause, it would run:—
"Capital works shall mean works, the expenditure on which is not wholly provided for out of the current rates of the year."
LORD WATSON: It appears to me that to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl would simply import into this clause a new element, and convert into capital expenditure that which ought not, under any circumstances, to constitute capital expenditure. The words are:—
"Any works, the expenditure on which is not wholly provided for out of the rates for the current local financial year."
That means, according to my understanding, that whenever works which ought to be met out of current rates are constructed and the expenditure is not so met, it shall be at once charged to capital. If a large sum is spent in one year, on maintenance or repair of works, instead of being spread over three or four years, then expenditure which is chargeable on owners and occupiers and is in no sense capital, would be converted into capital outlay which is made chargeable upon landlords. Certainly it appears to me that the words which the noble Marquess has agreed to strike out ought never to have been in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: Is it proposed to leave in the words "and any other works"?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No; omit the words "water supply works."
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," agreed to.
Moved that Clause 18, as amended, be added to the Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: On this question I desire to say a few words. In the discussion upon other matters attacks have been made on these County Joint Committees. I think my noble Friend Lord Hamilton went so far as to say that if you established anything in the nature
494
of a Joint Committee you would establish class feeling. I cannot help feeling that my noble Friend must have imagined he was back again with his constituents, and descanting on a public platform upon all the woes and injustice, under which they labour. I cannot believe that when he used words of that sort he was really considering the Committee which it is proposed to appoint under this Bill, for if he was so considering it, all I can say is that I am afraid he did not understand what is contained in the Bill. For what is it? In the first place, you have these rates. These rates are of two kinds. One is to be paid wholly by the owner, the other is the consolidated rate, of which the owners are to pay half, and the other half is to be found by the occupiers. There is now a new body constituted, the great majority of whom will contribute little or nothing to those rates—namely, persons who have the Service Franchise, and those who have holdings under £4, for which the rates are commuted. Those will be the large majority of the ratepayers. Now, what is the moderate proposal which is put forward by this Bill? It is this—that whereas property is to contribute three-fourths of the rates, and a large proportion of the contituency are to be persons who will contribute very little, or in some cases-nothing at all, when it comes to a question of borrowing or of making large outlay on capital works, there is to be a committee, composed one-half of representatives of property in the county, and the other half by the persons representing these large constituencies, and they are to say whether it is right or not to undertake this borrowing, and to make this capital outlay. That is the whole proposal. May I ask, is it not the most ordinary course to avoid doing this; and, in a sense, would it not be utterly ridiculous if you were to give borrowing powers to a constituency which we all agree contributes very little to these rates? But when you talk of class feeling, I cannot imagine any term which would be more inapplicable. These 14 men, or less than 14 men, whatever their number may be, will all be persons who have the strongest reasons for wishing to expend the money of the ratepayers in a frugal and sensible manner. I

495
think, too, that the noble Lord has entirely forgotten that when it is proposed to lay out public money, precautions of this kind are always used. When a parish wants to lay out money, they have to go and obtain the consent of the Board of Supervision. Take the present Road Boards. When there is any question of capital expenditure, that is not allowed to be decided by the ordinary trustees, but it is decided by the Road Board, which you are really continuing in this Bill. Then if you consider the Public Health provisions, they are exactly on the same basis. In England you have to obtain the consent of the Local Government Board. This course is invariably followed, and I must say I have never seen anything to justify the attacks upon these Joint Committees.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I would point out that there is no similar Committee in England in regard to capital expenditure.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Before this clause passes I desire to say that I entirely agree with the observations which fell from my noble Friend Lord Camperdown. The great danger of all municipal Government is pecuniary jobbery. It has been terrible in the United States of America. Your Lordships probably have no idea of the extent to which pecuniary jobbery has gone in the municipalities of the United States. In New York it is not merely that there are corrupt officers of the constituencies; it is not merely that office-bearers under the Municipality are corrupt—that is not the kind of corruption to which I allude; it is that the whole constituencies are corrupt, and that they elect men on purpose to perpetrate jobs. I believe that the Municipalities of England and Scotland have hitherto been on the whole corrupt. Within this week a most stringent Bill has been assented to by this House against popular corruption. Nobody apparently took any notice of it. It was under the charge of Lord Herschell. It has gone back to the House of Commons, and I suppose it will pass this Session. That Bill provides that if any public body is guilty of what is defined by the Bill to be corruption, every member of it should be considered under the Act as having committed an offence. I hope, in the atmosphere of comparative purity
496
which has existed in England and Scotland, that our Municipalities will be as pure in the future as they have been in the past, but surely it is a matter of common sense in establishing a new system which should make a bridge between the old and the new order of things, that we should secure in the new Administration, a strong element of those who have hitherto conducted the county business so well in Scotland. It is quite possible that this enactment which is proposed by Government may be of a beneficial character; it is quite possible that a more united, a more homogeneous system, may ultimately supersede the former system; but the question is with regard to the time now, whether we should take this leap in the dark without any precaution against pecuniary corruption. There are numerous temptations to corruption, and you ought to secure with regard to those bodies that they shall be free from that corruption which prevails elsewhere. That is the ground on which I support this clause. Although I quite admit there are theoretical objections to it, on the whole, it is nothing but a wise precaution against possible evils which are widely prevalent at this moment all over the world. I do not know whether your Lordships' attention has been directed to the state of Italy. The state of Italy just now in regard to its municipal institutions is, I believe, nothing short of disastrous. A great eulogism has been lately passed by Mr. Gladstone on the state of Italy, and, no doubt, since the unity of Italy has been accomplished, great progress has been made in that country; but if we go a little behind that ostensible progress, and investigate its financial condition and its general condition, both municipal and commercial, we shall find it is in a most dangerons condition. A paragraph appeared in the newspapers this week, I do not know what weight is to be attributed to it, stating that the ancient city of Pisa is absolutely bankrupt and unable to pay its creditors, and, it was added, half the cities of Southern Italy are in the same condition. What has that resulted from? It has resulted to some extent, no doubt, from keeping up an enormous Army and an enormous Navy; but besides the Imperial taxes there are the Communal taxes, and they are, I understand, the

497
most oppressive of all. We ought not, I think, to give unlimited powers of taxation to any public body, without taking such precautions as wisdom suggests, to maintain the comparative administrative purity which has hitherto existed locally in this country.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I should like to say in regard to this matter that although the noble Duke has given us illustrations from America and from Italy, it does not appear to me that those illustrations exactly meet our objections to this clause in the measure now before the House; because he has at the same time admitted that in England and Scotland we are able to boast, at any rate, of a comparative absence of corruption in regard to local finances. What I should venture to think is the real ground of objection taken to this clause, and I think it is the feeling prevalent in Scotland, is that the restrictions which are put on Local Government in counties by the institution of these Joint Committees is a restriction which is not found in the similar measure with regard to Local Government in England, nor, as matters stand in the great cities of Scotland, and which will be the position next year, when these local bodies will meet. I think I am correct in saying that no Town Council is subject to any check of this kind in the management of its finances, nor are the large cities subject to checks of the kind which are introduced by this clause in the matter of their Police. If we are to accept the view of the noble Duke that the Government look upon this Bill merely as a provisional matter, and that we may look forward at some date, perhaps, not far distant, to the abandonment of these provisions, and that the County Council will then be entrusted with the full management of their own concerns, our objections with regard to these clauses might be very materially modified. But I do say, as the matter stands, this clause does introduce what I venture to call a change in local affairs, because it introduces a feeling of suspicion on the part of the Government, who have in so many ways consulted the wishes of the people of Scotland as to the extent to which they are to be trusted with the management of their own affairs.
LORD BALFOUR: I shall not detain the Committee more than a few moments, and I should not have risen at all, but for the remarks of the noble Lord who spoke last. He seemed to make it a special grievance that in this particular matter the people of Scotland are less trusted than were the people of England in the Act which was passed with regard to Local Government last year. As I am somewhat familiar with that Act, I may be, perhaps, permitted to point out that the conditions are not quite the same. In the first place, though not the most important matter, there are no Aldermen in Scotland as in England, and there are not any, therefore, proposed to be created under this Bill. It was suggested in England that maintaining the Aldermen would have a steadying effect on the Town Councils. But that is not the chief reason why I object to the parallel. I object to it on account of the differences between the two countries as regards the incidence of rating. In England the occupier pays the county rates; in Scotland the rates are to be divided between the owner and the occupier except in the case of the stereotyped rate. That does not mean that the rate is divided equally, say, 4d. in the £1 upon one, and 4d. in the £1 on the other. It means that if £2,000 has to be raised, the owners must find £1,000 and the occupier £1,000. It seems to me that that being so, any temptation should be removed from the occupier to unduly rate the owner for his own advantage. The occupier, if he finds the rates heavy, may move away, after he has burdened the owner's property in the district in which he lives, but the owner must stay. The owner is fixed, to a certain extent, where he is, and he will have to pay the burden imposed upon him by the vote of the occupier. There is a further point to which I would call attention. I venture to think your Lordships will agree that, at any rate in the last resort, it is the owner who pays the rates. The occupier, when he goes from one place to another, naturally takes into consideration the rating as well as the rent which he will have to pay. If the rating is less heavy he can afford to pay a larger rent, but if the rating is heavier than he has been accustomed to pay, he will only be able

