Sitting of 1 August 1890

REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 342.)
(3.10.) Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [LORDS].—(No. 251.)
Lords Reason for disagreeing with certain of the Amendments made by the Commons, and the Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendments, and the Consequential Amendments to the Bill to be considered forthwith.
Lords Reason and Amendments and Consequential Amendments considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth not insist on the Amendments to which the Lords have disagreed; and doth agree to the Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendments, and to the Consequential Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill."—(Mr. Bryce.)
MR. SEXTON: As there is no notice on the Paper in reference to this Bill, I should like to know whether the alterations which were made were considerable or not?
MR. BRYCE: The Amendments related simply to technical matters. The Bill repeals certain obsolete laws, and the Amendments by the Committee of this House, and to which the Lords have disagreed, are very few and not of sufficient importance to require that we should insist upon them. In all matters of any consequence, the Lords have agreed to the Amendments made here.
Question put, and agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  INDIAN RAILWAYS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is purposed to discontinue the construction of railways on the metre gauge; whether a proposal has been made to change existing metre-gauge lines throughout India

  1529
  into broad-gauge lines; whether the Secretary of State has recently received a Despatch on the subject from the Government of India; whether he has seen the estimate of General Trevor, C.S.I, Chairman of the Southern Mahratta Railway, that this reversal of policy will probably cost about £20,000,000, as the change alone will cost £3,500 a mile; and whether he will lay Papers upon the Table relating to that subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is, No. The answer to the second paragraph is, No. To the third paragraph the answer is, Yes. The Secretary of State has received a Despatch on the question of the gauges from the Government of India. The answer to the fourth paragraph is, No, and to the last paragraph, Yes, when the correspondence is complete.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he is not aware that the reversal of policy will entail an enormous loss, amounting to many millions sterling?
  SIR J. GORST: The hon. Member refers to the fourth paragraph of the question. My answer was, No. That means that the Secretary of State has not seen the estimates of General Trevor.

  THE LUNACY ACT.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that under Section 9, Sub-section (2), of "The Lunacy Act, 1890,"there appears to be no provision for payment of the expenses incurred in the exercise of the jurisdiction therein conferred on the judicial authority; and, if so, upon whom the order for such payment should be made?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): There appears to be nothing on the subject of expenses in the section referred to by my hon. Friend, except the words which give to the judicial authority the same powers has if he were acting in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, and which provides for the remuneration of his officers. I have no authority to give a legal opinion, but I apprehend that any expenses not covered by those words must fall upon the person presenting the petition.

  THE NAVAL MANCEUVRES.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether steam colliers are to accompany any of the divisions of the Manoeuvring Squadrons for the purpose of testing and ascertaining the possibility of coaling ships at sea, or is it intended that both the supposed hostile and defending forces are to be supplied with coal as though no experimental Naval War existed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Steam colliers are assigned to each of the Manoeuvring Squadrons, and the arrangements have been devised so as to represent the actual conditions of war as far as peace manoeuvres render it possible. No special arrangements have been made for testing the coaling of ships at sea.

  TRAMWAY FAKES.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any control over the fares which may be charged by Tramway Companies having a monopoly of running their cars on the Queen's highway?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no control of any kind over the fares of stage carriages.
  MR. COX: Can these companies make any charge they like?
  MR. MATTHEWS: They can make any charge they are authorised to make by Act of Parliament.
  MR. COX: How can it be ascertained what charges they are entitled to make?
  MR. MATTHEWS: By referring to the Acts.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is in the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or in any other Department of the Executive, authority to require proprietors of tramcars and omnibuses to exhibit outside the vehicles in legible figures and letters every fare chargeable?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No such authority exists in 6 & 7 Vict., c. 86, which is the controlling Act.

  THE ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of

  1531
  State for Foreign Affairs what are the portions of the German sphere of influence in Africa, referred to in Article VIII. of the Anglo-German Agreement, within which the German Government engages under that Article to apply the Free Trade provisions of the Berlin Act of 1885?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The whole of the German sphere in East Africa, with the exception of the strip of territory on the coast, 10 miles deep, now belonging to Zanzibar.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when Great Britain is to assume the Protectorate over Zanzibar under the Anglo-German Agreement; and whether he will promise that when that Protectorate is assumed, slavery shall cease to be legal within the limits of the British Protectorate?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No date is fixed for the assumption of the Protectorate. As regards the second paragraph, it would be unjust and impolitic to demand the confiscation of domestic slaves in a Mohammedan country as soon as it is placed under British protection; but it will be our duty to guard by all means in our power against abuses, and provide for the effectual working of the Act of Brussels, which will ensure its gradual extinction.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps the Government propose to take, in assuming the Protectorate of Zanzibar, to bring gradually to an end the system of domestic slavery prevailing in the country?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The matter is occupying the attentive consideration of the Sultan and the Consul General.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that under Article VIII. of the Anglo-German Agreement, the two Powers engaged to apply the Berlin Act in all the portions of their respective spheres where the first five Articles are applicable "at the date of the present Agreement"; whether it was intended by these words to contract the two Governments, being signatories
  1532
  of the Berlin Act, out of that Act as regards territories which might come into possession or under the influence of either Power after the date of the signing of the Anglo-German Agreement; and whether under this arrangement the German Government can allow German goods to enter the mainland portion of the Zanzibar Sultanate duty free should the coast line be ceded by the Sultan, while maintaining duties which will then be differential against British trade?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: That was certainly not the intention. Great Britain and Germany have neither the wish nor the power to contract themselves out of any of the obligations of the Berlin Act. No such arrangement as that referred to in the last paragraph is practicable, as has been fully explained in other answers.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, by Article VIII. of the Anglo-German Agreement regarding freedom of trade in East Africa, permission is given to the German Government, if and when it obtains that part of the present Zanzibar Sultanate which is situate on the mainland, to establish a protective tariff there; and whether this permission will in fact have the effect of evading and cancelling the provisions of the Berlin Act of 1885, under which Great Britain and Germany bound themselves, not only to apply the Free Trade system themselves, but to use their best endeavours to have it applied in the dominions of Native Sovereigns also?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No such permission is given by the Article. Either the Treaty with Zanzibar must be maintained, or the coast must be brought under the Free Trade provision of the Act of Berlin. In either case British trade is fully protected against excessive or differential treatment. The 4th Article of the Zanzibar Treaty, which provides for perfect freedom of commerce and navigation between the contracting parties, contains this provision:—
  "The Sultan of Zanzibar binds himself not to allow or recognise the establishment of any kind of monopoly or exclusive privilege of trade within his dominions to any Government, Association, or individual."
  MR. BRYCE: Is it not the case that under Article VIII. of the Agreement

  1533
  it will be in the power of Germany, when she acquires a narrow strip of territory on the mainland, to establish a protective tariff?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Only within the limit settled by the Zanzibar Treaty or the Act of Brussels—that is, 5 per cent. in the one case, and 10 per cent. in the other.
  MR. BRYCE: Will not that permission have the effect of cancelling the provisions of the Berlin Act of 1885?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Member will, I think, perceive that that is superseded by the Act of Brussels.
  MR. SUMMERS: Have Turkey and Holland yet given in their adhesion to the Brussels Act?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Turkey has adhered. Holland has not yet given her adhesion.
  In answer to a question from Mr. O'KELLY (Roscommon) as to the adhesion of the United States,
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid: If I remember rightly, the United States took an exceptional position at the Conference.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: May I ask whether, in the event of the mainland portion of the Sultanate of Zanzibar being ceded to Germany, the statement that "trade is protected from any differential treatment there" signifies that no heavier Customs Duties will be levied upon British than upon German goods?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: That is certainly the interpretation.

  HONORARY COLONELCIES.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Honorary Colonels of regiments are not in any degree responsible for the discipline and efficiency of the regiments they are by a fiction supposed to command, and whence they draw their full pay, he will take into consideration the desirability of discontinuing this illusory title, and of granting those pensions, if at all, under some designation which shall not disguise their real significance?
  THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The hon. Member ought to be well aware that these honorary appointments are immensely prized by
  1534
  general officers; and the connection of these officers with the regiments in which they have in most cases served not infrequently in the field, is very highly appreciated by the regiments themselves. The hon. Member is also doubtless aware that the paid Honorary Colonels are an expiring class.

  FREE TRADE IN AFRICA.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the resolutions of the Brussels Conference, modifying the provisions of the Berlin Act regarding Free Trade in Africa, have come into force or will come into force at once, in the absence of an agreement of all the Powers parties to the Berlin Act?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Act provides that it shall come into force after all the ratifications shall have been deposited at Brussels. This must take place within a year at the latest. It is, consequently, not at present in force.

  THE EX-SULTAN OF PERAK.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communication has been received from the ex-Sultan Abdullah of Perak, now detained in the Seychelles Islands, requesting that he may be allowed to visit England; and what objection the Colonial Office have to that course being adopted?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): Such a communication has been received, but the Secretary of State considers that no advantage would be gained by a visit of the ex-Sultan to England; and that if he were permitted to do so, false hopes might be given to him as to any re-opening of his case.

  SAVINGS BANKS—TRADES UNIONS DEPOSITS.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in some 15 or 16 cases within a recent period Trade Unions, most of whom are registered under the Trade Union Acts, and all of whom have sick benefit, funeral

  1535
  allowance, and superannuation benefit, several of whom have accident benefit and out-of-work benefit, and some of whom have enjoyed, for from 20 to 26 years, the privilege of banking their moneys in the Post Office Savings Banks or in the, Trustee Savings Banks, have been revoked, cancelled, withdrawn, or refused; whether it is part of the settled policy of Her Majesty's Government to revoke or cancel a privilege existing without challenge for over a quarter of a century, and confirmed within the tenure of office of the present Government; and whether he will explain to the House the reason or reasons for this new departure from a practice which has conferred and is conferring so many benefits upon the members of Trade Unions throughout the country?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The question of the hon. Member raises a very important issue. Let me, in the first instance, state the law with reference to deposits by Friendly Societies. The unusual privilege of depositing funds without limit of amount has been conceded by Act of Parliament to Friendly Societies registered under the Friendly Societies Act, but not to Trade Unions. The Postmaster General only has the power under the Savings Bank Act to accept funds from Provident or Charitable Societies not "legally established Friendly Societies" with in the limits of £100 in one year, and £300 in all. Above these limits the consent of the National Debt Commissioners is required. Now, the question arises whether, by the insertion of rules which have sick or superannuation benefits, Trade Unions should be allowed to secure the privilege of depositing funds to an unlimited extent in the Government Savings Banks. Such an inclusion is, in my judgment, both contrary to law and to public policy; to law, because it is only to purely Provident or Charitable Societies that the privilege is extended; to public policy, because there is an illegitimate risk to the Public Exchequer in accepting as deposits an unlimited amount of strike money. The sudden withdrawal of such deposits might expose the State to the loss involved in selling stock at a time when the funds might be peculiarly depressed. While the number of applica-
  1536
  tions were few, the Post Office closed its eyes, and to a certain extent so did the National Debt Commissioners. The Post Office was ready to accept deposits-from any Society not flagrantly outside the legal definition. But as these applications multiplied, the matter came before me for decision, and I recognised the inexpediency of acting contrary to the letter and the spirit of the law. Hence, some applications have been refused. I believe the privilege has not been withdrawn from any branch of any Trade Union Society which has made deposits; but the acceptance of new-deposits has been refused, and I am glad that the matter should receive attention. I have before now communicated with the hon. Member for West Nottingham on the subject, and I will communicate with the hon. Member who has put the question to-day if he wishes it. I am quite ready to accept some compromise-by which a reasonable limit should be imposed, either of amount or by extending the period for notice of withdrawal, or by both. But I am not prepared to receive unlimited funds from the Trade Unions which might put the Exchequer in times of strike or commercial distress to any great disadvantage.
  MR. HOWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the special branches to which I have called attention were registered as Friendly Societies in 1883, and is he aware that the Amalgamated Society of Painters and Decorators-have more than 100 branches, and that they pay sick, funeral, accident, out of work, and other benefits? Does he not think that that fact brings it within the provisions of the, Friendly Societies Act? May I ask whether the Operative Bricklayers' Society is not also included in the list of these Friendly Societies; whether it has not, for more than 25 years, deposited money in the Post Office Savings Bank; and whether it has not branches all over the country? [Cries of"Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: lam afraid that the hon. Member is exceeding the limits of a supplementary question. He had better put the question down on the Paper.
  MR. HOWELL: I bow to your ruling, Sir; but it is a most important question, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give it his most careful consideration.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I quite appreciate the great difficulty in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be placed in being required, without notice, to answer in detail a number of questions of this kind, the particulars of which it is almost impossible he can be acquainted with at the moment. I entirely sympathise with the anxiety of my hon. Friend, but, at the same time, I think the spirit of the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to encourage us to believe that he will not grudge any amount of trouble which the careful consideration of the question will involve. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to say, either now or at some future time, whether he has ascertained that the actual or probable amounts of the deposits from Trades Unions are such as to afford a ground for the serious and solid opinion that the withdrawal of those deposits at the time of a strike would cause public inconvenience? Looking at the vast importance—and, happily, the vast importance—of the Post Office Savings Banks I am afraid that I am extremely sceptical as to whether such inconvenience would actually arise.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not say that any public inconvenience has arisen, although, no doubt, there has been a wide extension of the deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks and the Trustees Savings Banks, and there has, occasionally, been a loss to the Exchequer. But the question is whether, if the Trades Unions funds were included, more serious inconveniences might not arise. My attention has been drawn to the rapidity with which the extension of the deposits has been made, but I think I have offered to meet the difficulty fairly by undertaking to make arrangements with the representatives of Trades Unions in regard to the meeting of all ordinary claims. If such an arrangement were made, we might be able to accept these funds, but only to such a limited extent as I have suggested.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to give notice that upon the Vote for the National Debt Office I will call attention to the subject.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Reports of the Friendly Societies Registrar show that the money utilised for purposes
  1538
  which seem to meet with his disapproval are in some cases kept separately? I refer to the distinguishment of Strike Fund from Benefit Fund.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will inquire into that point. The only supplement I wish to make to the answer I have already given is, that there are £110,000,000 lying at call, and, although no insurmountable inconvenience might be occasioned by the Friendly Societies withdrawing the whole of their money in a time of pressure, there would, undoubtedly, be a certain amount of inconvenience; and that is why I suggest a limitation of the amount.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Post Office Savings Bank Department has refused to accept the transfer of moneys, deposited by the Trustees of the Camberwell Branch of the Amalgamated Society of Painters and Decorators with the Trustees of the Camberwell Savings Bank to the Post Office Savings Bank; and, if so, on what grounds the refusal is based; whether he is aware that the moneys aforesaid, amounting to £118 1s. 3d., were deposited in the Camberwell Savings Bank under the Friendly Societies' Clause, as a Friendly Society, and was entered as G 583 in the said Bank; whether the Amalgamated Society of Painters and Decorators is a Friendly Society within the meaning of the Act, and has been allowed, as such, to deposit its funds in Trustee or Post Office Savings Banks for many years, and has now deposited funds in the Post Office Savings Banks of the country; whether he is aware that this branch of the Amalgamated Society of Painters and Decorators is unable, by reason of the closing of the Camberwell Savings Bank and the refusal of the Post Office to accept the transfer of its funds, to make payments to its members for sickness, funeral, accident, out of work, and other benefits; and whether he will cause such transfer to be accepted without delay, in accordance with the existing law and practice in similar cases? The principal part of this question has already been announced, but I wish to have some further information in regard to the acceptance of the transfer of funds.
  MR. GOSCHEN: This is not a Society, as the question implies, registered under

  1539
  the Friendly Societies Act, but it is registered under the Trades Unions Act. With regard to the 4th paragraph of the question I will confer with the hon. Member and see whether an arrangement cannot be made to transfer this sum of £118. The hon. Member will see, however, that the Post Office Savings Banks Department is not the only Department that must be taken into consideration.

  CHATHAM CONVICT PRISON.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the recommendation of the visitors of Her Majesty's Convict Prison at Chatham, contained in paragraph 149 of their Report, that Durbin, the compounder of medicines, should have his case re-considered when opportunity arises, whether Durbin had been degraded and removed to another prison on the Report of the Medical Officials of Chatham Prison; and, if he has been reinstated in his former position, is he now serving in Chatham Prison, and does he compound medicines for the treason-felony prisoners confined there; has the recommendation of the visitors, contained in paragraph 13 of the Report, in respect of the Scotch prisoners, been carried out, and have they been advised that they might have letters in lieu of visits when their friends could not visit them, by reason of the long distance they would be obliged to travel; and would he apply the suggestion of the visitors to other prisoners whose friends live in Ireland or America?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir. Compounder Durbin was reduced in rank and removed to Portsmouth Prison, but subsequent investigations having satisfied the Prison Directors that he was free from blame he has been re-instated, and will be employed as compounder at Dartmoor Prison, his place at Chatham being taken by the officer now employed at Dartmoor. The recommendation in paragraph 13 has been always the practice of the prison, and a special letter, in lieu of a visit, where relatives are distant, is always granted as a matter of course on application. The rule applies to prisoners whose relatives live in Ireland or America, as well as in Scotland.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Did not a further analysis prove that the original analysis was correct, and did it justify Durbin's re-instatement?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The medicine was compounded from a store bottle and supplied to Daly, and there was no suspicion at the time that the contents had been improperly prepared.

  GROWTH OF SUGAR BEET.
  MR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the suitability of large tracts of land in Great Britain and Ireland to the growth of sugar beet; whether he is aware that the necessary capital for promoting the establishment of such an industry would be immediately forthcoming upon the ratification of the Sugar Convention, and the consequent abolition of bounties; and whether, in view of the existing agricultural depression, and the fact that few crops would give so large a profit per acre and open up such extensive employment to the agricultural population as sugar beet, Her Majesty's Government would give the matter their serious consideration?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I believe there is no doubt that there are large tracts of land suitable to the growth of sugar beet in England and Ireland. Experiments have been made from time to time in both countries, and there is ground for believing that where the climate is suitable, especially in the southern parts of England and Ireland, it can be grown with success, provided the price is sufficiently remunerative. I apprehend that capital in this country would be always forthcoming to promote the establishment of any industry which offered reliable security for a remunerative interest. I have no special information as to capital being forthcoming in this case, and whether such security would be offered by the ratification of the Sugar Convention I am really unable to say. That is a question, I think, which can only be settled by experience. It is, however, a subject of great interest. I am endeavouring to make myself more fully informed than I am at present as to the conditions required for

  1541
  the successful cultivation of sugar beet in the United Kingdom; and my hon. Friend may be assured that anything which promises a successful opening for British agriculture will at all times command my serious attention.

  THE CESSION OF THE GAMBIA.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that when it was under consideration to cede the Gambia to France in 1870, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made specific reservation that no cession of that territory could be made without the consent of Parliament, and subsequently alluded to the introduction of a Bill necessary for that purpose; and whether these circumstances were considered by Her Majesty's Government when they introduced the Bill for the cession of Heligoland?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes, Sir; the answer to both questions is in the affirmative.

  BRITISH GUIANA—THE LATE MR. BE SOUZA.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to a Despatch from Lord Knutsford to Viscount Gormanston, then Governor of British Guiana, dated 4th September, 1889, which contained the following-statements—
  "I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Despatch, No. 282, of the 29th July, enclosing a letter from Sir B. Chalmers on the subject of the Appeal of the late Mr. Be Souza to the Queen in Council. I consider that the payment of the fine of 500 dols, imposed on Mr. Be Souza ought not to he enforced against his estate, and that notice of the decision not to enforce it should be given to his executors,"
  whether the Sir D. Chalmers therein referred to is the Chief Justice of the Colony who sentenced Mr. De Souza to fine and imprisonment, and against whose sentence the appeal above' referred to was pending; whether the letter alleged to have been written by the said Sir D. Chalmers on the subject of the appeal in question was written while the appeal was still before the Privy Council, and while, therefore, the conduct of the said Sir D. Chalmers was under judicial investigation; what was the purport of
  1542
  such letter, and whether the Government will lay it upon the Table of the House; whether any representation was made on the part of Mr. De Souza's executors to have the fine remitted; on what ground did the Government interfere with the action of the Privy Council on the subject of such appeal; and whether, in view of the Constitutional importance of the questions involved in the case as bearing on the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the press, and the fact that the Judges still claim to exercise a power the legality of which is denied, lie will cause a full inquiry to be made into the conduct of the Judges and the facts of the case?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Sir D. Chalmers, the writer of the letter quoted, is the Chief Justice who sentenced Mr. De Souza. His letter was written after Mr. De Souza's death, and at a time when it was open to his executors to apply for leave to proceed with his appeal. The letter conveyed a request that if an order for revival of the appeal were granted, appearance might be entered for the Attorney General, as representing' the interest of the Crown in the appeal, as well as for the Judges, and gave reasons for this recommendation. No application was made, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, by Mr. De Souzt's executors to have the fine remitted. The Government have not interfered with the action of the Privy Council on the subject of the appeal. The Secretary of State is not prepared to make the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member.

  THE CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg-to ask the Postmaster General whether among the 192 clerks employed at the Central Telegraph Office who are suspended from all benefits under the new scheme because they wore off duty at 4 p.m. on the day when an officer temporarily employed at that office was hooted at, are clerks of 20 years' service and upwards; whether these clerks have severally proved that they had nothing to do with the matter referred to; and whether, when the inquiry now proceeding is finished, he will compensate these clerks for the withholding from them of moneys earned under the new scheme, and which is now received by all their colleagues?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I have not yet received the Report of the result of the investigation which is being made, and I am not. therefore, in a position to announce what my decision will be when that investigation is concluded. I need not say that I shall be glad if the officers to whom the hon. Member refers are able to prove that they were not implicated in the occurrence. I have certainly no wish to withhold any of the benefits of the new scheme from any officer who was not concerned in the outrage to which the hon. Member refers.

  MALTA.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Ecclesiastical Courts in Malta have been suppressed; and, if so, at what date and under what circumstances?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I do not know what Courts the hon. Members refers to without further inquiry in the island. That inquiry shall be made if the hon. Member desires it, but I really must ask him to give longer notice of questions of this nature.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware of any case of a mixed marriage celebrated in Malta under licences from the Governor or from the Bishop of Gibraltar being declared invalid by the Maltese or English Courts on the ground that it was not celebrated according to the form prescribed by the decrees of the Council of Trent?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I am not aware of any such case; but as far back as 1865, and since, the practice in case of mixed marriages was to have the marriage solemnised either by the Roman Catholic priest alone or by both the Roman Catholic priest and the Protestant minister, but the celebration of such marriages before the Roman Catholic priest has always been deemed indispensable to give validity to such marriages.

  THE WATERWAY OF THE THAMES.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any law to restrain the occupation of the waterway
  1544
  of the Thames by advertisement boats, such as the one which is now moored opposite the terrace of this House?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Thames Conservators are the Authority having charge of the river. I am not aware of any law on the subject referred to in the hon. Member's question, but I will communicate with the Conservators on the matter.

  WIDTH OF POST LETTERS.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, for the accommodation of the legal profession and the public generally, he will consider the desirability of extending the limit of width of post letters from 9 to 12 inches?
  MR RAIKES: I shall have no objection to consider whether the limit of width of post letters can properly be extended as suggested by the hon. Member, but I may say, generally, that bulky packets are not only inconvenient to deal with, but are much more liable to become damaged themselves, and to cause damage to other packets of moderate size, especially in mails, which are delivered from the trains by the Mail Bag Apparatus.

  CONSTITUTION HILL.
  MR. T. W. LEGH: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider the advisability of placing a quadriga or classical group upon the arch at Constitution Hill?
  DR. TANNER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question will he say whether he is prepared to put the obstruction now at Temple Bar upon Constitution Hill?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I think it is very desirable that the arch at Constitution Hill should be surmounted by a quadriga, but any artistic group worthy of such a position would cost a great deal of money, and I am not prepared at present to make such a demand upon the Treasury.

  BECHUANALAND.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary

  1545
  of State for the Colonies whether it is the fact that, by an Order in Council, the Governor of Bechuanaland has been empowered to proclaim the Queen's jurisdiction over the territory lying to the north of Bechuanaland, west of the Transvaal and Matabeleland, east of the German Protectorate, and south of the Zambesi; whether this means the annexation of the Bechuana Protectorate; whether this territory is in future to be administered as a Crown Colony; and whether, in this event, the Crown will respect the rights of those who have obtained concessions from the Chiefs?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the negative. If he will refer to the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts he will see that he has misapprehended the effect of the Order in Council. The Queen has certain powers and jurisdiction within the territories named, and the Order empowers the Governor of British Bechuanaland to give effect to those powers and jurisdiction by means of legislative proclamations. The primary object of this proceeding is to provide proper means of enforcing discipline in the Police Force.

  NAVAL EXPERIMENTS.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps have been taken to give practical effect to the information gained by the experiments carried on against H.M.S. Resistance; and has information been obtained by Her Majesty's Government relative to the experiments carried on at Toulon on the same lines as the Resistance experiments?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Admiralty have given full consideration to the valuable results of the experiments made upon the Resistance, and have taken such steps as appear desirable, more especially as regards the defence of gun crews and the improvement of ammunition. It is not, however, desirable in the public interests that I should give particulars.

  SLAVERY.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether slavery is recognised as a legal status in any British Protectorate?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Assuming slavery to be lawful according to the law of the country over which the Protectorate is assumed, it would be recognised as a legal status. But British subjects would, of course, be prohibited from dealing or trading in, purchasing, selling, or transferring slaves.

  IRELAND—CASE OF MR. OWEN QUIN.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Owen Quin, of Dorsey, County Armagh, who applied for compensation to the Castleblaney Board of Guardians, under the Animals Contagious Diseases Act, for the loss of a cow which had been shot by the police as infected with a contagious disease, and whose application was refused; and if the Authorities will consider the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am informed that the Veterinary Inspector for the Board of Guardians pronounced the cow to be affected with rabies and ordered it to be slaughtered, and that the slaughter was carried out by the owner in the presence of the constabulary. There is no legal power to award compensation for the loss of animals affected with rabies.

  USE OF GOVERNMENT BOATS AT EVICTIONS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Executive is bound to furnish Government boats, free of charge, to the Sheriff when going to carry out evictions on islands of the Irish Coast?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. The object of providing Government boats in connection with the duty in question is the conveyance of the police party requisitioned by the Sheriff for his protection, and the conveyance of the Sheriff and his bailiffs in such boats is only permitted in cases where that course is absolutely necessary for the carrying out of the law. When such a course arises the Sheriff has to pay for the subsistence of himself and his bailiffs.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that persons conveyed in Her Majesty's gunboats to the islands on the West Coast of Ireland have seized the boats belonging to the fishermen, which form their only means of obtaining a living? I wish to know whether that is not an illegal act, and what means will be taken to enable these poor people to pursue their ordinary avocations?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not acquainted with any such circumstance.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman says that boats have only been supplied for the purpose of carrying a necessary police escort for the protection of persons engaged in executing the law. Is it not the fact that in some cases they have carried also emergency men, and agents of the landlords? I wish to know if this is legal, and whether such persons ought not to be required to furnish their own means of transit?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe that when Sheriffs' officers and bailiffs have been taken they have paid their own expenses.
  MR. SEXTON: I think it is important that the seizure of the fishermen's boats, if illegal, should not be repeated, and I should like to know from the Attorney General for Ireland if it is not provided by enactment that wearing apparel, bedding, tools, and implements of trade, if they do not exceed £5 in value, shall not be liable to seizure? These boats were the implements of the trade of the fishermen, and was it legal to seize them?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I am not acquainted with the section of the Act referred to, but if the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper I will obtain the information.
  MR. SEXTON: I will repeat the question on Monday.

  THE LURGAN POST OFFICE.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether complaints have reached him that a postal order drawn in Edinburgh, No. 21,191, payable to Mary Ann M'Ilmurray, was intercepted in the Lurgan Post Office, County Armagh, and cashed with the signature of "Mary Ann M'Imurray"; and if the Lurgan postmaster made payment not-
  1548
  withstanding the different spelling in signature, will the Postal Authorities refund the amount to Mrs. M'Ilmurray?
  MR. RAIKES: A complaint reached the General Post Office some time ago that a postal order, which I have no-doubt is that referred to by the hon. Member, bad been lost in the post, and, although there was no blame whatever on the part of the postmaster at Lurgan in respect of the payment of the order, there were circumstances which seemed to justify the repayment of the amount to Mrs. M'Ilmurray as an act of grace, and it was so repaid some weeks ago.

