Sitting of 4 July 1889

TRAFALGAR SQUARE REGULATIONS.
Ordered,
Address for Return giving the Regulations issued by the Chief Commissioner of Police with respect to Trafalgar Square, on the 12th and the 18th days of November, 1887, respectively.—(Mr. Howell.)

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

  ASSISTANT SCHOOLMASTER OF BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
  MR. BIGGAR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the assistant schoolmaster of the Belfast Workhouse was convicted of drunkenness and disorderly conduct on or about the 14th July, 1885, and was also convicted on the 26th December, 1888; and, if so, what course will the Local Government Board take in this case?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Local Government Board are not aware that Mr. Madden, the Assistant School Master, was convicted in 1885. With regard to the conviction in December, 1888, an Inspector has made inquiry, and finds that Mr. Madden was at the time away from duty on leave of absence. The Board do not feel that it is a case calling for further action.

  POWERS OF POOR LAW GUARDIANS.
  MR. SALT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if it is his intention to introduce during the present Session any Bill to enlarge the powers of Poor Law Guardians in providing for pauper children who may be subject to neglect or ill-treatment?
  The PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, ): I hope to be able to introduce during the present Session a Bill giving to Boards of Guardians increased powers with regard to control over children who, in consequence of desertion by their parents, have become chargeable on the rates. I have not contemplated the introduction of any measure dealing otherwise with the neglect or ill-treatment of children. Large additional powers with regard to cases of ill-treatment will be conferred by the Cruelty to Children (Prevention) Bill now before the House.

  CUSTOMS REGULATIONS—PHOTOGRAPHIC DRY-PLATES.
  COLONEL COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether definite instructions have yet been given to the officers of Her Majesty's Custom House as to the proper examination of undeveloped photographic dry-plates; whether he is aware that considerable inconvenience is caused to the owners of such plates by the absence of a properly lighted "dark-room" for the purpose; whether a second case has been brought to his notice of a valuable batch of plates from the Canary Islands having to be examined, greatly to the risk of spoiling them completely, in au old box covered with a tarpaulin; and, whether he will take care that proper accommodation for the examination of these plates be provided at the various offices of Her Majesty's Customs?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The answer to the first and fourth paragraphs of the question is yes. As regards the second and third paragraphs, the Commissioners of Customs inform me that no complaint has reached them since the issue of the instructions of any inconvenience having been caused by the absence of a properly fitted "dark room"; nor are they aware of any instance in which the examination of a batch of plates from the Canary Islands occurred under the conditions mentioned in the question.

  THE ALLOTMENTS ACT.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Depwade Rural Sanitary

  1443
  Authority, having let land under "The Allotments Act, 1887," have demanded three quarters' rent in advance, and another quarter's rent to be paid on the 6th of July; and, whether, in the agreement entered into with the labourers, only one quarter's rent was to be paid in advance?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have communicated with the Depwade Rural Sanitary Authority on the subject of this question. I find that under the agreements for letting, which were dated the 17th of May last, the hiring was as from the 11th of October, 1888. A quarter's rent is payable in advance, and it was considered that the rent for one quarter became due on the 11th of October, for the second quarter on the 6th of January, and for the third quarter on the 6th of April; and the tenants have been asked to pay the rent for these three quarters as arrears. Another quarter's rent becomes payable in advance on the 6th inst. I am informed that in many, if not most, of the cases the tenants had been in actual possession of the allotments for many weeks previous to the date of the agreements. The agreements, it is stated, were made to commence as from the 11th of October last, as the tenancies in the district usually run from that date, and it is said that under this arrangement the tenant gets his year's crop and pays a year's rent, whereas if a tenancy commenced at Lady Day and the tenant left at Michaelmas he would get a year's crop for half a year's rent only. This is the explanation given to me, but I cannot say that I consider it a satisfactory one, and I venture to express a hope that the matter will be reconsidered by the Sanitary Authority. The Local Government Board have not, however, any jurisdiction.

  RIOT AT MOREE.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, what steps were taken to prevent the recent riot, which took place at Moree, near Cape Coast, and which resulted in the loss of over twenty lives?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR the COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): On hearing from the Chief of Moree that a disturbance was apprehended
  1444
  between two of the companies of the town, the District Commissioner of Cape Coast issued 20 summonses, and bound over the people summoned to keep the peace. He ordered them to cease from building a post on which to exhibit a flag, which was the cause of dissension, and, after sending for them and warning them several times, he got them to agree, on the 7th of February, that the whole matter should be decided by him as District Commissioner in Court, with certain of the leading natives of Cape Coast to assist him. On the same evening, however, they began to fight; and before a sufficient force of police could be collected to cope with the rioters, the town had been burnt and 35 persons killed. As soon as the news reached the headquarters of the Government, prompt measures were taken to despatch a force of police; no further disturbance has occurred, and 62 persons have been arrested and committed for trial, on charges of murder, riot, and arson. The action of the District Commissioner is being inquired into, and no opinion respecting it can be expressed at present.

  IRELAND—PUBLIC WORKS.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Government will assent to the Notice of Motion on the Paper to-day for a return respecting the £3,919,954 19s. 4d, advanced up to the 31st day of March, 1888, by Commissioners of Public Works, Ireland, under Act 10 and 11 Vic. c. 32, showing—1, Name and address of person to whom any advance has been made; 2, Date; 3, Amount of such advance; 4, For what purpose; 5, At what rate of interest, and on what terms of repayment; 6, Portion of principal and interest which fell due before the 31st day of March, 1888, in respect of such advance; 7, Amounts of such principal and interest repaid before the 31st day of March, 1888; 8, Arrears of such principal and interest outstanding on the 31st day of March, 1888; with totals of these respective headings.
  MR. JACKSON: I do not think it will be possible to assent to a Return in the form suggested by the hon. Member.

  KILLALOE EEL FISHERIES.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether; and, if so, under what authority, the Irish Board of Works claim rent for the eel fisheries at Killaloe; whether the Board of Works at any time purchased out the interest of the owners of said fisheries; and, if so, if he will state the names of the vendors, the terms of the agreements for purchase, and the amounts paid to each of the parties; whether a notice not to let or mortgage has been received from an inhabitant of Killaloe, who claims these fisheries under Patent from the Crown; and, what course will be adopted under the circumstances.
  MR. JACKSON: I am told that an action at law is pending, and under the circumstances it would not be right that I should enter into any details.

  LORD LONDONDERRY AND HIS TENANTS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Charles Murray, of Ravana, Union of Newtownards, served originating notice to fix fair rent on his landlord, the Marquis of Londonderry, on 28th October, 1887, thereby entitling him to the benefit of the reduced rent from 1st May, 1887, but up to the present he has been unable to get his fair rent fixed, and his application now appears in the list of cases to be heard at the next sitting of the Sub-Commission at Newtownards; whether he is aware that since the publication of this list, and within the last week, the Marquis of Londonderry has caused an eviction notice (under Section 7 of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887") to be served upon this tenant, thereby converting Murray into a caretaker, and depriving him of the right to have a fair rent fixed, though he was in no way responsible for the delay in having the application heard; and, whether, considering the practice now resorted to by landlords in Ireland, which has the effect of depriving tenants from the benefits of the Land Acts, in cases where the delay was on the part of the Irish Executive, he will take steps to secure to the tenants the rights intended to be conferred upon them by the Legislature.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Before the notice referred to was served it was open to the tenant to apply to have the proceedings stayed, pending the fixing of a judicial rent, and the County Court Judge had power to comply with the application, if, in his opinion, the circumstances warranted it. It is still open to the tenant to redeem within the statutable period of six months. The rights of tenants are amply safeguarded under the existing statutes, the benefits of which they could not be deprived of save through their own default.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. M 'CARTAN,
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid: I have no reason to believe that this tenant offered to pay two and a half years' rent and was refused. I have no information of that fact.

  FLOOD GATES ON THE SHANNON.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware of the feeling of uneasiness which exists amongst the inhabitants of the City of Limerick, and of the towns on the River Shannon below Killaloe, on account of the dangerous state of the floodgates at Mellick and Killaloe; whether he is aware that the structure under the floodgates was built on a sandy bottom, and hundreds of tons of the cement and gravel forming this structure have been swept away by the current, and have now accumulated in an immense heap between the gates and Killaloe, and that the river is at present flowing through and under the foundation; whether complaints have reached him that the engineer who has charge of the sluices is frequently absent and at long distances from Killaloe when floods take place; and whether some steps will be taken to assure the people that proper repairs will be made in the breaches already made?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed by the Commissioners of Public Works that the apprehension and complaints referred to in the question have no foundation whatever. Therefore, it is not necessary that I should answer the question in detail.

  ATHLONE UNION WORKHOUSE.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish

  1447
  Local Government Board has yet sanctioned or refused to sanction the appointment of medical officer of the Athlone Union Workhouse, the election for which took place more than a month since; whether an objection to the candidate selected was sent to the Local Government Board; whether this objection related to a matter, the truth of which it was in the power of the Local Government Board at once to ascertain; and whether the Local Government Board will allow any further time to elapse without giving a decision on the question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Objection has been raised to the candidate elected, and the Local Government Board are making inquiries into the matter. As the appointment will not take effect until the 1st of August next, no inconvenience will be sustained by the election not having effect given to it at once.

  THE WATER SUPPLY OF ROSCOMMON.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in consequence of a difference of opinion between the Local Government Board and the Local Board of Guardians, the town of Roscommon has been left for several years without a proper supply of water, to the great danger of the public health, as well as to the existence of the town; whether he is aware that seven years ago, a fire occurred in the town, which, owing to the want of a water supply, could not be extinguished until damage to the extent of several thousand pounds had been caused, over £5,000 of the amount having to be borne by the public rates; whether the ratepayers of the town have on various occasions expressed themselves in favour of the obtaining of a good water supply; whether, pending the dispute between these two bodies, over which the ratepayers have no adequate control, the town of Roscommon is to be left without a water supply; and, whether any steps will be taken in the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Local Government Board are fully sensible of the importance of the matter, and the statements in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the question are substantially correct. The delay has arisen from the Guardians, who are the Sanitary Authority in Roscommon, desiring to make the whole
  1448
  Union of Roscommon contribute to the cost which would involve the levying of a rate upon persons who live eight miles away and who would derive no benefit from the water supply. This is not approved by the Local Government Board, who proposed to make it a charge on the electoral division of Roscommon, which embraces the town and a surrounding area of from two to three miles. The responsibility rests entirely with the Guardians.
  MR. HAYDEN: Is the town of Roscommon to be left without water pending an agreement between these two bodies?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Local Government Board do not propose to enter into any agreement.

  THE CASE OF MARTIN MURRAY.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the case of Martin Murray, who on Thursday last was sentenced at Marlborough Street Police Court to three months' imprisonment for falsely stating, when about to be enlisted into the Army, that he was not married, whether the pleas urged by the prisoner in mitigation of punishment were true, namely, that he had been for a long time previously out of work, and that his attempt to enlist was made with the knowledge and sanction of his wife; and, if so, whether he will advise that a portion of the sentence be remitted?
  The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The Magistrate took these pleas into consideration in passing sentence, and I see no reason to interfere with the sentence.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: May I ask if three months is not the maximum penalty?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.

  THE NEW FOREST.
  MR. DARLING: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the number of the persons having rights of common in the New Forest?
  MR. JACKSON: I have not been able to obtain any precise information as to the present number of commoners, but under the Acts of 1851 and 1854

  1449
  about 1,300 claims were put in, of which between 400 and 500 were disallowed, leaving the number allowed between 800 and 900, but the same claimant in many cases put in more than one claim.
  MR. COLLINGS: Have the claims of all those who cannot prove their rights as commoners been disallowed?
  MR. JACKSON: I have already said that between 400 and 500 of the claims which were made were disallowed. They were disallowed, I presume, because they were not substantial.

  IRELAND—EXTRA POLICE IN WATERFORD.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, how many extra police are stationed in the County Waterford, and at what cost to the ratepayers; what is the number of police allotted to the County Waterford by the police regulations, and has the full number allowed by such regulations been employed in the county before a tax for extra police was imposed upon the ratepayers; is it the case that in English counties there is on an average only one policemen to every 1,250 people, and whether in Irish counties, with less ordinary crime, we have one policeman to every 330 people; with the view of ascertaining why the County Waterford has been, and is, charged with extra police, will he have the attention of the Constabulary Authorities drawn to a charge delivered by Judge Waters on the 3rd January, 1888, in addressing the Quarter Sessions Grand Jury, in which he used the following language:
  "The amount of crime from the county and city investigated in this Court during the year 1887 has been, I may say, insignificant. You know, I presume that I am County Court Judge of two other counties, Cavan and Leitrim. These three counties represent a large area, inhabited by 332,616 people, and may be considered representative of the whole country. I have procured the last published statistics of the United Kingdom, and they show the number of committals in England and Wales were 13,856, which gives the rate of one committal to 1,011 people. The population of my three counties is 332,616, so that to make crime in these three counties equal to crime in England the number of committals should be 174, whereas they amount only to 114 (including quarter sessions and assizes), so that our crime is only 63 per cent of the crime in England.
  1450
  In Scotland the committals were 2,535, which gives the proportion of one committal to every 1,473 people. In order that the proportion of our crime should equal that of Scotland the number of committals here should be 225, but they are only 114; I find the rate of convictions in England and Scotland nearly the same. 77 per cent. of the committals, and, strange to say, the rate of convictions in Waterford is almost identical, differing only by an inconsiderable decimal. In Leitrim the rate of convictions is 82 per cent. of the committals;"
  whether it is a fact that, at the period referred to in Judge Waters' address, which was before the passing of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, the ratepayers were called upon to pay for extra police; and, what now justifies the employment of extra police in the County Waterford?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that there are 34 extra police stationed in the County of Waterford, of whom 16 men were appointed on the requisition of the local Magistrates for the performance of ordinary duty, and 18 on the Lord Lieutenant's proclamation when the county was proclaimed as disturbed in 1882. The cost to the ratepayers for the year ended March 31 last was £864 12s. 4d. The free quota of police allotted to the county by the police regulations number 232. Vacancies in the free quota and the extra force in every county are always allowed and are provided for by statute. The full number allowed has been employed, save a small percentage for men training at the depot, which is usual and necessary, before a tax for extra police was imposed. The proportion of the Constabulary to the population of Ireland (exclusive of the city of Dublin) is about one in 400. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the quotation from the charge of the learned Judge; nor the accuracy of the figures given by him. But it is rash to draw conclusions hastily from statistics of this kind, which lend themselves with equal or even greater readiness to inferences of precisely the opposite kind to those made by the hon. Member. At the period referred to in the fifth paragraph the ratepayers were paying for 50 extra police, since reduced to 34. The question of the extra force in each county is periodically closely gone into, and wherever practicable the number is reduced. No further reduction can at present be made.

  ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Secretary of State has been informed of the circumstances under which, in the month of January last, in the Royal Niger Company's district, a boy, Ewoko by name, belonging to King Ebufa, was killed on board the Sakoto, one of the Company's steamers; whether the boy was killed by the captain of the steamer; whether the captain was tried for the offence, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment and a fine of £25; what were the circumstances which justified so light a sentence for illegally taking the life of a native; and, whether the captain, since his release, has again entered the employment of the Company?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): It has been ascertained that a man on board the Sakoto died some hours after he had been struck by a stick thrown at him by the captain. The case was tried before Chief Justice Kane, and the trial seems to have been full and impartial. The Judge delivered a long and careful judgment, finding the accused man guilty of an unlawful and violent act, which unfortunately resulted in death. For this he adjudged him to suffer the punishment mentioned in the question. We do not know if the captain has been re-employed.
  MR. PICTON: Was the captain found guilty of manslaughter?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes, Sir. The Report only reached the Foreign Office to-day. It is very long, but I observe that the learned Judge carefully defined the various degrees of manslaughter. The accused was found guilty of having committed a violent act, which by misadventure resulted fatally. I believe that the trial was carefully and impartially conducted.

  OIL RIVER DISTRICTS.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true, as stated in an Old Calabar journal, that Her Majesty's Commissioner offered to an assembly of Oil River chiefs the alternative of government by the Royal
  1452
  Niger Company, or the erection of the district into a Crown Colony; and, whether the chiefs unanimously preferred the alternative of a Crown Colony?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is not the case that the Commissioner made any such offer.
  MR. PICTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen it so stated in an Old Calabar journal, and have the natives distinctly stated that they prefer to be directly under the" rule of Her Majesty?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I cannot say that that is a fact within my own knowledge.
  MR. PICTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to lay on the Table of the House before the end of the Session any Papers which may have been communicated, and among them the memorial of the native chiefs?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I will make inquiry.

  IRELAND-THE DEASE MEMORIAL.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has lately received from the Standing Committee of the Meath Hospital and County Dublin Infirmary a statement calling attention to the position of "the Dease Memorial" at the time of Mr. O'Reilly Dease's death; and, whether, taking all the facts into consideration and the nature of the charity, ho can see his way to grant such a sum out of the estate of the late Mr. Dease as will suffice to complete the memorial?
  The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): The statement in question was received a year ago, and the hospital authorities were informed at the time that the trustees under Mr. Dease's will had no evidence before them which, in their opinion, could constitute a legal claim on the part of the hospital, and, in the absence of such legal claim, had no power to divert any portion of the estate from the purposes for which it was devised by the testator. I have since examined the case carefully, and can find no adequate evidence that the hospital authorities have any moral claim upon the estate that would justify a vote being taken on their behalf. The evidence submitted to me—namely, the correspondence between them and Mr.

  1453
  Dease, does not show that he intended to pay the whole cost of the memorial, but seems to me to point to the opposite conclusion. Mr. Dease expressly warned them against launching out into too great expenditure before obtaining the necessary funds, and the letters also make mention of money being collected for the work, which points to the fact that Mr. Dease by no means held himself responsible for the whole cost.

  ARKLOW HARBOUR.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBET: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the harbour works at Arklow are in an unfinished state; whether the loan granted by the Treasury, under the 45 Viet., c. 13, has been all expended; whether representations have reached him that whereas the 7th section of the Act provides "in case any further loan, in excess of the £30,000, is required," that the Treasury may, by order, charge the ratable property of the town of Arklow with the payment of any sum so required for the completion of the works, the town of Arklow, from its limited area, and small amount of ratable property, is unable to bear any such additional impost; and, whether he will, under the circumstances, consider the desirability of having the concrete blocks, which were made for constructing the north pier, laid down without further cost to the ratepayers?
  MR. JACKSON: The North Groyne originally contemplated has not been constructed. There is a small surplus on the original grant and loan. The Treasury cannot charge the rates of Arklow with any excess expenditure without the consent of the Town Commissioners, and without that consent I do not see my way to sanctioning the construction of the North Groyne.

  THE IMPRISONED IRISH MEMBERS.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the fact that in numerous cases Irish Members and others imprisoned for offences under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," have been ordered to take exercise with other criminals convicted of crimes of a serious character under the ordinary law, and on refining to do so have been deprived of all exercise, and
  1454
  have been put into punishment cells and fed on bread and water; whether it has been recently determined by the Government to make a change in this respect, and no longer to insist upon such persons taking exercise with criminals; and, whether he will explain in what way the new arrangement has been effected, whether by regulation or direction from the Prisons Board or otherwise, and to what classes of persons, whether under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act," or otherwise, the arrangement will apply?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that without further particulars as to dates and places it is not practicable for them to reply to the inquiries in the first paragraph. As regards the remainder of the question, they report that a change has recently been made in the regulations affecting exercise of prisoners, by substituting for Rule 44 a new role, in which discretion is vested in the matter in the governor and medical officer; that the new arrangement has been effected by promulgation of the new rule to governors of prisons, and that no particular classes are specified in the rules, and as to this, governors and medical officers will have to exercise their own discretion, subject to the general supervision and control of the Prisons Board.
  MR. MAC NEILL: In connection with the second paragraph of the question, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that no later than yesterday, in Derry Prison, Father Stephen and Mr. John Kelly were ordered out by the governor, to take exercise with the criminals who were convicted of the Belfast insurance frauds, and that when they refused to go they were placed in punishment cells, and at the present time are on bread and water?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask for notice of the question.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Is the exercise of political prisoners left entirely to the discretion of the Governor of the prison and the medical officer? Is there any power given to the prison authorities as to how they are to exercise their discretion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; the class of political prisoners is not recognized by Her Majesty's Government, in

  1455
  which opinion, I apprehend, they are supported by the law. I may say that the governor of the prison and the medical officer exercise their discretion, subject to the supervision of the Prisons Board.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to give notice that I will put another question on the subject to-morrow.

  DELAGOA BAY.
  SIR WILLIAM MARRIOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the exact boundary line between the Portuguese territories and those of the South African (Transvaal) Republic have been marked; and whether he will place a sketch map in the Library showing such boundary if it has been marked?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I cannot find that any such boundary line has been marked.

  IRELAND—LOUGH REE AND THE SHANNON.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Shannon Commissioners constructed a navigable canal, about half a statute mile long, connecting Lough Ree on the Shannon with a substantial landing harbour in the hamlet of Lecarrow, conveniently situated for traders, tourists, and others midway on the public road from Roscommon to Athlone; whether he is aware that this canal, in addition to trade and other purposes, was intended to drain a considerable area adjoining it, but that the silted mud from the drainage of an adjacent railway has been allowed to accumulate in it for several years, to the great danger of grazing cattle on its banks, as well as to the almost complete stoppage of water in the several water cuts in its catchment area; and, whether, in view of the large sums now to be expended on the drainage of the Shannon, Her Majesty's Government will cause this canal to be cleaned up and restored to its former usefulness.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the Lecarrow Canal was originally constructed by the Shannon Commissioners temporarily and solely for the execution of the works, but was treated for a few years as part of the navigation. There being no traffic it was
  1456
  abandoned 17 years ago, and is now in a great part choked with weeds, and silted. It is not intended to restore the canal for navigation purposes, but it will be cleaned up, where necessary, for the drainage of the adjoining lands.