499
to offer a smaller amount of rent. I venture to think it is really not a mistrust of the people of Scotland, but a simple and ordinary business-like precaution which is imposed, and whatever noble Lords opposite may say, it has really a much larger amount of sympathy than they would appear to make out among the constituencies of Scotland. I almost owe the House an apology for intruding at this stage, but I do think that the attempt to draw a parallel between the two cases will not hold water for a moment.
THE EARL OF MINTO: I do not like to allow this subject to pass away from your Lordships' consideration entirely without giving a short expression to my opinion upon it. That opinion substantially coincides with the opinion which has already been expressed by my noble Friend below me. Although I perhaps would not have used quite as strong language in speaking on the subject as he did, I fully concur in the opinion which has been so warmly expressed by the noble Duke and others that it is desirable control should be extended in some matters over the local expenditure and borrowing powers of the new Councils, which are now being called into existence, especially in the inception of their authority. I am inclined to regret that this control has been deposited in the hands of a different class belonging to the same community; but I do not believe that that authority will be the less exercised—I trust it will even be exercised with sympathy for the large portion of the community. Still, there does appear to me to be something rather obnoxious in the principle. It is like setting one class of the community as a controlling body over another, and I think in Scotland there will be some feeling on the subject, which I hope will not be a durable or a strong one. I should have been satisfied myself if the control over capital expenditure and borrowing powers had been deposited with the Secretary for Scotland alone.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 26 agreed to, with Amendments.
Clause 27.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In the absence of Lord Aberdeen, I rise to
500
propose the proviso which stands in is name. The reason of this Amendment is that in certain counties where works entailing large expenditure have been carried out, in certain cases it has been done by extra assessment instead of by borrowing, and under the arrangements of this Bill it will be necessary to calculate what was the "average rate" (those are the words of the Bill) paid by the owners during the last 10 years. In cases of this sort it is obvious that the average rate of owners will be much higher than it would have been if the expenditure had been defrayed in the ordinary way—namely, partly by rate and partly by borrowing. The object of the Amendment is to provide that in cases of this sort the Sheriff shall use his discretion and decide how much of this expenditure should be provided in the ordinary way.
Amendment moved, in page 18, line 31, after "rate," add—
"Provided further that where such branch of expenditure, or any part thereof, has been provided for by assessments instead of by borrowing, the Sheriff shall include in the average rate such proportion only of those assessments as, in his opinion, would have been levied if the sums necessary to meet such expenditure had been raised by borrowing."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I admit at first sight there appears to be a good deal to be said for this Amendment, but I would ask your Lordships to consider that the proposal under the Bill, as it now stands, is purely in the nature of a compromise under the Bill as it was first introduced into the House of Commons. There was at first no provision in the Bill applying to cases of this sort. It was proposed in the other House that these rates should be exempted altogether from the stereotyped rate, and this Bill, as it stands, is the result of a compromise on this question. I would ask your Lordships further to consider that in rating for expenditure year by year there are very few counties (I am not sure that there is more than one) who have considered that the expenditure is expenditure which ought to fall upon the rate of the year. In adding to the rates year by year for any capital expenditure they have thought that it was a proper yearly expenditure and it was done entirely by their own action

501
there was no force upon them, and if they thought that they would do better by borrowing money and paying it by instalments, they would have done so; but they thought it right in their own interests that the capital expenditure should be put upon the rates of the -current year. Apart from that I see a practical difficulty in the way of the proposal of the noble Lord. It is proposed that the Sheriff shall include in the average rate such proportion only of those assessments as in his opinion would have been levied if the sums necessary to meet such expenditure had been raised by borrowing. Does it not occur to the noble Lord that that is an almost impossible duty to throw upon the Sheriff? You would have no data to go upon by which to judge accurately what the proportion should be. I would like the noble Earl to suggest any way by which the Sheriff could come to a just decision. For these reasons, first, that I do not think it is expedient that the expenditure which has been made out of the annual rate of the county should be deducted from the stereotyped rate; and, secondly, because I think that if such a proposal were carried it would be impossible for the Sheriff to carry out the duties imposed upon him, I do not propose to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I admit there is some force in the second reason that the noble Lord has just given; but with regard to the first, I do not think he meets the case at all, and after all that is much the most important of the two. The case which Lord Aberdeen puts is this. Take the case of a county which for reasons best known to itself, thought it was better, having certain capital expenditure to make, to make that by paying the money down at once, instead of by borrowing. The noble Lord says: then they determined that that course was for their own interest. Yes; but they did not see that the noble Lord was going by this Bill to stereotype rates against the owners which would tell against them for all time to come. The noble Lord will remember that this formality which he proposes in this Bill is without any precedent whatsoever. The reason for it we all know is that hitherto these rates have been borne entirely by the owners, whereas now they are to be divided
502
between the owners and occupiers. There has never been anything like this proposal in Local Government Acts or anything else. You say the Sheriff shall calculate what these rates have been during the last 10 years, and upon that he shall base a charge for all time to come. When the noble Lord says that this is a most difficult task to impose upon the Sheriff, I merely reply that the noble Lord has already set the Sheriff a task which is nearly equal in difficulty. The whole arrangement is one of the most extraordinary character, and moreover the ratepayers of the county, if they had foreseen that the provisions of this Bill were going to come into force, would never have adopted that form of paying the capital expenditure. That is the case as it appears to me for Lord Aberdeen's Amendment, and it seems to me that what the noble Lord has said is no answer to that case at all.
LORD BALFOUR: The duty cast upon the Sheriff by the Bill as it stands will surely not be much more than putting into practice some very simple rules of arithmetic. By the Amendment a large amount of what would be conjecture is imported into this matter. I have not heard the exact amount which is supposed to be involved, but as far as I know, in any county which is interested in this matter it is only a very small amount. I have heard it put for one county, and I believe it to be the county which is most affected, Renfrew, and in that case I believe the utmost that is involved is ½d. in the £1. I speak from good information, but I do not put it forward absolutely. I believe there is another objection to it, that the real object of stereotyping has been to prevent any burden which has hitherto been fully borne by owners being transferred to the occupiers; but in any possible reading of this Amendment, if put into the Bill, the first effect of it would be—I admit to a very small extent, but to some extent—to put a burden on the occupier next year and in subsequent years which has hitherto, rightly or wrongly, as a matter of practice been borne by the owner. On this account I think it would be undesirable to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I will not press the Amendment at this present stage, but I would like to ask the noble Lord to consider this matter