  ASSAULTING AN IRISH POLICE CONSTABLE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the prosecution of Mr. James Maye before Messrs. Long-bourne and Hodder, Resident Magistrates, in Fermoy, on a charge of "having assaulted Constable Denis Lane in the execution of his duty, on 17th September,-1889;" and why was this prosecution brought after such a long time had elapsed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the proceedings were instituted on the 18th September, 1889, the day after the assault on the constable. The defendant was at the time under sentence of imprisonment on another charge Upon his release from prison in April last the proceedings were gone on with, but in consequence of the illness of the constable, and subsequently of the defendant, the case was not finally disposed of until 28th July.

  BALLYGORIANMORE SCHOOL.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that three applications have been made to the Board of National Education in Ireland for a grant in favour of the school at Ballygorianmore, near Hill-town, County Down; and if he will state the grounds for refusing same; whether his attention has been called to a resolution unanimously adopted by the committee under the presidency of Rev. H. H. Moore, M.A., the Presbyterian minister, on the 22nd July, in which it

  1549
  is stated that the school fulfils all the conditions required by the rules of the Board for making such a grant; and whether he will inquire into the matter, with the view of redressing the grievance of which the Presbyterians of the district complain?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of National Education report that this school had been in connection with the Board until the 31st December, 1886, from which date the grants were cancelled, the average attendance having fallen below the minimum required to warrant their continuance. Two applications appear to have been subsequently made for restoration of the grant, but, there being no evidence that the required attendance would be secured, and as it was strongly felt that there was no need for the school, there being within one mile of the place a school under a Presbyterian manager (the Rev. Dr. Wilson), with a Presbyterian teacher, and as the Commissioners' Inspector declined to recommend the aid, the Commissioners do not feel warranted in making a grant.

  "SHADOWING."
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the reports in the local papers that at Killeagh Fair, on 28th July, several Nationalist dealers were shadowed by police constables throughout the day, and also that Mr. Edward O'Brien, P.L.G., James O'Brien, and Charles O'Brien, were
  "all day persistently followed by policemen, who pryed into their affairs, and rendered it difficult for those men to transact their business;"
  and, if so, will instructions be issued by the Constabulary Authorities to policemen not to carry the practice of shadowing to the extent of interfering with the transactions of men engaged in business at fairs and markets in Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed by the Constabulary Authorities that on the occasion referred to three persons were watched by the police, but that not one of these persons was a dealer. They were James O'Brien, Charles O'Brien, and a man named Lynch, all of whom are known to the police to be employed in attempting to boycott the sale
  1550
  of cattle. Mr. Edward O'Brien, who, as a matter of fact, does not appear to have arrived until the fair was over, was not shadowed. The police did not in any way interfere so as to render difficult the transaction of any legitimate business.
  MR. FLYNN: In a recent case did not the right hon. Gentleman promise that the constabulary should not shadow men who had business at a fair. In this case the men shadowed had business which was seriously interfered with. Will the right hon. Gentleman issue stringent orders to that effect?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The police will not interfere with any men who are legitimately carrying on lawful business.
  MR. FLYNN: Unfortunately they do.

  IRISH FISHERIES,
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the last Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, where it is shown, at page 11, that, of the 62,952 mease of herrings captured along the Irish Coast during the year 1889, there were landed at Ardglass, Annalong, and Kilkeel, on the County Down Coast, 29,732, or nearly one-half of the total number captured: whether he is aware that Newcastle is situated between Kilkeel and Ardglass, and, though well adapted for a good fishing station, it has now no harbour accommodation; whether he has seen the Report of the Divisional Officer of Coastguards (page 41), in which he states—
  "At Newcastle there are the ruined remains of a harbour, at present almost useless, which might at a moderate expenditure be made useful for fishermen and others;"
  And whether, considering the Report of this officer, and that Newcastle is situated at the very centre of the Irish herring fishery district, he will consider the desirability of providing harbour accommodation, to enable the fishermen of the district to follow and develop the fishing industry there with some degree of safety to their lives?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I have seen the report referred to, but I think, as far as I can judge, it indicates that the line which it is proposed should be made

  1551
  to Ardglass will, perhaps, tap the traffic better than to any other point; but I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope as to the expenditure of money for the proposed Newcastle line.
  MR. M'CARTAN: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman does not touch the real point at all.
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member is aware that I visited Newcastle, and went into the whole question whether I ought to recommend any expenditure of the public money in connection with the harbour. I came to the conclusion that I could not, and I am afraid that I cannot depart from that decision.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Were there any local Representatives to meet the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. JACKSON: I think I can depend upon my own power of seeing what was necessary in the case.

  MR. JAMES WALSH.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true that Mr. James Walsh was arrested, in Queenstown, on the 20th Jun3 last, confined in the police cells for the greater part of the day, and then sent as a prisoner to Cork; whether it is true the prison officials refused to receive him from the police, who then set him at liberty; who is responsible for the arrest; and whether an inquiry will be made into the circumstances of the case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the man was not confined in the police cells at all, and was only detained in the barracks about 10 minutes. He was then sent to Cork, and the prison officials refusing to receive him he was discharged. The ground of the refusal appears to have been that the warrant outstanding against him ill respect of a fine did not contain an alternative term of imprisonment. The arrest was made by Sergeant Shea in the belief that 'the warrant, as is usual in such cases, contained that alternative. The man absconded when the warrant was originally issued in December last.
  DR. TANNER: How long was Mr. Walsh under arrest?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer that question, but he was
  1552
  apparently detained only for a few minutes.
  DR. TANNER: Was he not arrested in the morning and not taken before a Magistrate until the afternoon?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather from the information I have received that that is not correct. He was only detained for 10 minutes.

  KILMALLOCK ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
  MR. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the County Limerick Grand Jury, at the last Assizes, rejected a presentment for laying down with ferrumite a footway to the Roman Catholic Church of Kilmallock, against the unanimous wish of the ratepayers of the barony, as ex-pressed at two Road Sessions; and whether, in view of the fact that the Grand Jury consists of 23 men, mostly landlords, nominated by the High Sheriff, who do not pay more than 5 per cent. of the county cess, the Government will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to take away from the Grand Jury the power of stopping the construction of useful and necessary works?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no official information on the subject of this question, which does not come under the cognizance of the Irish Government, but the Secretary to the Grand Jury informs me that the presentment referred to was rejected by the Grand Jury, not because it led to the Roman Catholic Chapel at Kilmallock, but because the cost of a ferrumite footpath would mean a tax of 4½d. in the £1 on the valuation of the barony of Kilmallock. It was proposed by the cess payers at Road Sessions to levy half the expense on the county at large, and members of the Grand Jury from other baronies objected to have it so levied. The Grand Jury was quite willing to agree to a flagged footpath, and so intimated before rejecting the application for ferrumite.

  THE ROYAL IRISH FUSILIERS.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, during the training of the 3rd battalion of the Royal Irish Fusiliers, at Holy-wood, two Catholic bandsmen were required every Sunday to play in the

  1553
  regimental band to and from the Protestant Episcopal Church, at the very time that the Catholic service for the soldiers was taking place, and were thus prevented from being present at their own place of worship; and whether, in view of the fact that the Catholics in the battalion outnumber any of the other religious denominations, and largely contribute to the profits of the canteen, which bears most of the expenses of the regimental band, it can be arranged that the Catholics of the regiment may have the band to their church on alternate Sundays?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am unable to answer the question of the hon. Member at present. I must ask him to put it down for another day.
  MR. BLANE: I will repeat it on this day week.

  EX-CONSTABLE PETER BRENNAN.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether ex-Constable Peter Brennan, late of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who was convicted by a Coroner's Jury of "wilful murder," has been allowed or encouraged to retire from the police, and granted a pension of £72 per annum; and whether Brennan, having failed in business as a publican in Kinsale, has been recently employed as a bailiff by the Sheriff for the County of Cork?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I only received notice of this question this morning. I must ask the hon. Member to defer it until Monday.
  DR. TANNER: I will repeat it to-morrow.

  IRISH MODEL SCHOOLS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the proportion of local support to the total expenditure in Irish model schools for the year ending 31st March, 1889; what was the corresponding figure for all other Irish national schools; and can he state what objection the Government have to local support for national schools in Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of National Education report that, for the year ended March 31, 1889, their total expenditure in respect to model schools was £27,358, and the total local
  1554
  aid (including school fees and rates in contributory unions) in support of model schools was £6,766. Their total expenditure in respect to ordinary national schools was £701,220, and the total local aid in support of ordinary national schools was £188,218. The above figures do not include expenditure by Board of Public Works on ordinary national schools or model schools. The Commissioners, far from having an objection to local support for national schools, have laid down in their rules that applicants for a grant to build a school must satisfy the Board that they—
  "Are prepared to raise by local contribution at least one-third of the whole sum which the Commissioners may deem necessary for the erection of the house, and providing furniture; and that when the school comes into operation, adequate local aid will be provided in augmentation of the teachers' emoluments from the Board."

  THE PORTUGUESE IN AFRICA—SEIZURE OF THE JAMES STEVENSON.
  In reply to Mr. BUCHANAN,
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid: A report was received from Her Majesty's Consul at Mozambique that an African Lakes Company's steamer had been seized, and the officers and crew sent under arrest to Quilimane. He immediately communicated the report to the Governor General, who assured him that any interference with British subjects north of the Ruo would be severely censured. Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon has been instructed to make an urgent representation to the Portuguese Government, who have sent orders by telegraph to Mozambique to punish with severity those who have been guilty of infraction of orders. The officer who is said to have made the seizure had, previously to these events, been removed from command.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS OF THE THREE KINGDOMS.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take for the appointment of the Select Committee on the financial relations of the three Kingdoms?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have taken steps in the direction of finding persons who might have influence with gentlemen who have put down Amendments to

  1555
  withdraw them, and then the Committee could be appointed. But the Government cannot put off the discussion of Supply, even for so interesting a subject. Perhaps the hon. Member can use his influence to induce gentlemen to withdraw their Amendments.
  MR. SEXTON: I have no control over hon. Members.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Nor have I.
  MR. SEXTON: But the right hon. Gentleman has control over the time of the House.

  GLASGOW CEMETERIES.
  Return ordered—
  "Showing (1)names and situations of Cemeteries situated within the present municipal boundaries of Glasgow, or within a distance of three miles thereof, excluding burial grounds closed permanently by order of the Sheriff in May, 1870; (2) distances from Glasgow Cross; (3) the number of dwelling-houses within 100 yards of walls of each Cemetery; (4) where the drainage of each Cemetery is led to; (5) the nature of the subsoil, whether clayey, sand, loam, or otherwise; (6) name of owner or Company drawing revenue; (7) extent of each ground; (8) the date of the first interment in each; (9) for each of the years 1887, 188S,and 1889, the number of bodies buried in each class of grave known as (a) private lairs, (b) dressed ground, (c) common ground, and (d) parochial ground; (10) the average depth and surface space allowed for each selected or private grave; (11) the average depth and surface space of each common grave and the unoccupied space left between each common grave; (12) the average number of bodies buried in each common grave, including bodies of children, stating also the highest and lowest individual case; (13) the total charge made by the proprietor of the Cemetery for an interment in common ground; and(14) whether bodies are removed after burial from common to private ground upon the relatives paying an additional sum, if so, how many bodies have been so transferred."—(Dr. Cameron.)

  RATES (LIVERPOOL AND CERTAIN OTHER MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS).
  Return ordered—
  "Showing the rate in the pound of all Rates, other than Water and Gas Rates, or Rates for private improvement works, levied in the Municipal Boroughs of Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol, Nottingham, Bradford, Salford, hingston-upon-Hull, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West Ham, Portsmouth, and Leicester, in each of the years ended Lady Day, IS7", 1880, and 1890."—(Mr. Lewis Fry.)

  TOWN HOLDINGS.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Ap-
  1556
  pendix, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed];
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 341.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  CHILDREN'S LIFE INSURANCE BILL.
  That they do communicate Copy of Report, &c, of the Select Committee, appointed by their Lordships in the present Session of Parliament, on the Children's Life Insurance Bill, as desired by this House.
MOTION.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SATURDAY SITTING).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Sitting of the House to-morrow be subject to the Rules in force regulating the Silting of the House on Wednesday."—[Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  In answer to Mr. SEXTON,
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid: If the business with regard to Nos. 1 and 2 on the Paper and the Report of Supply are concluded to-night, the substantial business to-morrow will be the Police Bill and the Police (Scotland) Bill.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I protest against taking the Police Bill on Saturday. It is a Bill which affects all the constituencies, a Bill which neither the House nor the country has had an opportunity of understanding—[Cries of" Agreed!"] —a Bill which, in my opinion, is of such a wide character, and involves the interests of so many constituencies, that it ought not to be taken at a Saturday Sitting.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in discussing a measure which is to be brought on upon another day.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether we cannot shorten the rest of the Session. If the Government will only let the House clearly know what is the minimum with which they will be satisfied, so that Members may know precisely whore they are placed, the business would go on with considerable alacrity.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The House has already been informed on the subject. I said that it would be necessary to pass the Local Taxation Bill, the Police Bill,

  1557
  the Irish Census Bill—["No"]—I think Members from Ireland generally desire to see it passed, as well as the Census Bills for England and Scotland—the Public Works Loans Bill, and the Savings Banks Bill, which, I believe, there is only one Member opposed to in this House—[Mr. STOREY: That is not so]—I have endeavoured to ascertain, and I believe the hon. Member is the only opponent. It may require that we should sit a day or two longer, but the Government think it right to persevere with a measure which, as I stated yesterday, is for the protection of the working classes. These are the measures which the Government think it necessary to proceed with, and having stated that twice, three times, or four times already, I think I am not unreasonable in asking that we may be allowed to proceed with the business without undue delay.
  MR. STOREY: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I know from personal contact with Gentlemen not only on this, but on the other side of the House, that there are very considerable objections to the Savings Banks Bill. ["No."] If instead of adding burdens to the Savings Banks the right hon. Gentleman would give additional powers for receiving money, he would have no difficulty in passing the Bill. As one connected with Savings Banks for 25 years, I can say that the Bill in its present shape is absolutely useless.
  MR. CHANNING: I should like to urge the claims of the Registration of Titles Bill and the Registration of Assurances Bill, which would be of the greatest value in connection with the Land Purchase Bill.
  MR. DILLON: Great discussion may arise on the Registration of Titles Bill, and unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give ample time for such discussion it would be better to postpone the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): Although the general principles of the Local Registration of Titles Bill, and the Bill dealing with the Registry of Deeds, have been accepted by Members on both sides of the House, I fully recognise that these measures raise important questions of detail. It would be unreasonable to expect that time should be given for them during the
  1558
  present Session, but I propose to introduce them at the very earliest period next Session.
  In answer to Mr. HUNTER (Aberdeen,S.),
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,)said: The Report of the Select Committee on the Scotch Police Bill will be circulated immediately, but not with the documents which were to form appendices. These Will be circulated as soon as possible.
  DR. CLARK: May I ask when Scotch Supply will be taken. A number of Members have been compelled to remain in town on account of it. If we could only get a pledge that Scotch Supply would not be considered while Scotch Members are away there would not be much trouble. The Irish Estimates have been taken some time ago, and Irish Members have not troubled the House since.
  MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is not Scotch Supply, but that the sitting to-morrow be subject to the rules regulating the sitting of the House on Wednesday.
  Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  RESERVE FORCES BILL.—(No. 272.)
  SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask for some explanation of the 2nd clause? I do think the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should make some explanatory statement, however brief. It appears to me ridiculous to enlist men, and then immediately transfer them to the Reserve without first giving them some suitable training.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask whether the War Office Authorities have considered the legal effect of the Bill in respect of the men who, intending only to be Volunteers, have enlisted in the Army, and who are liable to be sent on foreign service or to be ordered out of their own districts?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The hon. Member for Mid Cork has evidently-forgotten that he made the same request before, and that I have explained the object of the Bill to him. It is desired in a case of emergency to have the services of certain telegraph, postal, and railway men, and it is found to be the cheapest way to draw them from the Volunteers. One object of the Bill is to enable these men to be employed abroad if necessary in case of emergency.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.—(No. 404.)
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Clause 1.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section ii.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section ii. stand part of the Clause."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I wish a Motion had been made to re-commit the Bill in order that we might briefly discuss the entire re-construction of this Bill which is now going to take place on the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no wish to delay the House by any unnecessary remarks, but I rise for the purpose of making a final, if an unavailing, protest against what I consider to be the disastrous finance which this clause will now give effect to as altered by the present Amendment. We are no doubt dealing with the last stage of the Bill, and I should like to call attention to the fact that this is the 25th night on which the House has been discussing the financial arrangements of the present year. There is no precedent for this in modern times —at any rate, since the repeal of the Corn Laws. The House has been sitting between 110 and 120 days up to this evening; and, therefore, one fourth of the time of the House of Commons has been consumed in discussing what now turn out to be practically abortive financial proposals. But much more important than this is the principle which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now asking the House of Commons to put
  1560
  its seal of approval upon, and this is the enormous additional subvention proposed to be given to the Local Authorities. I have been looking into the figures as they now stand regarding this question. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer has amended this Bill, there will be added for the purpose of local subvention£ 1,300,000; yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, only two years ago, said that, so far as the Government were concerned, they had shown their whole hand, and they had no further proposals to make. But within two and a half years from the time the right hon. Gentleman made that statement he proposes to take £1,300,000 from what I may call essentially Imperial taxation in order to place it in the hands of the Local Authorities.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the House is not now discussing the principle of the Bill. He is really delivering a Second Reading speech.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Of course, Sir, I at once bow to your ruling. I only wish to submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now proposing to add £350,000 to the general subvention of the Local Authorities; and I object to that, because I consider that the Local Authorities have already too much. This £350,000 will make the total sum granted this year in aid of local taxation over £9,000,000. I have no wish to deal further with the general question, but I entertain a most strong opinion that these large local subventions are not justified by the state of local-finance; they are premiums upon mismanagement and extravagance; and they revive the old system of subventions in its worst form, because they make the Local Authorities practically reckless as to how the money is spent. In raising a, protest against this enormous additional subvention, I wish to say that arrangements of this kind cannot be regarded as binding, and we shall claim for ourselves the right to re-consider this question when the proper time arrives.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, after the word "shall," to insert the words "until Parliament otherwise determine.".—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not know whether we are to expect any answer from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer) but I do submit that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman deserve some notice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has refrained from answering the speech of my right hon. Friend. We had some discussion on these words when they were proposed to be inserted by the right hon. Gentleman in the clause applicable to Scotland. What is meant by inserting these words? The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have some special object in introducing them. What is it? Do the words apply to the additional duty on beer, or do they not? The other day the right hon. Gentleman told us the object was to impart a flavour of uncertainty. But the whole financial policy of the right hon. Gentleman this year has had such a flavour of uncertainty, that I think it is a work of supererogation to introduce these words. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me credit for having sufficient acuteness to understand the meaning, but I confess I am not entitled to that credit, for I have unsuccessfully endeavoured to define the meaning of introducing the words. In his original Budget the right hon. Gentleman held out a curious hope to the brewers. He said he had half promised to take off the additional tax on beer, and he would fulfil that promise, but he intended to put it on again, and give them the benefit of the proceeds. He did so, but now he has struck out the clause which was to secure the benefit to the brewers. Now, I again ask, do those words apply to the Beer Duty or the extra Spirit Duty? I think we are entitled to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the uncertainty which these words point to—in short, what is the intention of inserting them?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The right hon. Gentleman began his observations with a complaint that I had not answered the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. I am free to be criticised in many things, but I am seldom criticised
  1562
  for not being ready to take up a challenge that is thrown down. I did not rise to answer the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, because I understood I could not do so without offending against order. The whole of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be directed against the Bill generally, and I could not reply to them without being out of order, otherwise I should have longed to be able to comment on the astounding charge against the Government that this Bill has been discussed for 25 days. I should have liked to refer to some of the minute points which were discussed for hours and hours with a most fearful waste of the time of the House. I shall be called to order by the Speaker if I pursue that topic. In reply to the right hon. Member for Derby I have to say that I have twice dealt with this matter—once in the case of Scotland, and once in the case of Ireland. In the case of Scotland the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me, and in the case of Ireland he did not hear me at all. The right hon. Gentleman asks, Why are the words introduced here? The answer is that the residue is in a different position now from what it was, and my anxiety has been that Parliament shall not give an absolutely permanent character to the sum which has become available through the dropping of the licensing clauses. The right hon. Gentleman made merry over the phrase used by me, "the flavour of uncertainty"; what I meant was that the Local Authorities should have notice that there is, in the language of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, a prospect of revision as regards that particular sum. It seems to me right that the question should be left open whether there shall be any revision of the additional taxes imposed in consequence of the dropping of a portion of the scheme. That is the object with which the words have been inserted, and I think it more candid to the Local Authorities and to the House generally that such notice should be given.
  MR. A. ACLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the word "unless" instead of "until"?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes; I do not think it much matters.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. A. ACLAND: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I will endeavour to be as brief as possible. The right hon. Gentleman has put down an Amendment which meets the wishes of the people of Wales, and he has done the same for Ireland. The Members for Scotland have to some extent fought out their case. In the case of England, if the Bill passes in its present form it will not contain a word about the definite appropriation of the money for educational purposes. There is nothing beyond the right hon. Gentleman's intimation that by and by some new charges may be thrown on the County Councils in connection with intermediate and technical education. I wish to get rid of some of that uncertainty. While Scotland and Ireland get each a large share of the money set free by the dropping of the licensing proposals, England, if the Bill stand as now, will secure nothing at all, whereas, supposing that England gets the same share as Scotland, she will have nearly £2,000,000, if the same share as Ireland nearly £1,000,000, and if the same share as Wales will assuredly get about £750,000. I think we are putting the cart before the horse. We ought to get free education, but first we must have our District Councils; we ought to have uniform School Boards, and we ought to have a well organised elementary system. Scotland, no doubt, has gone the right way to put the horse before the cart by securing free education first, and when we get our money out of the Exchequer for free education for England, Scotland will put in a claim for another £250,000. It will be impossible to withhold it, and then she can complete her system of secondary and intermediate education. I think the adoption of my Amendment will be a step in the right direction. The local Universities of England have been pleading for grants of money for many years; the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met them with £15,000. The agricultural interest has again and again cried out for assistance towards dairy schools and agricultural teaching; the amount the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to give has been £5,000, although Prussia, the population of which is not so great as the United Kingdom, gives ten times that amount
  1564
  for agricultural education alone. But these sums are perfectly trifling as compared with the amount which the House is compelled to deal with by a kind of side-wind, and which it is now proposed shall disappear into the great river of rates, never perhaps to appear on the surface again. I propose that the money shall be applied under the Technical Instruction Act of last year, and though the machinery of that Act is not the best for the purpose, it is better than none at all. Already some of our large towns have made grants in aid of this education. Manchester has given £4,000 and Bolton £2,000, and nobody can doubt that assistance from the Government would be greatly valued. I have added to my Amendment that the remainder of the moiety, which is not applied, may be an educational endowment within the meaning of the Endowed Schools Act, because I believe that technical education is no good unless based upon a sound general education, and we shall not get a good general secondary education in England until we set to work, as we are now doing in Wales, and establish a network of good, cheap, secondary schools throughout the whole country. The Endowed Schools Commissioners 20 years ago said that even after they had dealt with the whole re-organisation of endowments the work was only begun, and that what was necessary was a systematic provision for secondary instruction. Since then, however, we have never taken a step towards re-organising our secondary education. I may be told that under the Endowed Schools Act this cannot be done at all, but I hold that our experience in Wales shows that it can be done. Our Committees in Wales are largely composed of members of County Councils, and I imagine that the Vice President of the Council and the Chairman of the Endowed Schools Commissioners will not deny that under the existing Endowed Schools Act schemes could be worked out which would develop secondary education in a very excellent way in England. I know it is said that the Charity Commissioners are unpopular, but in my experience they have acted in a cordial, spirit of cooperation with popular bodies like our Committees. The reason they have been unpopular is because they have interfered with local endowments,

  1565
  but when they are following popular bodies, and not leading, but trying; to assist and help, there is no reason why they should not occupy the position of friendly advisers. I lay stress upon that part of my Amendment which has reference to the complete organisation of intermediate education, because I know the admirable work which has been done in Wales. It will be a great misfortune if the opportunity that now presents itself is not taken advantage of; for if the question is not taken in hand, other business in future Sessions may postpone its settlement indefinitely. Scotland and Wales and Ireland are far better off than England in respect of secondary education, and the consequence is, that this country is being invaded by clever Scotchmen, Welshmen, and Irishmen, in ever-increasing numbers. The hon. Member for Roxburghshire the other day made an allusion to the moderate invasion of English Members into Scotland. Well, I imagine that if we in this country were to raise a cry of. England for the English, and drive out all the Scotchmen who hold important positions of all kinds here, we should return on the hands of the hon. Member and his friends a great many men whom they do not wish to see back again, but who are doing extremely valuable work. As to the question of shifting the burden of the rates and so forth—as if it were the alpha and omega of the progress of the working classes—no doubt a great deal has been done; but if all the dogmas of the Radicals were realised, there would still remain a great deal to be done in the way of elevating the working classes after they have received all the advantages which can be received from elementary education. That the great dock strike last year was conducted so quietly and successfully was mainly due to the fact that the leaders were educated men, capable of studying and understanding economical and industrial questions. It would be well to have thousands more such men. Let the House, therefore, make provision for their education. In England we are in this position: that the wealthy people, who are largely represented in this House, and who are able to send their sens to the great public schools, do not care much about middle-class education. Then we have the elemen-
  1566
  tary schools, which carry on a useful work; but there is a large middle region which we do not hear much about, which is of the utmost importance, untouched, and it is for the purpose of helping to fill up that gap that I move my Amendment. I admit that the machinery I suggest— namely, some scheme under the Endowed Schools Act and the Technical Instruction Act—is not the best I could desire, but, at the same time, I believe that by these means much good may be done to the working and the middle classes.
  Amendment proposed, in page l,line20, at the end of Clause 1, to insert the words—
  "The council of any such county or county borough may contribute any sum received by such council in respect of the residue under this section, not exceeding a moiety of the residue or any part of that moiety, for the purposes of technical (including agricultural and commercial) education within the meaning of 'The Technical Instruction Act, 1889,' and may make that contribution over and above any sum that may be raised by rate under that Act.
  The remainder of the said moiety, which shall not be applied within the meaning of 'The Technical Instruction Act, 1889,' may be an educational endowment within the meaning of the Endowed Schools Acts, and the County Council shall be the governing body of the endowment within the meaning of those Acts."— (Mr. Arthur Acland.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member rested his case upon two grounds, one the desirableness of spending this money on intermediate education, as compared with relieving the rates, and the other a contrast between the educational advantages of this country and those of Scotland and Ireland and Wales. Well, I would point out that if, in educational matters, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland are, in some respects, better off than England, this country certainly has the advantage of having greater endowments. In the course of the proceedings on this Bill the hon. Gentleman proposed a somewhat similar Amendment to this. He was anxious that a sum should be absolutely set aside and spent in all cases upon technical education; but he proposes now an Amendment of a much more moderate nature. If the County Councils choose to employ a moiety of the increased resources which are placed at their disposal towards technical, including agri-