  MR. W. O'BRIEN'S ARREST.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the shooting of Timothy O'Sullivan, the head porter at Charleville Railway Station, on the arrival there of the hon. Member for East Cork on Sunday night last, he can state if any inquiry has been made into the matter; whether O'Sullivan, while in uniform, found in one compartment five constables without tickets, and was referred by them to the officer in charge, who was in another compartment; whether O'Sullivan, on opening the door of the compartment where the officer was, found the officer sitting there; and a number of policemen, who accompanied the officer, made repeated thrusts at O'Sullivan, and finally pushed him off the footboard, without having shown him the tickets; whether the officer then pointed his revolver out of the window, and shot O'Sullivan, with a bullet, under the right eye; whether this officer has been placed under arrest; and, what steps have been taken with reference to the conduct of the police on this occasion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It appears from the Official Reports that the door of the railway carriage containing the prisoner and his escort was surrounded by a mob of about 100 persons. It was twice forced open by them, apparently with the object of rescuing Mr. O'Brien, which they said they would do, and in resisting which the District Inspector was injured. The head porter O'Sullivan then came and opened the door demanding tickets. The District Inspector told him that the railway authorities at Blarney were aware that the police had not tickets, and he added that the necessary payment would be made at Tipperary. The mob endeavoured to force its way into the carriage, and as the porter continued there, the officer concluded that he was playing, into their hands. He therefore pushed him away, and closed the door. Two shots were then fired

  1457
  into the carriage, and the officer, believing the attempt was to shoot him, fired two in return, while two other members of the police each fired a shot. O'Sullivan was examined by the District Inspector at Charleville, who has no hesitation in saying that the marks on his face were not caused by a bullet, and this is confirmed by the doctor who attended the man.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement made by Mr. O'Brien on the subject, and in case he has not, may I ask whether Mr. O'Brien was put forward in front of the police, so that if any shots were fired he would, in all probability, be hit first; whether Mr. O'Brien, when the police were preparing to fire, did not draw attention to the fact that the people only desired to shake hands with him, and were not going to rescue him; whether Mr. O'Brien was released on bail two hours after the so-called rescue; and, finally, whether ho did not there and then declare that the only shots fired were those by the police?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not seen Mr. O'Brien's statement on the matter; secondly, the information I have received is not consistent with the allegations made by the hon. Member on behalf of Mr. O'Brien; in the third place, I gather distinctly that shots were fired by the crowd; in the fourth place, it is true that Mr. O'Brien was let out on bail as stated by the hon. Member.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman from whom his information comes? Does it not come from the officers of the police who are charged, and has he any particulars of the damage done by the shots alleged to have been fired by the crowd? Has he any corroboration of the statement of the police, which has no foundation whatever?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I was misled into the use of an improper word; I will only say that at present the state ment of the police is unproved.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that any person was injured by the shots fired either by the crowd or the police, or that the injury to the face of the porter was caused by a bullet. As to where I got my information, the hon.
  1458
  Member has been a Member of this House long enough to know that when a Minister is asked a question the information supplied to him to enable hint to answer it is official. It is not my duty to obtain information from any other sources.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The police are charged with having fired wantonly, and the question I put to the right hon. Gentleman was whether the answer came from the persons charged, and if he is satisfied with the statements made to him?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As far as I am concerned, I am perfectly satisfied with them.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that not a single shot was fired on either side until the train was actually in motion, and when O'Sullivan had given the signal to the guard to move the train on? Is it not the fact that O'Sullivan, the head porter, and another porter have stated on oath that no shots were fired by the crowd; but that a man named Noble was shot by the police in the fleshy part of the thigh, and is now in the infirmary? Further, is it not the fact that the crowd had no knowledge of Mr. O'Brien being in the train, but had come to meet friends who were returning from Cork?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I think the last statement is without foundation. I have received no information of any man having been wounded by the police.
  MR. FLYNN: He is now in the infirmary.

  FATHER M'FADDEN.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true that it is proposed on the part of the Crown to apply for a further postponement till the Winter Assizes of the trial of Father M'Fadden, and of the Gweedore prisoners charged with being concerned in the murder of Inspector Martin; whether, considering that a number of these persons have been in gaol awaiting trial, bail being refused, since February last, and many of them are poor people on whose labour their families depend for their support, it is intended to continue to detain these persons in gaol until the Winter Assizes; and what reason is assigned for thus

  1459
  again postponing their trial, seeing that it is so long a time since the alleged offence, and that a considerable period has now elapsed since the charges against them were formulated by the Attorney General?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am advised that, as the case is pending, it would not be proper for me to enter upon the question as to what application the Attorney General for Ireland may deem it advisable to make to the Court.

  THE SALVATION ARMY.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any information as to the conviction of 17 members of the Salvation Army on Friday, 28th June, for obstruction in Whit church, a village whose population is stated to be less than 2,000; whether he can give any information to the House of what the nature of the obstruction was; and, whether the 17 persons are now in prison?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have received a Report from the clerk to the Justices on this case. It appears that the nature of the obstruction was the assembling of a large crowd of persons forming a ring about 43 yards in circumference in the square at Whitchurch, into which five carriage roads lead. The area of the square is about 30 yards square. The presence of this crowd in the square blocked the footway and prevented the free passage of carts and carriages, so that accidents and collisions were likely to occur. Members of the Salvation Army had been convicted of a similar offence on the 31st of May and on the 14th of June. On the 28th of June fines of 1s. and costs were imposed on the 17 defendants, and at the request of their counsel seven days were allowed for payment to enable them to apply for a case. No case has been applied for, and no commitments have yet been issued on the latter convictions.

  BURSTING OF A GUN AT SHEERNESS
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for 'War what is the reason assigned for the recent bursting of the 40-pounder gun at Sheerness; how many of such guns are in the hands of Volunteers; and, how many have been issued to them during the last two years?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): This gun burst because a shot used at drill had been left in the bore of the gun, and because the examination of the bore before loading (which is required by the Drill Manual) was not properly made. There are 203 such guns in the hands of the Volunteers, of which 37 were issued during the last two years.

  IRELAND—JOHN KELLY, LETTER CARRIER.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state the grounds on which John Kelly, letter carrier, Killygordon, has been dismissed?
  The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): John Kelly was never appointed as letter carrier, or more properly postman, at Killygordon. He was only employed (as he well knew) in a temporary capacity, pending the selection of a man for the vacant post, and his services were, of course, discontinued when the selection was made.

  THE RIVER ROBE.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the drainage works of the River Robe will be completed without delay, as yearly injury is caused to the farmers living on the banks of that river, between Curraghdine and Crossboyne?
  MR. JACKSON: I have made inquiry, and I cannot find that any proposal in connection with the drainage works of the River Robe has been before the Commissioners, or that any such works are contemplated.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Have not the Government already expended a large sum of money with the result that the land on the banks of the river is annually flooded, although a very small further outlay would remedy the evil complained of?
  MR. JACKSON: I think the question had better be addressed to some other Department. So far as my Department is concerned, we have only to deal with questions which arise after the works have been undertaken.

  THE ASSAULT UPON MR. P. O'BRIEN.
  MR. GILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any further particulars to give in justification of the conduct of the police in assaulting and wounding the hon. Member for North Monaghan at Cork Railway Station on Sunday last; and, whether ho can now say if any attempt was made to rescue the hon. Member for North East Cork on that occasion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The District Inspector, in the exercise of his duty, ordered the constabulary under his charge to fall in in such a manner as to prevent, as far as possible, any disturbance or any attempt at rescue on the part of the crowd on the occasion of Mr. William O'Brien's arrest. In order to carry out this object he politely requested the Member for North Monaghan to move on. The hon. Member refused, saying that he had no objection to the manner in which the request was made, but he claimed a right to be there. I have no official information as to what subsequently happened to the hon. Member; but, as I have before stated, there was a dangerous rush of the crowd, who had to be repelled with force by the police, and, I presume, it was then the Member for North Monaghan was struck.
  MR. FLYNN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a paper posted to him by myself, from Cork, containing full particulars of the occurrence? Is it the fact that all that was done was that a few persons on the platform cheered Mr. O'Brien and that no disturbance occurred until the baton charge made by the police, who struck at the people all around them, including the passengers who were going by the train?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no reason to believe that any passengers who were going by the train were batoned by the police, nor, as I gather, was it the fact that no violence was displayed by the crowd. On the contrary, I understand that the police were forced down the platform.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that there was no large crowd there at all, and that Mr. O'Brien's arrival there was not expected?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is a matter of opinion what constitutes a large crowd. I gather that the crowd was sufficient to make the police apprehensive that they would be unable to preserve the peace.

  ARMY EXAMINATION PAPERS.
  LORD EDWARD CAVENDISH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is true that at the last examination for Sandhurst an insufficient number of examination papers were provided for the candidates, and that, in consequence, some were placed at great disadvantage in working the mathematical paper; and whether, as it is an open competition, any allowance will be made to those candidates who were placed at this disadvantage from no fault of their own?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The examinations for entrance to Sandhurst are under the control of the Civil Service Commissioners, who inform me that in one examination room it was found that the mathematical paper was short by two copies of the number of candidates. Copies were supplied after an hour, and, in the meantime, two other copies had been torn in half and given to four candidates. It is believed that no disadvantage accrued to any candidate; but the two candidates who had to begin on the latter and harder half of the paper were offered additional time, of which, however, they did not avail themselves.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  MR. JAMES STEVENSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the very wide and earnest public interest manifested throughout the country in favour of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquor on Sunday Bill, the principle of which the House has affirmed by reading the Bill a second time, he will give facilities, by Saturday sittings or otherwise, for the Committee and other stages of the Bill during the present Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I am very well aware of "the very wide and earnest public interest" the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stevenson) refers to; but, unfortunately, that very fact contributes to the very

  1463
  considerable discussion of the question. Looking to the Amendments to the Bill of the hon. Member which have been placed on the Paper, I should have very little hope that it could be disposed of this Session; and I am afraid it will not be in my power to give the hon. Gentleman the Saturday sittings he desires in order that progress may be made with the Bill.
  SIR W. LAWSON: May I ask my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions what number of Petitions have been presented in favour of the Sunday Closing Bill, and what number against?
  SIR C. FORSTER: Up to yesterday 4,089 Petitions bad been presented in favour of the Bill and 23 against.

  EXCESSIVE SENTENCES—CASE OF WILLIAM JULIAN.
  MR. BERNARD COLERIDGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of William Julian, labourer, of Cropwell Bishop, who, on the 13th of June, was charged before the Justices at Bingham, in Nottinghamshire, with being in unlawful possession of 28 partridge eggs on the 2nd of June, in which case, although it was proved that, as to 15 of the eggs, they were given to him by man called Hardy, and that, as to 13 of the eggs, they were taken from the land of a man named Starbuck by Starbuck's permission, Starbuck being a man having the right by law to take such eggs, according to his own evidence, the Justices fined the man Julian 5s. for every one of the 28 eggs, being the full penalty permitted by law, and in default of payment sentenced him to two months' imprisonment; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will reduce the fine?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question.

  LLOYD'S PROVING HOUSES.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, as Lloyd's public Proving Houses are licensed by the Board of Trade for testing chain cables and anchors, and as
  1464
  they have several Proving Houses in different districts, are the directors, who are directly connected with the above trades, allowed to interfere with or have a preponderating influence over the superintendents (who are appointed by the said Lloyd and Co.) to the detriment of other manufacturers; and if it is true that cables, after being once tested and rejected, and returned, are sometimes allowed to pass no further trial?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD of TRADE (Sir M. Him BEACH,): The tests referred to by the hon. Member are statutory tests. I am not aware that any person can have any influence whatever in regard to the applications of these tests to any chain cables. I am making inquiries as regards the second part of the hon. Member's question, and will communicate the result to him.

  GOVERNMENT DOCKYARDS—DISCHARGES OF WORKMEN.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many more men are to be discharged from the Devonport and Keyham Dockyards; what proportion of those about to be discharged have been trained in the yards; and what effect upon the men's wages, in the way of reduction or otherwise, has resulted from the shifting of the men in the smiths' shops from one department to another?
  The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): The number of men employed at Her Majesty's Dockyards is regulated from time to time by the executive officers at the several yards according to the nature and extent of the work to be performed, as well as the amount available for wages; and although every endeavour is made to afford continuous employment to efficient men, yet, as I imformed the hon. Member so late as Friday last, changes have occasionally to be made in the number of men employed in each trade, as well as in the total number in the yard. No immediate alteration or reduction is considered necessary. No alteration has been necessary in the men's wages by reason of recent transfers in the smiths' shops, but as a rule the rate of pay depends upon the class of work on which the men are engaged.

  GERMANY AND OLD CALABAR.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Consul Hewett has yet reported to Her Majesty's Government on the arrest of King Eyo, of Creek Town, within the British Protectorate of Old Calabar, by the Captain of a German man-of-war on the 25th February; and, what is the tenour of his report, and what representations have been made to the German Government on the subject?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Report has been received and representations on the subject have been made to the German Government. Communications are still passing on the subject.

  ROYAL WILLS.
  MR MACNEILL: Will the Select Committee upon Royal Grants be empowered, under the terms of the Reference, to inquire into and Report upon the expediency, or otherwise, of abolishing the secrecy which now exclusively attaches to the last wills and testaments of Royal personages?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The subject to which the hon. Member refers will not be in any respect within the reference to the Committee, nor will it arise out of the proposal which the Government will have to make to the House.

  EGYPT—THE DEFEAT OF THE DERVISHES.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Can the Secretary of State for War give the House any information as to the slaughter of Dervishes?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I communicated to the newspapers this morning the telegrams which had been received on the subject of the defeat of the Dervishes, and I will take the same course in the case of any further information that may come to hand.

  LARCENY ACT (1861) AMENDMENT (USE OF FIREARMS) BILL [LORDS.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 309.]
ORDERS OF TEE DAY.

  MESSAGES FROM HER MAJESTY. (PRINCE ALBERT VICTOR AND PRINCESS LOUISE OF WALES.)
  Queen's Messages [2nd July] considered.
  Messages again read—
  MR. H. SMITHrose to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Her Majesty's gracious Messages, and to inquire into the former practice of this House with respect to provisions for members of the Royal Family, and to Report to the House upon the principles which in that respect it is expedient to adopt in future."
  The right hon. Gentleman said: In rising to move the Motion which stands in my name, I trust that at this stage, at all events, in the consideration of Her Majesty's most gracious Messages, the House may be unanimous in the conclusion at which it will arrive. I shall be exceedingly sorry if the House should refuse to refer to a Committee the consideration of the question raised by Her Majesty's gracious Messages, having regard to the fact that on a previous occasion in the course of present Parliament I have undertaken that such a Committee as that which I now propose should be appointed. It may be a matter of complaint among some hon. Gentlemen that a Committee was not previously appointed. Well, Sir, for whatever blame may be attached to the non appointment of the Committee I impersonally responsible. I take the blame upon myself entirely, if blame is to be attached to any one; but I do not consider the course I have taken is in any way open to censure. I have undertaken that a Committee shall be appointed to consider the question of grants to members of the Royal Family, and I entirely comply with the undertaking into which I have entered in asking the House to refer Her Majesty's Messages to a Committee of the House, instructed at the same time to consider the principles upon which provisions of this character should be made for members of the Royal Family. Whether it be so or not, I trust that the consideration of Her Majesty's Messages will not be the occasion of any dispute or difference. The Government desire that the question shall be ex-

  1467
  amined with the care and consideration which are demanded by the grave matters which are involved, and with the dignity which should attach to the Royal Family in this country, and to those who stand at the head of the State. The idea of family is predominant in the minds of all which have the happiness to be subjects of the Queen. Around the sentiment of family centres all that is good, pure, and useful in the Constitution of this country. Therefore, the Royal Family should stand at the head of the State as one which may offer an example to those in more humble station in the discharge of their duties. In asking that this question may be referred to a Committee, I may say, at all events, that there has been no precipitation on the part of Her Majesty or of the Prince of Wales in asking for provision for the eldest son of the Heir to the Crown. I doubt whether in the history of England there is any occasion on which a Prince standing in the position of Prince Albert Victor has not received provision adequate to the discharge of the duties of that position before he attained 26 years of age. If I refer briefly to the request which has been convoyed to Parliament for an allowance for the Princess Louise of Wales, I think I may claim that the conditions under. which that request is made appeal to the sympathies and to all the best feelings of the English people, inasmuch as we are aware that the marriage about to be contracted is not dictated by dynastic considerations, but is one of affection, and one which offers every reasonable promise of happiness to all concerned. I refrain from addressing to the House any of those considerations which have been urged on former occasions in support of the Motion. If it become necessary to do so, it will probably be when the Report of the Committee is presented to the House. All I desire to do now is to express the hope that the Resolution I have placed on the Paper will receive the unanimous support of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to second the Motion. It has been my duty to be responsible in Office for proposals within the region of the present proposed Reference. I am bound to say I regard with great satisfaction the improvement that has been
  1468
  made upon the practice pursued by former Governments, including those to which I belonged, in making proposals directly to the House of Commons in respect of the younger branches of the Royal Family without the intervention of a Parliamentary Committee. The intervention of a Committee is recommended by the important precedents when, in 1830 and 1837, the Civil Lists both of King William IV. and her present Majesty were settled; and I think that by a just and solid analogy the same considerations which recommended the appointment of a Committee in respect to the Civil List of the Sovereign likewise essentially enter into and determine the question in favour of the appointment of a Committee in cases where we make provision for the members of her illustrious family. I join in the regret that this Motion for a Committee has not been made at an earlier period. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been personally chivalrous in appropriating to himself individually the blame that may be due to the postponement of the inquiry; but it appears to me that we cannot accept that generous offer of the right hon. Gentleman. What responsibility there may be in the matter must be shared by his Colleagues. I am not able to admit that the state of business in this Session has been such as altogether to account for the delay that has taken place. At the same time, I do not propose to enter into the subject in any controversial spirit, because I join in the hope expressed by the right hon. Gentleman that the Motion may be accepted by the House with unanimity on account of the nature of its contents. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, is quite justified in observing that the period of life attained by his Royal Highness Prince Albert Victor is one which fully warrants an application on behalf of the Crown and the Prince of Wales to Parliament with reference to his future support; and likewise the other matter contained in the communication from the Crown which has led to this proposal reminds us that on this occasion, as on others, the Royal marriage which is about to take place is founded as much on affection and attachment as if it occurred in any other portion of the community. I agree that this is not an occasion on which we

  1469
  ought to enter at length upon the considerations which may recommend any particular course to be taken by the House. The Reference to the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman asks us to make is, I think, ample in breadth and imposes no undue limitation on the discretion of the Committee. I make no doubt that it will be a Committee carefully and comprehensively chosen, and one the judgment of which will carry weight with the House. The operation or method of the Committee on the occasions of 1830 and 1837 was, I think, eminently satisfactory, and, while it tends to maintain the full jurisdiction of the House and to insure the careful examination of the subject, I believe it is also more favourable to the due application of all those ideas which load us to desire that the Crown, and all that belongs to the Crown, should be maintained in due efficiency and dignity, so far as it depends on the grants of this House. With these few observations, I will only say that I very cordially join in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and in the hope that it may be accepted unanimously.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Her Majesty's Gracious Messages, and to inquire into the former practice of this House with respect to provisions for Members of the Royal Family, and to report to the House upon the principles which in that respect it is expedient to adopt in the future."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I always look with a considerable amount of suspicion on anything that emanates from the present advisers of Her Majesty, and I confess that the circumstances under which this Committee is proposed, and the delay that has taken place, only strengthen that suspicion. In 1885 a proposal was made by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) for a grant on the occasion of the marriage of the Princess Beatrice. On that occasion I opposed the grant; and one of the grounds urged by the right hon. Gentleman for making it was that the Princess Beatrice was the last child of Her Majesty, and that it was a desirable thing that a Committee should be appointed in order thoroughly to examine the whole question in regard to all possible future grants. The right hon.
  1470
  Member for Mid Lothian, speaking in May, said it was then too late in the Session for the Committee adequately to enter into so large and important a question. But now we are in the month of July, and it is somewhat surprising that if it was too late, then it should not be too late now. Unfortunately in 1886 the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian was not in a position to move for a Committee, but if it was too late to appoint one in May, it does seem strange that we should now be asked to appoint one in July. What on this occasion has been the action of the First Lord of the Treasury? I am bound to say that the First Lord of the Treasury has practised a certain amount of evasion on this subject. This is not the first Session that the right hon. Gentleman has occupied his present position. On April 15th, 1887, the right hon. Gentleman said it was his intention to appoint a Committee after Whitsuntide. On July 4th, 1887, he said the Government found it impossible to appoint the Committee until early the next Session. In 1888, again, he said the pressure of business was such that he did not see his way to appoint the Committee. In June in that year, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Robertson) he said that the subject was engaging the serious attention of the Government, and that they intended to report upon it to Her Majesty. On the 6th of August the right hon. Gentleman said that the communications between the advisers of the Crown and Her Majesty as to these grants were not concluded, but he hoped to be able to make a statement on the subject to the House early in the following Session. On the 22nd of February he said, "it is our intention"—the right hon. gentleman seems to have been paved with good intentions—"to appoint a Committee." On March 18 in the present year the right hon. Gentleman said he would proceed with the Motion as soon as the state of public business permitted; and on April 16 he stated that as soon as there was a reasonable hope of being able to proceed with the Motion he would put on the Notice Paper the terms of the reference to the pro·posed Committee. He further said that it was not a matter of urgency, as there was no immediate intention to apply to the House for a grant which would come within the definition given by the