503
before Report. The noble Lord said just now that hitherto this rate has been borne by the owner, and, therefore, he should not like to make any change. You are doing a great deal more than that, you are saying that because a county has acted for prudence sake in a particular way, therefore the owners are to be fined to that extent. I do not know what county Lord Aberdeen may have in view, but there are two or three counties in which they have actually levied rates—I know in Forfarshire there is a balance actually in band of £2,000 at this moment, which has been levied by rates. If that money is not expended in some way the result will be that for all time to come there will be an additional charge upon all owners in that county. There is the same thing in Renfrew and in Linlithgow and other countries. I quite admit that we must do everything we can to prevent anything falling upon occupiers which has hitherto been borne by owners, but there is an equal duty to prevent the owner having burdens which he would certainly not have taken upon himself if he could have foreseen that this Act was going to come into force.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I should be very glad if the noble Marquess would consider this matter before Report. There is no doubt that the principle of the Bill is not carried into effect unless the clause is rectified in this particular. There is no reason why you should deduct rates which have been expended upon public property if borrowed and not deduct also the same rates when, instead of being borrowed, they have been paid by the ratepayers. I cannot conceive any difficulty in ascertaining the sum, and as regards the amount it would be simply a matter of calculation, because the sums are usually borrowed for so many years, and the Sheriff will have nothing to do but to ascertain the amounts to be levied in this particular manner and to calculate when upon the usual rate of borrowing they would have to be repaid.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Although I still adhere to the opinion I have expressed, I cannot resist the request that I should at least consider this question before Report. I will do so, and will be very glad to have any suggestions that noble Lords may make upon the subject.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: As the noble Marquess is so congenial I venture to hope that he will recognise that the principle that is embodied in this clause, or, as I think he called it, the arrangement that had been come to, the compromise, is a very good one. The object of my Amendment is to fix some date at which it will terminate. As I caught the expression of the noble Lord (Lord Balfour) he said that this rate was really a matter of arrangement between the owner and the occupier. The effect of this clause will be-that for ever and for ever the estate of an owner will be practically mortgaged with this average rate; it will be stereotyped upon his property; the Sheriff under Sub-section (1) will fix the 10 years' average that the owner will have to pay in consideration of this rate, and this average rate will be absolutely fixed and for ever stereotyped upon his estate. According to Sub-section 3 the demand note will state the average rate and the increment thereof, that is—the increment which is to be demanded by the tax collector is to be paid equally by the owners and occupiers. If we acknowledge that sooner or later these rates do come to be a question of arrangement between the owner and the occupier, why do we not fix a term at which the arrangement under this Bill will come to an end. In Scotland the usual term is the 19 years' lease. I have proposed to take 10 years as the term of ending. I would remind the House also that every other rate in the Bill is proposed to be paid equally by the occupiers and the owners—the road rate, the sanitary rate, the public health rate. Yet you are going to stereotype for ever and ever the owners of the property with this rate.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am afraid the noble Marquess will not find me in the conciliatory mood to which ha referrd at the beginning of his remarks. I can understand noble Lords' objection to stereotyped rates, and that is an objection which will probably be felt by a very great many owners throughout Scotland. At the same time, the provision that there should be a stereotyyed rate upon owners is one that has been most carefully considered, and it is part of the Bill, and to accept the noble Marquess's proposal would be

505
to alter one of the main parts of the Bill, so far as the rates are concerned. Under the Bill it is proposed that this stereotyping should be, as the noble Marquess has said, perpetual. It is a rate which will be under the Act, when it becomes an Act, a perpetual obligation upon the owners, although I understand that this proposal of the noble Marquess is that there should be a revision after 10 years. I would put it to the noble Marquess that if the principle is sound it is much better to enact it once and for all, because if there was any prospect of any such revision either of the amount of the stereotyped rate, or the abolition of the stereotyped rate altogether, it would necessarily create an indefiniteness in the stereotyped rate, which would be unfortunate in the interests both of the owners and the occupiers. I think it much better, as proposed by the Bill, that the stereotyped rate should remain a fixture, although I quite understand the disinclination of the noble Marquess and others to having a stereotyped rate on the property. The only indefiniteness now is the increase above the stereotyped rate which would be put upon owners by the action of the County Council. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I wish to ask the noble Lord whether this has occurred to him: Suppose this average rate is fixed upon a county at the present rateable value, and suppose the rateable value of that county were to increase enormously; the rates would be fixed then, without any power of increasing or altering that rate. I think the County Council of Lanark, at any rate, would not know what to do.
LORD BALFOUR: If the rateable value increases, there will be a less amount per £1 required. Therefore, if the rateable value increases, the whole present rate will not be required, and the owner will get the benefit.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I will withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: The object of the Amendment, of which I have given notice, is to deal with the case of detached portions of a county in which there might be a difference between the average rate as between the county from which it is detached, and that to which it is attached; but, as I
506
understand that the noble Lord has not had time to consider this Amendment, perhaps he would consider it before Report.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: It did not appear to me to be necessary, but I prefer to consider it on Report, as I have not yet seen the Amendment of the noble Lord.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 28.
THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALE: The object of the Amendment which stands in my name is to confer on Corporations representation in consideration of contribution to local rates. As the law stands at present, Corporations, such as Railway Companies and others, are entitled to very substantial representation on all the Local Boards of Scotland. Under the present Bill this representation is denied them altogether. I frankly admit that I do not anticipate a very hearty reception to this Amendment from the noble Marquess, but having in consideration, the fact that the contribution of the Railway Companies amount to £200,000 a year, and the fact that in many counties they are the largest ratepayers, I think the noble Lord will not deny that they have a very large interest in the proper collection of rates, and in the efficient disposal of them. The representation which I ask for them is a very small one indeed, but it does recognise a principle which appears to me to be departed from in this Bill—the principle that where rates are paid representation should go hand in hand with them. At any rate I shall ask my noble Friend if he will explain on what ground, on what principle the representation is altogether denied to these bodies who, as I have said, contribute so largely to the local rates in Scotland.
Amendment moved, in page 21, line 10, after "county elector" add—
"And every company or corporation owning or occupying property shall be entitled to have the name of their chairman or secretary or other official placed on this supplementary register and that he be thereby constituted a county elector."—(The Marquess of Tweeddale.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: In. answer to the last question of the noble Marquess, I think the burden of proof rather rests upon him than upon me. He asks that I should consent to put a

507
certain position, under this Bill, upon persons who do not otherwise have it Tinder the Bill, and which position would be entirely exceptional. I do not quite understand the object of the noble Marquess unless it is this, that in every district there should be some direct representation of some Corporation, or the particular Corporations, if I may say so, which he represents—namely, the Railway Companies, as the direct representation of the parish in every electoral district. In the first place, I should say that one single voter in each electoral district would not probably make very much difference one way or the other to the interests of a great company such as that which the noble Marquess represents. On the other hand, if there was special representation given to the interest he represents it would be going, as I said just now, against the principle of the Bill, for the electorate is based upon the Paliamentary register, and you will have to introduce another register to meet the proposal of the noble Marquess. But if the object is to have direct representation upon the County Council, then, of course, there comes a rather more important question. But I ask the noble Marquess to consider this—that it is not only the very large Corporations which would come under such a clause as that which he proposes, but Corporations of all sizes. Very large and important Corporations would be represented; but, if so, even small and unimportant Corporations would have to be represented also, and the question of gradation between the large and small Corporations would be quite inconsistent with the existing principles both of Imperial and local representation. I do not think the noble Marquess need be very much alarmed as to want of representation, because surely in the cases of Corporations such as that he represents there would be no difficulty in finding proper representatives in every district for the County Council. In his own county I have no doubt that the noble Marquess, as Chairman of the Company, would easily find a seat upon the County Council, as indeed I hope he will. However, I should say that there will be no difficulty whatever in any district. That remark would refer not only to such an interest
508
as that of a Railway Company, but of all other Corporations of a large and important description. I think what the noble Marquess asks me to do is to introduce a new principle into the Bill altogether, and one which I do not think the object which he would seek to obtain would justify me in agreeing to, and therefore I am afraid that in this case I must also decline to accept his Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 39 agreed to.
Clause 40.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I beg to move the omission of this clause. I may explain to your Lordships very briefly the history of these two parishes, which rejoice in the names of Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch. They belonged, some time ago, to a noble Lord, and I think it suited him that those parishes should be comprised within the County of Dumbarton, and he arranged accordingly; and these two parishes, although they are not adjacent to the County of Dumbarton, and are separated from it, were, and still are—for all purpoposes except that of roads—part of the County of Dumbarton. When the Road Act of 1878 was passed no special arrangement was made with reference to these parishes, and, in pursuance of the terms of the Act, it came to pass that the County of Stirling—of which these two are the largest parishes—became the county to which, for road management, they belonged. Inconsequence of that arrangement, the County of Stirling has made a road district of which, I believe, these parishes form more than a half. A good deal of expenditure has fallen upon the county in consequence. This Bill proposes to take these two parishes, and to take them out of the County of Stirling, in which they have been for the last 10 years, and to put them into the County of Dumbarton. To that arrangement the County of Stirling strongly objects. With regard to the merits of the case, I do not wish to say anything, but the case which I have to present to the House is this, that by the clauses which come a little later in the Bill the Government is establishing Boundary Commissioners, whose duty