  1567
  cultural and commercial education, within, the meaning of the Technical Instruction Act of 1889, the Government certainly will not wish to place any fetters whatever on their taking such action, and accordingly we shall be prepared to accept the first portion of the Amendment—namely, that the County Councils or the County Boroughs may contribute in respect of the moiety of the residue towards technical, agricultural, or commercial education. The Government are quite as much aware as hon. Members opposite of the desire which is springing up in the country with regard both to technical and agricultural education. The hon. Member speaks of the desirability of assisting agricultural schools. Many hon. Friends of my own behind me have pleaded in the same direction, and have been anxious that the sum placed at the disposal of the authorities for establishing agricultural schools should be increased. Then the hon. Member suggested that a portion of the money should be devoted to inter-mediata education, and he drew a contrast between intermediate and technical education, suggesting that much progress could not be made with technical education without intermediate education. The Technical Instruction Act defines technical instruction as including instruction in the branches of science and art, in respect of which grants are, for the time being, made by the Department of Science and Art, and any other form of instruction, including modern languages and commercial and agricultural subjects, which may, from time to time, be sanctioned by that Department. But we have not got schools organised for the purpose, and that is why I object to the other part of the Amendment. We have an Intermediate Education Act for Wales which, I believe, is operating very beneficially, but we have not worked out such an Act for this country, nor is there any organised system of intermediate education in England. How can the County Councils, with these optional powers, some of them working on one principle and some on another, bring forward an organised system of intermediate education for the country? By passing the first part of the Amendment we do not preclude subsequent consideration of a portion of this money going to intermediate education, and the hon.
  1568
  Gentleman need not fear that funds for that purpose will be found when an organised plan is established. I should have no objection, on principle, to the second part of the Amendment; but. having carefully considered the way in which this money will be employed, under the terms of the Amendment, without any general organised system, I cannot undertake to accept that portion of the Amendment. I would ask that we should treat the two parts of the Amendment separately, unless the hon. Member, after the readiness I have shown to adopt his views as regards the first part, feels disposed to withdraw the second. The first part runs on all fours with the Amendment I have myself put on the Paper with regard to Wales, and I should be glad if we had a uniform-system, as far as possible, in England and Wales as regards technical education.
  MR. MUNDELLA: We have all heard with satisfaction of the readiness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept a part of the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept the whole, and I do not think there are those difficulties with respect to organisation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to foreshadow. Why should it not be possible for the Endowed School Commissioners, upon application from the County Councils, to prepare a scheme for intermediate education as well as for any other subject? In a former Debate on the subject two years ago the Leader of the House promised that what was done for Scotland in respect of intermediate-education, and every branch of education, should he done for England. In Scotland the ordinary schools are not called elementary, but public, schools, and the Government make grants in all these schools for Latin, Greek, Mathematics, and other subjects, which are in themselves part of the curriculum of intermediate education, for which no corresponding grant is made in England. It is the fact that large numbers of the youth of Scotland go from the parochial and public schools direct to the Universities. I am rejoiced that that is so. But why should England be deprived of these advantages? The whole of the

  1569
  higher schools of Scotland are under the control of the School Board, and they receive grants from the rates for what they call the common fund. I do not say the intermediate education of Scotland is all that Scotchmen desire. They are anxious to have it improved, and they are improving it at an enormous rate, and, as compared with England, they are at an enormous advantage. I doubt whether, according to its population, England has as many endowments as Scotland. The Universities of England have great endowments, but not for intermediate education. Under the Endowed Schools Commission Act of 1883 all the endowments of Scotland have undergone revision, and on the governing bodies of the endowed schools in Scotland there is some public representation. We have nothing corresponding to that in England. Why is it that England should be placed in this disadvantageous position as compared with Scotland? I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury when will he fulfil his promise, made more than two years ago, with respect to intermediate education. The whole of the intermediate and endowed schools in Scotland are examined by examiners appointed by the Scotch Educational Department, and attached to every school there are "leaving certificates," which admit the scholars to a great variety of educational advantages. We have nothing corresponding to that in England. We have no public examinations at the expense of the State, as in Scotland. Now, supposing the first part of the Resolution is to be accepted there are certain words which should be omitted—I mean the words "not exceeding a certain moiety of the residue." These words must undoubtedly come out, so that it would apply to technical, commercial, and agricultural education.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT or THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The hon. Member says that if not the whole of the moiety then that a portion of it shall be used.
  MR. MUNDELLA: If you take the second proposal, and strike out these words, then you could apply the whole of it to technical, commercial, and agricultural schools. I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the importance of adopting the second part of the Resolution.
  1570
  Nobody knows better than the First Lord of the Treasury the great inequality of endowments in this country. He knows that there are some localities which are positively enriched by endowments, and others in which they have no endowments whatever. But suppose the County Council had power to apply part of the residue to intermediate education, how largely they might extend it. In our large towns, with their rapid growth, it would be an enormous boon if they could have some aid, some beginning of intermediate education. And my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham has pointed out that small State aid is an enormous stimulus for the Local Authority. It always evokes and develops a large amount of local effort. It has already done so in Wales in respect to technical education. With respect to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we have no organised intermediate education in England, I must take exception to that. There is scarcely a town in England where the Charity Commissioners have not framed schemes of intermediate education. Why, if there are a thousand or two a year to be devoted to intermediate education, should not the Charity Commissioners enlarge these schemes, and place some members of the County Councils on the governing bodies, and so give increased utility and increased representation at the same time? I do hope that the Government will not, in this respect, place us in a worse position than Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. At present we do not get a farthing grant; but here is the first opportunity the Government have had of rendering some service, and helping forward the work of intermediate education, the great desideratum of the present time. The Government have accepted the first part of my hon. Friend's proposal. I do trust that they will accept the remainder, and that we shall be able to make a start in the way of helping ourselves with intermediate education.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I would like to say one or two words in no contentious spirit. I am perfectly ready to admit that in England we are somewhat at a disadvantage with respect to intermediate education. The greater portion of the speech of the hon. Member

  1571
  for Rotherham was directed, and fairly, to showing that there was such a deficiency, and it was essentially a speech in favour of an Intermediate Education Act for England. I wish to mention one or two reasons which ought to make the House satisfied with the way in which Her Majesty's Government have met this Amendment. Here is a sum of money to be disposed of. At first the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would be used for education, and then the hon. Member for Rotherham suggests that it may be applied to technical and intermediate education. Now, I am anxious that we should not accept the second portion of this Amendment, because there is a distinction between it and the first. About the first proposal there is this excellent characteristic, that the machinery is ready to hand. Considering how slow people are to move in matters of education, it is obviously of great advantage to have the machinery ready to hand. What is happening with regard to our Technical Instruction Act? It is at work, and it has been taken up warmly in most of our large industrial centres, Manchester, Sheffield, Burnley, Rochdale, Stockport, Macclesfield, Maidstone, Rotherham, Wakefield, Bingley, Bolton, Nottingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Blackburn, Reading, and many other places, where Committees have been at work some time to bring it into active operation. I am now merely pleading for the best use that can be made to-day of this money. All this is going on already with regard to secondary education and technical instruction, and why, therefore, should we not have this money applied swiftly? What is the initial difficulty? The initial difficulty is getting a lump sum for building purposes. Most of these localities will face the rate necessary for the maintenance of an institution, but they will not undertake the initial expenditure which is required to obtain a building. Now, this sum of money will precisely fit into the groove, precisely fill up the gap, and furnish to these localities the amount of the initial expenditure which I think can be most usefully and beneficially applied. I am willing to concede that it is possible to frame an Intermediate Education Act for England, as has been done in Wales, and no man in this House
  1572
  would be more ready to avail himself of time and opportunity to do so than myself. But if this money were to be applied as suggested by the second portion of the Amendment, and if it were handed over to the County Councils, there would be absolutely no machinery whatever. In the case of the Welsh Act, Committees were appointed, composed of three representatives of the County Council, and two members nominated by the Lord President of the Council—gentlemen connected with the county selected for their educational standing and position. But, in the present instance, I do not think it would be fair to hand this money to the County Councils without their having that machinery which the Welsh Education Act supplied. It is because there is this want of machinery, that I am unable, without further consideration, to assent to what would be virtually the introduction by a side wind of an Intermediate Education Act for England.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am afraid there is some misunderstanding. What is the difference between the machinery for the first part of the Amendment, and the machinery for the second?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: The County Council has no machinery, except under the Technical Instruction Act in connection with the Science and Art Department.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: Mr. Speaker, a short time ago the House appointed a Select Committee upon endowed schools, and I had the honour to be Chairman of that Committee, and my right hon. Friend was a Member of it. He will remember the great difficulty we had in examining how endowed schools could be made of greater use to the public, because these endowed schools had no means of getting properly equipped. They were proceeding very much on the old lines—Latin and Greek and general education, but they had no support for scientific education. Now, I am very grateful to the Government for having adopted the first part of the Amendment, but the second part is also of very great importance, and if my right hon. Friend will only recollect the recommendations as to the endowed schools he must himself admit what important measures might be brought

  1573
  under this Amendment. In the first place you have taken great trouble to establish endowed schools throughout the country, but you leave them entirely unconnected with any Local Authority, except Local Boards, to manage them, and without any knowledge on the part of this House as to whether they are failures or successes. Now, this Amendment offers you an organisation. The County Council may move the Charity Commissioners, with the funds at their disposal, to equip these schools and make them suitable for scientific instruction. It may enable them to provide funds out of which the teachers of science might be paid, and it might, in this way, re-organise the schools throughout the country, and produce the greatest results upon secondary education throughout the country, in the way of meeting modern requirements for scientific teaching. Without money they cannot do this. They have no funds to equip laboratories and workshops, and it is better to leave science alone if it is to be mere book-learning. Here you have an admirable opportunity for authorising the County Councils to act along with the Charity Commissioners, with a view to satisfying the strong wishes in the country for scientific teaching. There is nothing in this proposal that would prejudice the Government in the future in bringing in a Bill for intermediate education. The Government have gone half way very liberally, and I thank them very much for adopting the first half of the Amendment. But they will confer a benefit on the country if they adopt also the second half. They would enable the Charity Commissioners, with the assistance of the County Councils, to equip those schools, and they would make a large stride towards intermediate education.
  MR. HERBERT GARDNER: I am sure all who sit on this side of the House must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham on the success which has attended his efforts in the direction of education, and especially for having given the right hon. Gentleman, who professes to be the friend of the agriculturist, the opportunity of sweeping away the shame of having given only £5,000 towards agricultural education, while smaller
  1574
  countries, like Sweden, have been able to devote a much larger sum to that object. I regret that the Government have not found it possible to accept the second part of my hon. Friend's Amendment. It has been said that it is impossible to carry out the idea; but the two right hon. Gentlemen below me, who both have been Vice President of the Council, say that it is quite possible to carry out this scheme. I rise for the purpose of asking my right hon. Friend to leave out the words "not exceeding the moiety of the residue, or any part of that moiety," so that the whole of the residue might be taken for this very desirable object. That course has already been adopted in Wales, where the residue has been practically devoted to technical education. For my part, I do not see why the whole of this sum should not be utilised.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOT: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the first part of the Amendment, because I believe that nothing is required more than technical education in this country. We have been lamentably behind many other countries with regard to that. We give a good education in our schools, but at the same time we ought to impart that which will enable the boy to get his living in the future. One word more before I speak of the second portion of the Amendment. I think anyone who knows the country districts well, will recognise the difficulty of getting children living at long distances to attend in all weathers. I must say I was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield condemn my county, and I think he most unfairly and unjustly overstated the case when he said it was one of the most backward counties in England, and that it was a perfect disgrace.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to say that what I said was that in a large portion of the rural districts Standard IV. was the standard of full time, and I complained that, whether in Sussex or elsewhere, it was a discredit.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT: I do not want, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, to go into that matter more fully, but it was said in regard to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Ex-

  1575
  chequer living in Sussex. We have got so good an education in our rural schools that a large number of the farmers are sending their children to them, because there are scarcely any good intermediate schools. I think it is a discredit that we have not better intermediate schools, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to see his way to having intermediate education extended throughout the country.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think we ought to acknowledge the manner in which the Government have met the Amendment of my hon. Friend. If the Government do not wish to accept the whole of it, I do not think he could, after the discussion which has taken place, carry the controversy any further. I will show what can be done under the first part of the Amendment. In the Technical Instruction Act, the interpretation clause states that technical instruction shall mean instruction in science and art, applicable to industries, including modern languages, and commercial and agricultural subjects, which may for the time being be sanctioned by the Department. That, really, covers a great part of what we mean by technical education. I hope that intermediate education will not be neglected in the future. I gather, from what the Vice President has said, that was a subject the Government viewed with favour, and were willing at an early period to make provision for. That being so, if my hon. Friend takes my advice he will be content with the acceptance of the first part of this Amendment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The hon. Member in his Amendment only speaks of one moiety, but I understand he suggests that if the whole moiety is not applied to the first part of his Amendment, then that a portion of it should be applied to the second portion of his Amendment.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: This clause is permissive, and I do not see what is the use of the retention of these words. The County Council would be able to judge whether less or more—probably it would be less—than the moiety was required, and, therefore, I do not see the necessity of introducing these words at all. You can leave absolute freedom to the County
  1576
  Council to use as much or as little as they please of the moiety. The only disadvantage that we may expect by not taking the second part of the Amendment is, that the County Council may appropriate all the rest of the money in a manner that would exclude intermediate education in the future, when the machinery was created. I hope that may not be so, and that the County Council, especially in boroughs where the larger demand for this kind of school would arise, would keep their hands upon a sufficient sum of money to be used in future when the machinery was devised.
  MR. A. ACLAND: I beg to withdraw the second part of the Amendment, and I beg to suggest that with regard to the moiety, the second part might be made to read the same as the Welsh Clause.
  MR. BRYCE: The Vice President has mentioned the difficulty with regard to the initial expense of instituting technical instruction. His remark was well founded, and suggests a reason for not limiting too strictly the powers of the County Council. It might well be that more than the moiety was spent on these initial expenses, and, therefore, there seems to be ground for letting the County Councils, in some cases, spend more than the moiety.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am not indisposed to assent to the omission of the words as to the moiety, as the matter rests entirely with the County Council.
  MR. COURTNEY: A little alteration is wanted. If these words were struck out, power would be given to the County Council to contribute only the moiety of the residue. You will have to insert the words "or any part thereof."
  MR. ROWNTREE: Any sum going to a borough might impair the authority of that borough, and so cause jealousy because of the interference of the County Council.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have an Amendment to add to the present Amendment which will meet that objection.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOE: I am anxious to say how gratified I am at the acceptance by the Government of the first part

  1577
  of my hon. Friend's Amendment. To the great centres of industries, where the work of technical education is already in progress, it will be of great importance. The money will be available in large centres of industry, not only for assisting existing institutions, but for aiding the establishment of new ones. Where the Act is not already in operation the Amendment will be of great benefit by placing money at the disposal of the County Councils, by giving a start to the adoption of the Act. The Committee, which was presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wells Division, pointed out how important it was that in the rural districts money should be available for this purpose. We all know that farmers are inclined to complain, but it is a new thing that they should attribute a great deal of what may be called their misfortune to their having had no technical education. Therefore, both in large industrial centres and in agricultural districts, we may look forward to the money now to be applied being productive of a great deal of good. I regret, with most Members interested in education, that the second part of the Amendment has not been accepted by the Government, although I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby that really the scope of the technical instruction which can be given under the Act includes a great deal of what is classified as intermediate education. In the City of London the subject, which has not yet come under the County Council, is one of vast importance, and we may hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London, who is Chairman of the County Council, and who takes a deep interest in all educational matters, will see that this great Metropolis takes advantage of the Act, as our great provincial industrial centres certainly will.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, at end of Clause, add—
  "The Council of any such county or county borough may contribute any sum received by such council in respect of the residue under this section, or any part of that sum, for the purposes of technical (including agricultural and commercial) education within the meaning of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, and may make that contribution over and above
  1578
  any sum that may be raised by rate under that Act."—(Mr. Arthur Acland.)
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  MR. RITCHIE: I understand that hon. Gentlemen who represent boroughs in counties are very anxious that power should be conferred upon the County Council to pay any money which they may contribute towards technical education to the governing authority of a town or urban district instead of to the schools in those areas. Therefore, I propose—
  "That the County Council may make any such contribution by giving the amount thereof to any Council or Urban Sanitary Authority in their county for the purpose of the same being applied by such Council or Authority under the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, over and above any sum raised by rate by such Council or Authority."
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  MR. COURTNEY: I think those words would only enable the County Council to make one contribution to one authority.
  MR. SAMUELSON: I was going to point out that the words appear to mean that the contribution shall be made only where a rate has been raised.
  MR. RITCHIE: I think it will meet the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) if I insert the words "the amount, or any part of the amount."
  MR. SAMUELSON: The point I put was that the contribution might be regarded as necessarily one in aid.
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not think that would be so. This is "over and above" the amount raised by rate. It does not imply that they must raise a rate.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I confess it seems to me that is so. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government.
  MR. RITCHIE: No.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That is the meaning of the words "may (contribute in addition to the sum which the Council give." You can only give when a sum has been already raised. I am afraid that has been already done under the first part of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I read it that there must be a sum raised

  1579
  by the rate; and, unless something had been raised by the rate, there could be nothing "over and above" that.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It can be altered in another place.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: It is important that it should not be made to depend on the raising of a rate. I know-some places where the Local Authorities would be extremely slow to levy a rate, perhaps not for many years, and I hope the County Council will be enabled to make the grant without that condition.
  MR. RITCHIE: I hope the House will allow the Amendment to be put in this form—
  "The County Council may make any such contribution by giving such amount or any part of that amount to any Council or Urban Sanitary Authority in that county for the purpose of the sum being applied by such Council or Authority under the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, over and above any sum which can be raised by rate by such Council or Authority."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. COURTNEY: I am afraid that my objection still applies to the first part, that as the words now run they confine the contribution to one contribution.
  MR. RITCHIE: I will take care to see that it is set right.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, at end, add—
  "The Council for any county to which the Welsh Immediate Education Act, 1889, applies may contribute any sum received by such Council under this section in respect of the said residue or any part of that sum towards inter media'e and technical education under that Act, in addition to the amount which the Council can under that Act contribute for such education."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. S. T. EVANS: As already has been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Intermediate Education Act has worked exceedingly well in Wales, though in the poorer districts difficulty has been experienced in obtaining the necessary funds. That difficulty will now be got over now this money is to be provided. But I would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in connection with the Beer and Spirit Duty, that Wales does not get her fair
  1580
  proportion. The population of England is 27,000,000, and of Wales and Monmouth 1,700,000. The sum which England gets is £709,000, and Wales £34,000—or England gets 6¼d. and Wales 4¾d.—a very considerable difference, considering the smallness of the sum. Wales really ought to get £44,000.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help expressing a sanguine hope and expectation that the Government, having treated in so conciliatory a spirit the claims of England and Wales, will now proceed to regard our claims in the same favourable light. We have to bear in mind the very extraordinary indications of Scotch political and parliamentary feeling which the divisions taken in Committee disclosed. On two main propositions in opposition to the scheme of the Government we find, in one case, the Amendment supported by 42 to 14 of Scotch Members, and in the other by 44 to 11. We can hardly, therefore, he supposed unduly obstinate or persistent if we take this opportunity of inviting the House and the Government to reconsider the situation. The hon. Member for Roxburghshire scouted the idea that the vote of the majority of Scotch Members ought to be regarded, and I am not saying for one moment that Irish and English Members ought to bow to that majority. That would be simply absurd, but I do think that some deference ought to be paid to such a remarkable expression of opinion. Now, the Amendment which I am going to move places the issue between us in a very straight way. On the one hand it is relief of the rates, and on the other free education. I will content myself by saying, in regard to the relief of the rates, that there are four objections to which that disposition of this money is open. In the first place, the money will be handed over to the authorities as a vague kind of subsidy with no guarantee for its economical administration. Then, the relief of rates has not been asked for by the people of Scotland. My hon. Friend brought forward again the other day his old friend the blacksmith, and he said that the abolition of fees in primary schools would be a good thing

  1581
  in large towns, but was there nothing to be done for the relief of small ratepayers? What I would point out to my hon. Friend is this, that he greatly exaggerates the benefit to be conferred on the blacksmiths. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen showed that the money to be given, if divided, would only be 3d. in the year in the greater part of the constituencies, and 6d. in others, and the amount of money given in the counties would be larger than in the boroughs. But I suppose the blacksmith is subject to the ordinary incidents of human life, and that he has his share of children, and in that respect there is no comparison between the benefit conferred by the proposal of the Government and the one I support by my Amendment. My last objection to the propesal is that the great bulk of the money will go in all probability to the owners of the soil, and not to the occupiers. We must recognise the undoubted feeling of the Scotch people in favour of education. They are not possessed, as some others are, with any dread of over-education. They are not afraid of the children of the humbler classes being educated, as it is called, above their station. That, I believe, is at the bottom of a great deal of the resistance to the policy of free education which exists in England. But there is no trace of any such feeling among the great body of the Scotch people. We claim that primary education shall be free all along the line. The Chancellor of the Exchequer with some plausibility taunted us with lack of faith in the love of our countrymen for education. He says it is a poor compliment to pay them to say they will be deterred by the imposition of a fee from having their children educated in the higher standards. If it is said that the Scotch people, since they value education so highly, will not be deterred from continuing their children at school by the imposition of a fee, I reply that that is no argument for adding to the temptation by imposing a fee. We ought, I say, to encourage the idea that the same moral obligation rests upon the parent to send his children to school in the voluntary as in the compulsory standards. The latter standards represent merely the minimum of education which is regarded
  1582
  as necessary in the interests of society. But the best answer to that argument is to be found in the Report of the Scotch Education Department for this year, which complains of the very evil which the Scotch Members wish to remedy, namely, that the attendance becomes irregular the moment the voluntary or higher standards are reached. In 1888 there were 61,612 scholars in Standard V., but in 1889 there were only 28,939 in the higher standards. Now, the Scotch Members wish to remove the discouragement to parents against keeping their children at school when they reach the higher standards, by getting rid of the fees now charged. I have in my hand a letter received by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, which puts our case very clearly. The writer, Mr. W. Alexander, headmaster of Leith Walk Public School, the largest Board school in Edinburgh, says that, during the past two years, the average attendance in that school has been 1,472, and the grants earned £1,543 in one year and £1,545 in the other. He continues—
  "The Board do not pay us on result, but give all the teachers a fixed salary. I mention this to show that there is no self-interest in our wishing to have the upper standards made free. In my school I have 120 pupils in Standard V., and 80 in Examination 6. My experience this year has been that these standards have melted away, and will continue to disintegrate, in the course of the year, much more than in former years, and solely because no sooner do the children pass out of Standard V. than a fee is charged. Freeing the compulsory standards, a good thing in itself, has, indirectly, done harm. It has created in the minds of most parents the idea that their children have got a complete education in those standards, whereas they have only got the barest necessaries of the elements of education. The Sixth Standard and Examination 6 are the crowning of the whole. The freeing of the compulsory standards has created a gap which did not exist before, but which the freeing of the voluntary standards would have filled up and restored to the former statu quo. The people are greatly governed by habit, and in money matters more than in most things, and this habit of paying nothing until the Sixth Standard is reached has made them indifferent to keeping the child any longer at school. The argument that the Scotch people have always valued education so much that they are willing to pay for it, is not to the point here. The conditions have been altered, and with the new condition of things', new habits are formed. Will it not be possible, even yet, to carry this proposal on Report? This is the critical year. If the Government can be got to yield, the tendency to withdraw scholars from the higher standards will be

  1583
  checked in time, but if it goes on the difficulty will be all the greater when the concession is made afterwards."
  This letter leaves nothing more to be said on the subject; it gives the views of a man thoroughly conversant with the practical working of the educational system. There is still another point in which this sudden interposition of a fee works harm. Under an Act passed in 1883, no child under 13 years of age can be employed in a factory or workshop. Now, there is scarcely any half time employment in Scotland, so what occurs? Take, first, the case of a clever boy. By the time he is 10 years of age, he passes the Fifth Standard, and from that until he is 13 years old ho cannot go to work, so he must either remain idle or his father must pay the fees in the higher standards. But the stupid boy who can never get beyond the Fifth Standard can remain at the school free of expense until he is 13 years old. Surely this is an inducement upon parents to keep back the education of their children. The interposition of a fee just when the child is beginning to derive the greatest benefit from education has a most evil effect from an educational point of view. The remission of the fee would, at the same time, give a large pecuniary relief to the great body of hardly-pressed working people; and on these grounds I hope it is not too late to hope that the Government will re-consider the matter. They must know that the great majority of the Scotch people are in favour of what we are asking.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, to leave out the words "a sum not exceeding 40,"and insert the words" the sum of 90."(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'a sum not exceeding 40' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. BARCLAY: I took but little part in the discussion when the education question was being debated in Committee, because I thought the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate had very fully answered the objections made to the Government proposals on this side of the House. But now, Sir, that the question has been again raised, I crave the indulgence of the House while I endeavour to state as
  1584
  briefly as possible the reasons why I prefer the Government proposal and why I cannot support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs. We have heard very frequently in this Debate that the people of Scotland are very much in favour of education. I entirely agree with that sentiment. We are also told that they are very much in favour, not only of freeing compulsory education, but that they think the burden of education, instead of devolving to some extent on the parents as hitherto, should be entirely paid for out of taxation, either local or Imperial. Some Members have gone so far as to say that the people of Scotland are hostile to the idea of fees being paid by wealthy parents able and willing to pay. I do not profess to speak for the people of Scotland, but I may be allowed to indicate my views on the state of public opinion in that country. I have not seen in the public prints reports of meetings and discussions such as justify the statements of some hon. Members as to what public opinion there is. I think the people of Scotland are prepared to accept the principle that the fees for education in the compulsory standards should be paid out of taxation, but I do not think they are prepared to accept without further discussion and consideration the principle that the fees in the High Schools of Scotland and in the Universities should also be paid out of taxation, either local or Imperial. That is the view which I understood the Member for Stirling Burghs enunciated.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I never said anything of the kind, nor did I say anything that could bear that interpretation.
  MR. BARCLAY: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he and his Party were in favour of the widest diffusion of knowledge at the expense of the rates.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: No, not at the expense of the rates.
  MR. BARCLAY: Then the right hon. Gentleman was merely stating a platitude which hon. Members on both sides of the House are prepared to support. All the Members for Scotland are in favour of the widest diffusion of knowledge. The question which is at issue is whether that knowledge is to be paid for by the

  1585
  parents of the children, or whether it is to be paid for out of taxation, either local or Imperial. If the right hon. Gentleman will say he did not mean that it should be paid for out of taxation, I do not think there is any difference between us on the point.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I said nothing as to the payment out of the public money of fees, or of any other expenses in Universities, or in the case of middle-class education. I was dealing only with the fees for primary education, and I referred in my speech to the extraordinary zeal always shown by the Scotch people for the widest diffusion of knowledge, as showing that they would have no jealousy of the extension of primary education to any length we chose to go.
  MR. BARCLAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say at the public expense?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: For primary education, certainly.
  MR. BARCLAY: Now, there are 21 schools in my county giving primary education to the fullest extent without payment of fees, and with the additional grant proposed to be handed over, I fully believe that the whole of the schools in that county will be able to give free education. I will now deal with the proposal of the Government. During last Session a sum of £250,000 was voted for the reduction of school fees in Scotland, the method of distribution being left to be decided by the Scotch Education Department. That Department came to the conclusion that the money should be divided by means of a uniform Capitation Grant on the average school attendance. I do not see how it could have been proceeded with on different lines without inflicting great injustice on many districts. My hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen, who has devoted so much valuable attention to this question, asserts that the high fees which are charged in some districts are due to the action of the School Boards in saving the rates; and that those bodies, instead of levying a fair amount of rates upon the ratepayers, have chosen to exact very high school fees, and thus saved the rates. I believe the mode of distribution adopted by the Department was universally approved in Scotland and by this House. What is the new proposal the Government is
  1586
  now making? They find that the sum of £283,000 would, taking Scotland as a whole, pay the fees in all the compulsory standards. That is about £40,000 beyond what was previously voted, and they now propose to make this further grant of £40,000 to provide for the payment of fees in the compulsory standards. They have also undertaken to lay on the Table of the House a Minute of the Scotch Education Department providing that the money shall be distributed in the same way as the previous grant. What will be the result? In my own constituency I find that in the School Board schools there are 21 schools in which no fees whatever are charged. Our portion of the additional grant of £40,000 will be sufficient to increase the Capitation Grant to about 11s. per head, and that sum I believe will be adaquate to abolish school fees in all the schools. Therefore, we have no more to ask to have free education in Forfarshire. In addition to that, my constituency will now receive a share of the £50,000 which is to be applied in reduction of the rates. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs that the people of Scotland are very tolerant of taxation, that they are willing to pay when they see there is good reason for the payment, and that the money is economically and judiciously expended. But it has always been the characteristic of the people of Scotland that they have strong ideas of economy. I cannot believe that they have now lost those ideas, and that they will not avail themselves with satisfaction of this assistance which it is proposed to give in aid of local taxation. Turning now to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs, my right hon. Friend has referred to the Education Statistics, and has found that the total amount paid in school fees in Scotland is between£330,000 and £340,000. He says that if the Government, instead of giving the £50,000 in relief of local taxation, will hand it over for educational purposes it will be ample to give free education to Scotland, and to abolish fees altogether. But if the right hon. Gentleman is going to abolish school fees with this sum he must do it on a different principle from that which has been adopted in the distribution of money by the Education Department.