  1471
  right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. When the Royal Message came down to the House two days ago, I myself asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether the question would be referred to a Select Committee, and what would be the terms of the Reference; and the right hon. Gentleman told me he would give an answer to-day. We only knew the terms of the Reference this morning, and the House is asked to agree to them at once. What is the position of the House in the matter at the present moment? The Royal Message invites us to provide for two of the grandchildren of the Queen. The Message has been sent down by Her Majesty no doubt by the advice of her responsible Ministers. The question, therefore, whether grants ought to be made to grandchildren of the Queen is already prejudiced. I have always understood that the Committee was to consider whether there should be such grants or not. It is to be a Select Committee, and we know there will be a majority taken from the Ministerial side on the Committee, and that that majority will be increased by friends of the Ministry sitting on the Opposition Benches; so that the real opponents of the Government will be almost an infinitesimal minority on the Committee. Then I ask the House, is it at all probable, or reasonable, to suppose that, after the First Lord of the Treasury has advised Her Majesty to ask for grants for two of her grandchildren, a Committee so constituted will enter without a foregone conclusion on the consideration of the question whether the grants ought or ought not to be made? It seems to me that that tardy fulfilment of the pledges of the right hon. Gentleman is simply an attempt to shift responsibility from the Government. Let us look at the terms of the Reference. They are large. Will the Committee carry out in their entirety these terms—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Her Majesty's Gracious Messages, and to inquire into the former practice of this House with respect to provisions for members of the Royal Family, and to report to the House upon the principles which in that respect it is expedient to adopt in the future."
  I apprehend that Her Majesty herself is a member of the Royal Family. Is the Committee to look into the Civil List as well as grants to members of the Royal
  1472
  Family? I have always contended that the Civil List is a free grant to Her Majesty to maintain the honour and dignity of the Crown. The Civil List is divided into six classes, and if there is an excess in one class and a deficit in another the excess goes to meet the deficit, but if there is an excess in one class and no deficit it is laid down that the excess shall be paid into the Treasury. Thus, if there is any money in excess of what Her Majesty deems necessary to maintain the honour and dignity of the Crown, it should be given back to the Treasury. We have a legitimate claim to ask whether there has been any excess, and, if so, what has become of it. I do not say we ought to do so, but for the fact that there is a demand for a greater amount of money. We have a right to inquire whether Her Majesty has the means to provide for her Family, and whether Her Majesty comes to the House of Commons because she has not the means to provide for her Family, or whether she asks the House to provide for Her Family because she thinks the House and not Her Majesty ought to provide for Her Majesty's Family. I take it that will come within the terms of the Reference, but as the Government will have a majority on the Committee, I will ask what the intentions of the Government are upon that matter? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to "the idea of the family," and to "sentiment." Now my own idea of a family is that the head of it keeps his children. I think I will not be accused of an undue leaning to sentiment in that idea, which is the natural idea of a family. A case must be made out to show that all the money has been expended for the honour and dignity of the country, and that there is not enough on the part of Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales to keep their children. No doubt these views have been ignored when grants have been given to the children of Her Majesty. At the present moment the grant to be considered is not one to the children of Her Majesty, but to a new generation, and if we are not now to go, into the question of whether there is already sufficient money granted to the Royal Family, I do not know under what circumstances we ought to go into it. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the Prince of Wales, and he

  1473
  said they are children of the Prince of Wales for whom this money is voted. Well, if we go back to precedents Prince Frederick of Wales only had the receipts of the Duchy of Cornwall. We now pay an annuity of £50,000 to the Prince besides £10,000 to the Princess of Wales. Up to 1838 the amount received by the Prince of Wales from the Duchy of Cornwall was £11,536, while in 1887 the amount was £60,563, so that his Royal Highness receives £49,000 per annum in excess of what Parliament anticipated would be his income when they calculated what that income should be. No doubt functions are performed by the Prince of Wales which are usually performed by the Chief of the State; but I hold that the Chief of the State should pay for that. We provide £700,000 per annum for the Royal Family. For the children of Her Majesty £200,000 per annum has been provided; that is, £194,000, and the remainder for the maintenance of the palaces they reside in. Besides that, on various occasions, such as marriages, large lump sums have been provided for members of the Royal Family. The total received by the children of Her Majesty and by the late Prince Consort has been £4,961,083, and that is a very great deal. My contention is that the children ought to have been provided for out of the Civil List. In this case we are asked to provide for the children of the Prince of Wales who ought to have been provided for out of the savings of the Civil List or by the Prince of Wales himself. I and my friends think £200,000 per annum is quite sufficient for the members of the Royal Family, exclusive of Her Majesty; a great many, including myself, think it a great deal too much, and we object to granting any more. The House will see I do not attach any great or undue importance to the Committee proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. The question has been prejudiced by the action of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Committee is a sort of sop to make the grants more palatable to the House, but I do not think it will do so. If the Committee is to command any respect, the names ought to be looked at, and if it is to go into the question in its entirety there ought not to be too many officials upon the Committee. I do not
  1474
  reject the Committee, but think it only reasonable that I should say that I and my friends look to it rather as a means of forming our own judgment on the data submitted to it; and if the inquiry is thoroughly gone into we are ready to accept the fact if it is proved that there is not sufficient money already to maintain the state and dignity of the Royal Family. We are not, however, prepared to accept the Report of that Committee, which will be a Conservative Committee, and we shall in all probability feel it our duty to contest the two Bills which will be brought in in all their stages. In conclusion, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give full notice of the names of the Committee, and whether he will give an assurance that if the Committee reports, as of course it will, in favour of granting a sum of money, the Bills will not be proceeded with until all the proceedings before the Committee are in print and submitted to the House.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I am not quite in accord with my Colleague. I do not think the terms of Reference are as large as he seems to think them. I am not at all sure the Committee would be entitled, as I desire they should, to inquire into the Civil List, or to examine whether any savings have been made or not on any of the classes. I propose, therefore, to insert after the word "the," in line 2, the words "Civil List of Her Majesty and the," so that the Reference will read—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Her Majesty's Gracious Messages, and to inquire into the Civil List of Her Majesty, and the former practice of this House—"
  and so on. All I desire is to make it clear how far this Select Committee is in fulfilment of the pledge originally given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and reiterated by the First Lord of the Treasury.
  Amendment proposed, after the word "into," to insert the words "The Civil List of Her Majesty, and."—(Mr. Brad-laugh.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. PICTON: I think the Amendment an exceedingly proper one, and I am prepared to support it, but I do not know that, even when amended,

  1475
  I shall support the Resolution as a whole. Again and again the House has been promised that the whole subject will be considered by a Select Committee before any grant is asked for. It is an invidious thing to re-consider the emoluments attached to an office when a new appointment is about to be made, and it will be a very invidious and painful thing to have these two applications to the House, with all the personal interest associated with them, laid before a Committee. I object to the Reference to the Committee, We ought to have had an open Reference so that the whole question might be considered. Under the Reference of the Government, however, the whole question will be settled and removed from the cognizance of the House of Commons for a whole generation, and the words are so constructed as to imply a continuance of the present system. I could not consent to a proposal which will give one penny more to any member of the Royal Family, except the Sovereign and the Heir Apparent. The right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues, of course, have their way in the matter. They have a majority; and if they are so misguided as to insist upon their proposal they can carry it. The House, however, ought to think of the relations between the Throne and the people, and take care not to allow any element of bitterness to be introduced into those relations. I challenge contradiction when I assert that there is positively no subject whatever which excites more indignation, more repugnance, and I will say, more abhorrence, than the practice of voting doles and dowries to members of an illustrious family, who are believed to be otherwise exceedingly well, if not extravagantly, provided for. The Government may succeed in carrying their proposal, but they will live to regret it. The Republicans, who are looked upon as a small and insignificant faction, are capable of rapidly swelling their ranks, and nothing is more likely to do it than the increase of these grants. I represent at this moment some 150,000 inhabitants of the town of Leicester, and I contend that at least three-fourths, and probably five-sixths of them, are opposed to any such proposal as that made by the Government. I believe the same may be said of Northampton, and that great centre of
  1476
  population, Birmingham. If there is anything which will revivify again the Radicalism of Birmingham, it is a proposal such as this. I defy any one to call together in any large town a meeting of independent working men and to obtain their sanction to a proposal to give any more money to any member of the Royal Family, except the Sovereign and the Heir Apparent. I therefore urge hon. Members to beware how they vote upon this subject. Besides, the present is a very inopportune time to bring the matter forward, because we are all tired out. ["No."] Hon. Members who have not been in their places do not know the fatigues of the Session. To insist that this great question should be hastily stamped when we are tired out is not what we expected from a Ministry faithful to the best interests of their country. I shall support the Amendment, but, if any one will support me, I shall go into the Lobby against the whole Resolution.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it is only due to the House that I should at once rise and state that the Government are not in a position to accept the Amendment. I have said more than once in this House when questions as to the appointment of a Committee were put to me that the Government do not contemplate an inquiry into the Civil List. We regard the Civil List as a compact with the Crown on the accession of the Sovereign, and as one which it will be an absolute breach of faith for Parliament to depart from. It is capable of revision on the demise of the Sovereign, and then will come the proper time for the consideration of the question raised by the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. Now, I wish to state most emphatically that the Reference we now propose does not, in our judgment, include an examination into the expenditure on the Civil List. I contest the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) as to the actual interpretation of the Civil List Act itself. That, however, may be a question for consideration by the Committee if it should arise. But I say distinctly that there never was a provision for any surplus of expenditure under the Civil List being paid to the Treasury. What is involved in the Civil List is that if there is a deficiency in the expenditure of the year, and Her

  1477
  Majesty is therefore unable to meet her engagements, then application is to be made to Parliament for a grant to extinguish that deficiency. But, much to the honour of Her Majesty, no such deficiency has arisen in past years and no application has been made to Parliament for assistance of that character. The hon. Gentleman thought it right to refer to the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall, and took the year 1833 from which to proceed. Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the Prince of Wales was not born in the year 1838, and that the settlement made on the Prince of Wales must have been at least 22 years after that year; and that, therefore, any provision which it was thought expedient and right by Parliament to be made then was made with a full knowledge of the then revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall, and after a full consideration of the whole of the circumstances? The hon. Member for Leicester has thought it right to address a warning to Members on this side of the House as to the feelings of the constituencies on this matter. I think it is possible he may be deceived as to the general feeling even in his own constituency, and certainly as to those constituencies with which he is not so well acquainted. I can only say that I am confident the people of this country are no less devoted to the Sovereign, and no less ready to support proposals made in moderation, after due consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, and after an examination, by a competent, and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian suggested, a representative and considerable Committee of this House, they will be no less will in g to support these proposals now than they have been in the past. I believe there never was a period when it was more universally felt that each and all of the members of the Royal Family had discharged the duties of their high station with a full sense of their responsibility.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman has stated what is undoubtedly true, that this House could not disturb the settlement of the Civil List made at the commencement of the reign, nor could the House properly undertake to determine the principle of the settlement of any future Civil List. That will be a matter for the decision of
  1478
  the Parliament by which such a settlement has to be made. In reference to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, I do not imagine that his object is to do either of those two things. If that were his object, I certainly could not agree with him, and if it be not his object, I think the Amendment is entirely unnecessary. I see nothing in the terms of the Reference to the Committee to exclude from the consideration of the subject the question of how the settlement of the Civil List at the commencement of the reign has operated as affecting these grants. If that is so, I think every legitimate object which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton contemplates is amply provided for in the terms of the Motion itself. I therefore hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The House will perhaps allow me to explain, in answer to the appeal which has been made to me, that I have no intention, by the words of the Amendment, to suggest that the Committee could or would have power to deal with the Civil List as now enacted, but I do intend that the Committee should have power to inquire what have been the savings in each branch of the Civil List, with the view of seeing whether any sum, and if so, whether a large sum, has been saved. If there has been a large saving, that might modify the opinion of the Committee as to any further provision. I am unable to acceed to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, because I have been met with the absolute refusal of the Government to allow this question to be referred to the Committee.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I do not consider it would come fairly within the Reference to the Committee to inquire whether during the 52 years the Civil List has been in operation there have been any savings.
  MR. STOREY: Holding the views I do on forms of Government, I might personally be not unwilling that such discussions as this should take place once a year or oftener, and yet I have such great regard for the public dignity of this great empire that I am perfectly willing that a Committee should

  1479
  be appointed, and that the result of the appointment should be to put things on such a basis that these discussions should cease. But the Committee ought to be a real Committee; it ought to be an unprejudiced and fair Committee, and its conclusions ought not to be prejudiced by the fact that it has to consider the specific demands now made by the Government. Referring to the particular point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, I agree with him entirely that in coming to a conclusion as to what sum of money ought to be granted to the grandchildren of the Queen, we have fairly a right, as guardians of the public purse, to take into account what are the means of the Queen. The means of the Queen are various. Her Majesty has a Civil List which is stated at £385,000 a year. We all know that the Queen does not get any such sum, and I have often thought it a little unfair—perhaps I have sometimes myself been a little unfair—to state anywhere, or let it be understood that her Majesty receives the £385,000. As a matter of fact, she receives only some £60,000 odd of the money. A great deal of the £385,000 goes most unnecessarily and improperly to a great number of personages who could well afford to do without it, but who are not ashamed to take it, for the fulfilment of offices which I, for one, confess I should feel it an indignity to my manhood to fulfil. But Her Majesty the Queen has other means. It is notorious that in various ways she has large private means. With these I have nothing to do, and I do not begrudge them to Her Majesty. I hope she will live long to enjoy them, and have more and more of them. But what I want to press home to the Liberals, and even to the Conservatives, who used to be the custodians of the purse of this country, is that since Her Majesty had the Civil List granted to her, there have been, as I suppose, and in many instances know, large savings, which have accumulated until they form an enormous sum of money, producing a considerable revenue. I charge it upon the present Ministers, and especially upon my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury—and I make the same complaint against former Ministers on the Liberal side of the House—that, whereas the accounts in every Department of the State are made
  1480
  up to the 31st of March in each year, that being the last day of the financial year, the Civil List account, in defiance of practice and against the law, is made up each year to the 31st of December. The account is never publicly audited; it is audited, but the audit never comes before the House, so as to enable hon. Members to see what balance remains at the end of the year. On the 31st of March there is no balance apparent except a floating balance which is carried forward, and which the House cannot examine or decide upon. If I am wrong, it is important that the guardians of the public purse should make the truth apparent, but I believe that large sums have been accumulated by the Queen and invested, and that in consequence of the addition thus made to her income, taking into account the proceeds of her own private means, Her Majesty is in a position to provide amply for the younger branches of the Royal Family. I do not want to say anything offensive, but I do think it is beneath the dignity of the Royal Family to come to the House of Commons for these small sums. It destroys the kindly sentiments that ought to exist between Prince and people. On the side of the Prince there ought to be nothing but the sentiment arising from services rendered, and on the side of the people the sentiment of gratitude. But we have these unfortunate calls for money made upon Parliament from time to time. From whom does the money come? If I could extract the £3,000 or £10,000 a year from hon. or right hon. Members of this House, if I knew how to obtain a direct contribution from the noble Lords in Waiting, and the Grooms of the Stole, and the other titled and untitled parsons who surround the Throne, and who pretend that it is necessary that the public should pay them, I should be perfectly willing to grant it to the Royal Family. But I am not willing, when I remember that the money comes not only from the rich and well-to-do, but that every widow in the land has to give her dole, and that the million families who, at this moment, in this country, are but one stage removed from pauperism and starvation have to contribute something, so that a Royal Prince may have £10,000 a year for doing nothing, and a Royal Princess—to whom I wish every happiness—may have £3,000 a year when she

  1481
  is going to marry a nobleman who, being in the possession himself of enormous resources, and loving his wife that is to be, surely ought to resent the notion of going to the working people and asking for a contribution towards his support. If the Committee would be untrammelled in its inquiries, I should have voted for it, but as it is to be so limited, even although the Motion has the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and his colleagues, I feel it is nothing better than a sham, and I cannot support it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I accept with becoming modesty the censure of my hon. Friend who has just sat down. He has alluded to what he describes as the illegal arrangement under which the accounts of the Civil List are made up to the 31st of December, while the accounts of the State in general are made up to the 31st of March. If we were discussing that matter I should say there was no reason in the world why the two accounts should not be made up to the same date, and I certainly should think it au inexpedient and unbecoming arrangement that the accounts of the Civil List should be presented to Parliament annually as if they were a portion of the public expenditure. But, apart from what I may think is proper, there is the law, to which my hon. Friend very properly appeals, although I am afraid he he has not read it accurately. In the Act I find a provision for bringing to the knowledge of Parliament any deficiency that may occur in the revenue from the Civil List, and that provision is to the effect that the account must be made up to the 31st of December in each year. I apprehend that if under these circumstances the accounts were up to the 31st of March that would be a breach of the law. Now, Sir, I cannot help thinking that the discussion has travelled over a very wide area, but points of undoubted importance and strict relevance have been raised. I think it would be wise to bear in mind that before a shilling of the public money can be voted, in consequence of any Report that can be made by any Committee, the proposal will have to be submitted to the House in due form and pass through all its stages. What I think is strictly relevant is that the House should be satisfied as to the discretion of the Committee, and should
  1482
  know that the Committee will not be limited in its inquiry, or be precluded from paying attention to any matter which may be considered relevant to the charge entrusted to it. I think it is somewhat hard on the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that he should be required, at a moment's notice, to give his impressions as to what the Motion does or does not contain, and it is entirely consistent with the respect we all feel for him to say that the interpretation of the Motion will not and cannot depend on the opinion which the Leader of the House or any Member of the House may hold as to the scope of its terms. The hon. Member who has just sat down contends that the Committee ought not to be precluded from examining, if it should think fit, what may be the means at the disposal of her Majesty—the means other, of course, than the Parliamentary provision of £385,000 and the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  MR. STOREY: Certainly not as regards the Duchy of Lancaster.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Then I misunderstood the hon. Member. But what I wanted to observe was that when the Committee is appointed it appears to me that any individual on the Committee will be at perfect liberty to say, I will not consent to give additional sums of public money for the support of members of the Royal Family until I have had some knowledge of what are the means already at the disposal of the Royal Family, of course including, as the Head of the Royal Family, the Sovereign herself. I am very glad to find there is an entire disclaimer in all parts of the House, and on this side of the House particularly, of any disposition to disturb the Civil List, which was a solemn compact between the Crown and Parliament, although there is a reasonable anxiety that the Committee should not be precluded from asking questions on matters which are deemed relevant to the subject. It is my most firm conviction that it is impossible to preclude them from asking such questions, and, moreover, that the substantial consideration of the means already at the disposal of the Royal Family is a matter which it is impossible, either on grounds of reason or on Constitutional grounds, or on the terms of the Reference, to exclude from the view of Members of the Committee

  1483
  who deem it their duty to put questions on the subject. In justice to the interests involved in this case I deem it my duty to make a correction of a statement which I believe was made by my hon. Friend the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I think he said that in the case of Prince Frederick of Wales the only public income possessed by that Prince was the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall. Unless I am much mistaken, he has been very much misled on the subject. In 1729 the Prince, I believe, received £24,000 out of the Civil List. In 1736 that £24,000 became £50,000 a year. In 1743 the £50,000 became £100,000 a year, in addition to the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall. At any rate this ought to be taken into view, that while the habits of society have in the course of years become more and more expensive, and, as I may say, luxurious, there has been a large decrease in the grants voted by the House for the support of the Royal Family. Unless I am very much mistaken, independent of occasional applications for assistance, of which, happily, we now hear nothing whatever, the grants in the reign of George III. to the different members of the Royal Family other than the Sovereign amounted to no less than about £500,000 a year. At the present moment I think about £170,000 is the amount actually paid. This is a liberal, but I do not think it an extravagant amount. I do not want to limit—on the contrary, I wish to assert, the title of this House to inquire into everything relevant to the subject; but I think that, among the many items of public expenditure to which hon. Members refer in giving to their constituents accounts of their conduct, there is one which can be defended—namely, that of becoming allowances to Members of the Royal Family.
  MR. LABOUCHERE, rising amid cries of "Divide," said: Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who manifest so much impatience, are, I know, going to share in the grant, as they are going to a party at Marlborough House. I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the interpretation he has given of the Reference was given on the spur of the moment, or whether the House is to understand that the matter has been discussed with the right hon.
  1484
  Gentleman's Colleagues, and the interpretation is to be regarded as a Government interpretation?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has any reason to ask me that question. What I say in this House I say with a sense of my responsibility and my duty.
  The House divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 313.—(Div. List, No. 174.)
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. STOREY: I will not trespass on the time of the House for more than a moment. I stated earlier that I should oppose the appointment of this Committee as a sham; but I am satisfied with the Division we have had, a satisfaction that is, I think, shared by all who took part in it, and so as the weather is hot and the garden party is waiting, I shall content myself with simply saying "No" to the proposal.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Her Majesty's Gracious Messages, and to inquire into the former practice of this House with respect to provisions for Members of the Royal Family, and to report to the House upon the principles which in that respect it is expedient to adopt in the future."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  Ordered, That the Messages be referred to the Select Committee.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill; that they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend and consolidate the Factors Acts." [Factors Bill.] [Lords.]