509
it is to consider and to settle questions of this very sort, and it seems to me that this question which is contained in 1 Clause 40 is exactly one of the questions which the Boundary Commissioners are appointed to settle. The County of Stirling complains very bitterly that it has not been heard on this Bill. It says that the clause was not in the Bill originally, and at a comparatively late stage in the progress through the House of Commons the clause was inserted, and the County of Stirling against whose interest it militates had no opportunity of stating their case against the clause. I do not think I need say anything further. Perhaps there is one little remark I ought to make. Suppose that this clause is struck out of the Bill, it is represented (and I think this is the strongest argument that can be produced against me) that these two parishes, which are now part of the County of Stirling for roads only, and are part of the County of Dumbarton for health and all other purposes, will become part of the County of Stirling for all purposes. I admit that that appears to be something of a case against me, but I would point out that the only effect really would be this, that it would make it imperative for you to delay this clause, and imperative upon the Commissioners O settle and decide this question, and that is exactly what I think ought to be done, and exactly what the principle of this Bill lays down as the duty of the Commissioners.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I rise to support the Amendment of the noble Lord. I may say I live in Stirlingshire, and am conversant with county business, and know how detrimental it will be to the County if these two Parishes are taken away too summarily by Act of Parliament. I do not suppose for a moment that Stirlingshire wishes to retain these two Counties if it is considered advisable that they should be handed over to Dumbartonshire, but there are financial questions of considerable importance, and, besides, there are several other parishes in the County of Stirling which are more or less on the same footing as those two, and it is for those reasons that the county considers that the question should be decided by the County Commissioners, and that no good cause has been shown
510
for singling out those two Parishes out of the whole scheme for this special legislation. I hope the noble Marquess will see his way to omit this clause.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: After the two speeches we have listened to one would think that the tedium of discussions in this House is likely to be relieved by a revival of the battle of the clans. I rise on the part of the County of Dumbarton to protest against the Government agreeing to this amendment. There are very curious historical matters in connection with this clause. The County of Dumbarton is one of the oldest and most interesting historical counties in Scotland. It, has a strong esprit de corps of its own; it has a history of its own. The ancient County of Dumbarton, as the noble Duke well knows (for a considerable part of the ancient territory belongs to him) was the Lennox, one of the old and most important historical divisions in Scotland, giving one of its oldest titles to the Royal Family of Scotland. The word Lennox is derived from the Valley of the Leven; it is a mere corruption of Levenax. As long ago as the 14th or 15th century there was a division made owing to certain circumstances of convenience at that time, in which two large divisions (parishes now) were annexed to the Parish of Dumbarton to the eastward of its old boundary, and in exchange for that no less than seven parishes were detached from the ancient Lennox, and given to the County of Stirling. It is an old bargain, 300 or 400 years old, and what is gravely proposed to this House now is that this old bargain should be revoked, and that the County of Stirling should annex the two great Parishes of Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld in order to get their assessment within their own boundary without giving up the corresponding parishes.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: The noble Duke misunderstands me.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: That is the effect of the repeal of this clause. My noble Friend has also stated it rather broadly to the House when he speaks of this as a change from the existing state of things. The effect of the 40th Clause is to keep the existing state of things. I have read with much astonishment the statement made by the Com-

511
missioners of Supply of the County of Stirling. They say distinctly that—
"The position of the Parishes of Kirkintillock and Cumbernauld is exactly identical with the Parish of Kelenore and in former Acts of Parliament concerning Local Government, have been treated accordingly."
That is quite at variance with the fact. The two last important Acts which have been passed for Local Government in Scotland, one in 1857 and the other in 1868, had a clause precisely similar to this. The one was an Act of 1857 for regulating the police in counties and burghs in Scotland, and the other in 1868 was for levying the general County Assessment. In both these Statutes there was a corresponding clause the two parishes of Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld, and preserving them in their ancient historical connection with the County of Dumbarton. This will be a serious matter for the County of Dumbarton. The two parishes of Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld originally at the time of the old contract were empty moor land and very poor land. They are now full of mineral riches and afford a large field for assessment by the County of Dumbarton, and the only pretence for leaving out this clause is that for road purposes these two parishes were created a separate district in connection with the County of Stirling. That is quite natural. For road purposes they are surrounded by two different counties, and it would be inconvenient that they should be separated from their coterminous boundaries. But as regards judicial work and police they have always preserved their connection with the County of Dumbarton, and the County of Dumbarton objects to having so large and accessible an area withdrawn from its ancient boundaries. The Government in putting in this 40th Clause have followed precisely the precedent followed by the two last Local Acts connected with the Government of Scotland, and I object exceedingly to the Amendment, and I hope the Government will resist it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I omitted to state what was really the very strongest argument I possessed, which is this, that if this Clause 40 is allowed to stand in the Bill the Commissioners will have no power to settle questions of expenditure which may arise, because
512
the matter in question will have been disposed of. But it seemed just now as if there was going to be a regular Battle of the Clans. I thought Loch Lomond was going to rush down from Stirling to Inverary. But after all, the noble Duke and I are not so very far apart. He says he only wants to keep the existing state of things—that is all I want to keep. For the purposes of road management, these two parishes, in despite of all ancient history, have been part of the County of Stirling for the last 10 years. For the purposes of police, health, &c., they have been part of the County of Dumbarton. We do not want to change either of these things, but it is the noble Duke's friends who put into the Bill a clause which summarily removes these two parishes from Stirling, and settles the question in favour of Dumbarton. Our proposal is simply this. We say hand the existing state of things, both with regard to roads and police, over to the Boundary Commissioners as you proposed to do with all other questions. Let them settle the question in the manner which seems to them best; they are the only people who can settle it satisfactorily and fairly, because they are the only people who have power to settle financial questions between the two counties.
LORD WATSON: Having had something to do with the Roads and Bridges Act of 1878, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make an observation with respect to this question. I thought at that time that Dumbartonshire was somewhat severely treated, but with necessary severity, because there were certain great turnpike roads that ran through the two counties of Lanark and Stirling, and traversed this outlying part of Dumbartonshire. It was very expedient in the state of matters at that time that the road authorities of Stirlingshire should have charge and control within this district, but I must say that it never entered into the mind of anyone who had to do with the Measure that they ought in the least degree to impair the integrity of the somewhat small County of Dumbarton. I believe that owing to the spread of railway communication in Scotland and the cesser of long-distance traffic over these main lines of road, the causes which rendered it very proper to incorporate for road purposes only these two