  1587
  He cannot abolish school fees and distribute this money in the form of a uniform Capitation Grant. He must distribute it amongst the School Boards in proportion to the fees previously exacted. The sum at his disposition would be equal to an average Capitation Grant of 13s. But 13s. would not suffice to pay the high fees exacted in some places, such as in Glasgow, for example, where they amount to 17s. 6d. or 18s. per head. The right hon. Gentleman would have to reverse the policy of the Education Department, or the sum he would want to entirely abolish fees would amount to £450,000, instead of £340,000. He has to level up School Boards from almost nothing per scholar to 18s. He must distribute a sum of money equal to this to poor schools, before he can abolish school fees in Scotland on the principle adopted by the Education Department. In my own constituency there are 21 schools which are already without any fees, and I fully expect the additional £40,000 now voted will raise the Capitation Grant to 11s., and will enable the whole of the fees in my constituency to be abolished. But, according to the right hon. Gentleman, my constituency would receive no further amount of money; it would all go to the large constituencies, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh. The problem to solve is, how the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) is going to abolish school fees throughout Scotland with this money, on the principle which has been adopted by the Education Department. I know, in my own constituency, the result would be we should get no portion of this £50,000, but it would be devoted to other parts of Scotland, in order that high school fees might be abolished. So far as my own constituency is concerned, it would deprive them of any share of this £50,000, giving it to Glasgow and Edinburgh. For these reasons I do submit that any proposal, to divide the money according to fees exacted by School Boards, which is the only way it appears to me the right hon. Gentleman can carry out his object of abolishing school fees, would be a great injustice to those parts of the country which have levied high rates and kept down fees. These are some of the reasons which induce me to prefer the proposal of the Government. My constituents, under this proposal, will have
  1588
  full payment of school fees, and they will have, in addition, a share in the reduction of local rates out of this £50,000. If the right hon. Gentleman can continue these benefits, and, at the same time, abolish payment of fees in Glasgow and Edinburgh, I have no objection. I shall have much pleasure in supporting the proposal of the Government.
  (7.8.) The House divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 129.—(Div. List, No. 218.)
  MR. C. S. PARKER: Certainly, the last Division shows that the House is not unfavourably inclined to the views of Scotch Members, and I cannot help hoping that even yet, at the last moment, the Government will not persist in the disastrous course of treating Scotland in a way altogether different from the other parts of the United Kingdom, paying no regard to the advice of her Representatives as regards the application of her share of the funds. The Government have, I think, given Scotch Members some reason to complain that after the careful speech, no one can say it was a Party speech, in which my right hon. Friend went into the educational part of the question, the Government sat in silence and allowed a Division to be taken. My right hon. Friend dealt ably with practical details, quoting opinions of experts, and I do think, under the circumstances, for the Front Bench to treat his arguments with absolute silence and contempt is—well, a course of conduct it is not easy properly to describe. I shall detain the House but a few minutes with the Amendment I now have to propose. It is perfectly simple, and I wish the House to understand how the case lies. Last year we voted £240,000 for application in Scotland to the reduction of fees, and there was a difference in two respects from the arrangement of this year; one was that School Boards were left in the position of being residuary legatees instead of being left a definite sum. The other difference is, there was no attempt made, in either the Act of Parliament or the Minute of the Education Department, which applied that Act, to run counter to the feeling in Scotland by drawing a mischievous distinction between compulsory standards and voluntary standards in the same school. It is not much to ask that we should have our

  1589
  £40,000 not clogged with a condition which we say, on educational grounds, is mischievous in Scotland. I hope the House will agree to omit the words, and leave the money in the same position as the money voted last year. It is the less concession because, upon the Lord Advocate's own showing, there are only 98 schools in all Scotland where the compulsory standards are not now free. Therefore, there is this sum of £40,000 going to Scotland, and going to be distributed, as it was last year, throughout all the districts, including 3,000 schools, in which compulsory standard fees no longer exist. And yet we are to say it is only fur the compulsory standards. It is most illusory that an Act of Parliament should be passed for devoting £40,000 to the compulsory standard fees, and yet we are told there are only 98 schools where the abolition has not been carried out. If the money were to go to these 98 schools, it would be an extravagant grant of £400 or more to each. But that is not what is proposed, the distribution is to be made in proportion to average attendance. For instance, in For far, to which the last speaker has referred, the effect will simply be that the money will go to the schools according to the number of children, and be applied as the managers think fit in improving the educational arrangements, in raising the masters' salaries, or in reducing the school rate. We are told, indeed, that these words are, in fact, inoperative. With these words in, or leaving them out, we are told, on the high authority of the legal adviser of the Government for Scotland, it will be perfectly competent and legal for a School Board to take their full share nominally for the compulsory standards, and so pass on the money they derive from the Probate Duty and from the rates to relieve the voluntary standards. Therefore, it is not a question of substance; it is a question of form, but it is misleading to the people of Scotland to put such words into the Bill, and it is the more vexatious as there are no such words in the Act of last year. I hope the Government will have the grace to make this small concession to us.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, to leave out the words "of children in
  1590
  the compulsory standards of the Scotch Code."—(Mr. Charles Parker.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I rise, not to argue this question, because the Government are not here to argue the question at all. During all the time that I have been in Parliament I have never seen a piece of more unexampled insolence. ["Order, order!"] unexampled insolence—
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I rise to order, Sir. I ask you, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to use that term in this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Insolence is a word which I do not think should be employed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not insist on the use of the word.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It is quite enough for me, Sir, that you should suggest that I should not use that word, but I will say that a method of more unexampled contempt exhibited towards opponents I have never known in Parliament. There was a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs which deserved an answer. It was a speech of a conciliatory character; it was following up a conciliatory Debate upon the English and Welsh Clauses; it was an appeal to the Government to act in the same spirit towards Scotland as towards England and Wales, and the Government stood by and treated it with contempt. Yes, and that spirit of contempt is approved. We are quite ready to take it up, but do not you talk to us of obstruction, when that is the spirit in which the Government act! Have we been obstructing your business to-day? Have we not been assisting you to come to an honourable and favourable settlement with the people of England and Wales? And this is the manner in which you meet us! It is a spirit of contempt to this House, as well as to your opponents. It is a spirit of contempt exhibited towards the majority of the people of Scotland, and you were punished as you deserved to be punished by the fact that in the Division you could not command one quarter of your normal majority. If that is the manner in which you choose to treat a matter of this description, all I can say is that you will be encountered by

  1591
  a vehement and obstinate resistance; and a Government which chooses to handle the House of Commons in that way deserves any amount of opposition that we can offer to it.
  MR. W. H.SMITH: Sir, I think the House has never listened to a more extraordinary performance than that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and he has at times indulged in extraordinary language in this House. He has charged us with having treated the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs with contempt.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Not me; I make no complaint.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No; if the right hon. Gentleman had made any complaint he would not certainly have indulged in such language.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman imputes things to me. I make no complaint personally as to the way in which I was treated myself, but I join completely and heartily with my right hon. Friend.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is not in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's usual courteous habit in this House to associate himself with such language as the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to employ. Now, Sir, what are the facts of the case? We listened attentively to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. It was a temperate and a moderate speech. It conveyed a large amount of information to the House, and it was treated with respect on this side of the House. The hon. Member for Forfarshire got up and made a reasoned answer to that speech. I will not say that if there had not been cries of "Divide" from the Opposition side of the House, it would not have been reasonable for the Government to give an answer to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. But the House must remember that for three days we have been discussing these questions in Committee. We have answered speech for speech with the greatest respect for hon. Gentlemen, and especially the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby himself. He cannot say that he and the Scotch Members, and the arguments advanced by them, have not been treated with respect. It is true that we have not yielded to them, because we did not think it right to do so; but now we
  1592
  are charged with contempt, simply because at the last, when we had reason to believe that there was a strong desire on the part of the House to go to a Division, we do not repeat the arguments and statements of fact which we advanced during three nights in the Committee. If that is contempt, all I can say is, that I express the greatest regret for being guilty of it. I thought to save the time of the House, and I certainly desired to be respectful to the House; and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, when he returns to a cool state of mind, will feel that an exhibition such as we have had this afternoon is not calculated to raise the reputation of the House of Commons or insure for him a happier course in the responsible position which he holds on that Bench.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down does not, I think, see the real gravity of the situation which so affects hon. Members on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has not followed the Debate quite closely enough or he would have seen that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Camp-bell-Bannerman) brought forward new matter of the very gravest importance. The most important point of all these Debates has been this: whether or not by making the compulsory standards free, and leaving the voluntary standards still to pay, you will not afford an excuse to parents to withdraw their children when they come to that point in their education where real education begins—when they have passed through the compulsory standards. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that there is no such danger, and that confidence ought to be placed in the Scotch parents, amongst whom there is such a feeling in favour of education that they are quite sure not to withdraw their children on account of the fees. Since the former discussions two things have happened. The Government have themselves published a Report which states that since the fees have been abolished in the lower standards children have been sent earlier to school. The deduction from that is necessarily this: that if you retain the fees for the higher standards, the children will be withdrawn earlier from school. But a

  1593
  uracil more important thing than that has happened, which I hope will be allowed to weigh with the Government even at the eleventh hour. The best new point was the letter which my right hon. Friend read from a schoolmaster in one of the greatest schools in Edinburgh, one of the most eminent practical educationalists in Scotland. That great authority earnestly entreats Parliament and the Government to change their policy, because already the most fatal effects are occurring from the withdrawal of children from the higher standards, and because ho is satisfied that, if the matter is not mended within the next year, the very gravest results will occur to Scotch education. That is the gist of the whole question we have been discussing for the last three nights. The Scottish people understand the matter thoroughly. They understand it far better than the hon. Gentlemen who come in to vote when the Division bell rings, but who were not sitting in the House during my right hon. Friend's speech. During that speech the Benches opposite were almost empty, and I am quite certain that unless that letter in which our whole case is stated is answered the result will give as much dissatisfaction to the people of Scotland as it will be fatal and ruinous to all that is characteristic in Scottish education.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am one of those who found it my duty to go against the Government in the last Division; but though that is the case, I must say that in the Lobby I heard distinct statements that it was the desire of those opposed to the Government on the Opposition side of the House to have an early Division, and I think that entirely corroborates the statement of the leader of the House that it was courtesy to those who opposed the Government to at once—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I am bound to say that the particular Amendment before the House is being lost sight of, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not pursue the subject further. A particular statement has been made and answered, and I think the House ought now to pursue the particular matter of the Amendment.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I will do so, Sir. I think the answer to the Member for Bridgeton is this: It is in the know-
  1594
  ledge of the House that the whole question of education in relation to Scotland will have to be re-considered by the Government. When that takes place, the amount now devoted to Scottish-education will be necessarily released from its present particular allotment, and then we may fairly claim that the Government will Fee that the desire of the people of Scotland to have all the standards free shall be given effect to.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING,): The precise Amendment under the consideration of the House is whether the words "in the compulsory standards of the Scotch Code" are to remain or are to be omitted, and that Amendment must be viewed, in my opinion, in connection with the decision the House arrived at a few minutes ago, which was that the sum to be allotted for the purpose in view shall be £40,000. That being so, the only practical question is not whether more can be done for freeing education than is proposed by the Government, but whether the retention of the words "in the compulsory standards of the Scotch Code" can possibly do any harm. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division that an important new fact has arisen in the shape of the Annual Report of the Scottish Education Department, but the right hon. Gentleman can hardly have noticed that the Report deals with the period before free education was introduced in Scotland. It only comes down to September, 1889.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I think the Solicitor General is mistaken. [The right hon. Gentleman handed a copy of the Report across the Table.]
  MR. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING(after examining the extract): It may be that I have made a mistake, and, if so, I am sorry that I have made it; but the statistics in the Report only come down to the date I have mentioned, and therefore nothing is actually known of the working of free education. Accordingly, it is too soon to dogmatise as to the results of that change. But the right hon. Gentleman referred to a letter from an educational authority in Leith. I should have thought, looking at the right hon. Gentleman to whom it was addressed,

  1595
  that the writer was not altogether un-acquainted with political subjects, and that impression was confirmed by the fact that the writer seemed to be correctly informed as to the rules of Parliamentary procedure, because he refers to the Report stage of this Bill. I have no doubt that the views of the writer of the letter reflect a certain apprehension in the minds of soma teachers that the imposition of fees beyond the compulsory standards may have the effect of discouraging attendance beyond the compulsory standards; but it is too soon to judge of that, and again I would ask the House to come back to the real question—Will the retention of those words do any possible harm to education? Last year a grant of £250,000 was confessedly made for the purpose solely of freeing the compulsory standards; and when the Minute of the Education Department came to be framed, it was framed not on the footing of dictating to the School Boards what they were to do, but of merely making it a condition of the receipt of the money that they should free the first three standards and provide a certain number of free places in the Fourth and Fifth Standards. That is exactly what will be done in the new Minute; that is to say, the new Minute will do nothing more than require as a condition the freeing of the compulsory standards. But the School Boards, who are best able to judge of the matter, are perfectly free to act as they may think fit; if they choose to put the money into their pockets because they do not require it, they may do so. If they choose to improve the facilities and appliances for education, they may do that. If they choose to free more than the compulsory standards, they may do that. All that Parliament says is, that condition of receiving this money they must free the compulsory standards.
  MR. C. S. PARKER.: What is the meaning of putting in these words, then?
  MR. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING: The meaning is nothing more than the meaning of last year, when the same or corresponding words were put into the Minute. Therefore, the Member for Perth has failed entirely to show that the retention of the words can have any possible effect in tying the hands of the School Boards. The House may rest assured
  1596
  that the meaning is that Parliament requires the freeing of the compulsory standards, and does not seek to go further. The reason of that I take to be that free education is as yet in a tentative stage, and that we shall be in a better position in a few years to judge of its operation, and then to decide whether it is desirable to go further.
  SIR L. PLAYFAIR: I desire to say a few words before the Division is taken, because I think the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the position we take up as to these words. It has been shown that there are only 98 schools which can use this £40,000 to free the compulsory standards. What is to become of the surplus? You say you are going to leave the School Boards free to use the money as they like, but to leave the School Boards to do as they like with the money is utterly inconsistent with the words you are putting into the Act of Parliament. You put into the Act words declaring that the money shall only be used for the compulsory standards, and you confirm that by a Minute of the Education Department. The position in which the Government have put this matter is most ludicrous, and why they do not seek to get it out of such a position I cannot understand. I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that these words will do no harm. They will fetter the County Councils. They are inconsistent with the declarations of the Government, and under these circumstances I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, and thus escape from a paradoxical position.
  MR. HUNTER: There is still something mysterious about this matter that has not been explained. No one who applies the words of the clause to the existing state of things in Scotland can understand them—everyone who tries to do so gets deeper and deeper in difficulty. This sum is to be applied in relief of fees of children in the compulsory standards of the Scotch Code. Will the House believe the manner in which this £40,000 is to be distributed? There are 2,981 schools in Scotland in which all the compulsory standards are already free, and these schools will absorb more than

  1597
  £38,000 of the £40,000. The position of the Government is, therefore, absurd, because they profess to give the money to free the compulsory standards, when, with the exception of 98 schools, which cannot absorb £2,000, all the schools in Scotland are already free in the five compulsory standards. But there is this other point. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland tonight have said in a somewhat airy and indecisive fashion that they know perfectly well that the bulk of these schools in Scotland cannot use the money for this ostensible purpose, but that it can be used to reduce foes in the higher standards or to reduce the rates. But there is another class of schools which share in this grant, namely, the voluntary schools. Under this grant 466 voluntary schools will be entitled to a share of this £40,000, and in round numbers these will absorb £6,000. Each and every one of these voluntary schools has already freed all the five compulsory standards, and, therefore, the money will have to be applied either to the compulsory standards, which are already provided for, or to the higher standards. The whole of the voluntary contributions in Scotland do not exceed £28,000 a year. Under this clause of the Bill it will be in the power of the managers of voluntary schools to take £6,000 and apply it to the reduction of the infinitesimal subscriptions now obtained by these schools. A more monstrous use of public money was never heard of. This £40,000 increases the 10s. grant of last year to 11s. 6d. All that is necessary now is that this grant should be supplemented by a sum that will give 1s. 6d. per annum additional. The Government have debated this question as if it were possible to draw distinctions between standards in the Scotch system. It is absolutely impossible, because the Government have distributed this money on the principle of a capitation grant. Unless the fees for all the standards were uniform it is impossible that the capitation grant could agree with the actual division into standards. Before the last Division we were asked how provision could be made for the abolition of fees in all schools. Why, simply in the manner the Government have already provided. The only difference would be that the grant would be made on con-
  1598
  dition that the school authority abolished all fees in the schools. I really hope the Government will explain why they find something sacred in 11s. 6d. and something wicked in 13s. It was contended by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate that the total sum of £283,000 corresponded with the total sum charged in the five lower standards. That must be an entire error. The sum you now place at the disposal of the School Authorities in Scotland is equal to freeing entirely 450,000 of the average attendance, whereas 420,000 represents the attendance in the five standards. Now, why on earth were these words put into this clause? They were not in the clause last year, and they have no relation to the existing state of facts in Scotland. They are put in with the sole purpose of setting the plain meaning of the clause at absolute defiance.
  DR. CLARK: We have a curious condition of things in some parts of the northern counties. In some parishes of Boss-shire, where there are deer forests and large farms, there is a 2d. rate, and I am afraid the School Board in some of such parishes will require to dine in order to get rid of this, money. I am very sorry the Government are so obstinate on this question. We are only fighting for the old use and wont in Scotland. We want a condition of things in which all the classes of elementary education will be free, as they were before the old system John Knox established was modified in the interests of the landlords. What the Government want to do is to vote a large sum to the landlords by whom the principal rates in all the counties are paid.
  (7.58.) The House divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 104.—(Div. List, No. 219.)
  MR. C. S. PARKER: The next Amendment which stands in my name was intended simply as an alternative in case the Government, instead of giving a definite sum, preferred to give the residue. Having regard to the result of the Division the House has just taken, it is not my intention to press the Amendment.
  MR. BRYCE: I rise to move an Amendment which I hope the Government will be able to see their way to accept. We want to have the extinction of fees in elementary schools com-

  1599
  pleted. That is what we have urgently pressed for, but if we cannot get that I think it is fair that the Government should at least consent to let us do for Scotland what they have agreed to do for England. I propose, therefore, to add words to the end of the clause empowering the Councils of Counties and Burghs and Commissioners of the Police Burghs to make contributions for the purpose of technical education, as already provided in the case of England and Wales. The Amendment I have to propose is exactly the same as that already adopted by the House, mutatis mutandis, and it leaves the making of contributions purely optional with the Local Authority.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of Clause 2, to insert the words—
  "Provided, nevertheless, that the Council of any such county or burgh, and the Commissioners of any such Police Burgh may contribute any sum received by such county or Commissioners, as the case may be, with respect to the said residue or any part of that sum, for the purposes of technical, including agricultural and commercial education, within the meaning of the Technical Schools (Scotland) Act, 1887, and may make that contribution over and above any sum that may be paid out of any school fund under that Act, whether or not any such sum has been paid out of such fund."— (Mr. Bryce.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government have no objection to this Amendment of the Bill, which gives to the Scotch County Councils precisely the same powers which the English County Councils have received. It is possible it may be necessary to amend the precise words; if so, the Amendment can be made in another place.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The House, or those who were present, will recollect that the other day the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) suggested certain Amendments with regard to model schools in Ireland. The Amendments were not on the Paper, and, therefore, I had not time to consider them, but I have had time since; and I think his view will be carried out by adopting a certain number of Amendments, chiefly consequential Amendments, the first of which occurs in page 2. line 38. I have
  1600
  to move to leave out there the words "excluding model schools." If that is not done those Unions in which there are model schools will get less than their fair share of the money. I propose that the money shall be distributed according to the number of scholars. I propose to leave Sub-section A substantially as it is now, though there will be some verbal alterations made. With regard to Subsection B, I propose to move to leave out the words "not being model schools," because those words would practically deprive contributory Unions that come under the Act of 1875 of their fair share of the money. I have other Amendments of a somewhat different character to Sub-section D, which are intended to carry out more completely the view expressed by the hon. Member for West Belfast, and were accepted by the Government the day before yesterday. I beg to move the omission of the words "excluding model schools."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 38 and 39, to omit the words"excluding model schools."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. SEXTON: The meaning of the right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, clear to his own mind, but it is not clear to mine. Of course, the first operation of the clause will be that you must take the whole number of children attending the schools and divide it into the gross amount of the grant in order to obtain the capitation rate. If the children attending the model schools are left out, of course, the Capitation Grant will be higher. Then, with regard to Subsection A, I understand the right hon. Gentleman agrees to leave it substantially as it is [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] and that I take to mean this. But in cases of contributory Unions that come under the Act of 1875 the Board of Guardians are bound to contribute to every school in the Union, model or otherwise [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] as much as will make up the local aid. I confess, in that case, as the principle of the Act is to recoup the Union, it would not be possible to recoup the Union unless the model schools are excluded.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will just explain the point. What I meant was this: Take a Union in which there are a thousand children, two hundred of whom attend the model school. You only give this contribution in respect of the number of children who attend the ordinary schools.
  MR. SEXTON: I understand that the £78,000 is to be divided in respect of the 500,000 children attending ordinary national schools. If we add the model school children the effect will be that the grant for the individual child all over Ireland will be diminished. At any rate the operation will be infinitessimal, and I do not think it worth while to press the point.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 5, to leave out the word"such."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour)
  Question, "That the word 'such' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 5, to leave out from the word "not," in in line 5, to the word "school," in line 6, inclusive.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. SEXTON: I think it well the right hon. Gentleman should explain by what means he proposes to accomplish the end I suggested by the insertion of these words.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps it would be convenient to the House if I read the section as it will stand after the Amendments I suggest. The section will read—
  "In the case of every national school in a Union which is not a contributory Union, shall be paid for the benefit of schools which are not model schools, as an addition to the local contributions to, or in respect of, such schools, within the financial year fixed by the last mentioned rules; and"
  I admit that it does not read very smoothly, but, at the same time, I think it is perfectly clear, and explicitly carries out the views which the hon. Member for Belfast embodied in the Amendments he laid before the House the other day.
  MR. SEXTON: Yes, the object is clear; but there is a hopeless infirmity about the grammar.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Consequentia Amendments made.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  SUPPLY— REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,583,845 (including a Supplementary sum of £50,000), be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891, for the Salaries and Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I desire to ask the Postmaster General to consider a matter of some importance to rural districts: it relates to cases in which private individuals have agreed to guarantee certain sums for seven years in order that postal telegraph, offices may be established in certain places. My contention is not so much that the money required is too much, though in a great number of cases I think it is excessive, but that the guarantee has to be given for seven years. I complain that, although in the first two years the guarantors may be called upon to make good a deficiency, say, of £10, it is possible that in the succeeding years there may be a profit of £20 a year, and that in such a case the money previously paid is not refunded. The effect of this is a check upon local enterprise. It is especially hard that one or two individuals who are inclined for the benefit of the neighbourhood to introduce the telegraph should be mulcted in a substantial sum of money. It is of great importance that out-of-the-way places should be brought into communication by means of the telegraph. I think the least the Postmaster General can do is to consider what can be done, guarding himself, of course, against loss. My chief objection is the deterrent that the system is to local enterprise. I know more than one case where the guarantors have been out of pocket, although they have been the means of earning considerable revenue for the Department.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I wish to say a

  1603
  word or two in a similar spirit to that which animated the remarks of the hon. Member opposite. A similar state of things exists in Scotland in many districts to which the extension of the telegraph system is necessary for the development of the local trade and industry. I am perfectly well aware, from information the Postmaster General has given me, that the obstacle to telegraphic extension and any change in the present system comes rather from the Treasury than from his own Department. As regards extension in the Highlands of Scotland, provision was made giving power to the Government to provide themselves with a guarantee from the surplus fund derived from the branding of herrings; but now I understand that fund is exhausted, and so extension of the telegraphic system in the Highlands is not going on. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will still tell me that the Rules of the Treasury preclude extensions in the absence of adequate local guarantees; but I hope he will bring his influence to bear to obtain some relaxation of Rules which, by preventing these extensions, check the development of trade in the fishery districts and elsewhere.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: I quite agree with what has been urged by the hon. Gentleman opposite that these Treasury Rules often prevent the earning of revenue by extensions of the telegraphic system. It is, I think, a poor and mean policy for a great Government Department to pursue to exact these local guarantees out of which ultimately a profitable branch of the Post Office business arises. It is not the way in which such a business should be managed.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I do not know that I can say very much in addition to what I have said in former years upon this question. The complaint made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. Llewellyn) certainly deserves consideration. The position which I understand him to take up is this: that in places where a guarantee is given for seven years, and where the guarantors have to make good the deficiency in revenue for one, two, or three years, when the Telegraph
  1604
  Office comes to be more than self-supporting, the guarantors should have some claim on a portion of the profit which is earned. I confess I think he has made out something of a case. I am not prepared to say that this view will be accepted absolutely by the Treasury; but, at all events, I do not think it can be denied that there is something of a hardship if public-spirited gentlemen living in a locality put their hands in their pockets to support the telegraph for the convenience of themselves and their neighbours find that, while they have protected the Government against loss, the Government, by the force of the guarantee, make a profit in which they have no share. The case, as fairly stated by my hon. Friend, is more of a Treasury than a Post Office question, and the Treasury, as is well known, are governed by rules which experience has shown are advantageous to the public service, and which, of course, it is not in my power to call upon the Treasury to relax. At the same time I am bound to say I think the hon. Member has done good service in calling attention to the subject, and I will not lose sight of it, and if the system by which the Treasury balances its accounts will allow of some change being made in this direction, I shall be glad to find myself in a position to announce such an alteration. The hon. Member for Sutherland takes rather a different line and a very natural line, considering the constituency he represents. The distant parts of the Highlands, of course, are not in a position to support their own telegraphs; they are not in a position to guarantee a revenue from their own telegraph stations; yet in many cases the existence of a telegraph station in one of these out-of-the-way places is almost indispensable for the prosperity of the locality. This subject was brought under my notice two years ago by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, who took an active interest in it, and who pressed on the Government the importance of dispensing with the guarantee usually required in view of the absolute necessity for a telegraph station in a locality where the people are unable to pay for the advantage. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman referred to fishing stations, where it is a matter of the utmost