  COAL DUTIES (LONDON) ABOLITION BILL.
  Order read, and Motion made, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I rise to oppose the Bill at this its last stage, and I do not think I shall be acting unreasonably if I recall the pledges of the Government with regard to this matter at an earlier period of the Session, and show how they have been fulfilled. On the 25th March last, the hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division (Sir Joseph

  1485
  Pease) asked the First Lord the following question:—
  "Whether he had noticed that at a recent meeting of the London County Council, that Council declared its opinion, by a majority of 76 votes to 31, "That it was inexpedient to renew the London Coal and Wino Duties Act,' which was to expire in July, and the hon. Baronet asked whether her Majesty's Government were still of opinion that that Act should not be renewed."
  Now, before I give the First Lord's reply to that question I should like to point out how the hon. Baronet plays fast and loose with the County Council. At one time he puts the decision of the London Council Council on this coal question in the fore part of his argument, and at another time he tramples on the opinion of that Council with contempt. Well, this is what the First Lord of the Treasury said in reply:—
  "The Government adhere to the view that they have repeately expressed, that this is a question primarily for the decision of the Metropolis itself, and they will not, therefore, take any steps to bring about a renewal of the Act in question."
  Now, I confess I am at a loss to see how the right hon. Gentleman can honourably reconcile that pledge with the action he took a fortnight ago, and yesterday, and again to-day, having regard to the position he has given this Bill in the order of business. The plea has been put forward of urgency, amounting almost to necessity, but who is responsible for a considerable measure of the delay that has occurred? What are the facts? The Second Reading of this Bill was taken on Wednesday, May 22nd, and it was not until Friday morning of the following week that the promoter of the Bill placed upon the Notice Paper his motion for the appointment of a Committee. I have no doubt the interval was fruitfully employed. It was used, no doubt, in negotiations between the hon. Baronet on this side (Sir Joseph Pease) and the hon. Baronet who represents the City on that side (Sir R. Fowler), and also, as some of us know, in the comings and goings of the City Remembrancer and other too familiar features of the progress of the intrigue between the City of London and Members of this House. Last evening we had the advantage of hearing, besides the speech of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, who we are informed was in a minority of one on the
  1486
  Committee, speeches front the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Baumann), and the right hon. Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair). As regards the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham, who is so far as I can see not now present, I need not say much, but this I think I may say, that an hon. Member who deliberately makes the statement that the Charters of the City of London have been confirmed by statute shows that ho has not even grasped the A B C of this question. One word in regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds. I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman scarcely spoke with his usual ingeniousness. at all events I am sure he did not speak with scientific precision, for he quoted the mere gloss put by the ingenuity of a City official upon an Act of Parliament as if it were the Act of Parliament itself. We were told that these bonds for the repayment of money borrowed in connection with the Holborn Valley improvement were issued on the security of the prescriptive rights of the City. Well, what are the terms of the statute as to security? That primarily the security should be the statutory duty of four pence, and secondarily the security was to be the estates and revenues of the Corporation. Nothing is said and nothing was intended to be said at that time by either party as to alleged prescriptive rights of the Corporation. It is not my purpose to detain the House. Last night we bad the advantage of hearing what I am sure I shall have the concurrence of hon. Members in describing as the masterly treatment of the subject by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth). That speech has not been answered, and personally I retain the opinion that it cannot be answered, but as an actual fact no answer has been made to it; that speech continues to hold the field. Now, therefore, because I feel that I could not add a single word on the merits of the question so ably dealt with, I only desire further to point out that from the speech of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, and the undisguised corroboration supplied in the speeches of the hon. Member for Peckham and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, it is perfectly apparent that this Committee did not pursue the instructions given to it, that

  1487
  it did not ascertain and declare the value of the rates claimed by the Corporation of the City of London, and in the second place did not adequately investigate the mode in which the money was expended, and in the third place that it did not, except in the most slovenly and perfunctory manner, ascertain the precise amount of the debt now due. We can only protest and we do protest against this proposal on its merits, and I may say almost that we protest still more strongly against the manner in which this scheme is forced through the House.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time this day three months. I will not go over the ground already traversed by the previous speaker, but I feel it my duty once again to call attention to the manner in which the Bill is being hurried through. The fact is, it was sprung upon the House in a manner not creditable to the Government or Members on this side, who took part in the transaction. It was hustled into existence as the result of an unholy alliance between the London Corporation and some of the Northern coalowners for their own special benefit. For this reason among others I shall continue my protest. This is an unexampled case of a Bill founded on the Report of a Committee being hurried through the House of Commons, not only without Members having a copy of the evidence, but even the Report of the Committee is not attainable. I have inquired over and over again for the Committee's Report. Under other circumstances there is no difficulty in having a Report circulated among Members the following morning, but the keeping back of this Report is significant and suspicious when we remember the whip circulated among Members. There are other circumstances of an extraordinary character in connection with this Bill. The hon. Members who are promoting this Bill made up their minds to print and circulate copies of the report of the Debate on the Second Reading, but singularly enough I received only yesterday by post a copy of the report of the first Debate that took place, but the letter accompanying it was dated May 27. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch had the same treatment. All this, I venture to say, is in the nature
  1488
  of a conspiracy for the purpose of hurrying through the House a measure which is well known to be antagonistic to the great mass of the people of London, and altogether at variance with solemn pledges given by the Government in this House. I take the measure side by side with another measure which is before the House, a measure founded on the Report of a Royal Commission, one of the most important Commissions that has sat for many years, and whose Report was unanimous. In pursuance of the recommendations of that Commission the President of the Local Government Board of the day, with the Attorney General of the day, introduced a measure, for what object? For the purpose of preventing the alienation of estates belonging to this same Corporation. But for this measure we can find no opportunity. The Corporation have blocked it from time to time, and have prevented its coming on; but here is an instance of extraordinary facilities being given to a Bill to make up a deficiency for the Corporation after the money has been expended which was specifically granted by the House for the Holborn Improvement, and the deficiency has been caused by the incompetency or mismanagement of the Corporation. Land sufficient to have paid the whole of the capital expended has been suffered to lie idle for years. In one instance £15,000 was refused for land that was allowed to remain idle for something like five years, and to-day I understand the Corporation have accepted a much smaller offer than they refused five or six years ago. This is the way in which the Corporation of the City of London has been in the habit of managing its affairs. If the Corporation has not refunded the money that was handed over to them from the Coal Dues, they ought to make up the deficiency out of their own estate. Any other body would have been called on to do so. Had the Corporation of Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, or any of the other large towns of the country have been placed in a similar position, there is no doubt that they would have had to refund the money out of their own estate. Why, then, should not the Corporation of London take the same course? Let them spend less money on entertaining people in the City, and

  1489
  the money saved could be used in paying the interest, if not the capital, of the enormous amounts outstanding against them. Had the City Corporation let the matter go into the proper hands—namely, the hands of the County Council, they would have been able to pay off the remainder of the debt in a way that would have given satisfaction to the people of the Metropolis, whose industry and poverty are now to be taxed to pay the debts of what is but a small portion of the whole. I do not think it worth while to prolong the Debate, as I know that the Government, by an enormous mechanical majority, are prepared to assist the hon. Baronet who sits near me in carrying this measure through the House; but, after all, they will find that this will be stigmatized as a conspiracy on the part of the Northern coal owners and the London Corporation to tax the whole of the Metropolis to meet the deficit caused by the mismanagement of the City Authorities. I move, Sir, that the Bill be read a third time this day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out the word "now," in order to add at the end of the Question the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Howell.)
  Question proposed "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I cannot say that I at all sympathize with those who are responsible for this measure. Speaking as a Metropolitan Member, I look on the measure as one that is greatly against the interests of my constituents. As certain clauses have been inserted, I will not say to benefit, but to give fair play to existing rights in the City, I do not object to them as far as they go, although I do object to the Bill absolutely, completely, and in tots. I object to it the more strongly because—and I desire to say so in making what may be the last protest I shall have the opportunity of offering in this House against it—I think that in the past the Coal and Wine Dues have not been felt as an oppressive burden on the ratepayers of London. I do not believe, with the Royal Commission, that we shall be able to purchase our coals one farthing cheaper on account of the abolition or reduction of the impost; and there can now be no way of raising the half million that is needed, except by
  1490
  means of a rate. I am positive that I am speaking the opinions of a vast majority of my constituents when I say they have a great objection to the high rates prevailing at the present time; and therefore, on their behalf, I protest against this measure being passed by the House of Commons, nor do I think it has received that consideration which ought to have been given to it by this House. I think the question ought to have been brought before the House weeks before it was, so that the Metropolitan Members might have had the opportunity of going thoroughly into it, and of seeing whether it was the wish of the people of London that these dues should be remitted at all; for, in my opinion, they would much rather have the Coal and Wine Dues continued than pay an additional tax and have an addition made to their rents.
  MR. H. COSSHAM: I shall give my vote in support of the Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time this day three months, on these grounds:—I cannot conceive any tax that is less defensible than a tax on one of the necessaries of life, and next to a tax on food I regard a tax on coal as the most objectionable tax that could be levied. I cannot understand how the Corporation can have a right to pledge the inhabitants of the Metropolis to such a tax. Moreover, what right had the Corporation to expect that there would be a prolongation of the Coal Duty? They knew that the tax was to expire, and had no right to go beyond the limit fixed by the Act. Again, the Government have acted in a manner which I cannot but condemn in the very strongest language. We have understood from beginning to end that the Government were going to help us in putting an end to this tax. No pledge that has been given to this House or country was ever given in more explicit terms; and I oppose this Bill because I think the Government have entirely misled the House and country in assisting the framers of the measure to obtain a continuance of the Act.
  MR. ROWLANDS: I think we have every right to protest against this Bill. We were first of all treated to a suspension of the Standing Orders; we have had the whole business of the House of Commons considerably disarranged on two occasions for the purpose of

  1491
  furthering this measure, and now we are met by a conspiracy of silence on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill dare not say a word; he has entered into a compromise with the City, which is not creditable to him, whether it is creditable to the City or not. He allows the people of London to be put to the heavy charge of 4d. per ton for all the coal brought into London, and beyond this we are to be defrauded of £16,000 in addition, making £300,000 altogether, of which the inhabitants of London are to be defrauded by this measure, an amount more than equal to a twopenny rate over the whole Metropolis. And for what? What claim has the City to this? No one has attempted to put forward or justify any claim on the part of the City of London to such an impost. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Sir L. Playfair), who was Chairman of the Committee, could not tell us what the claim was except that it was under, the old Act; but the statement of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, who quoted the Act of 1846, that the City has no claim, remains unanswered, as also does the speech of my hon. learned Friend the Member for Dundee, no one on the other side of the House having ventured to take up the gauntlet the hon. Gentleman threw down. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been afraid to speak on this question, because they know the hon. Gentleman would have the right of reply, and they know that his facts and arguments are too crushing and strong for them to grapple with. We are bound hand and foot, and sold by the majority, which sides with the City Corporation, and the chief regret we have is that Members of our own Party are supporting them in such a procedure. No one has attempted to make out a case with regard to the action of the City Corporation in reference to the Holborn Valley improvement. The accounts in relation to that matter have been purposely left in the dark. Besides, it is perhaps advisable that those in charge of this Bill have not supplied the House with the evidence that has been taken on these matters. If we had that evidence I think we could make out such a case that Members on this side of the House at least would not be prepared to go on
  1492
  with a Bill which will inflict so heavy a fine on the people of London. I was glad to hear an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House, representing a Metropolitan constituency, speak out boldly against this Bill, believing it to be his duty to resist such a measure. It is true the hon. Gentleman believes in the Coal Duty as a distinct source of revenue; but that is a question apart from that before the House. I will not prolong this Debate, but I think it necessary to enter my protest against a proceeding which I regard as unjustifiably unwarrantable and corrupt.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: As I do not intend to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill I will give my reasons. As I understand the Bill, it abrogates all rights of the City of London to levy duties on any kind of coal, and it grants to the City a statutory right to levy a duty of 4d. in the pound for one year. Now, the City claims under certain Charters a clear right to levy more than 4d. per ton for an indefinite period on all sea-borne coal, and they allege that that right extends further. I may here say that I do not care one jot for the City, I never had any great love for it, and I should not mind taking away these rights without compensation, because they are rich enough to bear it—if we were in a position to do so. But as a matter of fact, unless the right to levy this 4d. per ton for one year be conceded, Parliament will not be in a position to take away the legal rights of the City. As far as my own vote goes I shall give it in favour of the Bill, because the coal trade of the county of Northumberland will be paralyzed, and great inconvenience will result in the Metropolis from the uncertainty that will arise as to what coal is liable to duty and what is not.
  MR. JAMES STUART: The whole point of the matter lies in the question whether the City has this right and is free to enforce it. We deny that it has the right, and it is on that ground that we oppose the Bill, which is to grant a continuance of the duty for another year, and even if it had the right, we deny that it has the power to enforce it. As long as the Bill did not contain this grant we were among

  1493
  its firm supporters, being glad of there being a statutory end put to what we think a claim which cannot be supported. But we oppose the Third Reading of the Bill because, in our opinion, it is a gift of £300,000 from the people of the Metropolis to the City of London. We say this, that if the City of London had had confidence in its claim, if they had a proper and satisfactorily based claim, they would not have been so ready to give it up for a year's purchase. In the Vote we are about to give, we will vote against the equivalent of a 2d. rate being taken off our constituents to pay for the debts of the City, which we do not believe were practically incurred for the benefit of Metropolitan improvements, but were largely incurred, if indeed the whole balance remaining was not incurred, for an expenditure which was purely local, and for an expenditure upon property from which the City is itself in some instances at present deriving rents.
  The House divided:—Ayes 226; Noes 106.—(Div. List, No. 174.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 187.)
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. ASHER: Before the House goes into Committee on this Bill, I rise for the purpose of moving—
  "That the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, and the Local Government (Scotland) Supplementary Provisions Bill, be referred to the some Committee; and that it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to consolidate the said Bills into one Bill."
  Although these two Bills are formally separate Bills, I think it is impossible to doubt that they practically form one measure. The subject matter of both Bills is the same, and I find that in the first clause of each Bill it is provided that the one is to be construed with the other, and the terms arid expressions in the first Bill are all interpreted by a clause occurring in the second Bill. This Motion of mine is for the double purpose of facilitating the discussion of the clauses in Committee, and in the second place to relieve those who will have the duty of administering the new system of Scotch Local Government from the inconvenience that would inevitably
  1494
  result from the Scotch Local Government Code being in two Acts instead of one. I had intended to lay before the House in some detail the grounds upon which I ask the House to adopt my Motion, but by the courtesy of my hon. Friend opposite, I learn that Her Majesty's Government, if they do not do so in the precise form I suggest, yet are prepared to give effect to my proposal by consolidating the two Bills into one. Under these circumstances I should not be justified in detaining the House by any lengthened statement. I will only say I am very glad the Government have taken this course. I cannot doubt that the consolidation of the Bills will render the passage through Committee much more smooth and easy, and also their operation when they become law.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, and the Local Government (Scotland) Supplementary Provisions Bill, be referred to the same Committee; that it be an Instruction to the Committee; that they have power to consolidate the said Bills into one Bill."—(Mr. Asher.)
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON, Bute): I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be most desirable that these two Bills should ultimately, before receiving the Royal assent, be consolidated into one. I rise for the purpose of saying, in the first place, that the Government all along intended that that course should ultimately be adopted. In the first place, we considered it would be more convenient and expedient that the House should delegate to a Committee the consideration of the second or supplementary one of the two measures, but I understand that in all parts of the House there is a general disposition to undertake the work in Committee of the whole House, and I am confident that there is a general disposition that we should put our shoulders to the wheel and pass the two Bills. Under the circumstances the necessity for separate treatment of the two Bills disappears, I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman's instruction expresses the object we have in common, and accordingly I am prepared to accept the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered—
  "That the Local Government (Scotland) Bill and the Local Government (Scotland) Supplementary Provisions Bill be committed to the same Committee."
  Ordered—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, That they have power to consolidate the said Bills into one Bill."—(Mr. Asher.)
  MR. SPEAKER: The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for Leith. In my opinion the Committee will have power to make provision for the purpose of conferring on County Councils the power to acquire land as indicated in his Motion, and the Instruction is unnecessary. Then the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries has an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for Leith to insect "and Town Councils" after the words "County Councils." That would not be within the power of the Committee without special instruction from the House, so I have thought it right to take the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries as a substantive Motion if he desires to move it in that form.
  MR. R. T. REID: I am much obliged to you, Sir, for what you have said. I intended to put my proposal as an Amendment to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith, but as his Instruction is unnecessary I will treat my Amendment as a Motion in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend's notice, substituting "Town Councils" for "County Councils." The object I have in view can be stated without occupying much time. When we come to the Committee stage I wish to introduce a clause to give to Town Councils the power of taking at a fair price lands in the vicinity of their burghs when they require such for purposes of public utility, or for the benefit of the people of the locality. Inasmuch as my hon. Friend the Member for Leith proposes to confer similar powers upon County Councils, my proposals will not in any sense weight the Bill when I ask that Town Councils shall have similar powers in this respect to County Councils. I think the case for enabling Town Councils within reasonable limitations to take lands is much stronger than the case for County Councils. There is this condition of things in some Scotch burghs, that the national expansion of
  1496
  the place is checked or almost entirely perverted by the refusal of landowners in the district to sell land for almost any purpose, in fact, what is often attempted is to strangle the burgh, and prevent its free growth, so that, as fens cannot be obtained for building, the people are obliged to live under very crowded circumstances, and we cannot get land for industrial purposes, not even on long leaseholds. In one town I could mention a specimen of its class. A great number of the houses are built on yearly leases, tenures of the most precarious kind and most unsatisfactory character. This would not be the proper time for entering upon details, and all I am now asking is that the House should enable me to raise the matter by a, suitable Amendment in Committee, and I do that with the more confidence that, taken in conjunction with the Amendment my hon. Friend will propose, it need not consume much time. It would be improper for me to enter upon the character of the clause my hon. Friend will propose to secure the end he has in view. I will merely say that I should be very glad to arrive at a solution as regards Town Councils placing all reasonable limitations on the power I would confer. The land, of course, should be paid for at a fair price, and protection should be afforded for dwellings and amenities, and any proper limitations should be provided to prevent an unwise and extravagant use of such powers by any Town Council. I am expressing the opinion of a large number of people in Scotland when I say my object is to prevent the landlord, or a few landlords in a district, being the masters of the destinies of a burgh and being able to prevent the natural expansion of the town. I would give to the Town Council, with reasonable limitations, the power to acquire land for local wants. This is the outline of what I propose to do. It is unnecessary to dwell upon it now. I wish to obtain the permission of the House to engraft on the Amendment that will be brought forward by the hon. Member for Leith, provisions for conferring like power upon Town Councils. I cannot say that I feel very sanguine as to getting the assent of the Government; but I hope they may see their way to giving me the opportunity of raising the question in Committee, which would

  1497
  cause but little expenditure of time, in deference to the strong feeling that exists in some Scotch burghs, that such a power is required.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, That they have power to make provision in the Bill for the purpose of conferring on Town Councils power to purchase land by agreement or by compulsion, for purposes of public utility, or for the benefit of the people of the locality."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: In consequence of your ruling. Sir, I will place a clause on the Amendment Paper which will deal with the point I wished to raise by my Instruction. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has reminded me of an oversight in my Motion, and that such a clause should deal with Town Councils as well as County Councils. Such a clause might be drafted in extremely simple terms, and if the Government will give us the opportunity for fair consideration of the proposal, I feel sure we might arrive at au agreement with very little loss of time. There need not be a lengthened argument. The feeling is very strong on this side of the House in favour of this principle of expropriation under certain circumstances, and with proper safeguards, and that it should be recognized in Scotland as it is in England and Ireland, but I am certain that there is every disposition to avoid a very long discussion of the point. I can from experience corroborate the truth of what my hon. and learned Friend says as to the difficulty certain burghs find in extending their area, and very often they are extended by means the reverse of natural, simply because on one side landlords absolutely decline to feu, and on the other side landlords demand an extravagant price. It is sometimes impossible for industrial undertakings to find the space necessary for their development. If the Government will only admit the principle, if it be only in the form of making a beginning to deal with the subject, it will go far to increase the popularity of this Bill, and greatly improve the conditions of life in many crowded districts.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I hope the House will not accept this Instruction, and indeed I hope my hon. and learned Friend will on consideration not
  1498
  think it necessary to press it. Really, when one contemplates the variety and magnitude of the subjects that would be covered by the Instruction, one stands aghast at the prospect of progress we should have. The present Motion before us relates to towns, and the first observation I have to make is that I thought it was by general consent of the House the Government had abstained from touching the burghs of Scotland. The Bill is confined scrupulously to dealing with the requirements of counties as distinguished from burghs. If we are to enter on the rights and privileges existing or possible of the Town Councils of Scotland I can find no limit to our labours. Further, these communities are necessarily quite different from those in counties, and this proposal would introduce into the Bill a wholly different state of organization, and an entirely different sat of subjects to be dealt with. You propose to introduce for legislation a mass of material in no way germane to the rest of the Bill. I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen to consider whether we have not got quite enough on hand, and whether it is desirable there should be an addition to the labours of the Committee by introducing a proposal in which it is impossible to see where the fertility, the ingenuity, the philanthropy of hon. Members may stop in regard to matters they might consider should be brought under such a clause. I hope we may put aside this Instruction and proceed to make progress in Committee.
  MR. FINLAY: If the question of such powers being intrusted to the bodies on whom the functions of Local Government will devolve by this Bill had been foreign t) the Bill, and beyond the power of the Committee without special instruction, I should agree with the Lord Advocate that there is much to be said against the Motion. But as I understand your ruling, Sir, it will be within the power of the Committee to consider the question how far County Councils should be empowered to acquire lands for the purposes indicated, and it does strike me as a little ridiculous that if we are to go into that subject, we should not have the power to consider how far Town Councils should have similar powers, for I apprehend there is very little occasion for such powers being used by County

  1499
  Councils, though it might sometimes happen that they would be of use, but for once they would be used by a County Council they would be used a hundred times by a Town Council. After all, all that this Motion proposes is to place it within the power of the Committee to consider the subject, and under the circumstances I confess I do not see that any harm would be done by accepting the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend. Certainly I shall vote with him if he takes a Division.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: As I have had a Motion down for the purpose of enabling Local Authorities of every description to acquire land compulsorily for purposes of public utility, I may be allowed a word or two on this subject. I very much regret that the Lord Advocate has felt compelled to resist the Motion. The Bill, after all, professes to be a Bill dealing with Local Government; it does not profess to be a Bill dealing with County Government alone, though I admit that in its scope it has been limited to County Government, as distinguished from the parishes and burghs within the area of the county. Still by its title it professes to deal with Local Government in Scotland generally, and not only so, but when our hopes on this side of the House were disappointed last year in the matter of the Burgh Police Bill, and we were denied the opportunity of effecting useful reforms in regard to the administration of burghs by that Bill, it was dropped upon the ground partly that many of the subjects included in it would find a place in the forthcoming Local Government Bill. The expectations then held out have not been fulfilled, and it would be a graceful thing for the Government to yield this point, seeing also that we are supported by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness, usually such a consistent and ardent supporter of the Government.
  MR. HUNTER: I think the Lord Advocate has adopted a somewhat exaggerated view of what is wanted. The only object we have in view is to enable the Committee, which already has the power to consider the question as it concerns County Councils, to consider how far it is possible by general language in the Bill to avoid the necessity for Local Authorities to come to Parliament on every occasion
  1500
  when necessity arises, and solicit a power such as is contemplated. The real object of the Amendment is to dispense as far as possible with private Bill legislation in regard to objects to which this proposal will be limited. It is a question of principle, and though there may be some difficulty in conceding this as regards County Councils, there can be no question of a difficulty of applying the same principle to Town Councils, if it should be adopted for County Councils. In point of fact, the same discussion that enables us to arrive at a conclusion in regard to County Councils will serve for the purposes of Town Councils without in any sensible degree enlarging the scope of the discussion. I hope the Motion may be accepted. I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in anticipating that it would greatly add to the labours of the Committee.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I am as deeply impressed as the Lord Advocate with the danger of taking too much cargo on board this ship. I am quite aware, painfully aware I may say, of the large and complex nature of the subjects with which we shall have to deal, but really I think the Lord Advocate takes an exaggerated view of the consequences of accepting this instruction. I do not think my hon. Friend behind me wishes to introduce any elaborate proposal of the kind the Lord Advocate has in his mind. The Lord Advocate saw some "chimeras dire" arising from the pregnant invention, the ingenuity and philanthropy of Scotch Members, but I think he may rely that my hon. Friends will keep their philanthropy and ingenuity within reasonable bounds. As has been well pointed out the point is to be admitted for discussion as regards counties, but it is far more applicable to the case of boroughs, and it will take no more time to make it an inclusive discussion.
  MR. S. WILLIAMSON: I sincerely hope that the Lord Advocate will yield to this expression of opinion. I could give instances from my own recollection as a young man how landlords absolutely refused to grant fens to the inhabitants of a borough, and even the comparatively more reasonable landowners took ad-