513
parishes with the County of Stirling in the year 1878, have been gradually disappearing, and that the area now contains district roads only properly so called. At the same time there is a good deal to he said for part of the observations of the noble Earl. These two parishes have hitherto been dealt with as an integral part of one of the Stirlingshire Road Districts. There may have been liabilities incurred by Stirlingshire with respect to this part of Dumbartonshire, which for road purposes Dumbartonshire ought not to retain without taking over its due share of liabilities, and if the noble Marquess who has charge of the measure could see his way to it, I think the present clause might stand, with an addition to the effect of making a reference to the Boundary Commissioners under the Act to settle any question of disputed compensation between the two counties.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I do not understand the 40th Clause to prevent the existing arrangement in regard to roads only continuing. I do not think it will.
LORD WATSON: It puts an end to the existing road arrangements and is intended to do so, I believe.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I have no objection myself, personally—I do not know what may be the opinion of the whole body of the Commissioners of Supply of the County of Dumbarton, but I see no objection to the continuance of the existing state of things as regards the roads only, but the striking out of this clause would be practically the annexation of these parishes to the County of Stirling.
THE DUKE OF HAMILTON: None of the noble Lords who have spoken have informed us what are the wishes and sentiment of the inhabitants of the two parishes upon this point. Would not the Boundary Commissioners be able to inform us upon the subject?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: This is apparently a very difficult question. I have given a great deal of consideration to it, because the question has been brought very strongly before me in the interests both of the County of Stirling and the County of Dumbarton. First of all I would like to say, in reference to what has fallen from the noble Lord who has just spoken as to the feelings of the two parishes of Kirkintilloch and
514
Cumbernauld, that I think that what their views are may be fairly taken for granted from the course which they have hitherto followed. In 1857, as the noble Duke has said, under the Police Act, the position of these two parishes was maintained, but there was a proviso enabling the two parishes to be transferred to the County of Stirling if the ratepayers wished. The ratepayers never took advantage of those powers, and we may judge from that of what their wishes were. In 1868 an identical clause was inserted, and the ratepayers followed the same course. Therefore we may take it for granted that they do not wish to be transferred, but wish to remain part of the County of Dumbarton. With reference to what the noble Duke said just now as to these two parishes remaining in the County of Stirling simply under the Road Act, I do not think that that is possible. The effect of this clause as it stands would he to transfer the whole power both under the Road Act, and the Police Act, and all the other Acts to the County of Dumbarton. With regard to the financial aspect of the question the noble Earl seemed to confine his observations to the matter of roads only; but it must be recollected that the financial aspect also touches Dumbarton at this moment with reference to all the rates. The rateable value in these two parishes is enormous. Out of £450,000 the annual value of the whole county, these two parishes account for £81,000, or 18 per cent of the whole. If that wa3 taken away from Dumbarton, as it would be according to the proposal of the noble Earl, it would make an enormous difference to the County of Dumbarton. With reference to what the noble Earl said just now as to the financial arrangements between the two counties with reference to any capital which might have been spent under the Road Act in these two parishes, I think there is very great force in what the noble Earl has said. I understand that the County of Stirling has spent about £2,000 of capital upon the roads in these two parishes of Dumbartonshire, and it certainly would be a very strong thing to transfer the two parishes to Dumbartonshire for road purposes without some compensation by which this £2,000 or 3ome equivalent sum might be given back to

515
Stirling. The whole question before the Committee is whether really these two parishes should be placed within the jurisdiction of the Boundary Commissioners. My own opinion is that, under the Bill, the Boundary Commissioners have powers to deal with these parishes, but the clause, as it stands, does not take them out of the administration or powers of the Boundary Commissioners; but if there is any doubt upon that point, I should like to make it clear that it is not the intention of the Bill that they should be taken away for reference to the Boundary Commissioners, and I propose, therefore, at the end of Clause 40, to introduce words to this effect—
"That nothing in this section contained shall affect or limit the powers and duties of the Boundary Commissioners or the Secretary of State for Scotland under this Act."
I think if those words were introduced, leaving Clause 40 as it now stands, it would give an indication to the Boundary Commissioners that in the opinion of Parliament these two parishes ought to remain as they now are, part of the County of Dumbarton, and to give to the Boundary Commissioners the right to take evidence and to make any arrangement they think fit as to pecuniary matters between Dumbarton and Stirling.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I do not quite understand the proposal of my noble Friend. Does he mean that the Boundary Commissioners may transfer these parishes wholly, for all purposes, from Dumbarton to Stirling, because that I should certainly object to. To give the Boundary Commissioners power to trace boundaries between parishes, and arrange as to deviations and so forth, is a very different thing to giving power to such a body to cut off what has been a substantial part of a Scotch county from all its history and associations.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am afraid that would be the effect of my proposal—it would give that power to the Boundary Commissioners, although I do not think that would be the result, but I do not see how otherwise it would be possible to make provision for payment of compensation for the differences between the two counties.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My object is not to withdraw this question
516
from the cognisance of the Boundary Commissioners, and I am quite prepared to accept the proposal which has-been made.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: It seems to me that the Amendment of my noble Friend is virtually the repeal of this clause, because this clause runs on all fours with the clauses in the previous Act of 1878. What I suggest to my noble Friend is that the Boundary Commissioners should, have special power to make special arrangements in any case that may arise, but that they should not have the power to disintegrate altogether these two parishes.
LORD WATSON: I entirely sympathise with the observations made by the noble Duke. If the clause has the meaning which the noble Marquess seems to attach to it it ought to have run thus:—
"The Commissioners in exercising their powers under this Act shall treat the County of Dumbarton as if it had contained these two parishes within its limits up to this date."
That seems to be the view which he takes of this clause. I cannot so read, it. It is a substantive enactment to the effect that for every purpose in this Bill these two parishes shall be considered as forming part of the County of Dumbarton, and after enacting that substantively in the first part of the clause, it is-proposed to add a contradiction in terms—namely, that these shall not be for the purposes of this Act part of the County of Dumbarton if the Commissioners under the Act shall so will it.
LORD BALFOUR: I can see nothing in the Bill to prevent the Boundary Commissioners dealing with these two parishes as the Bill now stands; all the Bill does is to alter the first presumption. The presumption throughout the whole Bill is that the contents of counties for the purposes of this Bill shall be the contents according to the Roads and Bridges Act. The effect of this clause as it stands is in respect of these two parishes to alter the presumption, and to put it the other way; but there is nothing in this clause, as I read it, to withdraw the matters affecting these' two parishes from the cognisance of the Boundary Commissioners. I think it is fair to consider the great importance to the County of Dumbarton that the presumption should be put with them in respect of these parishes. The ancient connection of these two parishes