  1605
  importance, when there happens to be a great catch of fish, to communicate with fish-curers and others that the fish may be at once dealt with. This principle, I think I may say, has been accepted in a modified degree by the Government. I have had the fortune to extend to several places, particularly in the West and North-West Highlands, telegraph stations outside the strict Treasury rule. I have no doubt that other stations think they have an equal claim on the benevolence of the State. Everything, however, cannot be done at once, and I must content myself by saying that I shall have great pleasure in continuing to administer the policy which has been followed in this respect, and of seeing what amount of assistance can be rendered out of the Post Office surplus in instances where a good case can be made out for giving telegraphic facilities, even where a guarantee is not forthcoming. But I must remind hon. Members that the Post Office surplus is not derived from the telegraphic branch. It is hardly, I think, a just claim that the surplus from the Post Office branch of the Department should be used to provide telegraphic facilities. They are separate Services though under one administration. I am always anxious to extend telegraphic facilities, and I am disposed to think that, at the present time, rather too hard a bargain is made with guarantors. I hope I may be able during the recess to make some arrangement by which, to some extent, the objections which have been raised may be met, and the Department present itself to the public in a more liberal spirit.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: I am very glad to have this assurance. Without going into the question of policy, I do not hesitate to say the Department may be managed in a thoroughly commercial spirit without exacting these payments from guarantors.
  EARL COMPTON: In the form of a reduction of the Vote by £150, I have to bring forward a subject of great interest to the general public. During the discussion on the Post Office Estimates, I confess I was rather amused at one remark from the Postmaster General in regard to myself. I had sat quite silent during the discussion, and I do not know why the right hon.
  1606
  Gentleman suddenly addressed me, and said he excluded me from the disapproval he was expressing in very decided terms of certain fiery orators who had been doing something wrong. I accept his kind exemption, and certainly I cannot blame myself for any fiery oratorical interference in matters in which telegraphists have been concerned. If there has been any fiery feeling in the Department during the last few months it certainly has not been incited by myself, but has rather been due to the action of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The case of the telegraphists and the Telegraph Department is entirely different to the case of the Post Office employés which was discussed the other day. Both sections have reason to complain, but after that similarity ceases. As regards the agitation among the telegraphists there has been, I understand and believe, no intervention of political or paid agitators. The employé's of the Postmaster General in the Telegraph Department have managed their case for themselves. In the case of the postmen, I believe an outsider has been appointed Secretary, and with that I do not concern myself now, but as regards the telegraphists, they appointed two of their own number as Secretaries, and I believe in all the action they have taken since I began to interest myself in their affairs, they have acted in a perfectly constitutional, and, more than that, in an extremely moderate manner. I know there was an exception lately as regards their behaviour, and that I will bring before the Committee before I conclude my remarks. I wish to point out to the Postmaster General that the course I am taking now is made imperatively necessary because of the evasive answers given from time to time, and in spite of the strong hints from the right hon. Gentleman and the First Lord of the Treasury that the interference of third persons was not at all desirable between the heads of Departments and those under them. But, unless there is some interference, I do not see how the public can be made aware of what is going on in what is, after all, a public Department. Those who are serving under the Postmaster General at the moment are not his servants in any sense whatever; they are the servants of

  1607
  the public, and the public have a right to make remarks in regard to the manner in which their servants are treated, and we have a right to bring any complaints of these servants before this House. We have a right and a duty in the matter. If a public man, who aspires to do the duties attaching to his position, is made aware that the servants of a great State Department are not being treated as he considers fairly, it is the duty of that public man to take the opportunity of bringing the case of these public servants before the House of Commons and the country. I am very much afraid that, in all these matters, the Postmaster General has been rather led away by that fatal sentiment so often expressed from the Government Bench in favour of "firm and resolute government." In my opinion, firmness and resolution are splendid qualities,administered in a propermanner, and with due regard to the complaints and grievances which are brought before the man who, by accident, at the moment, happens to be at the head of the Department. But when firmness and resolution have been exercised for four years the employés in a great State Department are found to be in a state of discontent, amounting almost to insubordination. Firmness may mean petty tyranny, and resoluteness may mean oppression. The man who shows firmness and resolution is he who attacks discontent at the time it first shows itself, and tries his best to remove the cause, if the discontent is just, as, in this case, I believe it is. Before I proceed further let me say I am glad the Postmaster General has acknowledged that this is not a case in which agitators and agitation have bred discontent; it is discontent which has bred the agitation. Also, I should like to say that in any remarks I make I entirely absolve the officials of the Telegraph Department, and I am sure the Postmaster General will be glad to hear me say that it is particularly owing to the great tact shown by Sir Arthur Blackwood that matters have not been more serious than they have been during the last few months. I will endeavour shortly to show the Committee how, in my opinion, the discontent which had long given evidence of its existence, ought to have been taken in hand long ago. Last year I asked questions on the
  1608
  subject, and I must say, with frankness, that I received evasive replies. We can well understand how men having a grievance, and seeing questions have been asked in respect to their complaints, and direct answers avoided have their feeling of grievance intensified. Then I gave notice last year to the Postmaster General, through the mouth of an hon. Friend, that I would bring forward this matter by Motion this year. I gave a careful examination to all the details, and collected as much evidence as I could from all sides, and I can honestly say that there has been absolutely nothing whatever of a political nature in any action I have taken. I am told that the majority of those men employed in Post Office and Telegraph Departments differ from me in politics, but of course that would have no influence with me in taking up their case. Let me also say that I have been extremely careful not to put myself in the wrong, not to damage the case of these men which I bring forward by engaging in any heated controversy. I have endeavoured to keep the case out of this. I was once asked to attend a meeting on the subject, and I said immediately I believed it was against the regulations for anyone, even a Member of Parliament, to take the chair. I believe it is the rule, absurd though I think it is, and I declined to attend the meeting. When it came to my knowledge, through the daily Press, that there was a chance of something like a strike—or it could scarcely be called that—at any rate, of a little bother, trouble, and difficulty in the Central Telegraph Department, I wrote to those whom I knew, begging them to use influence to restrain their colleagues, and giving my strongest advice not to pursue such a course, because, in my opinion, it would put them in the wrong before the House of Commons and the country. I mention this as regards myself, as I wish it to be clearly understood that I have been actuated by motives to secure redress of grievances simply, and have no political or other objects to serve. The proper mode of proceeding, I understand, for public servants to take if they have any grievances and wish to obtain redress, is to petition the official heads of the Department. Now, the telegraphists most properly observed this

  1609
  Regulation, and carried it out. For years they have addressed the Postmaster General and other officials in the most respectful manner, and I believe Petitions have been sent during a number of years, but, of course, at the present moment I shall only speak of the years during which the present Postmaster General has held office. I have here a list of Petitions, but I do not intend to go through the whole list, but I only wish to show why it is that I now appeal from the Postmaster General to the House. In 1886, there was a Petition, which was answered by the Postmaster General, from the second class clerks. In 1887 there was a Petition from the male staff, which was answered by the Controller. Then I find in the same year, there was a Petition from the female staff to the Postmaster General, and that, I believe, was never answered. There was a question asked in this House by Lord Charles Beresford, who, as a Naval man, is naturally a champion of the fair sex, and the noble Lord received an answer in this House, and that, I believe, was the only reply the female staff received to their Petition. Then the male staff petitioned again in January, 1888, and received no answer, and again a question was asked and answered here. In December, 1888, some members of the Telegraph Department asked whether they might lay their case before the Treasury, and were told by the Postmaster General that he was the supreme authority for officers of the Department. Exactly, but why did the Postmaster General not even give an answer to some of these Petitions? Perhaps he may say that he received so many that he could not answer them all. But does the right hon. Gentleman not understand how the feelings of discontent and irritation increase when men find their representations, made in the regular and proper way, are met with neglect and silent contempt? Now, let me say, that on the last occasion when I brought this matter before the Postmaster General, I was astonished at the reply he made, that the full statement of the grievances complained of had not been brought before him. I do not bring this forward as a grievance, but only to show how it is that these clerks have found that their cases were not receiving much attention at the
  1610
  hands of the Postmaster General. The right hon. Gentleman said he could hardly understand how I could reconcile it with my duty to bring forward the Motion without having previously given the Department an opportunity of investigating the grievance. But it has been the case, over and over again, since the right hon. Gentleman has held office, that representations from the servants of the Department have not even been answered. I must say I have noticed at the same time a strange difference between the report of the right hon. Gentleman's answer as appearing in Hansard and the report which appeared in the Times. I am quoting the former, but I should have preferred to have quoted the latter. There are certain additions in Hansard which I, personally, have no recollection of, and the passages in the Times are a great deal more forcible than those which appear in Hansard. I do not know what the custom is among Members generally as regards the alteration of speeches for Hansard; personally I always preserve the sense, though I may try here and there to make the language a little better than I may have used in the course of a long speech. Now, with regard to the statement which the telegraphists drew up, the right hon. Gentleman said that a printed pamphlet purporting to present the case of the telegraphists was said to have been brought under the notice of the Royal Commission on Civil Servants.
  "Will it be believed," he proceeded, "that the first opportunity I have had of seeing that statement was this very morning, when it reached me through the post. I had been unable before to obtain a copy."
  Then Hansard goes on to make the right hon. Gentleman to say there was no proof of the statement that the document was laid before the Royal Commission, and certainly they had expressed no opinion on it; whereas the words in the Times report, and which I heard, were that there was no truth in the statement that the Royal Commission received it. It is these declarations on the part of the Postmaster General which have been causing irritation in the Telegraph Department. A letter was sent in the ordinary and proper way by certain telegraphists on September 12th, 1887, asking the Controller to

  1611
  appoint a day on which he would receive the statement which was to be presented to the Royal Commission. The statement which the telegraphists drew up was received and retained by the Secretary, or Controller, and was ultimately handed back, presumably after having been seen by the Postmaster General. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but seeing it is a fact that it was handed to the Secretary or Controller, and was given back to the men, is the right hon. Gentleman justified in saying he never had a chance of seeing it? In returning it the Secretary said that the telegraphists were at liberty themselves to send the statement to the Royal Commission; yet the right hon. Gentleman enters the House and states he had no knowledge of it.
  MR. RAIKES: Certainly.
  EARL COMPTON: The right hon. Gentleman says, Certainly. But these are the very matters which have caused the irritation. Why was the Postmaster General unaware of the statement? Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman was able to say he had not been told about the statement, and that, therefore, he was able to come to the House and say he had no knowledge of it, then we shall understand the kind of machinery at work in the Post Office, and also why there are so many people discontented in that particular Department. The right hon. Gentleman has brought forward a scheme to remedy some of the just grievances of the men. Let me say that that scheme is infinitely better than I expected, considering the huge financial difficulties. Those who have interested themselves in the matter ought to say frankly that the right hon. Gentleman has done as much as could be expected at present, although, in some points, it may be desirable to alter the scheme. Another great cause of discontent has reference to the right of the servants in the Post Office and Telegraph Office to meet and discuss matters without the presence of a reporter. So far as I am aware, there is no great objection on the part of a large majority of the civil servants to a reporter always attending at their meetings. Probably it would be rather disagreeable for the Postmaster General to read the transcript of the shorthand notes, as he might come across remarks not very flattering to himself.
  1612
  A good deal of attention has been drawn to the Circular of the April 19th, on this matter, but very little has been said as to that of May 21st, which shows that the Post Office authorities felt they had gone a little too far, for they desired to make it understood that there was no desire to interfere with purely social gatherings, and suggested that notices of meetings should state the object, and should notify if the promoters were prepared to assent to conditions which would make it unnecessary for a shorthand writer to attend. I wonder if the Postmaster General had in view meetings of the Primrose League, when he issued that second Circular. I believe the chief objection is not to the presence of the reporter so much as that the reporter is always accompanied by somebody else. I want to know whether anyone has the authority or order of the Postmaster General, besides the reporter, to attend in order to take down the names of the speakers and report as regards the meeting. I submit it would be a wise thing for the Government to take this question in hand, and allow the Civil servants to meet, so long as they behave themselves, without interference in any way whatever. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, before the Division on this Vote is taken, will give us more satisfactory assurances on this point. And now as to the question of overtime. I suppose the Postmaster General will agree with me it is not well that the servants of any public Department should be overworked. I wish to know whether it is true that any men in the service of the State have worked at night for 11 consecutive hours, and have, after an interval of four hours, resumed work. I have been told that lately men have been working for 14 and 15 hours a day, with one half-hour's rest a day. If that is true I consider the State at the present moment ought to stand in no better position, in the eyes of the public, than one of the sweaters about whom we have heard so much in the course of the inquiry by the Royal Commission on Sweating. Again, I want to know whether overtime is going on in the Post Office as it used to do. It is said that this labour is voluntary; but if the men refuse to perform this voluntary work they will be punished. It is a perfect absurdity to imagine that there is anything voluntary in it. You will always find a cer-

  1613
  tain number of men ready to work overtime for the sake of the money they get. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will promise to lay on the Table a distinct account of the amount of work performed by the members of the Telegraph Service and the Post Office. I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement regarding the scale of pay of the superior officers. He knew that at the present moment only three of the large centres had been touched.
  MR. RAIKES: Six.
  EARL COMPTON: There were only three a week ago. Those who are waiting will only get the benefit when the adjustment comes into force; but why is not the pay of all of them increased on the same day? Then, what did the new scheme of the Postmaster General do as regards the maximum sum? There was a first-class maximum up to £190. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman means to do away with the senior class, and make his first class a class of what are called supervisors. The consequence will be that the vast majority of the men who entered the Service with the hope of rising to a maximum of £190 will, under the new regulations, only be able to rise to £160. So far as I understand it, the Postmaster General has rather gone back on Mr. Fawcott's scheme on this point. I now propose to give the House a short account of what has been the result of the discontent in the Telegraph Department. A telegraphist who managed a private wire was introduced into the Department at a moment when the discontent had almost broken out, and the men feared that a lot of strangers were to be imported in order that their own services might be dispensed with. It was very much like applying a lighted match to a cask of gunpowder. When duty was over a few of the men waited for this telegraphist—a man named Henderson—to come out. No doubt they behaved extremely badly, for they hustled him. Two or three of the telegraphists, however, interfered and got him away quietly. The Postmaster General instituted an inquiry into the matter, and 192 men have been cut out from all the advantages of the new scheme owing to this occurrence. I have a letter written by one who was looking on all the time, and whose testimony I can believe. He took
  1614
  no part in the hustling. I do not think it wise to give his name, because it might get him into trouble. It appears that the row took place two or three minutes past 4 o'clock, at which hour a good many men go away. In fact, a good many who had gone away were punished for what took place in their absence. The outsider Henderson came downstairs, and then there arose cries of "blackleg." Henderson was hustled, but no one struck him or spat upon him. He was not seriously hurt, but only hustled badly; and in proof of that I may mention that the man's "top hat" was unruffled and smooth. If the row had been serious, if the man had been struck or spat upon, his hat would probably have been the first thing to suffer. So far as I can see, there has been a little exaggeration as to what took place. Put how can the right hon. Gentleman expect any of these men to prove themselves innocent. Some of the 192 men who have been punished must be innocent, as only six or seven hustled actively. I should like to know whether, during the inquiry, any of the 192 were proved innocent, and, if so, whether they will be reinstated as regards the scale of pay to which they were entitled before the disturbance. The Postmaster General has had a great deal of trouble, but I think I may say with candour that it is partly owing to the attitude the right hon. Gentleman has himself assumed. If he had shown more sympathy with those under him there would probably not have been so much disturbance and discontent. He has now a great opportunity, by being merciful to those whom he has punished, of reinstating himself in the affections of those over whom he is placed. I think he must admit that there have been errors on both sides. There would not have been all this discontent had he taken these matters in hand in his first year of office instead of in his fourth. I think, too, he will admit that the conduct of the telegraphists has, on the whole, been most praiseworthy, and surely his best course now is to let bygones be bygones. Let him replace the men who are now suffering punishment, and see if his scheme, when it has had a fair trial, will not produce a better and healthier condition of affairs in the Department. If the right hon. Gentleman could only

  1615
  see his way to some relaxation of the rules such as has been pointed out, I feel certain that he would give pleasure to a large number of the general public who have been watching most anxiously the case of the telegraphists, while he will also have a great opportunity of reinstating himself in the affections of those over whom he is placed. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote in the sum of £150.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries), be reduced by £150, part of the Salary of the Postmaster General."—(Earl Cornpton.)
  SIR E. J. REED: I have thought it might be convenient to the Committee if I were to avail myself of the opportunity afforded by the Motion of the noble Lord to bring forward a case which I have had in my mind for some months past. I am very sorry to have to make a complaint, because I am bound to say that personally, in connection with the town I represent, which makes not only numerous but almost continual demands on the attention of the Postmaster General, I have always received from him the most prompt and courteous consideration. Moreover, I happen to know that the Postmaster General is detained in this House at a time when he ought to be elsewhere, and I am, therefore, sorry to be obliged to add in any degree to the trouble he is put to and to delay his departure. Although it is so late in the Session, I feel it necessary to' occupy the time of the Committee for a few moments while I lay before it the Cardiff telegraph case. If the treatment of other Members of the Civil Service is to be the same as has been meted out to certain gentlemen on the staff of the Cardiff Telegraph Office, I have no hesitation in saying that they might as well belong to the Civil Service of Russia as to the Civil Service of England. This matter came to my knowledge in an accidental manner, and I will endeavour to state the facts as they arose. I heard that certain gentlemen belonging to the Cardiff Telegraph Staff were suddenly and peremptorily ordered away from their homes to other towns. So short was the notice given to them that it amounted in one case to less than a day, and the gentlemen who have been so punished are men against whom
  1616
  not only has no offence been proved, but against whom no offence or charge has been even alleged. What happened was this: Owing to the enormous growth of Cardiff in recent years, the Telegraph Department of the town, like other Departments, had fallen behind the demands made upon it. The growth of telegraphic business at Cardiff was unexampled in Great Britain, and that except in the United States there is nothing analogous to it. As an illustration of the rapidity of the growth of Cardiff, I may state that whereas in 1876 the rate able value of the town was £260,000, it is now £744,000, so that it has increased threefold during that period. It is not unnatural that the Telegraph Service should fail to keep pace with the demands of the town, but the complaints of the commercial classes in the town were such that last August I was compelled to address a letter to the Postmaster General on the subject. The staff at the Telegraph Office had been enormously overworked, and the public complained that boys were brought in to do telegraphic work, for which they were unqualified, while men in high stations had to do the ordinary work of the office, and that, generally speaking, the whole staff was in a state of dissatisfaction and irritation. Of course, the telegraphists had no knowledge of my letter to the Postmaster General, though they were the persons on whom long hours and personal sacrifices had fallen for a long time past. Letters and articles began to appear in a local paper —a Tory journal, which shows that there was no political significance in the correspondence—setting forth the grievances of the telegraphists. At the same time, the Postmaster General, in answer to the appeal which had been addressed to him, undertook to add very largely to the Staff, and to make several promotions. Then the superintendent of the Telegraph Office, after direct communication with the Postmaster General, sent for eight of the staff and told them that they would be promoted if they had had nothing to do with the letters which had appeared in the local paper. The eight men disclaimed any complicity in the matter, and five were duly promoted. The other three, however, were informed that they knew, or could readily find out, who was responsible for the letters to the news-

  1617
  paper, and they were given 48 hours in which to report to the superintendent. Public servants are put in rather an awkward position by the attitude taken by the Postmaster General and other of her Majesty's Ministers. The doctrine of the Government seems to be that Civil servants must, above all things, suffer in silence. If they appeal to a newspaper, they are severely punished; and if they appeal to a Member of Parliament the hon. Gentleman is told that such action is subversive of the discipline of the Service. I have no desire to interfere between the heads of Departments and their subordinates; and in proof of this I will mention that I have never before brought any grievance such as that I am now referring to to the notice of the House of Commons, though I have often been requested to do so. At the end of the 48 hours the men reported to the superintendent that they considered it no part of their duty to obtain the information required. The promotion that it had been intended to give these men proved that they were efficient. They had all been long in the service, and they had been resident many- years in Cardiff. No one will deny the right of the Postmaster General to order them to other towns if their removal was called for by the exigencies of the Public Service; but the removal of these men at extremely short notice was a penal sentence for not having ascertained and disclosed who were the authors of these communications to the local newspaper. Hearing of the matter, I went to them myself to try to get information from them; but such was their loyalty to the Department, or else their terror of the rule under which they lived, that they were indisposed to make any statement to me, and I had great difficulty in eliciting any facts from them. The Postmaster General has said that their removal was not a punishment; but that he found a state of things which seemed to indicate a lack of discipline, and he thought it best to disperse those who were suspected. That might be a step quite within his right if it was taken in good faith in the interest of the Service; but these removals came upon the men as penal sentences, and feelings of sympathy and indignation spread like wildfire throughout the Telegraph Services of the
  1618
  country. I have received hundreds of communications from all parts of the country showing the interest that was felt in the case, and expressing the opinion that these men had been dealt with unrighteously. Some of these men have been moved more than once, and one several times; and they have also been refused the usual extra allowance for temporary residence on the plea that their removals were permanent. I have a number of facts which go to show that these men were not wanted at the places to which they were sent; indeed, in some instances, they have been idling away their time. All the surrounding circumstances went to show that the men were being punished. One of them wrote to the Postmaster General to ask him what the punishment was for: and the answer made was that he was not being punished at all. Not being punished! Why, the men were put to great expense, and one of them had been reduced to almost absolute want. Two of them have since been promoted in the towns to which they were sent. Admitting that the Postmaster General must have the power of removal, and must exercise it, still, it ought not to be abused in such a way as to make removals a very severe punishment. I have not been very anxious to bring the case on, because I believe very little good comes of bringing such cases before the House, particularly during the régime of the present Government. It has been made manifest in many cases that there is no idea of making public servants satisfied and content, and that the main idea is to exercise arbitrary authority and to expect men to yield to it at once; but in this age discipline is not to be maintained in that way. I admit that the Government is unduly harassed by the claims of public servants. Yesterday in the Lobby I met several gentlemen who had come to press claims on the Government, which I decline to recognise. Some men seem to have the idea that they are to give the public a few years' labour and that they are to be kept in idleness for the rest of their lives. Others, if they are introduced temporarily into the Public Service, set up claims of a permanent character. The State ought to be able; like a private individual, to obtain temporary service; and if it becomes continuous, those who are employed

  1619
  ought to be grateful. Nevertheless, all ought to feel that they are considerately treated; and I have submitted a case in which men were dealt with most improperly. Why should civil servants be ordered about like slaves, without any charge being made against them? On this subject I have had a correspondence with the Postmaster General, who, in the course of it, did what I suggest was not magnanimous. Here was an office of which complaint was made, not that the staff was inefficient, but that it was overworked, and that men were struggling manfully with their duties. The Postmaster General turned round and made a general, broad accusation against the Cardiff office, that it was occupied by a set of demoralised public servants; and he stated among other things that the privacy of telegrams was not respected, but that their purport was published. That was a strong charge to make, and I have made it my duty to inquire into it. The only thing to be found against them was that when the right hon. Gentleman himself visited Cardiff, he had occasion to telegraph to a local friend, and that friend telegraphed to his wife that the right hon. Gentleman was coming, and the fact got into the local newspapers. This was not a very awful revelation of a private talegram in itself, and I would point out that before the right hon. Gentleman made the charge he had discovered the guilty person. The person who disclosed the telegram was found not to be a telegraph clerk at all, but a postal official high up in the office. He had to leave in consequence of the disclosure. On this occurrence was based a general statement with regard to all the officials, and all the foundation for it was a simple incident of the kind I mention. My noble Friend (Lord Compton) in his speech said he had declined to participate in any meetings which had been held. But I found myself in a position to take the chair at a meeting of the telegraph clerks held in London.
  EARL COMPTON: I am afraid my hon. Friend misunderstood what I said. I did not preside at any of the meetings of the officials because I thought it would be better for them if I did not do so. In fact, I thought it better that Members of this House should not take part in these meetings, owing to the
  1620
  danger of transgressing the regulations of the Postmaster General.
  SIR E. J. REED: I was in sympathy with the men who had been improperly punished at Cardiff, and it seemed to me a very natural thing that I should preside at a meeting of sympathising officials. I took the chair also for another reason, that I had never heard, or dreamed, or imagined that the right of men to meet to discuss their grievances in this country would be questioned. The regulation that the right hon. Gentleman claims to have modified was of such a nature that it would make liable to punishment any servant of the Post Office who invited half a dozen of his colleagues to dinner, and afterwards discussed the question of their salaries. Everyone, even the right hon. Gentleman himself, can see the gross absurdity of that regulation. It would be all very well to prohibit meetings of civil servants at which their grievances are discussed if the public could be assured that those servants are always treated fairly and righteously; but I am sorry to say that that is not the case. And I fail to see what gain there is to be obtained from thrusting a reporter into meetings of men when assembled to discuss their grievances. I cannot but regard it as a frightful mistake. The men in the case I have complained of were treated merely upon suspicion. No personal allegations were made against them, and in cases of that kind is it right that a reporter in the interest of the Postmaster General should be thrust into their meetings? The right hon. Gentleman always succeeds in making a very temperate and successful speech in this House. I am glad that that is the case, because I think it desirable that the heads of Departments should be able to justify their conduct. I am rather disposed to follow the line taken by my noble Friend at the end of his remarks. If he chooses to go to a Division I shall certainly go into the Lobby with him, but I see no good to come from a Division. I rather think it would be wiser to content ourselves with appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to remove the sense of injustice which rankles in the, breasts of hundreds and thousands of his employés through out the country. I trust the Postmaster General will save us the trouble of dividing, by responding

  1621
  to the appeal that has been made to him I to do his best to examine into, and, if necessary, to remove the grievances which the Post Office employés are suffering under. I am glad to know from a recent speech of the Postmaster General that he is prepared to consider all the cases of the men with the view of remedying their grievances, but, certainly, unless the men are treated with more consideration it will be necessary for the House of Commons to take into its own hands in some degree the regulation of such State Departments.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: I will not deal with the claims of the Cardiff telegraphists which have been so amply discussed by the noble Lord and the Member for Cardiff. It is clear that during the past three or four months the deplorable state of discontent and dissatisfaction described by the hon. Member for Cardiff has prevailed, not only there, but in other towns. I do not hesitate to say that officialism has interfered with the men in discussing their grievances in a manner which is absolutely foreign in this country. The telegraph servants have a right to discuss their grievances, and I insist upon that right in their behalf. Do not let me be misunderstood. I do not consider this as a matter of personal treatment, but as a matter of public policy, and that alone; and I venture to say that the policy adopted by the Post Office in its treatment of all its servants has been quite as bad as that which has characterised its treatment of the telegraph clerks. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, as we all know, in April placed restrictions upon the men holding meetings. My attention was drawn to it, and I at once gave notice that I would, if I could get a chance, move that this House affirm the right of all Civil servants to meet freely without interference from the heads of the Department, and I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether any previous regulations existed. I want to draw attention to the terms of an Order of 1866, issued by the then Postmaster General, Lord Stanley of Alderley. He issued an Order prohibiting the men from meeting on pain of dismissal; but that Order has never been acted upon until the present year, and
  1622
  I do not think the Postmaster General was ever aware of its existence until ho hunted it up to justify the Circular of April 19 last. The late Mr. Fawcett was a great enemy in public life of the fetisch of officialism. He had difficulties with the Telegraphic Department, but he never did anything to restrain the men from meeting to discuss their grievances. They had the most perfect freedom in the way of petitioning and in holding consultations with Mr. Fawcett, who lost no opportunity of finding out what he considered was wrong in the Department. I do not think Mr. Fawcett knew about that Order of 1866; and if he had known about it, I feel confident that he would have treated it as an absurdity. In March, 1881, in reply to a question put in the House, Mr. Fawcett declared that
  "he would spare no effort to arrive at a fair conclusion as to the complaints of the telegraphists, and that he was very anxious to hear from the men themselves their accounts of their alleged grievances."
  He did not issue an Order to for bid the men from holding meetings. Not at all. On one occasion he asked 12 representatives— seven males and five females—to see him. They waited upon him, and he asked them to speak to him without reservation. They did so, and they gave him some very useful information; and at the end of an interview which lasted over five hours—after this long friendly intercourse with his employés, meeting them face to face, exchanging views, giving and receiving information—the deputation: withdrew, warmly thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which they had been received. To show that he did not interfere with the perfect freedom of public meeting of.' his employés, in answer to another question on March 24th, 1881, asking whether his attention had been drawn to meetings which had taken place of Post Office clerks and telegraph clerks, Mr. Fawcett expressed himself cognisant of these meetings. On the 13th May also, he admitted that he had seen reports of these meetings, and stated that directly a decision was arrived at as to the matters in dispute he would make it known to the Post Office servants. The only other quotation I have to make is that of an answer to the hon. Member for Derry, who