  1501
  vantage of the necessities of the town to exact most exorbitant terms. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will waive the objection to the Instruction.
  MR. MARK STEWART: My hon. Friend speaks of the time when he was a young man. I do not know exactly what time he refers to, but certainly at the present time there is every inducement to landowners and every disposition on their part to grant fens for land adjoining burghs. There may be some exceptions to the rule, but they are few, for usually the proprietors are in too impecunious a state not to take advantage of the offers of Town Councils. I can see great difficulties in the way of introducing such a proposal into the Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, Tower Hamlets,): It is not possible for the Government to give way on this matter. It involves many points beyond those touched upon by my hon. and learned Friend, though I think the considerations that have been put before the House are sufficient upon which to ask the House to reject the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling seemed to think that we might fairly and properly discuss the powers which are proposed to be given to County Councils in connection with the propriety of extending similar powers to burghs, and he did not seem to think that this would materially add to the work of the Committee. But I do not at all acknowledge, with reference to the counties and County Councils, that proposals such as have been advanced are proposals which the Committee ought to accept, or which the Government can in any way sanction. Just let us look at the proposal for a moment. One hon. Member spoke of purposes of "public utility," and that is a sufficiently wide area over which to ask the Committee to travel. It might mean almost anything the mind of man could conceive, and certainly many Members would interpret the phrase in a very wide manner, and we should find ourselves embarked on a very wide discussion. Another hon. Member referred to "the extension of burghs;" a suggestion which raises very wide and extensive issues; while a third spoke of
  1502
  conferring powers on the Town Councils "to develop the industrial resources of the burghs," and that surely is an area over which it would be very unwise to ask the Committee to travel. I do not think the House has ever given to any Public Authority, either in Scotland or England, by means of Provisional Orders, power to take land for purposes such as are suggested by hon. Members. This raises another point. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the proposal is that Parliament should be called upon to delegate powers of taking land compulsorily for practically any purposes the Local Authority proposes to take it. The hon. and learned Gentleman desires that there should be some much easier mode of obtaining land by means of compulsion than those now known to the law.
  MR. R. T. REID: It is quite true I do want to avoid the necessity of an Act of Parliament whenever a Scotch burgh wants two acres of land. I would willingly consent to all reasonable limitations to prevent any unfair use of such power.
  MR. RITCHIE: At present no Local Authority can obtain land for any purpose except by means of a Provisional Order, which is an Act of Parliament made easy.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: It has been said this is not a burning question. It is a very burning question throughout Scotland generally, and the Government will find at the next Election that this is so.
  MR. C. S. PARKER: I think it would be right to give such power as is proposed to County Councils and to Town Councils, but not without the sanction in each case of Parliament confirming a Provisional Order. It certainly would not do that whenever a Scotch burgh wants any two acres of land it should be able to take them, or that even a County Council should be able to buy out any landowner, without appeal.
  The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 126.—(Div. List, No. 176.)
  MR. DUFFrose to move—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill to grant powers to sea coast towns and villages in Scotland to raise money fur harbour purposes and fur giving collateral security for

  1503
  loans under the Harbour and Passing Tolls Act of 1861, similar to the power at present exercised by Royal, Parliamentary, and Police burghs under the Public Works Loan Act of 1882, and to create a Local Authority under the Act for this purpose."
  MR. SPEAKER: The Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Banff is, in my opinion, out of order. The Instruction treats with matters which seem to me to require separate legislation. It proposes to create bodies quite distinct from the County Councils, and confers on them powers not limited to the proposed areas of government.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 187) AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS BILL (No. 188).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 omitted.
  Clause 4.
  Amendment proposed, page 1, line 17, after "of," leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question "That this Act' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, which is, to introduce the words
  "Chairman and Councillors is to introduce what is not known in Scotland as a Chairman chosen outside the body."
  The County Council will consist of Councillors alone, and it is not necessary that the Chairman should be specially mentioned.
  Amendment proposed, page 1, line 20, leave out all after "county," to end of Clause.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The object is that there shall be a Council of which the Chairman may or may not be chosen from within the body of Council-
  1504
  lors. I hope the Committee will dismiss from their minds any impression that there is any exclusion of Councillors from the position of Chairman. All that is proposed is that the Council when they are looking round for a Chairman, shall have it within their competency to go outside, if and when they deem the best choice can be made outside. I am sure it has occurred to hon. Gentlemen that in many instances you may find a man who has ripe experience in county matters, and yet who from one circumstance or another does not come forward at the election. What can be more appropriate than that the County Council, especially in the earlier steps of its existence, and when the number of experienced men amongst the newly elected may not be very large, should have the option of securing a Chairman where he can best be found, and not necessarily from within its own ranks.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Are we to understand that if we pass the clause as it stands that is to be taken as giving an assent to the principle that the Convener of the County need not be a councillor?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: No; I would suggest that the proper plan would be to agree to the words as they stand, leaving entirely open the question whether the County Council may choose a chairman outside.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I recommend the hon. Member not to press the omission of these words, in order that we may have the matter more fully and pointedly discussed later.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I should like some explanation with regard to the difficulty we are put in by the definition clause appearing at the very end of the Bill. I should like to know what is a "county" for the purposes of this Act. Burghs are excluded by negation; but, on turning to the definition clause, I find a county is a county exclusive of any burgh, and that a burgh includes any Royal or Parliamentary burgh. There is a great difference between a Royal and a Parliamentary burgh. I understand that under the Bill the larger burghs will have no connection with the county at all. I should like to know

  1505
  whether that is so. Then I find that police burghs are not burghs; they are apparently included in the county.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This question might more directly come up on some other clause; but I am quite willing to explain now. The word "county" is defined to mean a county exclusive of any burgh, and a "burgh" is defined to be any Royal or Parliamentary burgh. The consequence is that "county" includes everything but Royal and Parliamentary burghs.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I suppose that, now that the two Bills are to be consolidated, it is unnecessary, in the view of the Government, that I should move the Amendment standing in my name, which is to leave out the words "subject to the provisions of the Acts of 1889." My original reason for putting down the Amendment was to raise the question whether all the councillors should not be elected.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I propose to leave out the words "the Acts of 1889," and to insert "this Act." I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's object will be in the least prejudiced.
  Amendment proposed, page 1, line 23 leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Question "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. FRASER MACKINTOSH: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. The Lord Advocate will see from the number of Amendments dealing with the same point that there is great diversity of opinion.
  Amendment proposed, page 1, line 27, leave out "one" and ·insert "two."—(Mr. Mackintosh.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'one' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MARK STEWART: I have an Amendment on the Paper, which provides that one or more councillors should represent each divi-
  1506
  sion, and which therefore goes further than that of my hon. Friend. I would prefer to see his carried than nothing at all, but I do not want to limit it to two Councillors. Some counties, as my own, the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright have road districts, which would make excellent districts from which to elect County Councillors, rather than by taking the parish as the unit. In the case I mention it would be desirable where there are six road districts to elect, say, five County Councillors for each district.
  MR. J. C. BOLTON: There is no indication in the Bill of the number of which the County Council will be composed, but we may draw an inference that it will be somewhat larger in number than the possible number of delegates which the parochial boards would be able to send to the District Councils. If, for example, a county consisting of 30 parishes would be able to send two delegates from each parish to the District Council, we may assume that the total number of Councillors for the whole county would be somewhat in excess of 60. Otherwise the delegates and the Parochial Board would in every District Council swamp the County Council if so disposed. I have placed an Amendment on the Paper providing that the number of Councillors should be three instead of one, and I would appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment in favour of mine.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This is a question of the greatest interest, and it deserves close consideration. The conclusion we have come to on the whole is that it is better to adhere to the plan of single-membered divisions. In the recent re-distribution of Parliamentary seats that plan was regarded as upon the whole most likely to yield fait results, and as a general principle we shall not depart from it. When I turn to the practical difficulties which have been suggested, I do not think they are as substantial as would appear at first sight. It is said we might have larger electoral districts. Well, Sir, the slight Amendment which has been already made has given much greater elasticity to the provision as to what should constitute the electoral division. There does not appear to be any reason for apprehension about your having too small a council. Considerable remonstrances have been made against having

  1507
  large County Councils, which it is considered may be too cumbrous, and I think it will be wise to have single-membered districts of such a size as will not lead to over-representation of the county. If you have more than one member in a division, I am afraid there would be frequent contests, and the expense of elections would be increased. I hope, therefore, the Committee will agree to the proposal of the Bill.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I am glad the Government have decided to stand by the provision of the Bill in this respect. Having had considerable experience of both single and double divisions, I have come clearly to the conclusion that single divisions are less expensive and the best.
  MR. HOZIER: I am sure that by providing for single-membered constituencies the Government will gratify the vast majority of the Scottish people. If you look at the other proposals you will see that the advocates of those proposals are very much divided among themselves. There are the advocates of two-membered constituencies, and they are split up because some suggest that each man should have only one vote. Then there are the advocates of three-membered constituencies, some of whom suggest that one Councillor should retire each year, but this would, of course, necessitate far too frequent elections. There are others, again, who advocate five members. I am certain that when one looks at the vast diversity of opinion among the opponents of single-membered constituencies, we may congratulate the Government on sticking firmly to their proposal.
  MR. A. ELLIOTT: There is much to be said in favour of single-membered constituencies; but I hope the County Councils will not be small bodies. I am strongly in favour of having large Councils, and letting them divide themselves into Committees, so as to carry on the work. Unless the Committees are to some extent looked after by a widely-constituted County Council, the general public will take no interest in what they are doing.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think we may on this Amendment conveniently ask whether the Government can give us any information as to the probable proportion of numbers
  1508
  and divisions, and therefore of Councillors in different counties. I am aware this clause has no immediate connection with the question of determining the boundaries of electoral divisions; but if the Lord Advocate, at all events, could give us some idea of how he proposes to allot the Councillors to each county, and whether he considers the number ought to be settled on the ground of proportion or of area, it would, I I think, be an advantage. In the Parliamentary Redistribution Act two years ago there was a general rule laid down that each Member should represent something like 50,000 inhabitants. Of course, that principle could not be rigidly maintained, but that was the principle generally acted upon; and it would be convenient for us to know whether the Government intend to proceed upon some analogous rule here. With regard to the Amendment, I am disposed to agree with what has been said on this side of the House—namely, that the Government were right in adhering to one-membered constituencies. I should think there is much to be said for three members for each district, on the supposition that the rule of one member going out each year was to be applied, as is the case in burghs. Such an arrangement would not multiply the expense of elections, which would probably be precisely the same as under the other plan. But if no arrangement about their retirement each year were made, I am altogether opposed to any proposal to make the members for a division more than one.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: In answer to the inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman as to the numbers of the County Councillors in each county, we desire to deal in the most frank manner with the House and the country. We are now endeavouring to find out what will be the number, and we shall lay on the Table of the House a scheme showing the matured views of the Government on the subject. When that is done, the Department will be happy to consider any suggestions that are made upon the schemes.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Before we part with the Bill?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Oh, certainly. We have very nearly followed the phraseology adopted in the English Act of last year as to the schemes, be-

  1509
  cause if we adopted any absolute rule it would probably break down.
  MR. FRASER MACKINTOSH: The general feeling of the Committee being in favour of retaining the number one, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  DR. CAMERON: The Lord Advocate has not replied to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) with respect to the possibility of amalgamating districts in counties and allowing each division to return three Councillors, one of them to retire each year. If my right hon. Friend had moved an Amendment on that point I should certainly have supported it.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I understood the right hon. Member for Stirling stated that he was in favour, as a first choice, of a single-member system; but that if the other plan was resorted to it would be necessary to have annual elections. I did not refer to that point, because we intend to adhere to the single-member constituencies. I think that most people in Scotland are strongly opposed to having constant elections.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to propose the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name. It is a drafting Amendment, which has been taken out of some of the other Acts of Parliament.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 2, leave out all after line 7, and insert—
  "(3.) The County Councillors shall be elected for a term of three years, and shall then retire together, and their places shall be filled by a new election, and each County Council elected under the Act shall remain in office until a new election shall take place, as provided by said Act."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am bound to say I think the words of the proposal in the Bill are extremely lucid, and I should, therefore, deprecate a change.
  DR. CLARK: I should like to hear why the Government have given up the old system of having a continuous Council by providing that one-third shall retire annually? That system has long been in operation in the burghs; and I should have thought that, from the Conservative point of view, it would have been thought better not to make this great change.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The circumstances of counties make frequent elections much more inconvenient there than in the burghs; but I think that any one who comes in contact with public feeling in Scotland on this subject must be aware that there is a growing disinclination to have frequent elections. I think it is better that the people should have rest and quiet than that there shall be a contest every year.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to move to add after "election" the words "a retiring Councillor shall be eligible for reelection."
  Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 2, line 10, after "election" to add "a retiring Councillor shall be eligible for re-election."—(Mr. Hozier.)
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I do not think my hon. Friend will find these words are necessary. There is no disqualification implied either by Common Law or by the words of this statute in regard to a man who has served office.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I will only say, in regard to the Amendment I have to move, that in Glasgow it will be considered that by this concession the Government appreciate to a certain extent the position In which parties find themselves placed, that situation being proposed to be met by an Amendment by an hon. Colleague of mine in the representation of the city.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 2, after line 10, add—
  "Provided always, that if any police burgh or electoral division shall, after the passing of this Act, be annexed to or included within the boundaries of any burgh, the Councillor or Councillors for such police burgh or electoral division shall, from and after the date when such annexation or inclusion takes effect, cease to hold office."—(Sir G. Trevelyan)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I should just like to say that in accepting the Amendment no presumption is created in regard to individual cases. The right hon. Gentleman has carefully framed his Amendment to meet a class of cases in such a way that the insertion of the

  1511
  words does not prejudice any individual case that may hereafter arise.
  SIR A. CAMPBELL: I hope that it will be thoroughly understood that if the Amendment is agreed to we are not pledged as to dealing with a case we may be asked to deal with hereafter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Before we pass from the clause it might be well to remind the Lord Advocate that the old Royal burghs are often very small.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: On that subject it is necessary for the Committee to have in mind that Royal burghs will, in some cases, be represented on the County Council where the population is under 7,000; but their representation will be for limited purposes—for police purposes, for the purposes of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act in some cases, and the representatives of such Royal burghs will only vote in reference to these subjects.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  Amendment proposed, (The Lord Advocate) line 15, after "such," insert "determination and."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. J. C. BOLTON: This clause refers to various matters to which the Secretary for Scotland is to have regard in fixing the electoral districts. I should imagine that if he had regard to population that would be sufficient. Having so many instructions it will be impossible for him to carry out some of them.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The duties the Secretary for Scotland will have to perform will be to fix the number of Councillors for the County Council, and in proportioning between the burgh representation and the rest of the county. The scheme of the Bill is that as regards the fixing of the districts the duty devolves on the Sheriff, and after the first time upon the Council; it is not in the functions of the Secretary of State. As to the various considerations presented to the view of the Secretary of State ii has been thought desirable, in deter mining the number of Councillors, that
  1512
  regard should be had to distances, area, and population, and the situation of masses of people, so that the Secretary of State should have present to his mind everything that should properly affect the fixing of the numbers.
  DR. CAMERON: It is important that we should be in possession of information roughly indicating the number of Councillors. The Secretary for Scotland is to determine the numbers, and that is equivalent to determining the electoral districts. Now, you have under the Bill most important District Councils, consisting of representatives of the parish combined with Councillors. It makes all the difference in the world to the composition of these Districts Councils whether the number of Councillors is 'large or small, for you might in some cases have the District Council swamped by the Board of Supervision, a non-representative body. We do not wish to bind the right hon. Gentleman down to any particular figure; but he might give us some general indication, so that we might reckon on the approximate strength of these Councils that are to be called into existence, say whether 20 or 50, or what number. I do not think there will be any difficulty. Surely the right hon. Gentleman has worked it out in his own mind, though, of course, the plan may require elaboration in detail? With a promise to lay down the figure more exactly at a later date, it would facilitate present discussion to have some general idea.
  MR. RITCHIE: Perhaps I may be allowed to say, having had some experience of these matters, that it is absolutely impossible to lay down any principle such as the hon. Gentleman indicates. What was done before in the English Bill was, that each county was considered by itself as regards population, area, and all other circumstances. It may be that one county will require many more representatives than another. We desire to have a good working Council for each county, and we desire, at the earliest moment, to take the House into our confidence in the matter. The scheme drawn up by the Secretary for Scotland, showing how many Members it is proposed to assign to each County Council, will be laid on the Table before this Bill leaves the House, and all representations of hon. Members

  1513
  with regard to its variation will be most carefully considered.
  DR. CAMERON: Will this scheme be scheduled in the Bill?
  MR. C. T. RITCHIE: We do not propose to do that. We propose to lay a paper on the Table of the House; and we shall consider any suggestion made by any hon. Member in reference to any particular county.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: The last question of the hon. Member for Glasgow puts in practical form a remark I was about to make. I do not think any of us have any doubt that the Government would exercise the discretion they ask for with the best intentions, and, I dare say, with successful results; but I thought when the English Bill was before the House, though, as a Scotch Member, it was not for me to make the suggestion, that it was scarcely a business-like thing for the Committee to leave to the Government the absolute discretion of saying whether the Council shall consist of five or 500 members. It is impossible for us to discuss some of the provisions of the Bill clearly unless we have some general idea of what the size of the Council is to be. Surely, instead of the paper alluded to, it would be better to have the information appended to the Bill in the form of a Schedule?
  MR. LYELL: In those counties that have adopted the Roads and Bridges Act, the most important duties discharged in the administration of county affairs are those entrusted to the Road Board. The Road Board consists of a considerable number of members, and I certainly hope that the Councils will be as large as these, and equal to provide a sufficient number of members for the different districts into which the counties are divided. Then, there are the Police Committees and the other Committees, now drawn from the Commissioners of Supply, and these will have to be furnished by the County Council. I think we ought to have some indication as to the general scope and extent of the composition of the proposed Councils.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: It might assist us if the President of the Local Government Board would tell us the average number of Committees on the English Councils?
  MR. C. T. RITCHIE: It is quite impossible to give an idea on that ground, because the sizes of English counties vary, and you may find one representative to 1,000 inhabitants or to 10,000. It is impossible to go on the basis of population. This I may say, however—that, subject to variations, in each county we had in mind the figure of 60 as the average of the number of members on a Council.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an idea of the variation of representation in electoral districts; can we say from 1,000 to 10,000?
  MR. C. T. RITCHIE: Yes; they do vary to that extent.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: And lower than 1,000 and higher than 10,000?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: The question is really this. Is the Secretary for Scotland to take the initiative, and, out of his inner consciousness, evolve some principle upon which the number in each County Council is to be fixed, and then the Sheriff is to parcel out the county into divisions corresponding to that number? That is one way of doing it. Another way would be to begin by constituting suitably sized divisions, and see how many Members would thus be required. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us if his proposal is to fix for each county a good working number of Councillors, and then adjust the divisions to that number.
  MR. C. T. RITCHIE: Yes, that is so. We first decided what the County Council is to be, and, of course, in deciding the number we had before us the variations in area of the counties and plans showing variations in population, and we endeavoured in adjusting the number of Councillors to serve, that each division of the county should have separate representation where such was called for by its circumstances.
  MR. J. C. BOLTON: It must not be forgotten that the circumstances of the two countries, England and Scotland, are not the same, and the Bills are not similar. We must bear in mind the proportion of Members for the District and Parochial Boards. It may be that in the result the Members of the Council will largely consist of nominated and not elected Members.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Of course these are matters that will necessarily enter into the consideration of those engaged in framing the scheme.
  MR. CALDWELL: It is a most material part of the Bill. The whole power may be thrown into the hands of a few individuals having large property in a county. It all depends upon how the distribution is made, whether there will be popular representation or not. I have given notice of an Amendment on this point, because I can conceive cases in which half the Members of a Council might practically be under the control of a large proprietor. It does seem to me an extraordinary proposal that we should hand over the power absolutely to the Secretary of State to determine the number and distribution of districts—and I cannot think that will be satisfactory to the people of Scotland.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: It is very natural that in all parts of the House there should be the desire to have as much information as possible on this point. I would suggest it might well be dealt with by a schedule in the Bill, fixing the number not absolutely, still approximately and with a certain latitude. I do not gather whether the Paper which the Government have offered to lay upon the Table of the House would in any way be obligatory upon the Secretary for Scotland. He might be disposed to take an entirely different view.
  DR. CLARK: I take, it that if the Secretary for Scotland were to attempt any jerrymandering of the County Council constituencies, we should have full opportunity of revising his proposals. Of course, there are many considerations to have in view in the arrangements, and I think we may leave the matter now and deal with the information with which we are supplied or Report stage, and insert a schedule then.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I am sorry the Government do not see their way to a perfectly reasonable arrangement, inserting a schedule. We certainly ought to have more information before going on with the Committee. I shall oppose the clause.
  DR. CAMERON: I shall second such opposition, for it appears to me the Government do not know quite what
  1516
  they are going to do. This is a proposal vital to the Bill, and the Government ask us to place ourselves implicitly in their hands, and to sanction some scheme that is to be laid before us by the Secretary for Scotland. What has been said by the two Members of the Government shows that they do not know what the proposals is to be. The President of the Local Government Board speaks of 60 as, the number that was in mind with the English Bill; that it was a central idea to start from, but I think it is quite clear, having reference to Clause 17 of the Supplementary Bill, that the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, if they are going to work out a scheme for the proportion of representation of District Councils and Parochial Boards, have no such idea. The right hon. Gentleman has told us of the desire of the Government to take the House into their confidence, but it seems to me we are being asked to become parties to what is called the "confidence trick." We are asked to take the matters on trust. I do not think we are treated fairly. Our constituents should have this information and the means of making representations, through us upon any part of the scheme. I think the First Lord, who often plays the part of mediator in difficulties that arise, will recognize the fairness of our contention. We do not ask for a hard and fast definition, but we ought to have before we go on with the clauses a general idea of the line on which the Government will proceed in making the distribution.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I do not think hon. Members will find there will be any delay in putting the House in possession of the views of the Government. As soon as it can be done it shall be done. We quite recognize that from time to time there should be a recurring power of revision of the numbers, and we shall propose an Amendment to provide for this through the intervention of the County Council itself. I repeat, before the Bill is out of the hands of the House, the House shall be put in full possession of our proposals, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen that full consideration will be given to every suggestion offered.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I am glad there will be power of alteration of the original number; but what we desire is