517
is with the County of Dumbarton; so far as we can judge of the feelings and wishes of the people their wishes go with the County of Dumbarton. But, on the other hand, it would be obviously unfair, and everybody has admitted that the Stirlingshire people should get no compensation for the outlay at which they have been in regard to these two parishes if they are to be taken for road purposes out of their present district and put into the County of Dumbarton. Surely, the Bill as it stands is intended to operate thus, that while the presumption shall be with the County of Dumbarton, the Boundary Commissioners, under Clause 48, shall consider the whole circumstances of the case, and make such arrangements as shall seem to them fair. It may be that the Boundary Commissioners shall pay a money compensation to the County of Stirling. It may be that they will decree that these parishes should become part of the County of Stirling. It may be, on the other hand—at least I think there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it—that for all purposes except roads they shall be considered to be in Dumbarton, but that for road purposes they shall go Stirling. I think that is possible. We are simply considering on one side what the presumption shall be, and upon the facts stated by the noble Duke opposite, and on account of the historical connection with the County of Dumbarton, and of the great value of these parishes to that county in proportion to the whole value of the county, it is fair that the presumption should be in favour of Dumbarton. But I think the noble Marquess behind me who has charge of the Bill made it quite clear that even the Bill as it stands does not withdraw these two parishes from the cognisance of the Boundary Commissioners.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I should like to have the opinion of the noble and learned Lord as to the construction of this clause. As it stands I certainly read it as a substantive clause, and so does the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches, and as he is one of the Judicial Members of your Lordships' House, I think his opinion on the construction of the clause is more relevant to this discussion than eyen the opinions of my noble Friends opposite, although they are responsible for the drafting of the Bill. What I
518
would like to know from the noble and1 learned Lord is whether he adheres to the interpretation he puts on it, that it does withdraw the case of these two parishes from the free discretion of the Boundary Commissioners?
LORD WATSON: I am not fond of giving, and indeed cannot pretend to give, judicial decisions in Committee of your Lordships' House; but I do not hesitate to say that, in my opinion, the enactment is absolute, and that the County of Dumbarton would be much better off under the clause as it stands than under the clause as the noble Marquess proposes to extend it.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I hope that before Report the noble Marquess will do this, which I think will be a fair compromise—that he will maintain the principle of the two previous existing local Acts, that there should be a distinct declaration on the part of Parliament that these two parishes are an integral part of the County of Dumbarton. They have been so for 400 years; they are an important part of the assessable value of the county; but with regard to the management of roads, and all the applications connected with it, the Boundary Commissioners should have full power over it.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I have no desire to change the presumption in this Bill, that is to say, that the two parishes should remain integral parts of the County of Dumbarton; but in consequence of the difficulty which has arisen, I am quite ready to consider the proposal of the noble Duke, and to state upon Report what conclusion we arrive at.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42.
THE EARL OF ELGIN, in rising to move the insertion of a new clause, said: This clause is to meet the local circumstances of Fife. The Commissioners of Supply of the County of Fife do not possess any county buildings; they are all held under local Acts by the Court House Commissioners; and, as this Bill proposes to throw upon the County Council the duty of providing rooms for the meetings of the Commissioners of Supply, the Justices, and other Bodies, it is thought it would be necessary that they

519
should have possession of the county buildings. There does not seem to be any reason for maintaining the separate existence of the Court House Commissioners, and therefore, by this new clause, I propose that all their duties and obligations should be transferred to the County Council.
Amendment moved, in page 30, after Clause 41, insert as a new Clause—
"With respect to the application of this Act to the county of Fife, there shall be enacted the following provision, namely: The Acts fifth and sixth William the Fourth, chapter sixty, intituled 'An Act for providing in or near the burgh of Cupar more extensive accommodation for holding the courts and meetings of the sheriff, justices of the peace, and commsisioners of supply of the county of Fife, and for the custody of the records of the said county,' and the Act tenth Victoria, chapter thirty-two, known as 'The Dunfermline and Cupar Court Houses Act, 1847,' are hereby repealed, and all the powers and rights conferred by said Acts, and the duties, obligations, and liabilities imposed by said Acts or otherwise upon the commissioners for whose appointment said Acts provide, and all lands, buildings, funds, effects, and property of whatever description belonging to or vested in said commissioners, and all debts and obligations of whatever nature of said commissioners, are hereby transferred to the county council of the county of Fife."—(The Earl of Elgin.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am quite ready to accept the clause that the noble Earl proposes.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause added, and numbered 42.
Clause 43 (in the Bill 42) agreed to.
Clause 44 (in the Bill 43).
THE EARL OF ELGIN: If I am right in understanding that the sub-section of this clause will have the effect of attaching every detached portion of a county as it is attached under the Roads and Bridges Act for all purposes, and, at the same time, that that will not withdraw it from the cognizance of the Bonndary Commissioners hereafter, to determine whether it would not be better to attach it to some other county, then the Amendment which I have on the Paper would not be necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The interpretation which the noble Lord has just put on the sub-section is quite correct, and I was going to ask the
520
noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, because it is not necessary.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining Clauses to Clause 76 (in he Bill 75) agreed to.
Clause 77 (in the Bill 76).
LORD ELGIN: I wish to point out to the noble Marquess that it appears to me he has omitted to provide in this clause for the case of a County that does not divide itself into districts. The proviso states that a county, if it think it expedient, need not divide itself into districts in certain cases, but if that happens what is to be done with regard to the powers and the duties of the district itself? The following clause, which lays down the constitution of the district itself, is specially limited to that denomination, and I imagine that under this constitution, if a County Council resolves that it would not divide itself into districts there would be no means of introducing into the County Council for the management of the roads and the administration of the Public Health Act, the representatives of the Parochial Board and the representatives of the burghs, who are admitted under the next following clause. Now I do not quite follow how the administration would be carried out. Under these circumstances I beg to move the proviso of which I have given notice, unless the noble Marquess would like to consider it further.
Amendment moved, in page 53, after line 27, insert—
"Provided also that where a county is not divided into districts the County Council shall, for the purposes of this section, be constituted in like manner as a District Committee under this Act."—(The Lord Elgin.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I think the suggestion of the noble Lord is a very reasonable one, but it has only just been put into my hands, and I would like to consider it before Report.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses to Clause 80 (in the Bill 79) agreed to.
Clause 81 (in the Bill 80.)
THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALE: It would appear that if a special water

521
supply district became included in a district formed under this Bill, which will include several parishes, the District Council would be entitled to levy a rate upon the whole district, and not upon the special water districts. Suppose a special district is formed in one parish, and that parish forms part of one of the new districts about to be formed. The rate for the special water district would be levied on the whole. That would be unfair to the parishes which it is proposed to unite in forming districts under the Bill. I beg therefore to move the following Amendment
Amendment moved, in page 55, at end of clause add as new Sub-section—
"(4.) All expenditure incurred by such Local Authority in any water supply or drainage district, including repayment of debt and interest, shall be assessed as hitherto on the lands and heritages within such water supply or drainage district. Clause 82, page 55, line 32, leave out from the first "the" to end of line 9, page 56; Sub-section 3, page 56, line 10, leave out "may" and insert "shall."—(The Marquess of Tweeddale.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I think the noble Marquess has pointed out a difficulty which may exist under the wording of the Bill, but I cannot say at this moment that 1 am prepared to accept the exact words of the Amendment, and I would like to have an opportunity of considering this with the other matters which have been postponed and putting it right upon Report.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 82 (in the Bill Clause 81) agreed to.
Clause 83 (in the Bill Clause 82.)
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: The Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord Elgin is much the same as an Amendment which I have put down on the Paper, and my noble Friend has asked me to state our reasons for it. In some observations which I addressed to your Lordships to-night, I referred to the Treasury as a terrible Department. I am afraid we have here an example of the effect of the Treasury influence upon the drafting of Bills. I believe these clauses were put in in the other House of Parliament at the last moment and attracted very little notice or atten-
522
tion. I have not spoken to any one person connected with Scotland who has not most seriously objected to them. The state of the matter is this: In 1857, Parliament passed an Act enabling the Commissioners of Supply of all the Scotch counties to appoint a Revenue Officer as their County Valuer, and holding out to them the advantage that if they did so the expense of the valuation would be borne by the Treasury. That is more than 30 years ago. A very large number of the counties of Scotland have taken advantage of that provision. It so happens that the county with which I have chiefly the honour of being connected did not adopt it. We have an Assessor of our own who conducts all the valuations for public purposes; he is a very able officer, and I trust the County Council will not be likely to change him. Out of all the counties of Scotland, all but four did take advantage of this Act of 1857. For 30 years they have been in the habit of appointing as their own Valuer some public officer of the Revenue, and I believe the arrangement has worked most satisfactorily. I have often heard Mr. Gladstone in former days, when I was his colleague, speak of the effective manner in which these matters were conducted in Scotland, and the punctuality with which public taxes were paid. Very much of this depends on the unity of action between the County and the Treasury in these matters. This has been going on for more than 30 years and given great satisfaction, and yet now in this Local Government Bill comes this formidable proviso,
"Provided that where the Assessor is an officer of Inland Revenue any regulations made by the County Council with respect to his duties and conduct shall be subject to the approval of the Treasury."
That is to say that we can no longer appoint a Government officer without making ourselves, through him, the servant of the Treasury obliged to receive any orders the Treasury may issue in respect of valuations, I suppose, or in respect of the duties of that, office. That is a very serious demand, and it is quite possible that it may lead to the abandonment by the Scotch counties of that happy system under which the two authorities have been working together, of employing officers mutually appointed for all