  1623
  asked whether Mr. Fawcett's attention had been drawn to a meeting of the Cork telegraph clerks, the object of which was to act in conjunction with the clerks of the various offices throughout the Kingdom; and whether the Postmaster of Cork, on seeing a report of the meeting in the Cork papers, gave instructions that any clerk who had taken a prominent part in the meeting should not be engaged on any duties which involved extra pay. Mr. Fawcett's reply was that "no such instruction was ever acted on." It is quite clear that that distinguished Postmaster General never for a moment suggested interference with the most complete freedom of action on the part of any telegraph clerk. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) has shown a studied courtesy to Members of this House, and we have no wish to make this a personal matter. It is a question of policy. We are now approaching a great crisis in the management of the affairs of this country. Democracy has become the mistress of this country. Democracy will no doubt make many mistakes; but I would ask whether we are likely to prevent it making mistakes by arbitrary and fussy interference with the individual liberty of our own servants. It is the duty of every Member of this House to see that those servants have fair play. I would earnestly entreat the Postmaster General to withdraw the irritating and annoying Order he has issued, and to let the postal servants be free to discuss their grievances, and to have immediate and ready access to him.
  MR. RAIKES: As the discussion has gone on at considerable length, and as my own conduct has been freely criticised, I hope the Committee will allow me some latitude in defending myself from the attack which has been made upon me. I hope to maintain the temperate tone which has been displayed by the noble Lord. The noble Lord, who has constituted himself in this House one of the representatives of the Telegraphic Service, seems to think that unfair comment has been made by me; but I can only say that I was referring at that time to certain outside speakers who, by their incendiary language, provoke public servants to neglect their duties. The noble Lord has spoken of
  1624
  the moderate manner adopted by the telegraphists in pressing forward certain complaints they made; but if he had seen as much as I have of the manner in which the telegraphists press forward certain complaints, I think the noble Lord would have adopted a different phrase. I have mentioned before that many of the complaints deserve, and will receive, the favourable consideration of the Government. I only refer to the incident as an example of the very worst way in which any public servants could hope to obtain consideration for their complaints—that is to say, by a cannonade of constant reiteration, hurled at the head of the Department for months before he has had the opportunity of obtaining the best advice. I hope that, for my part, I have altogether abstained from the use of irritating language, and I think that if the noble Lord had had the opportunity of studying the shorthand writer's report of the Leicester Conference, he would have found that language was used such as would not have been tolerated by any Department anxious to promote the interests of the men. I do not mean to say that because this language has been used, and because the complaints have been ventilated in a studiously offensive manner, they ought, therefore, not to receive attention. I have sought to give, and have given, consideration to them, and I think it is rather singular that I who have been the only Postmaster General who, since Mr. Fawcett, has been able to secure for the men substantial permanent benefits, should have been singled out for attack in this manner as guilty of unsympathetic and arbitrary dealing. It is quite true that they adopted a course which greatly increased the difficulties which stood in the way of their obtaining those benefits—but let byegones be byegones. I am glad to think I have been able to give the telegraphists more substantial proof of my consideration for them than could have been afforded by any number of speeches delivered by fiery orators. I am glad the noble Lord did justice to my friend Sir Arthur Blackwood, but I cannot admit that in any official action he takes Sir Arthur Blackwood is to be severed from myself. I am prepared to bear the responsibility for

  1625
  all he does. He, on the other hand, would be the first to admit that to me belongs the credit of any course that may be regarded as beneficial. Therefore, although I am glad to recognise the position of Sir Arthur Blackwood and to do justice to a very able and distinguished public servant, I must enter my protest against any attempt to set up the doctrine that the Secretary of the Post Office may take a particular line without having the sanction and support of his Parliamentary chief. The noble Lord has taken credit—and I think he richly deserves it—for his attitude in regard to the meetings held by the telegraphists in London. I think he acted as any public-spirited friend of the men would have acted in telling them he would be no party to their taking any action which would amount to a breach of official rules. I am not able to approve of several parts of his speech, but I am compelled to bear this testimony to his endeavour to be a true friend to the men whose cause he has espoused. The noble Lord made a sort of reply to a speech made by me, I think, in June last. I find this difficulty in dealing with the noble Lord—that he is not willing to accept statements of fact from those with whom he differs. If the noble Lord were prepared, as Members generally are, to accept statements of fact from those opposed to him in controversy he would save himself a great deal of trouble, and render greater service to any cause he attempts to advocate. I have never denied that in the early years of my administration there were a great number of petitions and memorials. There have always been a great number of them, and I think it will be plain that it is something not to be encouraged if the servants of a Public Department, having had their applications carefully considered and, for good reason in the eyes of the Department, rejected, immediately return to the charge and present the same memorials over again in the course of a few months. The particular memorial to which I understood the noble Lord mainly to refer was a petition which had been before the public in all the newspapers, which had been the subject of leading articles and impassioned speeches, but which had never been presented to the Minister
  1626
  responsible for dealing with it. The noble Lord came in just at that inconvenient moment when I had appointed a committee to consider the grievances generally alleged by the provincial telegraphists, but when I had not received the petition from the London telegraphists, the noble Lord's especial clients.
  EARL COMPTON: As a matter of fact, I had not seen that petition when I got up my case.
  MR. RAIKES: It is a curious thing that in presenting his case the noble Lord should have omitted to avail himself of reports readily accessible, and which had formed the subject of much public comment. Of course, however, I fully accept the explanation. The noble Lord went on to make insinuations which I think he will some day be sorry for. He was pleased to insinuate—and no one who heard him could fail to see he insinuated it—that I had been a party in some way or other to producing misrepresentations in Hansard of the speech I delivered on a particular occasion. Now, I should like to know, yes or no, is that what the noble Lord meant?
  EARL COMPTON: I am very glad indeed to answer. What I meant by my speech was that the right hon. Gentleman's language, according to the Times and my own recollection of it, was entirely different from that which I found in Hansard, and I imagined, as I saw an asterisk before his name, that he supplied the speech, as produced in Hansard, with one or two particular points.
  MR. RAIKES: I understand the noble Lord to say he charges me with having deliberately falsified the report of my speech in Hansard.
  EARL COMPTON: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; I never used the word "falsified." What I did say was that I saw a distinct alteration in the two accounts, and I should have preferred to use the account in the Times and also my memory which served me as regarded what took place. I found in Hansard a modification, as I understand the word, of the language actually used in the House.
  MR. RAIKES: Then I wish the noble Lord had had the manliness to charge me with falsification, because it appears

  1627
  to me there is no other meaning which can be put on the language he uses. I will take an instance, because the noble Lord was good enough to supply instances. The noble Lord said he found reported in Hansard that there was no "proof" of the statement that a Memorial had been presented to the Royal Commission, and the noble Lord was pleased to say that, as far as his recollection served him, what I had said was that there was no "truth" in that statement. Now, I have a very accurate recollection of that particular passage in my speech, and I can assure the Committee—I do not think I can satisfy the noble Lord— that the word "proof" was the word I used, and that the word "truth" would have been extremely out of place, because what I was endeavouring to show was that we had no evidence of the presentation of the Memorial to the Royal Commission. I said there was no proof of that statement having reached me, and I went on to say there was no record of it in the proceedings of the Royal Commission. I think anybody who studied the context of that speech would see there was no other word I could reasonably use except the word "proof."
  EARL COMPTON: As this comes close to being a personal matter, the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain. He will recollect I had a private correspondence with him. I sent to him an extract from the Times in which the words were "he knew there was no truth in the statement." I sent that extract to the right hon. Gentleman; he made no remark with regard to it. He did not say it was a misstatement, and, as he had not denied it, I was a little surprised to find the word "proof" in Hansard.
  MR. RAIKES: Of course, the correspondence had reference to other matters, and I had to combat so many errors in the noble Lord's letter, that, perhaps, I did not combat all. Having made this statement relating to the fact, I leave it there. The noble Lord was pleased to assume that the Memorial of the telegraphists to the Royal Commission having been submitted to the Controller, I must necessarily have been possessed of its contents. The noble Lord is pleased not to accept my dis-
  1628
  claimer. What happened was this. The telegraphists were anxious to present a communication to the Royal Commission. They came to the Controller and asked whether it should be sent through the Postmaster General or through the Treasury. I believe the Controller never saw the communication at all—so far as I know, at all events, he made no report on the subject—but he told the telegraphists they were perfectly free to present their Memorial to the Royal Commission direct.
  EARL COMPTON: That distinctly contradicts the statement I have made. The Memorial was presented to the Controller; it was not returned at once, but the Controller told them they could present it themselves. The idea was that the Controller had taken it to the Postmaster General.
  MR. RAIKES: That is precisely what I say is not the fact. What I said was that I had no knowledge whatever of the existence of this document at all. These are all examples of the way in which arguments are put together, and charges are made upon them. I am told that my attitude towards my subordinates has been unconciliatory and unsympathetic; the evidence on which these charges are made crumbles to pieces, and the charges based upon them fall with the statements that have been made. The noble Lord has been good enough to give some commendation to the scheme framed for the benefit of the telegraphists. I am sorry to detain the Committee with these personal matters, but I should have thought any one claiming to be in any sense a representative of the telegraphists would have made the burden of his speech one of congratulation upon the very great advantages which it has been my good fortune, as Postmaster General, to obtain for those officers. I do not want to dwell upon them. I think it sufficient to point out that it has been under my administration of the Post Office that the desired boon of payment at the rate of time and a quarter for overtime has been conceded, that it has been on my advice that the Government have consented to pay extra for Sunday labour in the case of provincial telegraphists, and to pay for the work done on Bank Holiday, and that it has been on my advice that sick

  1629
  absence is now to carry full pay in cases where it is certified by the superior officer. The cost of these changes will not be less than £100,000 a year. It is not encouraging to a Minister who does his best to promote the interests of his subordinate officers to find that those who hold a brief for them in this House have only petty personal accusations to make in consequence. There has been something said by the noble Lord with regard to the Circulars of April 19 and May 21. I have so often made statements upon this subject that I am almost ashamed to trouble the Committee with regard to it again. But to-night I am able to deal also with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Glamorganshire, who spoke about (these Circulars as having infringed the right of public meeting. There cannot be a greater mistake than to connect these Circulars with the phrase public meeting. These Circulars have no reference whatever to what are understood as public meetings. They have reference to the action of official persons discussing official questions. The meetings in question can only by a most egregious misnomer be called public meetings. Reporters are occasionally present at such meetings, but as their reports are often most inaccurate and incorrect, and likely to mislead the public and the Department, I cannot understand how any man can feel himself aggrieved if the head of the Department takes steps to ascertain the real truth and the real grievances complained of. The Circular of May 21 was intended to make plainer to the minds of the servants of the Department the benevolent disposition of their superior officers in framing the Circular of April 19, because the question had arisen with regard to a public dinner that was going to be held at Leicester in connection with an assembly of telegraphists there, as to whether that was a meeting at which a shorthand writer should be present. Having regard to the value of after dinner oratory, I was glad to assure my correspondent that there was not the smallest wish on the part of the Department to be informed as to what the telegraphists might say in their cups. It was supposed I was desirous of prying into the secrets of the men in the committee meetings they might hold to
  1630
  consider the course they should take in framing any particular Memorial, or in framing Resolutions to be submitted to meetings of the general body. I was anxious to disabuse their minds of that suspicion also, and the Circular of May 21 was issued to point out to them that the Regulations only had reference to meetings held by official persons for the discussion of official questions with the object of influencing public opinion. That is the only instance in which I have desired to be furnished with information as to what took place, and I think that the men themselves will recognise that it was well to guard them against the misrepresentations which frequently arise in newspaper reports. The noble Lord has asked whether any telegraphist has worked for 11 hours consecutively, and, after a short break, for four hours more. I am afraid that they do occasionally work so long, but the men who perform this extra duty are not merely volunteers, but as a rule are very desirous to do the work, and their readiness will now probably be greater than ever, because overtime is to be paid at a higher rate. I agree with the noble Lord that these hours are too long, and I shall be glad to do what I can in reason to mitigate the pressure of long hours of duty, but I fancy that the first persons to object to the compulsory curtailment of the hours will be the telegraphists themselves. The noble Lord, of course, would not like to do the work himself, nor should I; but men who are familiar with the business and anxious to increase their incomes are very ready to work a considerable amount of overtime in order to earn extra remuneration. I shall be very glad if it is possible to reduce these hours, and to bring the duties of the men within a more reasonable compass. Now, with regard to the question of the maximum of the first-class, the noble Lord has said that the new superior class is likely to be much smaller than the class at present existing. No definite conclusion has yet been arrived at on this subject, but I think that the telegraphists will find that, whatever change is approved by the Treasury, their position will not be damnified, but improved. The noble Lord has said a word or two with

  1631
  reference to the recent lamentable occurrence at the Central Telegraph Office. I have this afternoon received the Report of the officers deputed to inquire into the matter, and I certainly expected to find that the great majority of the men who have been excluded from the benefit of the new scheme in consequence of a possible participation in this occurrence would be able to satisfy the Department of their innocence of complicity in the outrage. In that case they would be restored and would receive the full benefits of the scheme, just as if they had not been suspended. The conduct of the men concerned in the outrage was rather worse than the noble Lord seems to suppose. There is no doubt that the injured party was struck with a big stick, and he believes he can recognise the man who struck him. It is also a fact that he was spat upon in the course of the fracas. I have only a few words to say with regard to Cardiff. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir E. J. Reed) has dealt with the subject in a tone of great moderation, but I think the hon. Member is himself conscious of the false position which he has taken up in bringing the question forward at all. The hon. Member admitted the absolute right of the Postmaster General to move the servants of the Department from one place to another, and admitted that the Postmaster General must be the judge of what removals are for the good of the public service. I have acted entirely within those limits. I found a state of things prevailing at Cardiff in the course of the last autumn which was extremely unsatisfactory. I do not expressly blame the telegraphists for it. They had a Postmaster who had not been able to exercise proper control. His place had been filled by a chief clerk, who certainly in one respect showed he was not at all equal to the duties which he ought to perform, and the office had got out of hand. The result of this was that communications took place between the telegraph office and an infamous print styled the Western Mail, the editor of which journal appears to me to have done his best to decoy the servants of the Post Office into supplying him with information, in order to improve the circulation of his paper. I am glad to believe that in the main, as
  1632
  far as I can judge, the telegraphists turned out to be proof against such solicitations, but there is no doubt that at least one official document was published in the Western Mail, and no doubt the public servant who published that official document in the Western Mail ought not only to be subject to removal or to dismissal, but he ought to be prosecuted for having so betrayed his duty to the State. I came to the conclusion it was desirable to make a considerable number of promotions to the first-class at Cardiff. I was very anxious in making the promotions that I should not promote to higher and more important places in that office the person who had been guilty of this offence, and I therefore instructed the Surveyor to be very careful in the recommendations he made, and not to give me any men's names for promotion to the first-class whom he had just reason to suppose had been connected with this scandalous breach of official duty The Surveyor seems to me to have-rather blundered in the execution of his task, and he put the men to their purgation by demanding from them statements which, I think, they were perfectly justified in refusing to make. The result was that five of the eight men who were so questioned were promoted by me. Three were transferred to other offices; two of these have since been promoted, but, in view of such suspicion as-attached to these officers, I could not feel it my duty to promote them while they remained at Cardiff. It has been to the interest of the men that they have been transferred to other offices, where I believe it possible, without prejudice to the Public Service, to put them in more important and responsible positions. With regard to one other man—for so this mountain subsides to a molehill—of the second class, who was transferred when he otherwise might have expected promotion, the hon. Member for Cardiff has spoken of him as being in absolute want. That is hardly a correct description; but I fear that the man's circumstances are not as good as could be wished, because, on a salary of 23s. 6d. per week, he has felt himself entitled to commit matrimony. This telegraphist is, perhaps, rather a subject for pity than otherwise. I am not aware that by so acting this gentleman has established

  1633
  any special claim on the Department. I have, however, given this officer an opportunity of entering the first class should his conduct be good. I have not punished these men. I found the office in a bad state, and I thought it desirable to fill it with new blood, and to transfer to other offices young men who, placed perhaps in circumstances calculated to cause them to yield to temptation, were led to manifest an unruly spirit. I think that I have done the best thing in their interests, as I am sure I have done the best thing in the interests of the Service, and I have no doubt as to the wisdom and propriety of the course I have pursued in causing the transfer of these eight men. I have to thank the Committee for listening to a longer speech than I intended to make, but I had to cover a good deal of ground. The noble Lord very kindly advised me to gain the affections of my subordinate officers. I do not know that I have done anything to forfeit the regard of any subordinate officer in my Department. Certainly I have done all that I could to show my regard for them. If any kind of estrangement has arisen, is it not rather due to the perhaps well meant endeavours of philanthropic politicians who go about encouraging people in making demands which may perhaps be extravagant, and certainly in a way which is wrong and improper? I prefer to think that I shall win the esteem and the confidence of the great Department, which, however unworthily, I administer, by showing justice tempered with kindness, and a constant goodwill towards the men in my employment, whatever provocation I may receive in this House or elsewhere.
  EARL COMPTON: I will not detain the Committee beyond a few minutes, but I feel, after what has taken place, that it will be expected I should say a few words. I have been under a disadvantage as regards this Debate. I brought forward my case in what I believed to be a very temperate manner, and I did my best not to insinuate anything that would in any way hurt the tender susceptibilities of the right hon. Gentleman. I spoke during the dinner hour, when the House was practically empty, and there are very few Members
  1634
  now present who heard my speech and the arguments with which I supported my case. Members came in to hear the answer of the Postmaster General, and they have applauded that answer as they had a right to do, for it was a very clever answer indeed. One part of it I wish to allude to. I have no intention of imputing to a political adversary words which were never used, or meanings which were never intended. But I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one point. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to a certain statement of the telegraphists which was to be handed to the Royal Commission. My contention through the whole of my speech was that, owing to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, and the attitude he had taken up, he was himself, to a great extent, the cause of the discontent among the telegraphists. In enforcing this point I explained carefully what had taken place; I explained that the men had, as was their duty, approached the proper official at the Telegraph Department, asked him to receive a deputation and placed a statement in his hand, and this was ultimately returned with the remark that they might present it themselves. Now I draw attention to the words of the right hon. Gentleman when I first brought the matter before the House. He said, amongst other tilings, "I have been unable to obtain a copy of this. Memorial, and have not, of course, been able to give it any consideration." The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be quite unaware that the statement had been presented, and I quite admit that when he says it was so. But, in addition, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that, in fact, the matter had been "sprung upon the Department in the last moment," whereas it had been handed to the Controller at the end of last year.
  MR. RAIKES: In saying that, I referred to the fact that I for the first time received a copy that very morning.
  EARL COMPTON: I am quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman said that at the time, but he informed the House that it had been "sprung upon the Department." I daresay it had not been submitted to the right hon. Gentleman.

  1635
  I daresay that this may have been a little mistake on the part of the Controller, but I do not wish to say a word against any official. Let me also say that I did express satisfaction at what has been done for the telegraphists under the new plan. I offered a few harmless criticisms on minor points, but I said that, on the whole, the right hon. Gentleman had done well. I expressed my personal thanks, and said I thought it would create contentment among the telegraphists. But this was not what the right hon. Gentleman represented in his speech. He gave the Committee to understand that I had not said anything in favour of what the right hon. Gentleman has done. Let me say at once it is exactly this attitute taken at the moment towards myself—which is a very small matter—it is exactly this attititude persevered in towards those under him which has caused so much discontent, and for a long time has caused so much trouble in the Department. The right hon. Gentleman is free to make what remarks he pleases about philanthropic politicians; my anxiety is that he should turn over a new leaf, and treat those under him, who are not his servants, but the servants of the public, with a little sympathy and consideration. That is all I ask. From the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman to-night he evidently intends to do his best to ameliorate the condition of those who are placed under him for a time—a very short time—longer. After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and seeing that he is really anxious now, in his fourth year of office, to redress the just grievances of the telegraphists, it is not my intention to carry my Motion to a Division. Again, let me say I am very glad indeed that at length the right hon. Gentleman has seen the necessity that something should be done for what I consider a most deserving class of public servants who have been underpaid and overworked for so long.
  SIR E. J. REED: The reply of the Postmaster General is, on the whole, satisfactory—at any rate, it is such as to lead me to believe that the men whom he has not "punished," but who have suffered severely, will receive some consideration at his hands in
  1636
  future. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the Surveyor at Cardiff blundered in dealing with these men, and I am fully prepared to accept that statement, but I must say it is not quite satisfactory that public servants should be made to suffer for the blunders of those placed over them. I took the opportunity at an early stage to ask the right hon. Gentleman to remove the injurious effect of the errors made, to which these men were made victims; but I do not think any useful end will be served by pressing this matter to a Division if the noble Lord does not desire to do so. I have no doubt the Postmaster General acted in the matter as regards the Cardiff telegraphists, as he thought, fairly, and with the best intentions, but his action has been harsh in its effect upon these men.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I believe I am in order in raising a question about which I do not think there will be much difference of opinion—the Telephone Service as it exists in this country. I think every Member of the House who has occasion to use the telephone in the Metropolis will admit that it is far from being perfect or from giving satisfaction. Indeed, I think it will be admitted that in London the service is both expensive and bad. The cost to an ordinary subscriber is £20 a year. Now, I believe in any other capital in Europe there is a much better service for £6 a year. Let any hon. Member try to talk between the West End and the City and say whether the service is worth calling a service. The first great error of the service is that it is conducted on a single wire instead of a double-wire system.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman must not enter into the details of the Telephone Service upon this vote.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I am going to point out that the service is bad, and how for this the Post Office is responsible If the Post Office had taken a reasonable view that the telegraph is to the tele-

  1637
  phone what stage coaches are to railways, instead of jealously shutting out the telephone for the advantage of the telegraph, then possibly there would be no cause to complain; at all events, if the Post Office had assumed more responsibility, it is probable we should have had a better service. What is the policy of the Government as to the future? I believe the Postmaster General has large ideas on the subject, and if I am not misinformed he applied to the Treasury to place at his disposal this year the sum of £3,000,000 in order to purchase the telephone system of the Metropolis in June last, when it was in their power to buy it. I do not know whether this is true or not; but it is a question I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman, whether for the improvement of the system reliance is to be placed upon the granting of licences to rival Telephone Companies? I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is fair to shareholders in the present National Company, and whether he thinks Parliament will consent to allowing competing companies to interfere with the existing company in this manner? How soon is it proposed to give a licence to a rival company, or are we to go on from year to year shutting out improvements and leaving ourselves in the hands of the National Company? It has practically got a monopoly of the Telephone Service all over the country. It has absorbed, by methods I do not stop to characterise, various enterprises. What I want to press upon the right hon. Gentleman is simply this: that he should tell us clearly what is to be the policy of the Post Office towards the telephone in the future; whether he is going to allow the present Company to continue the present bad system which is so expensive? Then, I would like to know what are the right hon. Gentleman's views in regard to what I may call the trunk lines which, I suppose, will be established throughout the country. Will these be in the hands of the Post Office, allowing local companies to develop local business in various towns? These are points upon which I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can give us some definite information.
  MR. RAIKES: I am very sorry I am not in a position to answer all these questions. It is quite true the Government had to consider this year whether they would purchase the undertaking of the National Company or not; and, after full and careful consideration, they came to the conclusion that it was not desirable to purchase that undertaking. That is generally known. Most of the patents held by the National Company will expire this year or next, and the whole position will then be radically changed. The question of the trunk lines and many other points are also under consideration. I hope I may rely upon the Committee not to seek to precipitate any statement at present, because the Government are not yet in a position to arrive at a definite policy, and as soon as possible I shall make an explanation to the House.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I wish to ask for an explanation on one point of detail. Before the new regulations the scale of pay for certain towns was equal, but since the grouping of the towns there have arisen differences and anomalies which some of the telegraphists do not understand. In the case of Hull and Sheffield, for example, the maximum rate of pay is 54s. in Sheffield and 52s. in Hull, while the staff in Hull numbers 87 and in Sheffield only 75. There is no reason to believe that the expense of living is any greater in Sheffield than in Hull, and, on the face of it, the matter seems to be one for explanation.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to draw attention to the fact that some of the railway stations in Ireland are without any Telegraph Service. I recently drew attention to one instance in which there were telegraph wires and an operator who was willing to be employed; but the right hon. Gentleman rather spoiled my case by sending down a special messenger to take away the instrument. I do not think any railway station ought to be without the telegraph. At the very station of which I speak there was a collision some time ago. Even if the Post Office loses £5 or £10 in the first

  1639
  year, I do not think that ought to prevent the establishment of a Telegraph Service.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that at the conference held at Paris in June this year a desire was expressed that an international signalling system should be established with uniform prices. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether anything can be done for bringing the British telegraph system into uniformity with the Continental system, and with a uniform charge. I believe Lloyd's Agency is considerably interested in the matter, and that the adoption of the suggestion would be of great benefit to shipowners.
  MR. CREMER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has turned his attention to the question of introducing the carte system of telegrams which obtains in the City of Paris and elsewhere on the Continent. You can go into a Post Office in Paris and write at considerable length on a card or envelope, and in an hour or less you can have your message delivered at the cost of 3d. No doubt the adoption of the system would mean a considerable outlay at first. I hope the right hon. Gentleman if he has not yet heard of this wonderful method of communication will very soon hear of it, and that before long it may be introduced into this country.
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the question raised by the hon. Member for South Islington (Sir A. Rollit), I may state that I have asked for particulars as to the relative number of the staff in Hull and Sheffield, and I hope soon to have information on that point. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, I can assure him that I quite take his view, but I am afraid I have no power to compel a Railway Company to open a telegraph station. I shall, however, be glad to communicate with
  1640
  the Railway Company on the subject. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire with regard* to the signalling of ships, I am sure the Committee will be glad to know that one of the results of the Telegraphic Congress at Paris a month ago has been that the charge in such cases is to be reduced from two francs to one franc, which is to be a uniform charge. In answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for the Haggerston Division (Mr. Cremer), relative to the carte system of telegrams, that matter is one that has been carefully considered by the Department, and information has been obtained on the subject. I should be glad if the hon. Member would come down to the Post Office and see the Report which has been furnished to the office with regard to that system by two of the most experienced officers of the Telegraph Department, so that he might be able to give his candid consideration to the objections that have been raised against it. I should be glad to introduce that or any other system which would be advantageous to the Service but so far as the evidence goes, I am inclined to think that the carte system is less rapid and efficient than the ordinary Telegraph Service of London, and that, on the whole, the Telegraph Service of Paris is not so expeditious as our own.
  MR. CREMER: I did not claim for the carte system that it is more expeditious than ours, but I said it was very much cheaper, the charge being only 3d. I have had experience of the working of the system in Paris, having sent hundreds of messages by it, and in no instance has there been any failure. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to make further inquiry into a system which has produced such excellent results on the other side of the Channel where everyone is satisfied with it, not only as regards expedition, but also in respect of the remarkably low charges that are made.
  MR. CHILDERS: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some further explanation with regard to the non-purchase of the telephones. About

  1641
  a month ago I asked a question as to whether a Treasury Minute would be issued before the end of the Session; and I now wish to know whether, if it cannot be issued so soon, the Government will raise any objection to my moving for a Return of any prospective character, so that it may be circulated during the Recess?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I can readily understand that a good many people may be anxious to know the exact policy of the Government on such a question as this. We are not, however, in a position to say what our exact policy will be; but I think it will interest many persons to know that the Government have absolutely made up their minors that they will not purchase the telephones, and that there is no chance of the telephones being dealt with as the telegraphs have been. If the right hon. Gentleman will move for the Return he has mentioned, I will see whether it will be possible to circulate such a Return during the Recess. The right hon. Gentleman will, however, understand that in the last weeks of the Session when there is a particular stress of business both Parliamentary and Departmental, it would be difficult to issue a Treasury Minute on the subject.
  MR. CHILDERS: I will gladly move for the Return assented to by the right hon. Gentleman. I may add that I have merely asked the question solely in the interest of the public, and not in that of any sellers or companies.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I hope the right hon. Gentle, man will see the desirability of so arranging the accounts of the Telegraph Service that they will show the difference between capital expenditure on new works and other expenditure. If the accounts are made up in that way, I think they would show that the Telegraph Service is now worked at an ample profit, although it has been said that it has been carried on at a loss. No doubt that was the case immediately after the sixpence telegrams were instituted, and in 1887 there was
  1642
  a loss of £105,000; but in 1890 the account shows a surplus of £144,000, owing to the great increase of business. I find that in the expenditure of that year there was included £81,000 for the purchase of submarine telegraphs and other capital expenditure, bringing the total up to £189,000, so that, adding that to the surplus of £144,000, there was, in point of fact, a real surplus of £333,000—quite enough to pay the interest on the capital value of the Telegraph Service plant.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman is one which the Government will, of course, give every consideration to, but it is very difficult to settle what particular amount ought to be carried to the capital account.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I should like to offer a remark with regard to the carrying of the telegraph wires overhead. I wish to know whether wires now carried overhead could not, to a large extent, be conveyed in tubes underground. My attention was called to this matter by what I saw the other day in the County of Sussex, where the effect of the erection of a long line of black poles, carrying a single overhead wire, was positively disfiguring to a very beautiful and picturesque bit of scenery, and to that extent, of course, depreciated the property. I would suggest that where wires can be carried underground, they should be so laid down.
  MR. RAIKES: I will see what can be done in reference to this matter, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it is always competent to the owner of a property to have the wires carried underground at his own cost.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £714,027, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Customs Department."
  MR. J. KELLY: desire to call attention to the case of the writers in the statistical branch of the