  1517
  to have the original number settled in some way by Parliament. The Paper proposed to be laid on the Table will not have the force of a statute, and the power of alteration after a number of years would not I think be sufficient.
  DR. CLARK: Perhaps, under the circumstances, the wisest course would be to postpone the clause. The Government are going to amend it.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: No, no.
  DR. CLARK: As it stands it will not affect any changes in the future.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: If we are to have single member divisions it is obvious that the number of County Councillors will be the same as the number of electoral divisions. We desire to make that clear by putting in the words "County Councillors."
  MR. BARCLAY: I would suggest that the Committee suspend its opinion on this matter until the Paper which has been spoken of is placed before us; then, if that Paper is approved of, it can be made a schedule of the Bill. That, I think, would meet the views of all parties.
  MR. RITCHIE: We will lay on the Table of the House very shortly our proposal as to the number of Members of the County Councils. My own view is that if you get a concensus of opinion in favour of a certain number, the Committee may not think it necessary to add a schedule to the Bill. It would be inconvenient to add a schedule. The number of Councillors might have to be varied, according to the circumstances of the case, subsequently; therefore, I think it would be as well not to fix upon a number. When the Paper is submitted by the Government it will be quite in the power of any hon. Member to move that it be made a schedule, though I should deprecate such a course. Of course, if there were a strong feeling in favour of it, the Government would not offer opposition.
  MR. W. SINCLAIR: It seems evident that there is a strong disposition on the part of the Committee to have the number of County Councillors settled before parting to the Secretary for Scotland with the power involved in this clause. Therefore, I would support the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) that the consideration of the clause be
  1518
  postponed until after the paper is in the hands of the Committee.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: It is the subsequent variation that I am afraid of. In the first instance the number will probably be very fairly settled, but it is proposed to give to the Secretary for Scotland au enormous power—that of varying from time to time the distribution of the power of the councils. That is a power which might be used for political purposes. The Government might well make up their minds before they decide as to the number of Members of these Parochial Boards. The number of parishes in Scotland is 1,000 which, if we have double constituencies, would give 2,000 representatives, or 60 Members to each council. Such a number as that would be impossible in counties like Ross and Clackmannan, and you would, therefore, be obliged to have more than 60 Members on the councils in the larger counties which would obviously lead to inconvenience.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 58.—(Div. List, No. 177.)
  Clause 7.
  MR. BARCLAY: The Amendment I propose is for the purpose of providing for a subsequent Amendment at the end of the clause. It is provided by the Bill that the County Councillors representing burghs, either Parliamentary or Police, should be returned by the electors at a separate election. No doubt it is provided that the election should be held at the same time as the election of Police Commissioners or Town Councillors, but the County Council election would necessitate a separate and distinct roll. In the second place, it would not be possible to hold the election at the same place, and this would involve a considerable deal of trouble to the electors. The Lord Advocate deprecated frequent elections, and I think this is altogether an unnecessary election, and apart from the trouble, expense, and annoyance, the system will work extremely badly, because one of the great objects of having representatives of boroughs in the County Council is that the County Council and local bodies may work in harmony together. But under the Bill it is quite possible that the County Councillors elected for boroughs may not be either Police

  1519
  Commissioners or Town Councillors. A most important question in the County Council will be that of the police, and it will be extremely awkward if the Provost or the Police Commissioner are not represented on the County Council. According to the provision of the Bill it might be a citizen of the burgh, who is neither a member of the Police Commission nor of the Town Council, who is returned. I think that would be extremely inconvenient and very much to be deprecated. It has hitherto been the custom by one means or another that the Provost or Chief Magistrate of the borough has been a representative of the borough on the Commission of Supply. It would be very desirable and this system should be continued, and I am very certain that it would detract from the dignity, influence, and importance of the County Council if the Provost or Chief Magistrate of the borough were not represented on the County Council. On the grounds that it would be inconvenient, expensive, and work badly, I hope that the Government will reconsider this proposal to have the County Councillors elected directly by the Councillors, and follow the old practice of Scotland by having the representatives of the boroughs on the County Council elected by the Police Commissioners or the Town Council of the borough. This would be the means of uniting the various Local Authorities together, and it would give reason to expect that they would work more harmoniously together in county affairs, if the arrangements for election were simplified.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 7, page 2, line 19, after the word "division" insert "not being a police burgh or part thereof."
  Question proposed, 'That those words be there inserted."
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I would suggest that the hon. Member should insert the words "all burghs," for the arguments he has used would apply quite as much to other burghs as to police burghs.
  MR. BARCLAY: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, Royal burghs are dealt with in a separate clause.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This is a most important point which my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire has
  1520
  raised, but perhaps it is by accident that he is first dealing with the case of police burghs. I am bound to say that I think there is a special difficulty in adopting his proposal regarding police burghs. As regards Parliamentary and Royal burghs I think the argument of the hon. Member very powerful. In the case of the Royal and Parliamentary burghs, the Bill proposes to get rid of the fresh elections, and we are all agreed that it is desirable to reduce the number of elections when the object is the same. But when you come to the Royal and Parliamentary burghs you have got the same suffrage electing the Councillors who are to elect the representatives to the County Council as would elect the representatives, supposing there were a direct election. In the police burghs you have not the same suffrage; you have got as electors merely those who pay on £4 houses, and who are on the valuation roll; so that you have not the same suffrage as in the Royal and Parliamentary burghs electing the body which returns the representative to the County Council. If you have an identical suffrage then I grant that considerations of convenience point largely to accepting the choice of the Town Council as representing the choice of the electors of the Town Council. I think there is a very strong case for the Royal and Parliamentary burghs on that ground. My impression is that the better plan would be to distinguish between police burghs and the Royal and Parliamentary burghs, and I venture to suggest that a distinction should be drawn between the Royal and Parliamentary and the police burghs, and that the police burghs should be treated as a part of the County.
  MR. BARCLAY: I think it would be a very great misfortune if the Chief Magistrate of the Police burgh were not represented on the County Council. In the meantime he is represented on the Commission of Supply, and in many cases he is by statute, a member of the Police Committee, and it would be exceedingly unfortunate if, under the new system, he wore not to have a voice in the administration of the police of his burgh. I am quite willing to admit that the franchise in the police burghs is not exactly the same as in the Parliamentary and Royal burghs,

  1521
  but we hope that by-and-bye it will be the same as in the county, and that there will be a uniform register for county and burgh. It is highly expedient that the Chief Magistrate of the Police burgh should be represented on the County Council, so that there may be harmony of administration between burgh and county. If you adhere to the proposal in the Bill it will be necessary to have an expensive register for the burgh, and the practical difficulties—whatever the theoretical ones may be—in the way are so serious that it would be much better to take the direct plan of having the chief magistrate of the police burgh represented on the County Council, as he is now represented on the Commissioners of Supply. I do not think that the theoretical difficulties suggested by the Lord Advocate are of a serious character.
  MR. CAMPBELL·BANNERMAN: This is not a very large point, but it is a very debateable one, and for my part, I think that the Lord Advocate would do well to stand by the provisions of the Bill. I start with rather a prejudice against what I would call secondary elections. Direct election I can understand, but when a certain body of men are elected Police Commissioners, and when those Commissioners elect someone out of their own number to represent them on another body, I think it is found that the persons so elected are not the most active and vigorous representatives, but probably some sleepy member who would go on from generation to generation occupying the post, and not really be of much use to the community. I prefer a livelier method of election. The Lord Advocate, no doubt, draws a distinction between the cases of the Royal, and those of the Parliamentary burghs, but when he says the constituency is the same as the County constituency, he forgets, for instance, the Franchise service.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say that we propose to put into the Bill a Franchise clause applicable to the burghs.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am very glad to hear that. I quite admit the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire, that it is desirable that the chief Magistrate, who is at present a Commissioner of supply, should be a County Councillor,
  1522
  but on the whole I think it would be safer for the Government to stand by their proposal and allow the County Council electors in these burghs to directly elect a representative.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Forfar-shire is right in his contention, and considering what the Lord Advocate said that the functions to be performed by these burghs in the County Councils are not very extensive, it is unnecessary to my mind, as the Police Commissioners are to be a purely elected body to go to the trouble and expense of specially and directly electing a representative for the County Council. But my chief contention in support of the proposal is this, to secure simplicity in the register, and I hope the Lord Advocate will make concessions in this direction. I cannot too strongly impress on the hon. and learned Gentleman the importance of getting rid of these complicated registers. I am sure it will save him and the country an immense amount of trouble if in the Burgh Police Bill he establishes such a simple Register as will answer for all purposes — for Parliamentary, Town Council, Commission, and even School Board and Parochial Board elections. There is nothing I deprecate more than this drawing distinction between Royal burgh and the Police burghs which have been created within the last few years. We must put an end to these distinctions, and I hope the Lord Advocate will not maintain these difficult complications. I quite admit the fair spirit in which the Lord Advocate has dealt with it, and in which my right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs has approached it. But is it after all worth while in the representative burghs to put the electors to the trouble of a special election for a County Councillor? Again I would urge the Lord Advocate to simplify the registers.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I rise for the purpose of explaining a matter which has escaped observation, but I should like in the first place to say a word or two on the subject of registration. The hon. Member seemed to think—and I venture to suggest erroneously—that my proposal on this matter will add to the complexity.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: No, I agree most entirely with all my right hon.

  1523
  and learned Friend said as to there being no worse complication created by the phraseology of the clause. I only hoped by a little gentle pressure to get him to do something to simplify the register.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I may be allowed to say we have altogether altered the clauses dealing with registration which were exposed to the objections raised by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire. We have re-framed them and put them into the form of a new clause. By so doing we have got rid of complexity, expense, and delay. The hon Member has selected a special point about the police burghs, but these burghs are subject to the rating of the County Councils as regards general rates. They are represented on the County Councils not for limited purposes but for the whole purposes of the Act which the County Authority administers. My observation therefore applied not to them but to the Royal and Parliamentary burghs, which are exempted from the county rates. On the question of registration the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire suggested that the result of the proposal of the hon. Member for Forfarshire would be to break up the Parliamentary register as available for the County Council register wherever the police burghs intervene. But police burghs intervene in all sorts of unexpected places, and if you have to except them from the ordinary register which governs all elections for the county, that break will be made. And may I add one or two observations about the service franchise. The Government now propose to admit servants to the franchise on the standing of the Parliamentary register, and the adoption of the Parliamentary register for that purpose affords an additional reason why it should be adopted for other purposes. These considerations are advanced merely in the interests of economy. I would gladly if possible accommodate our proposals to the views of the hon. Member, but in doing so I think we should violate the sound principles of the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling burghs has pointed out, the Committee are only accepting secondary elections in cases whether there is a direct original representation.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: Without offering any opinion adverse to
  1524
  the general scope of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, I should like to ask him one question. He objected to some of the observations of an hon. Member on this side of the House, because he said it would be necessary to carve out of the present Parliamentary Register practically a new Register for the purposes of police burghs. Now the Bill states that each police burgh is to be a separate electoral district for the purposes of the County Council. Let me take as a concrete instance, for the sake of illustration, the case of the burgh of Motherwell, in North-East Lanarkshire. At present the Parliamentary Register is made up by parishes without reference to police burghs, and, therefore, in the Bill it will be necessary in these cases to define a police burgh as an electoral district, and to make a separate register.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: If the contention were that police burghs formed part of the electoral districts, my argument would not prevail at all. But the Lord Advocate proposes that the police burgh should constitute in itself a prescribed area which is defined.
  MR. BARCLAY: It is proposed that the Chief Magistrate of large burghs of over 10,000 population shall not have any representative on the County Council. At present those Chief Magistrates have a seat on the Police Committee for the express purpose of keeping up a connection between the burgh and the county. But under this new arrangement the County Councillor may not be a member of the Police Committee. At present there is a Register for the police burgh, for the Commissioners of Police, and for the Parliamentary voters. My proposal will make no addition to them. The Police Register will continue, and so also will the Parliamentary Register; but I hope that, by and by, the Police Register for the election of Commissioners will disappear and the Parliamentary Register be used for all purposes. I wish to urge upon the Government that this is a practical question. I do not think that the theoretical question of direct representation is in this connection of any practical value, and I do hold that if the Chief Magistrates of these burghs are represented on the County Council it will tend to the harmonious working of the Borough and County Authorities and

  1525
  increase the weight and influence of the County Council.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I also object to indirect representation, but I heartily hope that the Amendment will be adopted, and that the Town Councils will be elected on the County Council in the person of the Chief Magistrate, and that there will not be a separate election. Now I should be glad if the Lord Advocate would tell us what is the real distinction in this matter between the police burghs and the smaller Royal burghs. I understand that the former are not to be absorbed in the county as regards sanitary purposes, but I do not quite understand what county rates will be imposed on police burghs which will not be imposed on the Royal burghs.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is a very agreeable duty to impart information to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy as the Bill progresses, but I hope that what I am about to say will serve once and for all. At present the police burghs are distinguished from the Royal and Parliamentary burghs so far as this question is concerned in this way. The county rates are levied over all the police burghs without regard or discrimination for any parts of the county. But the county rates are not levied in Royal and Parliamentary burghs.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Which county rates?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: If I must condescend to particulars, which, however, the hon. Member could easily obtain for himself, I should say the general county rates; and there is no subtlety or finesse in that definition. Now the Royal and Parliamentary burghs will continue to be exempted from that levy. That is a very important proposition. We propose that they shall go into the Councils only for such purposes as they are assessed for. They accordingly do not go in for the general county assessment. If we regard the Royal and Parliamentary burghs as a class by themselves, apart from their size, they will stand outside the County Council altogether, but we think that for purposes of convenience it is desirable that the smaller burghs even if they are Royal or Parliamentary burghs should come under the rule, and that the administration of the police should be concentrated, and we therefore propose that they shall be subject to certain rates, and accordingly have the privilege
  1526
  of representation. The Royal burghs will only have a limited interest in the County Council, because some of their functions are entirely independent of the county, however small the population may be. They will, however, only be represented where the population is under 7,000, and then only for limited purposes.
  MR. CALDWELL: I should hardly think it advisable that in that case the Provost should be an ex officio Member of the County Council.
  MR. W. SINCLAIR: I should strongly object to the Provosts being made ex officio members.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, clause 7, page 2, line 21, at end of Clause add "but no person shall be registered for more than one electoral division of such county."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think there is no need for this Amendment for the Bill enacts that each elector shall only have one vote. The hon. Member for the St. Rollox division will also find in our new registration clause that we introduce the old system of Parliamentary representation, and that it is impossible for the Sheriff to put the same name twice on the same register. I hope the hon. Member will regard this as a satisfactory explanation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 8, page 2, line 23, after "division" insert "of a county."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I beg to move, to add at the end of this clause the words "and no woman shall be elected to serve as a County Councillor." I think the reasons for this Amendment are obvious, and though I believe the words of the clause may convey the intention of these words, it is not at present clearly expressed. Although women are elected to serve on School Boards, I think it will be held by the majority of our fellow citizens that it would be unseemly for them to take any active part on the County Councils.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 8, page 2, line 24, after "County," add "and

  1527
  no woman shall be elected to serve as a County Councillor."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I agree with the hon. Member that this Amendment in some form or another should be adopted, and I am, therefore, quite prepared to accept the proposition. On the introduction of the Bill, I stated, without the smallest compromise or hesitation, that the intention was that women should not be eligible as County Councillors. I adhere to that view now, and am prepared, if this is considered the suitable occasion, to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member. I would suggest, however, that as I have a clause on the Paper dealing with disqualifications it may be more convenient to consider this question of women representation at that point.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As a matter of convenience I think it would be well to follow the suggestion of the Lord Advocate. The subject may best be dealt with in the disqualifications clause, and it would not be right to interpose the question in this place.
  DR. CLARK: In the clause there is a provision that certain persons may be elected, which is qualified afterwards by the use of the word "he." I shall move to insert the words "or she." There ought to be no ambiguity on this point.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: That is merely a question of construction. I repeat I do not think it would be right to raise the point now.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I should have been glad if the word "person" had been held to include the word "she," because if it had we should have had at this moment the advantage of women Councillors in London.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I wish to move an Amendment in order to get the solution of a point of extreme obscurity as to the meaning of the term Royal and Parliamentary burghs. I wish to add before burghs the word "municipal." As the clause at present stands there will arise great confusion on this point, as these burghs often overlap one another. What effect, for instance, will this clause have on the borough of Dysart, in the case of which the Royal burgh is limited, the Parliamentary burgh is more ex-
  1528
  tensive, and the Municipal burgh still more extensive.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 9, page 2, line 25, before "burghs," insert "municipal."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The plea as to Dysart is irresistible; but I cannot charge my memory just now whether it is a Royal or a Parliamentary burgh.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Both. It is a small Royal and a large Parliamentary burgh.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am not quite certain what is the population.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: The population of the Royal and Municipal burgh is about 3,000, and of the Parliamentary burgh 10,000 or 12,000.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Then the situation is this: The Bill proposes that the burghs shall be constituted according to the Rolls Act, and therefore the hon. Gentleman will know quite well how Dysart stands in this matter. I shall be happy on the appeal of the hon. Member to consider the case of Dysart, and to give readily any remedy which the hon. Member may suggest.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: It seems to me the reply of the Lord Advocate leaves the matter utterly obscure. Surely a Member who represents a considerable burgh is entitled to know whether or not the clause will affect it. The observations of the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to me that he has not considered this point, and that he is not prepared to say whether a Royal and Parliamentary burgh means a Royal burgh or a Parliamentary burgh.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I shall be glad to confer with the hon. Member, if he will be so kind as to allow me to do so, on the subject, and I feel quite certain I shall be able to satisfy him.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Then I will withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that this matter will be cleared up before we reach the Definition Clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR.CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have an Amendment to move which is not on the Paper, and it is to substitute for "census of 1881" the words "last census for the time being." A population of less than 7,000 involves the inclusion of a burgh in the county. But supposing the burgh is an increasing one, is it for all time to be deprived

  1529
  of its full powers because at the date of the Bill passing the last census available showed a population of less than 7,000? The object of my Amendment is to make the limit adaptable to changed circumstances. I hope the Lord Advocate will be disposed to agree to something in the shape of a rising or falling scale.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 9, page 2, line 25, leave out the words "census of 1881," and insert "the last census for the time being."
  MR. S.WILLIAMSON: This is a Bill for the improvement of Local Government in Scotland, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will allow it to take a wider range than it now does. I could mention the case of a burgh in which, since 1881, large works have been established, and which now has a population of 9,000 persons, but which, if the Bill becomes law, will not reap the benefits of this clause as now framed. If the Bill is to be of practical utility, I think the Amendment ought to be accepted.
  MR. CRAIG SELLAR: I am interested in a burgh, the population of which in 1881 was under 7,000. Now the population is over 9,000, and therefore the case seems to be stronger than that quoted by my hon. Friend who last spoke. I should prefer to take the precedent of the English Act and the Roads and Bridges Act, in which the population at the time of the passing of the Act was taken as the standard.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I do not know whether the Lord Advocate would care to have another case brought under his notice, but I might mention that of Portobello, which, since the Census of 1881, has passed the standard of population mentioned in this clause. It objects in the strongest manner to come under this limitation, and I therefore hope that the Lord Advocate will allow this Amendment to be accepted.
  SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL: I would urge the claim of Renfrew, one of the most ancient Royal burghs in Scotland. I believe that at the present moment that burgh is only within two or three hundred of the limit of 7,000 of population, and it is difficult to justify its exclusion from the benefits of the clause. I may add that
  1530
  I hold that the police of the burghs are better able to deal with small local disturbances, such as those which occur on Saturday nights, than are the county police I think we ought to have an elastic clause, and I trust that the Lord Advocate will give this matter his careful consideration.
  COLONEL MALCOLM: I also have a considerable interest in this point, for I believe that if, in the case of a town with which I am connected, the census had been taken at a different period of the year the population would have been returned, not at 4,000 or 5,000, but above the required 7,000. The inhabitants of the burgh, which is a police burgh, have during four or five months of the year to supply roads. water, and sanitary arrangements for a population of from 15,000 to 20,000. I therefore gladly support the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Stirling Burghs, and hold that anything should be taken as the standard rather than the Census of 1881.
  MR. SHAW-STEWART: I have the honour to represent a borough which in 1881 had a population of only 4,000, and the population of which is now over 7,000, and that is just one of those cases in which elasticity is required.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think it would be better to deal with the question in a more general way than is done in the Amendment of the hon. Member. The Government have every desire to meet the views of those who have shown their capacity to maintain a Police Force in an efficient state. I will undertake to bring up a clause on Report carrying out what I understand to be the desire of the Committee—namely, that the population at or about the time of the passing of the Act should be ascertained and that that should be the standard.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am afraid that that does not meet my view. I am not interested in any individual places, the burghs which I represent being either hopelessly small or securely large. What I want to provide for is the future—I wish to secure that places the population of which, owing to a development of industry, may suddenly rise from 3,000 or 4,000 to 10,000 or 20,000 shall come under the operation of this clause,