523
common purposes, at least for purposes which are common to them in a very large extent. Now, what is the object of this new arrangement? I cannot conceive it. Of course, under the present system, when we appoint a Revenue officer we do not withdraw him from the cognisance and superintendence of the Treasury. The Treasury may dismiss any of their officers whenever they please, and the County would then have to look for another Assessor, but practically I believe such a disagreement has never happened. On page 57, at the top, there is another proviso—
"Provided that where the Assessor is an officer of Inland Revenue, the amount of the salary, wages, and allowances awarded to him shall he subjeet to the approval of the Treasury."
Now, I am unwilling to ascribe to the Treasury any object which is not openly avowed; but it looks uncommonly as if the Treasury wished to withdraw the advantage which, under the present Act of Parliament, we now enjoy, and which was held out to us by the Act of 1857, that in such case the expense attending the assessment by such officers should be defrayed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. It is quite clear that if the Treasury have an absolute power of dictating what the salary shall be, they may exact a bargain from all the counties that the salary shall be such as to relieve them of half the expense which they now pay on the cost of valuations. If that is the object of the Treasury I think it should be avowed and provided for in a special clause; but as the Bill now stands it is dissociated from any public purpose of any value, and is open to grave suspicion as regards its object, and certainly may be construed as exercising an effect upon the future position of the County Councils. If the Government wish to deal with this question separately I have nothing to say—if they wish to revise the bargain which was made in 1857 with the Scotch counties on this subject I have no objection; but it is hardly fair to introduce into this Bill a clause which will have this effect without its having been really discussed or contemplated by the counties of Scotland.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: After what the noble Duke has said I will say nothing further than that I was myself going to move to delete the last part
524
of this clause, and that I was asked to do so by the Town Council of the Burgh of Inverary, and also by the Bills Committee of the Commissioners of Supply of Aberdeen. I believe that a Select Committee is sitting at the present time to inquire into the valuation of rating in Scotland, and I think it would be very much better to wait at all events till that Committee had reported, and then to deal with the whole subject.
Amendment moved, in page 56, line 19, to leave out from "provided," to "Burgh," in line 28.—(The Duke of Argyll.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no subject more interesting to a well-constituted Parliamentary mind than examination into the motives which, guide the Treasury. A perfect wealth of interesting problems are suggested by that study; but I must say I think the noble Lord has in this case attributed too grave and sinister a meaning to these clauses. I think that they are simply the thought of the draftsman to protect the Treasury from any exceptional diminution of the functions and powers which it already possesses; because if the noble Lord will consider, he will see that according to our present conception of the law every one of the things which is enacted by these provisoes the Treasury can secure itself by threatening to dismiss the man unless they are fulfilled. Therefore I conclude that the draftsman has been afraid that the language of the clause would oust the Treasury of this natural jurisdiction. That jurisdiction must remain to it. The Treasury must have the power of dismissing its officers if it chooses, and of course if it can dismiss its officers when it chooses, it can insist that any regulations made with respect to their duties and conduct are such as it approves of. In the same way it insists that the amount of the salaries and allowances shall be such as it approves of, or the officer goes; and either that they thought it a more respectful mode of dealing with County Councils, or as I think is more probable, that it is one of those things which the-draftsman put in ex abundanti cautelâ in order to prevent in legislative action that which is not necessary, they have put in what to the lay mind seems mere surplusage. I am afraid I cannot say

525
that I have any message from the Treasury; but the Treasury do not live very far from here, and are in a state of vitality in the course of the day, and their view can be easily ascertained, but I am convinced that it has no such dark and sinister meaning as the noble Lord attaches to it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: All that is asked by those who oppose this clause is that the position with regard to the Assessors in the Scottish counties should be left exactly as it is. That has existed, as the noble Duke has pointed out, for 30 years, and I suppose that during that time the Treasury have had control over their officers in all respects as the noble Marquess opposite would desire for them. I wish also to emphasize what the noble Lord opposite has said, that this matter is one which was specially brought before a Select Committee of the other House last year, which was appointed for the very purpose of inquiring into the valuation question in Scotland. This question was brought before the Committee by the representatives of the Inland Revenue in Edinburgh, and the very proposals which are now embodied in this Bill were brought forward by that officer as an alteration which he desired to make in the law. Therefore, I think the particular provisions cannot have been introduced as the noble Marquess has said by accident.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not say that. I said ex abundanti cautelâ.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Exactly; but they must have been introduced by the Treasury in order to bear out the views which their officer expressed before the Select Committee. That Select Committee has been reappointed this year; it has not presented its Report, and under the circumstances I think it is only fair to the Scotch counties that, as the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Argyll) suggested, the whole subject should be left over to be treated separately if the Government were so advised, after the Report of the Select Committee.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: I think it would obviate the objections to this clause if these words were added:—
"That the Commissioners of Supply in counties and Magistrates in burghs in appointing the Inland Revenue Officers as Assessors in
526
their respective spheres, should retain the privileges given them in so doing under the Land Valuation Amendment Act of 1857, 17 and 18 Victoria, Chapter 88."
It seems to me that that would be a solution which would meet the views of everybody.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Before my noble Friend answers I would suggest that these clauses, which I believe to be unnecessary as regards the power of the Treasury, should be struck out until the Committee of the House of Commons, which is now sitting upon this very subject, has reported. If my information is not incorrect, the officer of the Treasury who recommended to that Committee some change of this kind did not conceal that his desire rested on the ground of reconsidering and altering the financial arrangement between the Treasury and the counties, and that he would, in fact, throw again the whole expense of valuations upon the counties. As I have already said, that is a matter for consideration in any general arrangement, and I think it should not be introduced in the way it is in this Bill. With regard to the suggestion that these words are merely put into the Bill ex abundanti cautelâ, I would point out that in line 55 there is a proviso saving existing appointments, which shows that it does contemplate an alteration in the present state of things. Under the present state of things the Government may dismiss any man they like, but there is a special provision that in the case of men now holding office, this clause should not apply.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I think after what has been said by the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, it is unnecessary for me to go in any detail into this question, because he suggested, and I understood that the House has accepted the proposal, that the question should be further considered on Report after the Government had ascertained more distinctly what are the views of the Treasury. The noble Duke seemed to think that the Treasury by this proposal have some sort of idea of altering the financial arrangements as between the counties and themselves with reference to the payment of their officers for making up the valuation of the county. I would like to say with reference to that, that I am quite certain that it is not the intention