  1643
  Customs. That branch presented a unique, if not, indeed, a really lamentable aspect. Its work was of a most important character, but was not known to the public, inasmuch as its Returns appeared in Reports issued by the Board of Trade. Of the whole staff, 54 out of 111 were persons on temporary employ. Sixteen years ago there were 20 writers in it; and 10 years ago, when the branch was re-organised, the number of writers was fixed at eight. So little had the basis of that re-organisation been regarded that actually almost 50 per cent. of the staff were now men on purely temporary employ—in name at least. The truth was, that the writers were in continuous employ there, for many regularly doing the work of second-class (and indeed, in several instances of first-class) clerks had been in the office for 10 whole years. It had been admitted that only the best writers found employment in the Statistical Department of the Customs.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I may remind the hon. Member that I am, at the present moment, conducting an inquiry into the Customs Service, and in the course of that 'inquiry I shall have representatives of various classes of employés before me, and those of the writers might be included, who would then have an opportunity of stating their case.
  MR. KELLY: I feel bound, nevertheless, to bring this case before the Committee. The evidence of Mr. Stephen Bourne before the Playfair Commission showed that so far back as 1874 there was a deliberate conviction in the minds of the writers in the Statistical Department of the Customs that the result of inquiries being made into their position would be their being put upon the Establishment. He stated in his evidence that many of them did the work of second and even first class clerks. In 1880 the office was reorganised, and the number of writers for it fixed at eight. In October, 1888, a tardy and small concession was made to the writers, numbering over 50, in this branch, an addition of 2d. per hour having then been conceded to a certain number of them. It could not be supposed that they would rest with
  1644
  this paltry concession made to these few men, though it was no doubt the fact that the concession was anti-dated to the beginning of the year, and the accruing arrears were paid from January to October in that year.
  It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported this day; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [31st July] reported.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,898,551 (including a Supplementary sum of £50,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post Office-Revenue."
  MR. CONYBEARE: I have to bring forward a case which I should not mention were it not for the fact that other cases have from time to time occurred. It argues a very bad system that postmen against whom no complaint can be made and who are credited by the Post Office itself with a clean record, may on some pretence—it may be on a false accusation made by persons having a grudge against them—be deprived of their means of livelihood without being allowed a chance of clearing themselves or having the case properly investigated. A man named Cornwell had been engaged in a Department of the Post Office in which it was his duty to investigate cases of theft. He served the Post Office so faithfully that in a particular case of robbery he was complimented at the trial, I think by the Judge, upon his skill in unravelling the plot. At a later period, when he was in a different position, and had to supervise the transmission of parcels, a certain parcel was found to be missing. Some months afterwards the loss of that

  1645
  parcel was attributed to him. Comwell alleges that the charge was trumped up against him by certain other officials whom he had offended when on detective duty. After the parcel had passed through his hands it was placed in an ordinary basket, and he received no receipt to show that he had properly handed it over. On the charge against him being made, a detective went to his house, and, after treating him with something like contumely, actually carried away the keys of his desk. As I understand, no inquiry has been vouchsafed to this gentleman, and he was simply dismissed the Service. Surely, in such a case, it is only right that a man should have the opportunity of clearing himself of the charge made against him.
  MR. SEXTON: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give me an answer to the question I have addressed to him regarding the mail service in the North of Ireland. The matter was fully explained to the right hon. Gentleman by a very powerful deputation representing every class in the North of Ireland; and the right hon. Gentleman made so satisfactory and significant a reply that there was the very general belief that the case would be promptly dealt with. In order to emphasise the urgency of the case, let me say that twice this very week in Belfast letters which ought to have been delivered at noon were not delivered until 2 o'clock in the afternoon. The outward mail leaves at 2.55 p.m., so that there were only 55 minutes on these two days to answer the general and commercial correspondence in that great community. In several other towns in the North of Ireland the inward mails are not delivered until the outward mails have left. The City of Belfast is a most important contribution to the Customs Revenue of the United Kingdom—it is next to London and Liverpool—and taking all the circumstances into account, I do trust the right hon. Gentleman will lose no time in dealing with the case.
  MR. MACARTNEY: There has been a grievance of a local character brought to my notice, and
  1646
  I desire to lay it before the Postmaster General. It relates to the allowance of overtime to postmen in some districts in the North of Ireland. Owing to the difficulties of the sea passage, the delivery of the Scotch mails in Belfast and along the Great Northern line is sometimes extremely irregular, and the postmen who are charged with the delivery of the letters in Belfast and Lurgan and other towns receive an allowance for overtime. I have been informed that in Lisburn there is no allowance for overtime. The postmen charged with the delivery of these letters in Lisburn have to wait on two or three occasions during the week for an hour or an hour and a half before they can get the letters. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will inquire into the matter, and that, if he finds my statement to be correct, he will place the postmen of Lisburn on the same footing as the postmen of Belfast and other towns.
  DR. TANNER: I trust the right hon. Gentleman will soon be able to see his way to effect an improvement in the postal arrangements at Macroom. I have brought the matter under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman before, and, therefore, there is no necessity that I should say more now.
  MR. LEA: I only wish to say one word with regard to the Stranraer service. We hope the right hon. Gentleman will take steps as soon as possible to improve the Mail Service from England to the North of Ireland.
  MR. M'CARTAN: It is a matter of paramount urgency to the commercial community of Belfast that the evening Service from Stranraer should be improved. The community are inconvenienced very much by the lateness of the mails. The deputation which waited upon the Postmaster General was influential and representative of all classes and of all shades of politics. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to act upon their suggestions, and thus afford the commercial community of Belfast the postal facilities they are justly entitled to.
  MR. RAIKES: The hon. Member for Camborne has brought for-

  1647
  ward the case of a man named Cornwell, who has recently been dismissed from the Post Office service. The hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. The case is one to which I have given a great deal of personal attention; indeed, I may say that in cases of dismissal or punishment I have always endeavoured to satisfy myself thoroughly as to the facts, and to mitigate, if I can, the effect of the regulations of the Department. Cornwell has now been dismissed for the second time. He was dismissed two years ago for making extremely glaring false statements relating to a brother officer, who is since deceased, and I have always regretted that I was induced to reinstate him upon his making a very full apology and retraction of the charge, because I had great doubt at the time as to whether he was a fit person, under the circumstances, to remain in the Service. Cornwell had a superabundant opportunity of stating his case, and I could come to no other conclusion than that it was necessary, in the interest not merely of the Service at large, but especially in that of the other men employed on the same duty, that his case should be dealt with in an exemplary manner. Therefore, it is impossible to hold out any hope that Cornwell will be restored to the Service. The hon. Members for West Belfast and Down have very naturally pressed for some further statement as regards the Mail Service to the North of Ireland. I admit all that has been said by the hon. Members, both as to the importance of the interests involved and as to the influential and representative character of the deputation I had the honour to receive. I have lost no time in endeavouring to obtain the necessary data on which to form an opinion. As soon as I have those data I will lose no time in arriving at a decision in the matter. The hon. Member for Antrim has called attention to some inequality which exists in regard to the pay of postmen in Ulster. I will see whether there is any foundation for the complaint. I have to thank the hon.
  1648
  Member for Mid Cork for the patience he has shown in dealing with the question of Macroom, which he brought under my notice two years ago. If I am able to do anything in the direction he desires, I shall be most happy to do so.
  Resolution agreed to.
  2."That a sum, not exceeding £539,829 (including an additional sum of £37,169), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of Starch, 1891, for the Expense of the Post Office Packet Service."
  Resolution agreed to.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.—(No. 388.)
Order for consideration of Bill, as amended, read.
MR. KELLY: I beg to propose the Amendment which stands in my name. I think the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) has expressed his willingness to accept this slight Amendment.
Amendment proposed. Clause 6, page 6, line 30, to omit the words "Council Chamber and."—(Mr. Kelly.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
SIR J. LUBBOCK: The object of the clause is to enable the Council to purchase a site for their offices, so that they may be able to bring the whole staff together. If the effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the Council Chamber and offices being on the same site, of course, I must oppose it, as that would defeat the very object of the clause. I understand, however, that the Amendment is merely a drafting Amendment, as the word "offices" includes Council Chamber. Under these circumstances, if the hon. Member cares to press his Amendment I shall not oppose it.
Question put and negatived.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I wish to take this opportunity of protesting against the doctrine advanced on the Second Reading by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). That right hon. Gentleman seems to think it is not in the province of the House to discuss any of the proceedings of the County Council. So far as I am able to understand, the County Council represents the late Metropolitan Board of Works. [Cries of "No."]
MR. TOMLINSON: I rise to order. I believe that this a money Bill, and that it is a Rule of the House that only one stage of a money Bill can be taken at one sitting.
MR. SPEAKER: It is not strictly a Money Bill. The assent of the House to its provisions are necessary under a Statute, and that is the reason why it is exempt from the Rule.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I was about to say that the proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works were discussed in the House, and I think the proceedings of the County Council may very properly be subject to discussion here. I may also take this opportunity of protesting against the charge made by some Members opposite as to the alleged hostility to the County Council on the part of Members on this side of the House, because the sentiments which they hold as to the inefficiency of the County Council are shared unanimously by all the intelligent ratepayers residing in Bond Street, Piccadilly, Oxford Street, and Regent Street. The scenes which have lately occurred there have been condemned even by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. H. L. Lawson), who has compared them to the proceedings of a Clerkenwell or St. Pancras Vestry. I am very much afraid that when any question affecting the County Council of London comes before the House, the
1650
interests of the ratepayers are apt to be forgotten in the discussion. In my own part of London the ratepayers protest very much against the mode in which the business of the County Council has been conducted. I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Lubbock) will endeavour to keep order in the Council.
MR. T. H. BOLTON: I do not agree in the construction put upon the Amendment by the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock). I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) will understand that the alteration which has been made is with the view of restricting the application of the money to additional offices, and to prevents its being used for a new Council Chamber, which many of us consider to be unnecessary.
SIR J. LUBBOCK: If the statement of my hon. Friend who has just sat down had been the case, I should have been compelled to object to this Amendment. I distinctly stated, however, that I accepted it because it had no practical effect, but was a mere question of drafting. Our object is to get the officers of the Council together. We are not anxious to do anything with regard to the Council chamber itself, except in the event of being able to acquire a sufficiently large site to get all the staff together. With regard to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), I shall be prepared to answer any attack that may be made upon us, and, I hope, to the satisfaction of the House. I can only say that the Council will maintain its own order; and considering the lateness of the hour, and the vague character of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me—I do not think the House would expect me to enter into any further defence of the Council.
(12.34.) Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRELAND) (SOUTH CLARE RAILWAYS) BILL.—(No. 301.)
As amended, considered; Bill read the third time, and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION EX-PENSES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 401.) COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
Clause 1.
Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask for an explanation of one or two points. Has any estimate been formed of the probable amount that will be expended in 'any one year in consequence of the passing of this measure, and what is the probable maximum rate which will be imposed in consequence? I find clerks and collectors of poor rates mentioned in the 1st clause. I wish to ask whether these are the only officials who render services in connection with the Parliamentary franchise.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I have not full information to give on the first point, but the charge thrown on the Unions under the Bill will be very small. As to the S3cond question, the definition given in the first line of the clause is actually exhaustive.
DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to afford us any information before the Third Reading of the Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will make inquiries. In the meantime I will put down the Bill for this day week.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is it desirable to postpone this stage?
MR. SEXTON: I shall be satisfied if an answer can be given to a question next week. I do not think it is necessary to delay this stage.
DR. TANNER: As my hon. Friend does not object to the passing of the Bill, I will not take exception to it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

NORTH-EASTERN SEA FISHERIES DISTRICT ORDER (LINDSEY).
Resolved, That this House resolves, pursuant to section 1, sub-section (4), of "The Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888,"that such part of the Order for the creation of the North-Eastern Sea Fisheries District as relates to any part of the sea or coast lying to the south of a line drawn true east from Donna Nook Beacon, in the Parts of Lindsey, in Lincolnshire, ought not to be in force.—(Mr. Secretary Stanhope.)
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.—(No. 245.)
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
COMPANIES (MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION) BILL.—(No. 114.)
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 407.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
On the Motion for Adjournment:—
MR. MARJORIBANKS: When will the Foreign Office Vote be taken?
MR. JACKSON: I am not able to say.
MR. SEXTON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that the information for which we asked relative to the contribution of £40,000 to Ireland would be issued in a day or two. We have not yet received that information, and I desire to ask when we may expect it?
MR. JACKSON: My right hon. Friend said it would be given in the course of the financial year, but I do not know that he promised it on any specific day.
MR. SEXTON: He said in a day or two.
MR. JACKSON: I will inquire about it to-morrow.
SIR W. LAWSON: What will be the first business to-morrow?
MR. JACKSON: The Police Bill.
Sir W. LAWSON: That will occupy the whole day.
MR. JACKSON: I hope not.
House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

DIRECTORS LIABILITY BILL. (No. 165.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, with amendments: The Report thereof received; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 242.)
FOREIGN JURISDICTION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.—(No. 109.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1886, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 206.)
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. (No. 203.)
Returned from the Commons with the amendments to which the Lords have disagreed not insisted on; and with the amendments made by the Lords to the amendments made by the Commons and the Lords consequential amendments to the Bill agreed to.
LONDON STREETS (REMOVAL OF GATES) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  LORD MONKSWELL: In asking your Lordships to give a Third Reading to this Bill, I am desired on behalf of the London County Council to say a few words in support of it. This Bill, as your Lordships are aware, is a Bill to remove various gates which cause a very great obstruction to the traffic through the streets of a portion of the Metropolis. In fact, there is no doubt as a matter of public convenience the removal of these gates has become necessary; there is no doubt that they ought to be removed, and the only question is on what terms they should be removed. The noble Marquess (the Prime Minister) himself, it will be within your Lordships recollec-
  1470
  tion, stated that he has on some occasions used strong language in regard to these gates. Now, this compensation question has been referred to the usual tribunal both in this House and in the Commons House. It has been argued before two Committees, composed, as the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell) observed to your Lordships the other day, of Members who were not for the most part Radicals, the majority of them being good sound Conservatives; and both those Committees have come to the conclusion one after the other that no compensation ought to be granted. The matter has been argued before those Committees by counsel learned in the law to whom the usual honorarium has been given, a point to which the noble Marquess seems to attach great importance. Yet now we are asked on this Third Reading to reverse the decision of those two Committees upon the authority of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell), to whom no honorarium has been given, and who has not apparently listened to the evidence that has been given before the Committees, and I should like to mention to the noble and learned Lord that that evidence appears to me to establish beyond doubt four propositions, which are these: first, that the Act authorising the erection of these gates was passed at a time when there were various Paving Trusts in existence, and that the reason why, and the only reason why those gates were authorised to be erected was owing to difficulties in the matter of repairing such roads. It was thought to be grossly unfair that persons should be allowed to make a, thoroughfare of those roads if they did not contribute to the maintenance of them. Those were the grounds on which the Act of Parliament was, passed, and I think it is perfectly clear on reading the Act that on no other grounds was it passed. When the Vestry took over the roads in the year 1855, they made themselves responsible for their repair, and that being the case, the only object for which the Act of Parliament had permitted the erection of these gates, which were put up under it, was accomplished and was at an end. The third point is this, that the Duke of Bedford for the time being might at any time, at his own will and pleasure, do away with these gates, without giving

  1471
  one penny of compensation to the inhabitants of the district. The fourth point is this, that in no other case whatever has compensation been granted for turning a cul de sac into a thoroughfare for traffic. Now, if the facts be so, I would ask the noble and learned Lord who moves the rejection of this Bill, on what grounds he asks for compensation? I quite agree with him that while these Paving Trusts were in existence, supposing these gates had been taken down, the Legislature must have made some sort of provision for the repair of these roads. But, I submit, after the Act of 1855 was passed, whereby the Vestry undertook to repair the roads, no inhabitant had the slightest right to suppose he would in perpetuity be allowed to keep his privacy any more than the other inhabitants of London if these obstructions to the traffic had to be done away with. I venture to say that the case of Hamilton Place was a good deal stronger than this case, and yet I never heard of anybody getting compensation there for a cul de sac being turned into a thoroughfare for traffic, because the inhabitants of Hamilton Place could only have had their privacy interfered with by the action of the Legislature, whereas in this case the persons living in the district comprised within these bars could have had their privacy invaded by the action of a single individual—the Duke of Bedford. It does appear to me that what the Act which allowed these gates to be put up did was that it gave the inhabitants inside those gates the right to say, "You shall not take away these gates unless you do something reasonable towards the repair of the roads which you make subject to traffic from other parts of London." But it seems to me that is the only right which is given, and the only right which was intended to be given by that Act of 1800. Of course, if, under the Act of 1800, it was proposed at any time to take away these gates, something would have been done by the Legislature with regard to the maintenance of the roads. But I say that no further right was given, or was intended to be given; that is to say, that these inhabitants who live inside these gates are now just in precisely the same position as the inhabitants in all other parts of London are, namely, that they
  1472
  are liable to have their privacy destroyed whenever the Legislature considers it to be for the interest of the general public that the public traffic should be allowed to go through their streets. In these circumstances, my Lords, I move the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Lord Monkswell.)
  LORD BRAMWELL: I move, your Lordships, that this Bill be read a third time this day three months, and I daresay many of your Lordships may think I have a difficult task before me, considering the Report of your Lordships' Committee, a Committee with which it is impossible not to be perfectly satisfied both of their competence and of their entire fairness. One has the satisfaction at least of knowing that if these ways are laid open to the public, it will not be for any consideration like this—
  "Here is one man better off than another; let us equalise their positions by taking away the benefit which the one man has."
  That has not been at the bottom of their decision. I cannot agree with my noble Friend that the Committee were content with the condition of things; on the contrary, they have done their best to mitigate the mischief which will be done to these people, and I am pretty sure they would have been glad if they could to have awarded them some compensation, but they (Could not see their way to do it. I ask your Lordships, therefore, either to do that, or if no compensation can be given, to reject this Bill as an unwarrantable infringement on the rights of these people who are affected by this measure. My noble Friend has said he has read the evidence, Well, so have I, and I certainly do not agree with his version of it. I must ask your Lordships to permit me to state what I am afraid I said before of the Second Reading, what the truth of the matter is in this case. The freeholder— I will call him by that name for a reason which, I trust, your Lordships will appreciate—or the freeholder's predecessor in the year 1800, did not stand in need of the Act of Parliament to do that which was then done, and which has been perpetuated since with the sanction of two subsequent Acts of Parliament. He did it as owner of the soil. The estate was laid out in a particular way,

  1473
  and to ensure the privacy of the people who would build upon it and live, these gates were placed by the authority of the freeholder as such freeholder. It is true that the provisions of the Act of Parliament, no doubt out of greater caution, said that the gates might be there, and that there should be no interference with the gates; but the gates were put there by right of the freeholder as owner of the soil. And there is another matter to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention, which is this: this Bill talks of the removal of certain restrictions upon traffic through the streets of London, and talks of certain bars and gates as being restrictions upon the traffic. What the Bill really does in substance is this. There is some strange notion, I cannot tell how it could have got into anybody's head—it could have got into no lawyer's head, certainly—that the right of the freeholder is to the bars apparently, and to the ground on which they stand. The truth is the right is to the entire soil of these roads in full property, subject to such privileges as he may have granted to the public. Now, the only privileges which he has granted to the public, as far as I can see, is a right of footway. I do think he has granted that, because the footway has been used by the public for all these years without interference. I should think, therefore, there is the most cogent evidence of dedication to the public of a right of footway. But there has been no dedication to the public of a right of carriage way or horse way, or anything beyond the footway; and the gates and bars which are in particular positions at this moment might, if it suited the freeholder, be put in any other positions for the purpose of preserving the privacy of that district. What would in effect be done is this: practically the ownership in the soil would be taken from him. He could at this moment build a house upon any portion of the district which is affected by this Bill where there is no public right of way, and that power will be taken from him. Practically, therefore, his property will be taken from him. It was supposed—and let me particularly remind your Lordships of this—as my noble Friend says that these gates were put here for some strange purpose, which I confess I cannot understand. They were
  1474
  put up for the purpose of preventing the public gaining a right of way as they would have done if the gates had not been there, and for no other purpose. That was their object and intention, and when your Lordships are told—I am surprised it should be so—that it was on account of there being Paving Commissioners for this particular district that this was done, I say it is an entire mistake, because when these Paving Commissioners were put an end to by Act of Parliament, and it was thought better that the parish should take over and repair all the roads, whether public or private in the parish, of course it made no difference in the rates. The people had been rated before, and they were rated afterwards when it was thought that the parish should become responsible for repairing the roads. The Act of Parliament passed in the year 1855 expressly reserved to the freeholder the right to the soil of these streets, and the power of having gates there. But there is another thing which shows the correctness of what I am now stating to your Lordships. There is a recital in this Bill about the gates and bars being a restraint upon the traffic, and I should like to read this to the House—
  "And whereas the continuance of such gates and bars and the restriction of the traffic through, the said streets tend to the public inconvenience."
  Well, I daresay they do; that is to say, I daresay it would be very convenient to the public if these streets were opened. I daresay that is so. There is not one word said as to the convenience of those whose privacy is protected by these gates and bars. But the section goes on to say—
  "It is expedient that provision should be made for their removal; and whereas the object aforesaid cannot be attained without the authority of Pariament;"
  that is to say, the County Council cannot, and nobody can, without the authority of Parliament, interfere with the ownership and the rights of ownership, which the freeholder possesses and exercises in the way which has been mentioned. Remember that, my Lords. I beg your Lordships to remember that it is recited here, and most truly recited, that without the authority of Parliament, what is sought to be done cannot be done. Now, I venture to say that if

  1475
  the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act had been incorporated in this Bill, the freeholder would have had a right to maintain a claim for compensation, not merely for the bare removal of the gates and bars, the value of the gates and bars, and the soil on which they stand, but he would have had a right to maintain a claim for compensation for that property, the loss of which I have described to your Lordships. He would have been entitled to maintain that claim according to a recent case of "Cowper Essex v. The Local Board of Acton." [14 Appeal cases, page 153.] I speak in the presence of two noble and learned Lords, who were parties to that Judgment—for such depreciation of the value of his property, on part of which these gates and bars stand. He would have been entitled to maintain a claim on those two heads. However, they did not think fit to put in a reference to the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. Now, one word with regard to the inhabitants. I see some of the witnesses, gentlemen whose opinion is of great value, stated that in their judgment the tenants of the freeholder's property, that is, of the houses, would have been entitled to maintain an action against him—the freeholder—if he had removed these gates. I do not like to put my judgment against that of others, but in addressing your Lordships, I must tell you what my opinion is, I do not think so. I do not think if it had pleased the freeholder of his own accord to take down these gates, that any of the tenants could have maintained an action against him for having done so. The case is not quite clear, for there are cases in some of which it has been held that the tenants have the benefit of a stipulation made by their landlord, and in others it has been held, and I think it would be held in this case, that the landlord's right is one which he has exercised by placing the gates there for his own advantage, and that whenever he thinks it expedient to remove those bars and gates, he is at liberty to do so without any action being brought against him. That is my judgment upon the matter, and I cannot say otherwise. There is not the slightest doubt in the world that these people are damaged. There is no doubt whatever about that. The Committee were of that opinion evidently, because they did all
  1476
  they could, and I firmly believe would have done more if they had seen their way to do it. The evidence is of the most convincing character. The first surveyors in London have been called to prove this damage, and they positively proved that at the north and west sides of one of these places, say Russell Square, the privacy of which is protected by these gates, rents are much higher than on the east and south sides, which are unprotected. It has been said, and I am really surprised at it that it should have been, I am not surprised that it should have been said in the first instance, stupid as it is, I cannot help saying so; but I am surprised that after the fallacy has been exposed it should have been repeated—it has been said, "Why the law never gives compensation for an increase of traffic." There is a line of noisy omnibuses passing on the west side of Grosvenor Square (it is rather remarkable, I think, that they should have furnished such evidence of what mischief they propose to do to these people in Russell Square), and it has been said that the people in Grosvenor Square have no right to compensation. Do your Lordships know why? Because they had no right to stop those omnibuses, and there was a public right to go along-there. There is no public right to go along where these bars are placed. What the County Council say upon that point here is, that there is an impossibility of settling any Compensation Clause on a fair basis; and what also influenced the Council was the comparatively few persons who are resident in this district, and so forth. Therefore, it appears that the Council were influenced by the difficulty of settling the compensation on any fair basis. What would your Lordships think of anybody who would say, "I met a man coming along with a very nice-looking watch, and I wanted it: well, there was an impossibility of settling the compensation with him upon a fair basis, so I took it for nothing. "That is what they are doing here; that is their argument, and that is their justification. Just consider for a moment the damage that would be done to these people. It cannot be estimated by thousands, nor even, I believe, by tens of thousands of pounds. It would be an enormous damage that would be done to them,

  1477
  I speak in the presence of the Members of the Committee. Did anyone undertake to say in the evidence that the benefit to the public would be anything equal in value to the damage done to the tenants on this property? But if not, there is no justification for doing it. If you are to do more harm than good, valued in money, it ought not to be done. Well, it is said that these are restictions and obstructions. I admit it: but I cannot help saying there is something rather curious in the sort of argument which is brought forward, because if there had been no road there, and if the place had been in the condition in which it was 90 years ago, that is to say, fields with no roads across them, there would have been nothing to obstruct, there would have been no necessity for any restriction there, because there would have been no way or track. Well, then, what is the complaint? But before I go on with that head of my remarks let me say this: I have told your Lordships I do not think the inhabitants would have any cause of action against the freeholder if he had removed these gates. No; but they are as safe as if they would have had a right of action, because the same reason that induced him originally to put these streets there with these bars would induce him to continue them there; that is say, for the purpose of keeping up the value of the property. I forget to mention that. Now, let me go on with what I was saying to your Lordships, that if there was no street there would be no obstruction, and the complaint, therefore, conies to this: "You have made a road for your own benefit, which you need not have made; had you not made it we should have had no right or power to go there; you have put up gates, and therefore we have got a cause of complaint against you." Are your Lordships prepared to say that? Are your Lordships prepared to say that if a man should make a way from a public road to a mine, or a farm, or an hotel, or a private house, and should make another way from the mine, farm, or what not, to another public road, and put up gates in. order that the business of his mine, or farm, or the privacy of his house should not be interfered with, there would be a right in that case? Are your Lordships prepared to lay down as a
  1478
  great principle that in that case the public have a right to complain, if they are not let through by a short cut, to the interference and annoyance and loss of the person who has put up those gates? If that be so, let there be an Act of Parliament passed at once which will save the trouble of referring such matters to Committees, and the expense attending such references and the honoraria which my noble Friend spoke of, and lay down, as a general rule, that whenever anybody likes, no matter what damage it may do to the owner, wherever anybody is entitled to say, "Here is a short cut made not for the benefit of the public, but for the benefit of the man who made it, and who protected it by gates and bars. That is a thing which the public must have the enjoyment of, and the benefit of, at once." I do not think your Lordships will be prepared to say that. The noble Marquess gave some sort of evidence against the tenants by saying that he had sometimes been obstructed in going to the Great Northern Railway Station, and I think he said that when that happened to him he would have used an execration.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE JOB FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): An internal execration.
  LORD BRAMWELL: Yes; expressed internally. Well, if your Lordships reject this Bill, and if the noble Marquess is obstructed again, I hope he will neither internally nor aloud include me in the objects of his execration, for I am sure I would most willingly remove all obstruction from him. I know he suffers very considerably from it, and I would remove it, not only by throwing open these bars, but by closure if I could—very much I trust to his benefit, if it were in my power to do it. Now, my Lords, really the case comes to this: I do not want to say over and over again the same thing. That a deal of damage will be done to a number of people is beyond all doubt; it is proved by the best experts in the world. That some inconvenience is sustained at present by the public at large—I protest against it being called an inconvenience—that a convenience might be given to them to which they are not entitled, I confess at once; whether that convenience will be bought at a fair price to the inhabi-