  1531
  and shall have the control of its own police. Surely it is only equitable and reasonable that there should be some sort of provision made to meet these cases, so that because a community did not happen to have the necessary 7,000 of population, it shall not be hopelessly excluded from the exercise of these ordinary privileges.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is one thing to preserve existing and effective organizations, and another to increase the number of those bodies. My impression is that before such new populous places as are contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman arise, there will be in the County Councils powerful and efficient popular bodies which will defy competition from smaller bodies.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. S. WILLIAMSON: I have the following Amendment on the Paper, Clause 9, page 2, line 27, after "thousand," insert—
  "Except such burghs as may have maintained an efficient police force under any local or special Act of Parliament for a period of not less than ten years prior to the passing of this Act, and such burghs as have been formed since the census of one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, the population of which shall be declared by the Sheriff of the county to be not less than seven thousand on the passing of this Act."
  As I understand the Lord Advocate intends to deal with this matter in a generous spirit, I will not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 9, page 2, line 32, leave out from "the," to end of sub-section, and insert—
  "Town Council of such burgh, at a meeting of the Town Council to be held in t he month of November, in the year appointed by this Act, for the election of County Councillors."—(Mr. Barclay.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 9, page 2, line 34, leave out Sub-section (2).
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendment proposed, Clause 9, page 2, line 38, after "years," insert—
  "Provided that his term of office as a County Councillor shall terminato when he ceases to be a Town Councillor, and the Town Council shall fill up any vacancy arising under this subsection at their first meeting after such vacancy occurs, but such appointment shall only be till the end of the next County Council Election."
  Agreed to.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: The next Amendment which stands in my name raises a matter of some importance. I wish to add at the end of the clause the words—
  "Police burghs having a population of 7,000 and upwards, shall for all the purposes of this Act, and of the Acts of 1889, be deemed to be Royal burghs."
  This Amendment does not affect a very large number of burghs, but still it affects a number sufficiently large to deserve the attention of the Committee. The Lord Advocate in the Bill has already drawn a distinction between towns having a population of under 7,000, and those with a population of over 7,000. It is proposed to make the police burghs of whatever size part and parcel of the county for all the purposes under this Act, and I desire to place them in the same position as Royal and Parliamentary burghs. Are we to be told that an important town of 60,000 inhabitants is to be made part of the county and is to receive its organization from the county because it is a police burgh, while a Royal or Parliamentary burgh of the size of a village is to receive separate representation on the County Council? The distinction between police and Royal burghs is that the former are liable to the County General Assessment levied by the Commissioners of Supply, and the latter are not, and I consider that the distinction is most pedantic. There are large towns and small towns, and common sense demands that they should be treated differently. I will take two classes of towns. In one will be found the police burghs in the suburbs of Glasgow, Kinning Park, Pollokshaws, Govan, Govanhill, Maryhill, and Partick, while in the other class are Alloa, Kirkintolloch, John-stone, Motherwell, and Wishaw. Take for instance the towns in the latter class. In the case of the police burgh of Motherwell the town has a population of 20,000, and is separated only by the Clyde from the Royal burgh of Hamilton. Is it reasonable that the two towns though nearly alike in population and importance, should be treated for all future time in an entirely different manner? The microscopic difference between the two is that the police burgh is subject to the County General Assessment, while the Royal burgh is not. Again, in the case of Govan with its population of about 60,000, are

  1533
  we to be told that that large community is to be made part and parcel of the county, is to receive its organisation from the county and is to be represented as part of a county, whereas a more village, because it happens to be a Royal burgh is to be regarded as a separate and independent community? Surely there is no reason for maintaining such an absurdity, and there can be no defence for perpetrating such an anomaly as this. I have great respect for these ancient institutions, and should be the last parson to destroy the privileges of Royal burghs, but I can see no reason why towns which have raised themselves into as high or a higher position than the Royal burghs should not be placed on at least an equal footing with them. I cannot but think that the Lord Advocate will admit the justice of my Amendment, which I now beg to move.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order The Amendment can only apply to this Act, and not to all Acts whatsoever.
  MR. CRAWFORD: Then I will make the necessary omission.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 9, page 7, at end of clause, add—
  "Police burghs having a population of seven thousand or upwards shall for all the purposes of this Act be deemed to be Royal burghs."—(Mr. Crawford.)
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment. The policy of the Government has been to take the burghs as they found them, with their respective privileges. Besides, in substance the Royal and Parliamentary burghs are outside the county, whereas the police burghs are inside the county, especially in the most vital matter of rating. We are engaged in setting up a system of county government, and it is not wise to make all manner of obstructions and subtractions from the county or to raise up fresh barriers and fresh interests in the way of the changes which may hereafter become necessary. The Amendment involves the rather startling proposition that burghs are to be deemed to be Royal burghs when in point of fact they are not. They are subjected to the County Authorities by the chief of all tests—they are rated by the county. The proposal is to pay to the police burghs a compliment which is altogether unfounded in fact. I am most reluctant to do anything to alter the status of
  1534
  burghs in this Bill. I desire to steer a perfectly even keel in the matter, and on these grounds I strenuously object to the Amendment.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I think the right hon. Gentleman has presented a most misleading case. The police burghs are not within the counties, except fur the one purpose of county general assessment. With regard to roads, bridges, police, and the whole machinery of Municipal Government, they are distinct. The distinctions on which the Lord Advocate's objections are founded are microscopical, and nobody cares a fig about the county assessment.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I really think that this is a matter on which the Lord Advocate may well give way. The distinctions drawn by the Lord Advocate are insignificant, and I hold that this is a case in which a compromise might be effected. I see no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I think my right hon. Friend might accept the Amendment. The Parliamentary burghs have a different history from the Royal burghs, but by the Act of 1832 they had somewhat similar privileges conferred upon them; and the police burghs at a later date had certain privileges conferred upon them. There is no reason why these privileges should not be extended so as to equalize the police burghs with the Royal and Parliamentary burghs in the matters in question. I hope the Government will reconsider the question.
  SIR A. CAMPBELL: There is one thing which has been forgotten by hon. Members opposite who have supported this Amendment, and that is that the police burghs in the counties will have a voice in the expenditure of the rates. The County Councils will have nothing to do within the burghs. This is a question of considerable magnitude, especially in counties like Renfrew, in which there are are other burghs that are police burghs. If you were to take out all the populous places from the county, you would leave nothing but a skeleton. It would be very hard that the counties should be bereft of the contributions from the large populous burghs whose populations to some extent are a cause of expense for police and other purposes to the county. I should be very sorry indeed to find the

  1535
  County Councils bereft of the assistance of those local bodies who have shown themselves so well able to govern their own towns. I trust that the Amendment will not be accepted and that the large police burghs will be allowed to remain in the county to assist the county in government.
  DR. CAMERON: My hon. Friend has urged as a reason why police burghs should be treated differently from Royal burghs in respect to County Government that those burghs are parts of the county. In framing the last Parliamentary Reform Bill the fact which was considered was not whether the burgh was Royal or police, but the number of the population. In disfranchising burghs never, in one instance, was a burgh spared because of its antecedents being royal or otherwise. There is a practical matter of great importance raised by this Amendment. You, Sir, have ruled that certain words that it was proposed to add to the Amendment would not be in order. I understand your ruling; but it is proposed under this Bill to transfer powers exercised by Justices of the Peace and other Authorities, to the County Councils, and among other important powers which will have to be discussed at considerable length, are the licensing functions of the county. Now, if these are transferred from the Justices of the Peace to the County Councils the question of licensing in the police burghs will be raised. At present the police burghs have no licensing power whatever. Govan, with its population of about 60,000, has no voice in the issue of new licenses, and that is a matter which occasions constant friction between the County Authorities and the inhabitants of the burgh. I remember in the neighbourhood of my own constituency — in Pollockshields — a protracted fight occurring on the licensing question. The County Authorities came in and granted licenses where they were not wanted, the Local Authorities having no power to interfere; and the same thing occurred at Hillhead. If this Amendment is carried the Police Commissioners or Magistrates in Parliamentary burghs will have precisely the same powers in regard to licensing as the Magistrates have in Royal burghs, where the licensing powers have been truly exercised for the benefit of the people. Every Scotch Member will admit that it would be
  1536
  well to give the Magistrates in police burghs the same powers as are possessed by the Magistrates in the Royal burghs.
  MR. S. WILLIAMSON: The Lord Advocate objects to the subtraction of these very few police burghs. He should recollect that by so doing he weakens the power of Local Government; and his Bill is not entitled a Bill for the improvement of Local Government, but for the improvement of County Government. He should remember that we are now suffering from congestion, and that the people cannot get the Road Trustees of the county to deal with the various proposals that come before them. I think it would be far better to stick to the idea embodied in the title of the Bill, and accept the Amendment.
  MR. CALDWELL: I oppose the Amendment for precisely the same reason that the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow supports it. He says the licensing will be transferred from the counties to the burghs, which will be created under the Amendment. But I say the Government have not the intention of transferring the licensing in the manner suggested. Certain burghs pointed out by the Lord Advocate are enfranchised only to the extent of £4, whereas other burghs have a much lower franchise. If the police burghs were turned into Royal burghs they would have all the advantages of Royal burghs without the disadvantages.
  MR. J. WILSON: The Magistrates of Govan are regulated by the Police Burghs Act, and have no power of licensing. They are responsible for the law and order of a large working class population, without the power of restraining the issue of licences. They have to take up persons who trangress the licensing laws and punish them, without possessing power to deal with the issue of the licences. I hold it to be necessary, in large and populous police burghs, that such authorities as the Magistrates and Police Commissioners of those burghs should have in their bands the granting or withholding of licences. This licensing question will have to be dealt with in a drastic manner at a very early date. As to the surrounding burghs of Glasgow, I am glad the Lord Advocate has determined to keep a free hand, and not complicate the case unneces-

  1537
  sarily. On behalf of Govan, most determined opposition would be given to any proposal for annexation to Glasgow.
  MR. ASHER: I beg to move to omit the word "Royal" from the Amendment.
  Question, "That the word Royal' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That the words Police burghs having a population of seven thousand or upwards shall for all the purposes of this Act be deemed to be burghs' be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 148.—(Div. List, No. 178.)
  Clauses, as amended, agreed to
  Clause 10.
  MR. FIRTH: I beg to move the omission of the words which render it necessary that the convener shall be elected from among the Councillors and persons qualified to be such. I desire that the convener should be elected from the widest possible area. In England you can have a chairman elected to a Corporation from outside its own body; and I venture to think that the discretion enjoyed by an English Corporation might very well be entrusted to a Scotch County Council.
  Amendment moved, Clause 10, page 2, line 42, leave out all after "council."—(Mr. Firth.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. I consider that even the qualified power which the Bill confers to go outside the Council for a Convener should be removed, and that it should in all cases be necessary to have recourse to those persons who hold a place on the Council to direct election by the people.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: The Amendment I now propose to move is, in line 14, to leave out the words "or persons qualified to be such." The effect of the Amendment, if accepted, will be to limit the selection of the convener of the Council to the members of the Council. Any power to go outside for a convener—or chairman—ought not to be allowed. If the theory is that the Council is an
  1538
  elected body, the proper course would be to require that all persons who sit on it, including the chairman, should owe their position there to the vote of the electors. This Bill seems to have been framed upon a principle which, I think, would be entirely sound if it were fully carried out — namely, to extend municipal institutions to the counties. Now, we have had great and happy experience of municipal institutions in Scotland, and the custom there is to elect the Provost or the Chief Magistrate from among the elected Councillors. I know of no reason why, if analogous institutions are to be accorded to the counties, the selection should not in like manner be made from those who have undergone the ordeal of popular election. It appears to me that the proposal of the Government involves a certain slight on the elected Councillors, and those by whom they have been elected, because it seems to imply that the County Council may possibly not contain within its own body a person fit to occupy the position of chairman. Now, I do not see why we should be asked to go outside that body if we have the means of getting a good chairman inside. We have had experience in Scotland of other elected bodies, besides Town Councils, such as the School Boards, and we know that, without exception, they elect their own chairmen from among their own number, and do not go outside. If my right hon. and learned Friend were right in supposing that there was likely to be any such paucity or poverty of talent among the elected members as would prevent their being able to find among themselves a person fitted to take the chair, I understand the proposal to make the choice as wide as possible, and doubtless it has been with this view that my hon. Friend proposes to go outside the Council altogether; but the Government propose to limit the choice to Councillors, or to persons qualified to be Councillors. If, however, a person is qualified to be a Councillor, the question arises, why is he not a Councillor? Is it intended that the chairmanship of these bodies is to be a refuge for rejected candidates? Because the person who may be selected outside the elected body must either have been rejected, which I should regard as a disqualification, or else he has not had sufficient public spirit to come forward

  1539
  and take his chance of election. So that in neither of these cases does there seem to be any strong recommendation. Every inducement should be held out for the best men to come forward as candidates at the elections, but this proposal would tend to prevent them from doing so, as it might lead them to hope that they might be elected to the office of Convener by the Council, although they had not been elected to the Council by the people. I will not take up further time, but I have thrown out these suggestions in the hope that the Government may see their way to accept of my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, to leave out the words "or persons qualified to be such."—(Mr. J. B. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) has discussed this question in a very lair and business-like spirit, as he always discusses every question that engages his attention, and I propose to follow very briefly the arguments he has put forward. This question, as he has stated, has already been discussed on its merits and with great fulness on the Second Reading of the Bill, when there was a very good exposition of the various views taken of the subject by the different sections of this House. But on the present occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan has a preliminary difficulty to settle with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth); because the hon. Member for Dundee is so impressed with the desirability of our leaving a free hand to the County Council in the election of a fit and proper person as Chairman of that body, that he is opposed to any restriction of their choice in that respect. Now, I do not suppose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan can point to a more fitting representative of liberal views on the subject of County Government than the hon. Member for Dundee, and yet the hon. Member for Dundee is in complete sympathy with the Government on this question. I would urge upon the Committee that it is most desirable and im-
  1540
  portant that we should leave an absolutely free hand to the County Councils in this matter, so that they may be able to enlarge the area of their choice should occasion require it. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan has rather under-stated the case. We, on behalf of the Government, are merely anxious, not that there should be any doubt as to the County Councils comprising within their own ranks suitable persons for the Chairmanship, but that, over and above the superabundant qualifications of the elected members, they should have some way of raising, if necessary, the standard. That, I think, is also the view of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee. It is most important that the County Councils, charged, as they will be, with so much responsibility, should not be restricted in their choice to those who might influence the selection by the fact of their being elected, but should be enabled to extend their vision so as to include all those who have statutory rights in the business concerned. Under these circumstances, and for these reasons, I cannot doubt that the Committee will refuse its assent to this Amendment.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN, The right hon. Gentleman is free to find such comfort as he may in the support of the hon. member for Dundee. But we on this side of the House have a yet stronger ground of comfort in the knowledge that our view is shared by the great mass of the Scottish people. I do not think the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will find among his countrymen many expressions of opinion of any weight or influence in favour of the view taken by himself and his Colleagues in the Government. The truth is that we stand upon the old-fashioned idea that anyone who is to be entrusted with the powers of Chairman of a great representative body ought first of all to be able to secure the confidence of the electors of the district in which he has to act. Having said that, there is no more to be said. The Lord Advocate, however, has urged that we should have the power of going outside to make our choice. My answer to that is that there will be a sufficiently wide field of choice inside the elected bodies; and I am very much afraid that if they have the power of going outside in search of some superior

  1541
  person, they will generally look for some superior person who has not the confidence of the general body of the people.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I only desire to say two or three words in support of this Amendment. Everybody with any knowledge of the management of Scotch county business is aware of the great authority possessed by the convener of the county. I do not believe the new system will make the least difference with regard to the power wielded by the person who holds that position in the County Council. I think it would immensely weaken the authority of that individual, if it be possible, as is proposed by this Bill, that he should be a person who has not undergone the ordeal of popular election. I hold it to be absolutely necessary that the conveners of the County Councils should undergo that ordeal. If we go to the question of analogy or precedent I do not think I can select a better analogy or precedent than is furnished by this House. I put it to hon. Members on both sides of the House—would any one think of selecting a Speaker, not from among the Members of this Assembly, but from the ranks of those outside, in the hope of finding some one more capable of filling the Chair than one of the Members of this House? It is for the reasons I have thus briefly given that I shall vote for the Amendment.
  MR. FINLAY: My right hon. and learned Friend who has moved this Amendment seems to have forgotten that the convener is to be elected by the Council; and I would ask why is the free choice of the Council to be restricted to those who happen to be members of the elected body? He might be a man eminently qualified for the office of convener, and yet one who has not submitted himself to the ordeal of election. Why should not the County Council be at liberty to appoint some one from the outside? I think that in this matter the Government have chosen a happy medium and have steered on an even keel between the Scylla of the hon. Member for Dundee, and the Charybdis of the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Clackmannan.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL: As every member of the County Council is to be elected, it seems to me that that
  1542
  is a strong reason why the convener should be elected. I expected to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate some substantial reason for the proposition made by the Government which he knows to be a violation of the sentiment prevalent in Scotland. The reasons given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are two. First, he agrees with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, and then he falls back on the argument that it is necessary to enable the County Council to raise the standard of fitness. I think that a more gratuitous insult could hardly be offered to any public and representative body than to assume that they will not have within their own limits a fit person to preside over their proceedings, or that they may elect some one from their own number who is not fit to fill that office. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I remember that when speaking on the introduction of this Bill the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate said there were certain outside persons connected with municipal government in England of whom we know nothing in Scotland, and that the convener came within this designation; but it seems to me it would be ridiculous that the Chief Magistrates of our burghs should be selected from persons outside the burghs. If you want to raise the standard in the case of the County Councils, it seems to me that the way to do that is by making the highest places in the Council, such as would be aimed at as worthy of the ambition of those who are candidates for the County Councils generally. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Finlay) talked about common sense. Is it common sense to have representative government; is it common sense to give the people votes; and is it common sense to have a convener who is too fine to submit himself to the suffrages of the vulgar multitude? There is too much common sense in Scotland to accept such an anomaly.
  MR. M. STEWART: I, for one, would give the County Council credit for common sense, and leave it to their option whether they elected a Convener for their own body or not. It is not made a compulsory matter. The County Council are left to act as they like. If they have a good man in the County Council by all means let

  1543
  them elect him, but if not let them select some one who will undertake the duty.
  DR. CAMERON: I have not heard a single argument in favour of the proposition. The Lord Advocate indulged in a little badinage respecting the conflict of opinion between the hon. Member for Dundee and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. B. Balfour); and the learned Member for Inverness appeared to think he had a monopoly of common sense. These are not arguments in favour of the proposition. We want to follow analogy in this matter, for upon the decision of this question will depend whether we are to have a really popular County Council representative of the electors, or a very much weakened body. There is only one way by which the opinions of the people of Scotland can be expressed, and that is by the votes of their Representatives in this House. I think it would be a pity that we should vote on the main question, which would settle the matter, and I therefore move to report Progress in order that the Government may see the strength of the Scotch Members' vote, and perhaps be led by it to re-consider the matter.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  MR. RITCHIE: I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to press his Motion to a Division. This matter has already been will discussed, and I would suggest that it would be better for the purposes of the hon. Gentleman if we took the opinion of the Committee on this question before we adjourn to-night.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Scotch Members are not likely to forget that they represent the vast majority of the Scotch electors, whose opinion, rightly or wrongly, is against this proposal; and we hope, therefore, that the Government on this, as on other points, will make some concession. But my hon. Friend suggests something in the nature of a sham fight—that we shall march into the Lobby on a Motion to report Progress, in order to show what is our opinion on this amendment. I do not think that is a satisfactory way of showing our force, and I would rather divide on the Amendment. Perhaps the Government will let what has taken place weigh with them on another stage of the Bill.
  DR. CAMERON: I would be willing to withdraw my Amendment if I could believe the Government will be affected as my right hon. Friend imagines. We cannot make much more progress to-night, and I do not see how the time at our disposal could be better occupied than by a Division which will enable the Government to know exactly how the Scotch Members vote.
  MR. RITCHIE: Surely the hon. Member sees that the Government would better ascertain how Scotch Members voted if they divided on the actual point itself.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am very sorry to be in opposition to my hon. Friend. A great many hon. Members are anxious to get this Bill along smoothly, and I must say that I should be sorry to vote for Progress where we could divide on a question which has already been sufficiently discussed. If my hon. Friend insists on reporting Progress, I am afraid he will find that he will not have in the Division a real representation of Scotch opinion.
  MR. J. BOLTON: There is a strong feeling on this subject in Scotland, and I hope the hon. Member will press his Motion to a Division.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I think the Lord Advocate might give some intimation that, seeing the bulk of the Scotch Members are clearly in favour of the Amendments, he will reconsider the matter on Report.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 159.—(Div. List, No. 179.)
  It being after midnight, the Chairman left the chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress on the Bills; to sit again to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY BILL. (No. 279.)
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.
  Motion made, "That the Bill be read a third time."—(Mr. Plunket.)
  After a few observations from Mr. BARTLEY,
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Twelve o'clock.

INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS BILL. (No. 34.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment.
TRUST COMPANIES BILL. (No. 10.)
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.
PASSENGERS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 100.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for General Bills, without Amendment; and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
SMALL DEBTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 130.)
MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I wish to ask a question of the noble Marquess of which I have give him private notice. We have all individually learnt the approaching marriage of the Princess Louise, the eldest daughter of the Prince and Princess of Wales, with a Member of your Lordships' House. The intimation has been received with even unusual interest; and I venture to say that in no place is there a warmer sympathy felt with any event
  1426
  likely to increase the happiness and add to the comfort of the Queen and of Her Majesty's Family than in this House. But, strange to say, for the first time on such an occasion, the House of Lords collectively has been entirely ignored, and no sort of official intimation of the happy event has been vouchsafed to us as a body. If I remember rightly, the Duke of Albany's marriage was announced to both Houses in the Queen's Speech, and both Houses had an opportunity in the Debate on the Address and in the Address itself to express their loyal satisfaction. Subsequently a Royal Message was addressed to both Houses on the same day, which referred to the marriage and asked the two Houses to make due provision. On the Duke of Connaught's marriage, Royal Messages announcing the fact and asking for due provision were delivered on the same day to both Houses. The day before yesterday such a Message was given to the House of Commons, and to-day both sides of that Assembly have an opportunity, which has not been afforded to us, of expressing their feelings on this occasion. I believe that the omission is entirely without precedent. If the departure from precedent were intentional, such a want of respect to the Crown and to this branch of the Legislature would require serious consideration on our part. But I am perfectly certain that such is not the case, and that the omission has arisen from regrettable inadvertence, in which case the Prime Minister will probably be glad of an opportunity to make an explanation to that effect.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The noble Earl has entirely

  1427
  crushed me with precedent; and I have at once to acknowledge that the precedents are entirely on the side of the noble Earl. There ought to have been an announcement to this House on Tuesday evening. I can only say, as was said on a more important occasion, "some one has blundered." I did not know that the Messages would he sent down to London until I got to Windsor in the middle of the day on Tuesday. As the special train was timed to arrive I should have been in time to bring them before your Lordships. But there is a special providence waiting over special trains, and that special train did not arrive to time. I have to tender my humble apologies to your Lordships for any seeming want of form or respect which was the result of that inadvertence which I regret very much should hate taken place. The Messages are now in the hands of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN.
Delivered by the Marquess of Salisbury, and read by the Lord Chancellor, as follows:
VICTORIA, R.I.,
Her Majesty, being desirous of making competent provision for the honourable support and maintenance of Her grandson, Prince Albert Victor Christian Edward, relies upon the attachment of the House of Lords to concur in the adoption of such measures as may be suitable to the occasion. V. R. I.
Ordered, that the said Message be taken into consideration to-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN.
Delivered by the Marquess of Salisbury, and read by the Lord Chancellor, as follows:
VICTORIA, R. I.,
Her Majesty having agreed to a marriage proposed between Her granddaughter, Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Victoria Alexander Dagmar, and the Right Honourable the Earl of Fife, has thought fit to communicate it to the House of Lords.
The numerous proofs which the Queen has received from the House of Lords of their loyalty to the Throne, and of their attachment to Her Person and Family, leave Her Majesty no doubt of their readiness to concur in enabling Her Majesty to make provision for Her Royal Highness. V. R. I.
Ordered, that the said Message be taken into consideration to-morrow.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL. (No. 121.)
House in Committee on recommitment (according to Order).
LORD BALFOUR, in moving the omission of Clause 14, said: The ground on which I move to omit this clause is, that in the Committee an Amendment to the next clause was carried, which will involve demands upon the Treasury, which were not contemplated when the Bill came up to your Lordships' House. I now take this course without again arguing the question on its merits, for the purpose of putting matters into such a position that the other House of Parliament if it choose can re-insert the clause in the form in which it please. It is only under these circumstances and purely upon technical grounds that I ask your Lordships to strike out the clause.
On Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill," resolved in the negative.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHcalled attention to certain words in the schedule to the Bill, which, as he understood, necessitated the examination in London of all the Inspectors under the Act, a course which would involve great inconvenience to Provincial Inspectors.
LORD BALFOUR: If the noble Marquess will put on the Paper the Amendment which he suggests I shall be glad to consider them before taking the subsequent stage of the Bill. I think the noble Marquess is not accurate in his reading of the Bill. I take it that the Board of Trade need not insist upon all the Inspectors coming up to London to be examined. There is nothing in the Bill as to where the examination shall take place, and I assume as a matter of course that they

1429
will be held at centres convenient to those who desire to undergo the examination.
Other Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended, (No. 141.)

ADVANCE NOTES TO SEAMEN BILL. (No. 93.)
House in Committee on Re-commitment (according to order): an Amend. ment made the Report thereof to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 142)

TELEPHONE AND ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANIES AND OVERHEAD WIRES
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH,in rising to call the attention of the House to the negotiations which are stated to be going on for an amalgamation of the principal telephone companies throughout the kingdom; and to move that the Post Office withhold any consent to the establishment of such a monopoly before a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament shall have considered the general conditions under which the telephone companies at present carry on their business, and the right by which either telephone or electric light companies have been establishing a gigantic public nuisance by the running of overhead wires in all directions across main thoroughfares; and to consider further whether it would not be advisable for the Government to establish a general system of telephonic communication throughout the country in connection with the work of the Post Office, said: My Lords, the subject upon which I have put down a Notice of Motion before this House is one that is not often discussed either in this House or in another place; nevertheless, it is one which is a matter of considerable importance to the country at large, and to many of us who can enjoy the advantages of modern inventions. A notice appeared in the papers some time ago that it was the intention of the principal telephone companies to amalgamate and form one large company for the purpose of carrying on the telephone system of the country generally. The history of the United Telephone Company in this country is a rather curious one, because, as a matter of fact, in the first instance
1430
when the telephone was introduced, the Government, in exercise of their rights, brought an action to establish the right to the telephone as being part of what was purchased at the time when the telegraph system was taken over, and they were successful in that litigation. The consequence of that was that an arrangement was come to between the Post Office and the Telephone Companies that the Telephone Companies should be allowed to carry on their business upon paying a royalty to the Post Office for the exercise of their rights. That system has gone on for some years. The time is now come when the patents are about to expire, that is to say, in about two years' time the principal patents under which the United Telephone Company carry on their business will become public property, and then there will be power for any company to be formed to establish telephone communication generally. It appears to me, and it has appeared, I think, to a good many people, that the opportunity is one which should not be lost for the Government to consider the attitude they mean to adopt with regard to the telephone. As a matter of fact the purchase which was made of the telegraphs has not proved a very remunerative one. In fact the telegraph was bought too dearly, and it might be supposed that the Government would not be very anxious to purchase the telephone or to encourage the telephone system in this country because it might interfere with the receipts of the telegraph. But such an argument as that is very easily met. It might as well have been said in the old days that railways were objectionable because they would interfere with the stage coaches. As a matter of fact there is no question about it that the telephone will never be a useful invention in this large and important town and throughout the country generally unless the Government are prepared to do something in the matter of taking it up. The Government, in the first place, really have the reversion of this very valuable invention. As it exists at present, the United Telephone Company have established a sort of provisional experimental system throughout London. They have a Central Station to which all the lines are conveyed, and they have, little by little and step by step to

1431
a certain extent, developed a system, which, though it is not a complete system, is more or less so far as it goes an efficient system. There are, however, immense defects still. Anyone who is in the habit of using the telephone system in London is probably aware that it is very incomplete, and that we are hardly ever able to use it, and that we have to wait a long time before we can get into communication. All this results from the fact that the Telephone Company itself has laboured under very great disadvantages. It has had great difficulty in getting way-leaves. It has had great difficulty in establishing its system and maintaining its lines of communication. In fact, it labours under the disadvantage which every private company must labour under, of not being able to establish a large network of communication without having absolute rights by which it can work. As a matter of fact, I believe that there is no real authority to control the running of overhead wires generally. The parish authorities have not got any locus standi for controlling the companies, nor, I think, has any private individual, unless he can show that his comfort is interfered with, or that his rights as a leaseholder are infringed. The consequence is that, especially in late years, wires have been running in every direction; posts and poles have been put up, and not only have the Telephone Companies run wires, but the Electric Lighting Companies are running wires all over the town and absolutely disfiguring the place, and also increasing the danger to locomotion in the case of storm, or of disturbance by snow and otherwise. Within a stone's throw of this very House there are seven great electric cables running across from the beginning of Victoria Street. This is a condition of things which appears to me, my Lords, to require some consideration. We have, as I say, come to a time when the patents of the United Telephone Company are coming to an end, and when any company will be in a position to form itself for the purpose of establishing a system in competition with that of the United Telephone Company. They will try to get way-leaves and permission from the householders to put up their posts, and we shall have more wires in every direction. What with the tele-
1432
phone lines and the electric light lines, we shall get into a system of confusion, and dangerous confusion, which will be perfectly intolerable. I really, therefore, think that we should put two propositions before this House. One is that the time has come when the whole system of telephone communication should be considered, and that it, should be considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses, whether the Government will be prepared to take into their hands, on the expiring of the patents, the working of the telephones throughout this large city. It must be remembered that this invention has been so improved that we can now telephone over an area of more than 100 miles; and, therefore, in a small country like England there is no difficulty in connecting the great main towns with one another, and, in fact, we should be enormously advantaged in business and in other ways. Such a system as this should certainly not be in the hands of private individuals. It should certainly not be in the hands of one company, and it would not be advantageous if it was in the hands of many companies. The Government alone is able to undertake this system and develop it and work it properly. It was on such a principle that the Post Office acted with regard to the Parcels Post, and most successful and admirable that arrangement has been. The same applies to this system of telephone communication, and there is no question that if this system were developed by the Government we should profit very largely by it. The second point to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is the question of these way-leaves and communications. There is no doubt that during the last few years experimental work has been carried out with the electric lighting system, and also, as I say, with regard to telephone communications, and wires are being run in various directions; and it is difficult to say whether, in the long run, some prescriptive right will not be claimed by these companies on the ground that they have enjoyed the peaceful occupation of these way-leaves for so many years, having established these lines of communication (where they are Electric Lighting Companies) under the Provisional Orders which they have obtained for the purpose of laying down their plan generally. Now, in an old

1433
town like London, which has got very narrow streets, it is perfectly impossible to lay all the electric light cables and all telegraph and telephone cables underground. In those towns where it has been done in America (and I have seen this myself), the trenches required for carrying all these cables are very large, and there is no doubt that those Electric Light Companies who have got Provisional Orders for lighting districts will be hampered very largely in having to lay their cables underground. I think it is very doubtful whether they will ever be successful in lighting their districts without having overhead wires. Therefore, in considering this question of the telephone, we are brought to consider the question of overhead wires, and in considering the question of overhead wires we have to consider both the Electric Light Companies and the Telephone Companies as well. Now, my Lords, when those Electric Lighting Acts were passed, there was no question ever raised as to how the cables were to be laid. It was assumed that something would be done, and that somehow or other the cables could be laid. But, as a matter of fact, the whole thing has been left to experiment and enterprise. With regard to telephones, the course the companies have adopted is this:—They engage a place where they can put up a post (or what is called a derrick), and they get way-leaves—that is to say, they get the consent of the neighbouring proprietors to the cables starting from those derricks, from these starting points, and then they trust to the chapter of accidents—to householders and freeholders not objecting to the wires crossing their premises afterwards. They have enormous trouble with regard to that. Sometimes they have to run these wires at night in order to be able to get their lines across unnoticed. In other cases where they have several wires running over premises, the owners of the premises have maliciously thrown the cables over and cut the wires altogether. The companies have no means of protecting themselves, because they have really no locus standi in the matter. The same thing applies to the Electric Light Companies. The Electric Light Companies run their cables as best they can. Your Lordships are aware that one of the few Electric Lighting Companies who have
1434
done real work in London—I mean that which lights the Grosvenor Gallery—are able to run overhead wires in order to supply the current. I must say myself that with the little I know of the subject I do not see how, in a town like London, where you have got such small streets, you are ever going to supply what I should call the subsidiary currents without using overhead wires. Therefore, it seems to me that a very fitting subject for your Lordships' House to consider would be, first of all, the position of the Government with regard to the telephone; and, secondly (which brings in the question of overhead communication), perhaps it would be well for your Lordships to consider what should be the regulation and the rule under which overhead wires should be permitted. There are a few things which suggest themselves with regard to it. As your Lordships are aware, in certain towns where overhead wires are carried to a very large extent great confusion and difficulty has been produced. In New York—and, in fact, in all the towns in America where all the wiring is done overhead—it was customary to run wires wherever people chose, and the consequence was that you had in some places an enormous number of telegraph and electric wires, one pole sometimes carrying 200 or 300 wires on it. When one of the wires was disused, and became what is known as a dead wire, the companies did not take them down, and the consequence was that when another company sent somebody up the pole to mend their wire, the men could not find their own wire, but got hold of the dead wires. Again, accidents occurred; men who went up the poles to attend to a telegraph wire came into contact with the electric lighting wires, and were killed by them. It is absolutely necessary that there should be rules and regulations for the control of those overhead wires, and a few simple considerations suggest themselves. One is that these lines of communication should follow the lines of the streets. Another is that the derricks—that is to say, the supports—should be of a weight calculated to carry the cables which are stretched between them. Another is that the swing of the cables should not be of excessive amount, so as to be dangerous in the case of storms and frosts. Another idea

1435
is that they should not cross main thoroughfares, except at stated points. This, and various other suggestions, would occur to anybody who has considered the subject as being extremely necessary and extremely important with regard to the question generally. I think that no better means of arriving at a working rule with regard to this matter could he suggested than by the action of a Joint Committee of both Houses. I therefore venture to place before your Lordships the Motion which I have set down on the Paper, which is that Her Majesty's Government should appoint a Committee for the purpose of considering, first of all, the relation between the Government and the Telephone Companies, and the attitude which the Government are prepared to take with regard to working the telephone system as a branch of the Post Office; and, secondly, to consider the whole question of overhead communication by wires, and to recommend rules and regulations, whether they he under the Board of Trade or otherwise, which shall apply to the swinging of wires by the Post Office or by private companies that might be authorized to employ the system.
Moved, That the Post Office withhold any consent to the establishment of a monopoly by the amalgamation of the principal telephone companies before a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament shall have considered the general conditions under which those companies at present carry on their business, and the right by which either telephone or electric light companies have been establishing a gigantic public nuisance by the running of overhead wires in all directions across main thoroughfares; and to consider further, whether it would not be advisable for the Government to establish a general system of telephonic communication throughout the country in connection with the work of the Post Office.—(The Duke of Marlborough)
The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the question which has been brought before us by the noble Duke is an important one; and, no doubt, the fact that the patents of these companies are likely to expire in a year or two makes it a question on which some definite course must be adopted. I do not think it would be desirable for me to examine the points which are in issue between the Government and the companies, because there are many matters which must be submitted to the Committee; and I should be rather pre-
1436
judging the case should it be referred to a Committee. I have only to say that the Government have no objection whatever to the inquiry which the noble Duke suggests in reference to the first part of his Motion. I am not sure whether the second part ought to be adopted as a portion of the same inquiry. It seems to me rather to belong to the jurisdiction of those who have power over the overhead lines in our thoroughfares than to the questions which are mixed up with either public communication or electric lighting. But on that I should be glad to hear the further views of the noble Duke. I think, in any case, he will find that the inquiry which he has placed before us in the first branch of his Motion is quite large enough to occupy all the time that can be obtained between this and the Prorogation, and I think for the present it would be better to confine the inquiry entirely to that point. I believe my noble Friend who represents the Board of Trade has something to say in respect to the subject of overhead wires.
LORDBALFOUR: My Lords, I wish to say a few words with regard to the second part of the Motion which the noble Duke has put upon the Paper, and with regard to that part of his speech in which, if I understood him rightly, he said that there were no conditions laid down for the regulation and possible removal of those wires which had been put up by the companies which had undertaken to supply electric lighting in different parts of the Metropolis. I venture to think that it would be extremely desirable in the future discussion of this matter to separate a little more than the noble Duke did the question of telegraph and telephone wires, and wires for the supply of electric light. I would desire to remind the House, and to call the special attention of the noble Duke to the fact, that when the Amending Bill was passing through the Houses of Parliament last year—the Bill to amend the Electric Lighting Act of 1882—special powers were conferred upon the Board of Trade for the regulation of the overhead wires of Electric Lighting Companies. The fourth section of that Act lays several distinct duties upon the Board of Trade, and amongst others the duty of making regulations regarding overhead wires for the supply of electric lighting.

1437
And, my Lords, I am authorized to tell the noble Duke and the House that those regulations are in an advanced state of preparation, and will, as soon as possible, be communicated to Parliament. My Lords, the Act of last year, to which I have already referred, so far, at any rate, as the Metropolis is concerned, to which a large part of the noble Duke's speech was directed, empowered the Board of Trade to declare to Electric Lighting Companies in the Provisional Orders under which they take power to undertake electric lighting that all overhead wires for the supply of electric lighting are to be removed within a prescribed time, and that is in process of being done as far as possible; preparations at least are being made for having that done at the proper time without undue hardship to the companies. With regard to the special company which the noble Duke mentioned, the company which has its headquarters at the Grosvenor Gallery, the noble Duke is probably aware that that company has purchased a site at Deptford at which they are preparing to conduct very extensive operations, and I believe though I am not absolutely certain on this point, that within a reasonable time it will be possible to make arrangements for the removal, at any rate, of a very large number of the overhead electric wires which are the property of that company. But with regard to telephone wires, the noble Duke is perfectly accurate in saying that the Board of Trade have no authority whatever to deal with them. That matter is, I am bound to say, in a rather unsatisfactory position on account of the decision of the Law Courts in what is known as the Wandsworth case. Up to the time of that decision it was thought by many lawyers that Local Authorities had the same power with regard to the streets that the owner of a freehold has with regard to the land which he possesses. That decision was made the subject of appeal; and upon appeal it was confirmed, so far as the point of it is material to the present discussion. It was to this effect—that the right of property which Local Authorities have with regard to the streets is a right to see that they are not obstructed, and can be properly used for the purpose of traffic; and it would be necessary, before a Local Authority could order the removal of a
1438
wire which passes through the air above the street, to prove that that wire was so placed as to obstruct the traffic and as to be directly a source of danger to the public. That is not the case with regard to the wires under ordinary circumstances; but that is the state of the law—that the Local Authority is at the present time, so far as the streets are concerned, powerless to prohibit the wires, and can scarcely do more than see that they are placed at a sufficient height not to obstruct the ordinary use of the streets.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: With regard to the remark which fell from the noble Marquess, I quite admit the accuracy of his statement that undoubtedly this subject is a very large one, and that to inquire into the adoption by the Post Office of the telephone system, and also to inquire into the question of overhead wires, would be a very large inquiry. I am fully impressed with that opinion; but the noble Marquess misapprehends me when he thinks that I suggest that the Committee should sit this year. These patents cannot fall in until two years' time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: One of them expires next year.
The DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: If a Joint Committee of the two Houses sat next year to consider this question they would have time to report to the two Houses of Parliament in time for Her Majesty's Government to introduce what measures they considered right in the matter. With regard to the remarks that fell from the noble Lord on the subject of the rights of Telephone Companies and the Electric Lighting Companies as to the running of overhead wires, it is perfectly true that the provision which was made by the Board of Trade to regulate the running overhead of electric lighting wires had escaped my observation; but I will venture to suggest that notwithstanding the scheme—which will very likely be successful—to light London from some outside part altogether, a great many difficulties will occur with regard to the minor cables. When you have brought up to London your great current of 10,000 volts you have to distribute it into the 2,000 volt currents, and you have to take 2,000 volt currents from a centre into all the different private residences, and

1439
the difficulties will be great in getting from the 10,000 volt currents to the 2,000 volt currents. These are rather technical matters; but I think that is where the difficulty will occur. With regard to the telephone wires, I was given to understand exactly what the noble Lord states, which is that there are no means of absolutely compelling the Telephone Companies in the matter of running their wires provided they do not infringe the rights of private property holders. I think, my Lords, that that really almost speaks for itself, and shows that it is absolutely necessary that Parliament should deal with these questions. I do not think there is a single town in all civilized Europe which is so behindhand—first of all in its telephone communication; and, secondly, -there is none which has been so absolutely spoiled, and is being so disfigured, by wires running in all directions than London. I therefore think that we can well appeal to Her Majesty's Government to consider this question at some favourable opportunity. I will simply point out that it appears to me that the proper course with regard to it would be that it should meet next year for the purpose of considering the question of the relation of the Government and the Telephone Companies.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will only say that the noble Duke is quite right in his suggestion that the Committee should meet; but I do not know that it would conduct its investigations with any great advantage during the fag end of the Session which remains. The first patent does expire at the beginning of December of next year; and, therefore, somehow or other, the matter should come to a conclusion before the next Session closes.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: After what has fallen from the noble Marquess I beg to withdraw the Motion and postpone it to the next Session of Parliament.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

COMMISSION OF THE PEACE IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE, rose to ask Her Majesty's Govern-
  1440
  meat for what reason a gentleman appointed to the Commission of the Peace in Ireland was charged a stamp duty of £6, while in the same circumstances there was no stamp duty charged in Scotland?
  EARL CADOGAN: I am informed that from time immemorial fees have been charged on the issue of the Commissions of the Peace in Ireland, and that these fees have been dealt with by various Acts of Parliament. The £6 at present charged is fixed by the order of the Supreme Court of Judicature, made December 26, 1877, and although popularly called a stamp duty is really a Court fee to be denoted by a Judicature fee fund stamp on the Commission, and payable to Her Majesty's Treasury. The Irish Authorities have no knowledge of the practice in regard to fees on the issue of the Commission of the Peace in Scotland.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I cannot see that the existence of an evil is any reason why it should not be remedied. The existence of this duty is an evil, and is unfair to people in Ireland.
  The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the best course would be to levy the fee in Scotland.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I am afraid that Scotland would hardly agree with the suggestion of the noble Marquess.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed: The Lord Fox ford (E. Limerick) chosen Speaker.

COAL DUTIES (LONDON) ABOLITION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a tomorrow.—(The Lord Balfour.) (No. 143.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.