527
of the Treasury in the smallest degree to take advantage of anything under this Bill to make any change of the kind; not only is it not their intention, tout I am firmly convinced that it is not in their power to do it, because under the Act of 1857 the Commissioners of Supply were enabled to appoint an officer of the Inland Revenue as Assessor for the Valuation Roll, and the arrangement with the Treasury then was that the Treasury should pay the whole of the salary of that officer for making up the Valuation Roll. By this Bill that Act of 1857 is not repealed nor any portion of it; and, therefore, I think that so long as that Act remains in force the Treasury are bound, by the arrangement and the obligations under which they came in virtue of that Act. I only wish to say that, in reference to what has fallen from the noble Duke with reference to the other question raised toy the Amendment, I think that had better be deferred till Report.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I suggest that course because it is quite possible that we may introduce some formal words which may meet all the views which have been expressed.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses down to Clause 108 (in the Bill Clause 107) agreed to.
Clause 109 (in the Bill Clause 108).
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I beg to move the omission of this clause. The object of the clause is to insure that the Lord Lieutenant of the County, the Convener of the County, the Chairman of the County Road Trustees, and the Chairman of the Local Authority of the County, shall be placed upon the first County Council. I believe that if the clause is carried, it will have an effect exactly contrary to that which the framers of the Bill intend. Certainly these officials will be members of the first County Council, but they will be placed in a position of very great difficulty after that time, because when their term of office expires they will have no seat of their own, and unless some of the existing members of the Council wish to resign, these officials, who are manifestly some of the most prominent men in the county, will find themselves placed in
528
the disagreeable position of having to oppose some other person who has a seat. It is very probable, too, that some of these four officials may prefer to stand on their own merits instead of on their ex officio qualifications. If they do, they will almost to a certainty not be elected, because the electors will say—"Why, these four officers have seats found for them by the Act, and yet they are not content, but must also aspire to have a seat of their own as well," and many persons will vote against them for that very reason. The feeling which underlies this clause, and which has dictated it, is one which is very reasonable indeed—that these four persons ought to be on the new County Council. I am exactly of that opinion, and I do not believe that the persons who have discharged any of these county offices with credit, will find any difficulty in obtaining a seat upon the new Council, always provided that we have a reasonably sufficient number of County Councillors. I think the clause is rather an invidious one, and that it will have an effect quite different from that which the framers intend, and for that reason I beg to move its omission.
Moved, "To omit Clause 108."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am sorry that the noble Lord has thought it necessary to move the omission of this clause. I quite appreciate the difficulties which he has suggested, but I do not anticipate that they will be realised to the extent which he fears. The noble Earl speaks as if it was absolutely certain that these four persons who are included in this clause as the ex officio members, will be elected on the General Council at the first election. I do not know what guarantee the noble Earl has for that. I think it is quite possible that persons who have shown great aptitude and great interest before in county business would be elected at the first election, but on the other hand there is no guarantee whatever for that. The noble Lord rightly understands that the object the Government have had in view in inserting this provision is to ensure that these four ex officio members should be added to the County Council for the first term of its existence. There is no guarantee whatever as to who will be elected on

529
the County Councils, they may be altogether, or a large number of them may be and are very likely to be those who have had any knowledge or taken any part in county business and in the interests of the work of the County Councils, in the future it is very desirable indeed that certain members of the existing administration, who have had great experience, and have great knowledge, and have taken a great interest in the affairs of their counties shall be placed upon the County Council without the possibility of their being excluded. I think your Lordships will require no argument to appreciate the desirability of there being some sort of connecting link between the old system and the new one. I do not believe that there will be the difficulty which the noble Lord seems to anticipate with regard to the future election of members who are ex officio upon the first Council. Surely these four representative persons in the County Council will find, some means of standing for an election without displacing anyone whom they would wish to see still upon the Council at some future election. I do not anticipate these difficulties. I feel perfectly certain, in the interests of the future work and future conduct of business by the County Councils, that it is of the greatest possible advantage to them that they should have the advice and guidance of those who are intimately acquainted with the county business as it has hitherto been carried on. On these grounds I think your Lordships will he advised well if you agree to the clause as it stands.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would like to say with regard to this clanse that I have had communication with a good many gentlemen who will come under its operation, and I have not found one who is in its favour. No doubt it is extremely desirable there should be a connecting link between the old administration and the new, but the question with regard to this clause is whether that connecting link is introduced in the manner that will make it of the greatest advantage. It appears to me that the introduction of the connecting link by means of ex officio members is to place it under the greatest possible disadvantage, because those members who are put on a footing of that kind will be or may be regarded
530
by others on the County Council as suspected individuals—that they are introduced into a body by a method which is devised specially for them, and that they are not able to undergo the free election which the other members of the Council submit to. Besides that I think there is a real grievance that the members themselves are put under as regards the second election. It is all very well to say they can stand at the first election. The difficulty will certainly arise that the noble Earl has pointed out—if they stand at the first election they will certainly be told by anybody who opposes them that they have already got a seat and, therefore, need not be elected, and if they come forward at the next election they will have to look all round the country to find somebody whom it would be expedient for them to oust. I think this is one of those clauses in the Bill in which the Government, unfortunately, introduce a provision which is of very little value in itself, and must give rise to great inconvenience and dissatisfaction.
LORD BALFOUR: I admit there is a certain amount of difference of opinion on the part of those who are supposed to be privileged by this clause; but, upon the whole, the balance of advantage is in favour of keeping the clause as it stands. The idea which has been put forward, both by the noble Lord who has last spoken and the noble Lord who moved to reject the clause, that at the second election persons privileged at the first election will have a difficulty in finding a seat, seems to me to be quite without foundation. It would be the case, perhaps, if you were bound to be elected only for the division of the county in which you reside; but for the purposes of county elections, provided you are registered as a county elector, you may stand for any division. To suppose that everybody who is in the first County Council will desire to stand for the second is, I think, obviously a mistake, and it will surely not be difficult for those of the nominated Councillors, who wish to go on to the second election, to to find one at least of the divisions in which there would be a retiring Councillor. I quite admit that a difference of opinion exists about this provision; it is a clause which has had a good deal of discussion both in Scotland and in "another place." It was challenged in

531
the other House of Parliament, and, on a division, it was resolved to be adhered to; therefore, upon the whole, I think it would be unwise to take the step of rejecting it at this stage, especially having regard to the fact that no previous notice has been given of the intention to move the rejection of it.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 204.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Considering the lateness of the hour and the amount of labour that we have gone through on a Scotch subject already, I would simply ask your Lordships' permission to read the Bill a second time, proposing on the Committee stage to make whatever statement may be necessary to commend the Bill to the House.
Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE) BILL (No. 174.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
COMPANIES CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1888, AMENDMENT BILL (No. 187.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
COURT OF SESSION AND BILL CHAMBER (SCOTLAND) CLERKS BILL. (No. 152.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill Reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL (No. 186.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill Reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
PRINCE OF WALES' CHILDREN BILL. (No. 212.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, when Her Majesty's gracious Message was sent to this House, informing this House of the projected marriage of the Prince of Wales's daughter with the then Earl of Fife, your Lordships passed an Address to Her Majesty expressing your congratulations, and your willingness to concur in any provision which might be necessary for the purpose of that marriage. This Bill is, in part, the fulfilment of that pledge. I need not describe its provisions; they are very well known. It provides that the sum of £36,000 shall be yearly paid in trust to his Royal Highness and two other Official Trustees, to be applied for the benefit of his children during the existing reign. By the custom of Parliament this House cannot alter the provisions thus made. If we were to alter them, it would be fatal to the Bill. Under those circumstances, and also in consideration of the lateness of the hour, I think I shall best consult the convenience of your Lordships by not making any further observations upon the motives or the character of the provisions made; but only express what I am sure is the feelings of all your Lordships—of our hearty good wishes for the illustrious individuals in reference to whom this provision has been made.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"
  EARL GRANVILLE: It is not necessary for me to add anything to the words which have fallen from the noble Marquess, who has correctly stated the answer of your Lordships to the gracious Message of Her Majesty. On that occasion I said that I anticipated that we should most cordially agree to any reasonable provision that was proposed by the Government and which received the sanction of the House of Commons It certainly would be very incongruous with that cordiality which I believe your Lordships all feel on the subject if I were to refer to any critical or controversial matters, or to any incidents which happened in the passing of this Bill. At the same time I should

  533
  like to allude to two facts which I am sure must be satisfactory to your Lordships. The first is—and, though I do not wish to exaggerate it, it is a fact of at all events very great negative importance—that the Queen and the Prince of Wales have during the present reign, unlike nearly all their predecessors, never come to Parliament with any applications for the payment of their debts. Further than that, I am sure your Lordships will agree in acknowledging the gracious assurance Her Majesty has given through Her Majesty's Government that she does not intend to apply to Parliament for any provision for the children of her other children except the Prince of Wales. I can only say that I and all my Friends entirely concur in the good wishes which the noble Marquess has expressed for the happiness of the couple who are now united.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only wish to remind the noble Earl that he has not quite correctly quoted the language in which the communication was made, "that Her Majesty did not press the claims of her other children." The matter is not of present importance; but I thought it desirable that the right words should be used. Further than that I do not think it necessary to add anything to the statement I have already made.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at Eleven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.