  1479
  tants I know not. I am strongly inclined to think there will be more loss than gain in it, but, after all, whichever way it may be, it comes to this: that your Lordships are called upon to take away from the freeholder the right which he possesses to the consequent damage of the tenants for no other reason than because it is handy and because it is convenient to do it. As I said before, if your Lordships are prepared to say no matter what the right of the freeholder is, and it is a right as freeholder mind, no matter what the amount of damage that is done to others, if the public desire it that road which is a private road, and that property which is private property, shall become public, all protest would be unavailing. I move that the Bill should be read the third time this day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Bramwell.)
  THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: I would ask your Lordships to hear a few words from me on the ground that any Member of your Lordships' House who happens to possess local knowledge or local information on the subject under discussion is bound to give it for the benefit of the House. I think I may claim this advantage which perhaps few or none of your Lordships possess; that I have lived within the district comprised inside these gates for 10 years, and that it was all within the limits of my own parish. I may, therefore, be supposed to have some practical and considerable knowledge on the subject, both as to the inconvenience or otherwise of the gates, and also as to the feelings of the inhabitants in regard to their existence. No doubt there is a certain inconvenience from these gates, especially at one of them. I must not impute to your Lordships too intimate knowledge of the geography of that part of London; but there is inconvenience, especially at the Upper We burn Place Gates, which are closed to traffic in hired carriages, and where anybody arriving in a hansom would be very reasonably surprised at being told he could not pass, but must go round by another way. None of the other gates are closed to light traffic, but only to traffic of a heavy character. Attendants are seated outside the gates ready
  1480
  when they see carriages or cabs coming to throw them open, and I have soldom, in my own experience, found myself delayed by them. I simply desire to infer from this fact, not that there is no inconvenience arising from the gates, but that the inconvenience said to arise from their position is somewhat exaggerated. If the great Railway Companies and the public require these gates and bars to be-removed, no doubt it must be done, and Parliament must be asked for power to-do it. There is no doubt about that But the fact which I desire to put to your Lordships with great earnestness is this: that it is a very high-handed course to remove these gates and bars without some sort of compensation being made to the householders and leaseholders in the neighbourhood, who indisputably either bought or took their property on the undertaking that they would not be interfered with by the freeholder in the-enjoyment of these valuable rights. Conceive what will happen to them if heavy traffic comes down through Upper-Woburn Place or Tavistock Street. It will be impossible to use the bedrooms in front of the houses. Not only will the personal comfort of the inhabitants be-interfered with, but they will not really be able to sleep. I have read the evidence given before your Lordships' Committee, and I am perfectly certain that the property in those houses will be-very seriously diminished in value in that neighbourhood, where property is-already not likely to increase in value. I should like to add that the neighbourhood-is certainly not a fashionable one; it is-inhabited by struggling professional men with limited incomes, who are not, perhaps, as well able to protect themselves as persons living in other parts of London might do, and on whose behalf there I appeal to your Lordships for protection. I do not live there now, and I have no property there, but I have some valued friends in the neighbourhood for whom I have a great regard, and I think, therefore, that your Lordships will pardon me for protesting against what I do feel to be an arbitrary invasion of the rights of private property. I do ask your Lordships to pause before passing a Bill which will inflict very serious injury and personal damage on those who have no right whatever to be treated in such a way as is proposed by the Bill.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should desire to call your Lordships' attention to the position of this Bill, and to the effect of the proposal of my noble and learned Friend. My noble and learned Friend admits that, if it is for the public interest that this change should be made, private interests or even private rights must necessarily give way.
  LORD BRAMWELL: I never said anything of the sort.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I thought my noble and learned Friend so stated on the last occasion in the most distinct terms. I am sorry I have not his assent to that; but we have the admission made that the public can interfere with private rights, only they must do so upon terms of making proper compensation.
  LORD BRAMWELL: Yes.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I had only half finished the statement of my proposition. My noble and learned Friend assumed that I was not going to say more than I had said at that moment. My noble and learned Friend admits that in the contest between public and private interest, the private interest must give way. What is the course which he and those whom he represents have taken with reference to this Bill? The Bill was discussed in the other House. It was sent to a Committee of that House; it was argued for a considerable time before that Committee; the Committee reported in favour of the Bill; the other House then passed it, and it came up to your Lordships' House. One would have thought that by that time, at least those who have been represented by my noble and learned Friend, would have come to see that the Bill is one to the principle of which, the Preamble of which, they should offer no objection. They might, of course, insist that they had a right to compensation, which claim to compensation might have been then considered. When the matter came to this House, my noble and learned Friend moved the rejection of the Bill, and then, when it went before the Committee, what position did the petitioners assume? Did they say: "We admit, of course, that our interests must give way in this matter of public concern, but we propose to insert a clause and ask that you should insert it in protection of our interests." Nothing of the kind. They did attempt to get the Committee to find
  1482
  the Preamble of the Bill not proved, and to get the Bill rejected by the Committee. The proposition was put in a most subsidiary manner. The first witness called had given a great part of his evidence—in fact, almost the whole of his evidence— before he came to the question of compensation, at all. I do not say in the slightest that they abandoned or did not say if the Bill passes we ought to have compensation. But they cannot say that the Bill was not opposed. Then the Bill comes before your Lordships for Third Reading. It has been well discussed and considered; all the arguments of my noble and learned Friend on the other side have been fully canvassed by the Committee, and considered and weighed by them, and that Committee has found what my noble and learned Friend does not dispute is a conclusion arrived at by them perfectly honestly, and to the best of their judgment. But now my noble and learned Friend comes at this, the last stage, after the Bill has passed through those various stages, and asks your Lordships to reject this Bill on the Third Reading. And why, my Lords? Because, as he says, their claims to compensation have not been entertained by the Committee. In the first place, my noble and learned Friend asks your Lordships to reject this Bill, though as to one of the gates proposed to be removed by it there was no opposition. No objection whatever was made with regard to that, and yet my noble and learned Friend asks that the Bill should be rejected which will provide for that being done, to which nobody objected. That is the sort of wholesale way in which this Bill is treated, and after it has gone through all these stages, and after it has come to its present stage in your Lordships' House. These point?, which have been referred to by my noble and learned Friend, and upon which he has argued in the interests of those whom he represents, were perfectly reasonable matters to be considered. I do not mean to say it was otherwise. The whole subject of claim to compensation was considered by this Committee most anxiously and most carefully, and, having considered it, they came to the conclusion that the proper course to take was to provide means of securing, by the silent paving of the streets, as far as possible

  1483
  against the inconvenience to the in habitants of these streets being thrown open to public traffic; but that it would not be right to make a provision for a compensation. My noble and learned Friend has spoken as though this claim to compensation on behalf of the occupiers of these houses was a claim similar to those which have been hitherto recognised by the law. On the contrary, no such claim to compensate has as far as I know, ever been recognised; and if this claim be recognised, I maintain that it will run counter to every principle which has regulated the law of compensation in similar cases. It has not been the case, as my noble and learned Friend has assumed, that wherever Parliament has interfered it has done so on the basis of compensating every person who would suffer inconvenience, or even pecuniary loss, by reason of the interference of the Legislature. I could give your Lordships abundance of illustrations of that. For example: you have bought a residence; a railway comes near the residence. The railway does not take any of your land, but it interferes with your privacy; it certainly diminishes the comfort of your house, and would very likely diminish its selling value, and yet, beyond question, no compensation could be claimed by the person who suffered that direct pecuniary loss by reason of the railway having come there. Though he has been subjected to inconvenience, loss of privacy, and even diminution of the value of the premises, yet he has no right to compensation. That is a great deal more analogous to the case we are dealing with than any of the cases to which my noble and learned Friend has alluded. I give this instance only, because I maintain that compensation is never given unless for interference with some legal right. However great the inconvenience, however unquestionable the pecuniary loss, unless that can be established, there is no claim to compensation, with perhaps this exception to which my noble and learned Friend has alluded. If you take a portion of a man's land, and have to compensate him for that, he may, in some cases, get consequential damages, which other persons whose land had not been taken would not be entitled to claim, and, therefore, I ought to limit my general proposition in that way, although
  1484
  it is not really relevant to the point we are discussing. In that way, it seems to me, my noble and learned Friend abandoned the whole case when he admitted that these occupiers and lessees had no legal right to enfore the continuance of the gates and bars in the position in which they are. The whole case was gone, as it seemed to me, when my noble and learned Friend made that admission. I do not allude to his argument as regards the freeholder, because the freeholder did not petition against this Bill, and he has not asked for any compensation clause to be inserted. He is the only person whose legal rights will be in any way interfered with by this Bill, and, he certainly, not having asked for compensation, it would be out of all reason to reject this Bill because there is no provision made for compensation in his case. We have, therefore, only to deal with the case of lessees and occupiers. I am not going for a moment to dispute that there are many people whose convenience and comfort would be diminished by these streets becoming subject to more traffic than had hitherto passed through them, although I cannot help thinking that the reality would turn out to be as bad as the anticipation, and that people will not find that the traffic, divided as it will be among several streets, will be anything like so burdensome as they imagine. The right rev. Prelate has alluded to his personal experience of this neighbourhood. I may claim to have even greater experience in these matters, because I lived a great deal nearer to a railway station than probably anyone who objects to this Bill. I do not mean to say that there is not a great deal of traffic occasioned by the neighbourhood of a railway station, and perhaps some prefer that there should be less; but when the change is made, people will not, perhaps, find it so bad as they suppose at the present time. Still, making all allowances, no doubt they would prefer that there should be less rather than more traffic through their streets. But, my Lords, that difference by the admission of traffic through streets which have hitherto been protected from it, has never been regarded as a subject of compensation, and, if it were to be so regarded, it would land you with an endless vista of compensation claims. In the present case the petitioners are

  1485
  not persons residing in the streets where these gates are; they are people residing at a considerable distance. They say if you render this particular street an open thoroughfare, then more traffic will come into the street which leads to that street, and more traffic will come into other streets which lead to the street which leads into the first street, and all these people will suggest that they are entitled to compensation. My Lords, it is a claim which has never been admitted. We have had numberless improvements in London which have produced that result. Take, for example, the opening of Hamilton Place. All the persons residing along Park Lane could, if my noble and learned Friend makes out this case, have said when you have opened Hamilton Place (which was done under statutory authority) you have induced more traffic to pass down along the thoroughfare than when there was only the narrow outlet at Park Lane. No doubt there has been an increase of traffic there, and yet no suggestion of this kind was ever made in that case. As far as I know it has never been made before.
  LORD BRAMWELL: Was there any right to stop it?
  LORD HERSCHELL: There was no right to stop it, nor is there here any right to stop it in the case of the persons whose interest my noble and learned Friend has been advocating. That was the point to which I was referring. My noble and learned Friend admits that there is no right in any of these occupiers who are petitioning to insist that these bars should be kept there. Well, then, it comes exactly to this: it is a parallel case. They were just in the same position as the people in Park Lane and Hamilton Place, when there was a house, I believe, at the end of Hamilton Place; the people there might have quite relied that nobody would voluntarily remove the house for the purpose of making it a thoroughfare. I do not know whether there really was a house there, but, at all events, the way was closed, and they had to obtain an Act of Parliament to enable Hamilton Place to be opened. Just in the same way as the people here might have relied upon these gates remaining to prevent traffic, the people in Hamilton Place might have relied upon the obstruction remaining there as it was,
  1486
  and yet no compensation was paid. My proposition is shortly this: that no compensation is ever paid where all you do is to interfere with an expectation which people might reasonably have entertained, but where is no interference with any legal rights which they possess. If you interfere with legal rights, of course, they have a right to compensation, but not otherwise. My noble and learned Friend seems to have left out of sight one view of this ease which impresses me strongly. He says these are not public streets but private streets, and I see that was very strongly put forward in evidence by one of the witnesses. All I can say is that it is a most astounding thing, if they are private streets, to think that ever since 1855 these private streets have been repaired entirely at the public expense. I can understand the case of private streets which the people themselves keep up and bear the expense of, but private streets which they insist the public have no right to use, but which nevertheless the public have repaired just as much as they have repaired all the other streets in the Metropolis, appears to me a very strange anomaly, and I was astonished to find, when I read the evidence, that from one of those streets there is actually excluded all traffic except gentlemen's carriages, a street which has for 35 years been repaired just as all the other streets in London have been at the public expense. What does that come to? That the inhabitants of other parts of London have to bear the inconvenience arising from the noise of traffic through their streets, and as to those streets they have to share the expense with people who do not live in them. The streets are repaired for the benefit of people living in them without the public having the full rights which they have over other streets in the Metropolis. What strikes me is this: that if for 35 years this state of things has gone on there is a large debit in favour of the people due from whoever is interested in these private streets, which, if it were set off against the claim for compensation, would, I think, hugely outweigh them. It is, I think, very difficult to say that they are private streets. No doubt, passage through them was limited, but to say that beyond those gates these were not public streets is a proposition which, I think, it

  1487
  would be rather difficult to establish, considering the way in which they have been dealt with during all these years. I must demur to one observation which has been made by my noble and learned Friend, because I do not think it is accurate. He says these gates were put up for the protection of the privacy of the inhabitants. I have looked through the Acts of Parliament, and I cannot come to that conclusion. I believe they wore put up, in the first instance, without any thought of the kind, but simply to secure that the roads on the Bedford estate should not be unduly used by your neighbouring estates not then laid out for building, so that when they rested entirely, as they then did, upon the people on the Bedford estate, those streets should not be used by people who did not contribute to them, and who wanted to develop their rival estates. The effect of their securing privacy has been an accidental effect which has subsequently resulted. People, I do not dispute, may have gone to live in some of these streets relying on the fact that these bars existed, and were likely to continue to exist, but that in itself cannot give any claim to compensation on any principle which has been hitherto recognised by the law, and it would be, as it seems to me, a very dangerous precedent if you were to introduce any new principle which would permit now heads of compensation to arise. It would render very difficult many public works which would be of advantage to the community. The principle hitherto has been that persons must take their chance of any changes which may happen, owing to improvements in the public streets, and that those changes and improvements may be made without compensation of this kind being paid. No doubt, if you could work out complete justice, what you might like to do would be to say this traffic which will go through these streets when they are opened goes somewhere else now, and therefore the streets where it now passes will be rendered quieter to the extent that the others will be rendered more noisy; and if you could devise some means of making the people whose streets thus become quiter provide means for paying compensation to the people whose streets become noisier, that might be a very equitable arrangement,
  1488
  and I, personally, should see no objection to it, though I do not mean to suggest that it would be a very practicable one. But in this case, just as in the case of a railway passing near your house, or, in many other cases, the only way of dealing with these matters is to stand by the principle that unless you can establish that a legal right has been interfered with, you cannot establish a like right to compensation.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I confess I am a little astonished at the principles which have been enunciated by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, because it strikes me he has entirely forgotten to notice the fact that the freeholder and the tenantsare the persons who alone could regulate between themselves the relations under which the bars and gates exist, and that an Act of Parliament is required to deal with the interest of the freeholder and leaseholder, because the freeholder and leaseholders if left to themselves would keep matters in the position in which they are now, and would keep their property as it is. For the sake of public convenience you are to force the freeholder and leaseholders to place their property in a different condition to that in which it is at present, and in which they desire to have it remain. I do not desire to discuss the questions which have been raised between the two noble and learned Lords, but this I think will not be disputed by anyone: a great many people have thought that the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act has been very harshly construed in respect of some rights; but whether it is so or not, the principle on which that Act rests is that you should not take for public purposes that which we do not pay for, and that if you take away something which I will not say a person has a right to; but if he has it, and if he is in such relations with his landlord that he is likely to retain it, and if a third person for public purposes chooses to take it away, that you must pay for it. I desire to say that I am afraid in that respect I may be found a little in conflict with my noble and learned Friend at the head of the Government; but I do not think the inconvenience which is caused by these gates is so great as has been represented. Like the right rev. Prelate, I can speak from personal knowledge, having lived within the ambit of these gates. I

  1489
  have not taken the trouble to go again to look at the place; but as far as my knowledge of it goes, the inconvenience is that you must go round by Tottenham Court Road on the west, or by Burton Crescent on the east. That is the whole inconvenience; and if you measure it, it is not a question of miles or half miles, but merely of yards. That is the supposed inconvenience. The traffic which comes up from the east can very readily go up by the Bagnigge Wells Road; and the traffic from the west by the Tottenham Court Road; but because there is this little "short cut," which might be made available, it is supposed that there is great inconvenience to the public in the existence of these gates. I remember hearing in the course of my professional experience of a very curious case of an effort which was made to establish a right of way between two of the doors of a public house which stood between two roads. There was a passage through from one road to the other, and there was no doubt that the public had been accustomed to go through the two flap doors as a short cut. We know that a short cut is a most fascinating thing, and accordingly an effort was made to establish that a public right of way had been acquired between those two flap doors of the public house. I am happy to say the effort failed, but that is a singular instance of this kind of claim. If a third person is to come forward and set aside the rights of the freeholder and the leaseholders, where is the interference to stop? My noble and learned Friend has said he does not recognise the claim to compensation, except where a legal right is invaded. But the legal right of the leaseholder here is certainly invaded.
  LORD HERSCHELL: The leaseholder asked for no compensation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think my noble and learned Friend was not quite accurate. The freeholder did not oppose in the other House—so I am told, and I believe accurately. That he does not think it worth while to oppose the Bill may be very well understood, after the decision in the other House and in the Committees; but he opposed the Bill in the other House, and, therefore, that shows that he does not assent to it, though he has not thought it worth his while to continue
  1490
  his opposition in this House. You have, therefore, the legal right of the freeholder interfered with and invaded. Is it not a reasonable thing for the tenants, the leaseholders, and others, all of whom desire to maintain the privacy of this district, to say, "You are taking away the legal right of the freeholder, en which we were perfectly justified in relying; and we knew we could rely upon it, for he would not changed the position in which the property now stands; you have taken away from us the protection we have now; you have taken away these restrictions; it rests entirely upon the state of good feeling between tenants and lessees and their landlord; and if you are going to take this course, which the right rev. Prelate has designated as a high-handed measure, you must provide some kind of compensation for those who are injured?" I do not understand the argument which my noble and learned Friend used with reference to-the remoteness of the compensation which might be claimed—that persons in one street would claim because their street let into another street which was affected by this throwing open to public traffic. This claim could only be made by persons within the protected district. Persons who are not within the district have not paid extra prices for their leases or houses, and they are not. entitled, in point of justice, to compensation. They have taken their houses like others in the Metropolis. But there is here a real case for compensation. People have gone to this place for privacy, and have paid for it, and the persons letting the houses have let them on such terms as represent that price. They would now have to pay the same rates as before, in addition to the sums which they had so paid.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Would the noble and learned Lord allow me to ask him to define what he means by "protected district?"
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The district protected by these gates. My noble and learned Friend does not seem to be aware that there are gates on four sides. For instance, the gate at Cower Street shuts out the traffic from St. Pancras, and practically it comes to this: that there is an area which is completely protected against heavy traffic passing through it.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I believe there is nothing on the south of Russell Square.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is nothing on the south of Russell Square, I agree; but persons going through and looking at the physical condition of the neighbourhood can see that it is a protected district, heavy traffic being prevented passing through it to the London and North-Western and St. Pan-cras Stations. I am quite aware that the London and North-Western Railway was not in existence at the time these gates were put up; but I say it is an extraordinary thing to claim that these gates should be thrown down because the London and North-Western Railway is there now, and has established a large station for the reception of traffic. That, I should think, is one of the tilings which the persons clamouring to keep this district private would insist upon us showing the equity of this claim. My noble and learned Friend said that he has lived in a place near a railway station. So have I. In fact, I lived within the protected district, in Bedford Place, at one time, and subsequently outside it, in the neighbourhood of the Great Western Railway, where there was no protection. In the former place there was perfect quiet, but in the latter I found that it was impossible after 4 o'clock in the morning to get anything like sleep on account of the noise made by vans and carts. That seems to me to constitute a serious grievance, and not at all a fanciful one. I cannot help surmising that my noble and learned Friend's reference to the gentleman's carriage being allowed to pass the gates is explained by the fact that it was not by reason of social considerations, but because it was not a heavy vehicle.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon; but even in that case some were turned back, and when the explanation was given it was found that they were thought to be hired flys.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The argument founded upon this is, that for 35 years these streets have been paved and repaired at the public expense. When those who made that arrangement made it, they agreed to pay, and did pay, with the gates there. If that was
  1492
  an improvident bargain to make, as it is now thought apparantly according to this Bill, looking to its terms, it was an improvident bargain made 35 years ago, and since kept. It seems to me that is rather an additional objection to this sort of legislation than anything else, and that you have here a bargain made which has received the sanction of the Legislature itself; but now, without compensation, you are asked to take away that advantage which the Legislature secured at first. My Lords, I confess I regard, with great jealousy, attempts of this sort to interfere with the comfort and convenience of persons who have been guilty of no wrong, who have paid their money for the purpose of obtaining that protection which they have received, and which you now propose to take away simply because it is said the public suffer some additional inconvenience by being obliged to go round, really a distance of a few yards by Tottenham Court Road, or Judd Street, or Barton Crescent. I should have been much better pleased, I confess, if the Committee could have seen their way to do that which would have prevented all question by recognising the right of the inhabitants of this district to compensation. I think it might very well have recorded an opinion in favour of the claims to compensation which my noble and learned Friend has put forward; but as the Committee have refused to take any such course, I shall vote with my noble and learned Friend in moving the rejection of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As my noble and learned Friend has rather challenged me in regard to the inconvenience, which I have myself experienced from the existence of these gates, I wish merely to say that the inconvenience seems to me to be not merely that the public have to go round, but that the traffic through the streets remaining open is so congested in consequence of so many streets being withdrawn from traffic, that a very serious impediment to the traffic of London has resulted. I merely wish to make that little correction, because I confess to be in some little difficulty as to the vote I shall give, because the issue which my noble and learned Friend has put forward is not the issue on which I should have liked to vote. If he had produced a compensation clause, I should have been very glad

  1493
  to consider it, and it is very possible we might have seen our way to sanction the introduction of something of the kind into the Bill which would have satisfied us; but he has not done so, and he proposes that after the Bill has been considered in two Houses, after the Bill has been submitted to the proper tribunal, and the proper tribunal has determined that there shall be no compensation, and that the Bill shall pass, we shall reject the Bill altogether on account of that decision. I think that is leaning rather heavily against the public in this matter, and that, on the whole, as my noble and learned Friend has not given us the opportunity of voting upon the question of this compensation, I think we are bound to pass the Third Beading of the Bill. I do not wish to be the cause of continuing this Debate, but I should have been glad to hear from some Member of the Committee the reason for the views which they took in deciding that no compensation was justly to be paid. With regard to the argument of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Herschell, the point on which he seemed to rely was that of estoppal against the freeholder, because he did not appear in this House, but I can quite understand his objection. He is a great London landowner, and he might very well think that it would put him in an invidious position to renew here the opposition which he offered in the other House of Parliament. I do not think that could be made a ground of estoppal against the freeholder for refusing him his just right. I should have been glad to have had the opportunity of voting upon a compensation clause; but when the question is put to me whether I shall vote for the Third Reading, or throw out the Bill, I see no alternative but to support the Bill, and I am consoled by the reflection that if we granted compensation after all, it would have to be decided by a jury, and I do not know that a jury is a superior institution to the five Members of this House and four Gentlemen of the other who have decided against compensation.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should like to be permitted to add one word by way of explanation. I certainly did not intend to be understood as arguing that the noble Duke by not opposing the Bill
  1494
  here would lose his claim to compensation. What I said was, that when he petitioned in the other House he did not petition on the ground that he was aggrieved, but entirely on the ground that he appeared in the interests of his lessees and tenants.
  LORD HOUGHTON: My Lords, as I had the honour of acting as Chairman of the Committee which considered this Bill, and reported upon it to the House in its present shape, I think it will be most convenient to the noble Marquess if I rise at once to state what our reasons were in coming to the decision at which we arrived. In speaking of the Committee, I should like to state frankly at once that our decision was not arrived at without some discussion, and although, for reasons which your Lordships will quite appreciate, none of my noble Friends attempted to divide the Committee, yet their opinion was not entirely unanimous. I only say that, so that when I speak of the decision of the Committee I may be understood as speaking of the decision at which the majority ultimately arrived. Something fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to the great necessity for the Bill not having been, in his opinion, entirely proved. I am bound to say the evidence given before us on that point seemed absolutely overwhelming. We had the evidence, in the first place, of the officials of the County Council, who perhaps the noble Lord would say were not unbiased, but we also had the evidence of one of the Superintendents of the North-Western Railway, the Secretary of the Cab Proprietors' Association, a representative of the St. Pancras Vestry, Inspectors from two divisions of police, the Parcels Delivery manager, and Messrs. Shoolbred, and other van proprietors in the neighbourhood, and I believe that we might have been hearing evidence of that kind still had we not concluded that we did not consider it necessary to be further informed on the subject. I am told that attention has been drawn to that point by the noble Marquess, but I should like to impress upon your Lordships that owing to the form which my noble and learned Friend has employed on this occasion, if he succeeds, the Bill will be absolutely lost. There is no question of its Amendment; and the public will still have to suffer

  1495
  what I think I may say was unanimously regarded by the Committee, after a hearing extending over some days, was a very great inconvenience indeed to the public. Therefore, I may say that the only point we had to decide was the question of compensation. That question of compensation was rather presented to us in two different points of view. In the first place, from what I may call the good-natured point of view, it was urged very strongly that these people might suffer inconvenience; that London is a very rich town; that it is desirable to make everybody as happy as possible; and that, therefore, it would be much better to give compensation. But, my Lords, we do not live in Arcadia, where everybody may be supposed to be to be made perfectly happy, but we live in London, and in London, as my noble and learned Friend behind me has shown, people are often put to great inconvenience in these matters of street improvements and opening streets for traffic without receiving any compensation at all. However, I need hardly say that was not the point of view in which the learned counsel who conducted to case with great ability presented it, but that they pressed it from the practical point of view of the question. We had to go back to what we considered was the original intention with which these gates were erected. The noble and learned Lord said that if the then Duke of Bedford, at the end of last century, had wished, he need not have erected gates at all, but might have put walls or houses there, and he need not have made roads. I suppose there would have been nothing to prevent the then Duke of Bedford laying out his estate, if he had chosen, on something like the principle of the maze at Hampton Court, with all the streets cuts de sac, and all the squares only approachable by balloons, but it was of, course, very unlikely that he would do anything of that kind, and what he did was to lay out the estate to the best advantage. The contention of the petitioners was that the gates were placed there with the object of making the estate a private and residential estate. That point was at once taken issue upon, and we decided it was not by any means proved. Your Lordships have heard that the Paving Commissioners were appointed at that
  1496
  time in connection with the building-estates, and were entitled to rate the inhabitants for paving purposes. Adjoining the Duke of Bedford's estate was an estate of the Skinners' Company on the east, and another belonging to a Mr. Mortimer on the west. These estates are specially mentioned in the Act of Parliament to which my noble and learned Friend alluded, as being the estates to secure protection against which, these gates had been set up, and the inference seemed to him absolutely certain that the intention with which those gates were then erected was to prevent, when the time came for laying out those adjacent estates, the carts filled with heavy materials passing over those roads on the Bedford estate which were to be made by the inhabitants of that estate alone. Not to detain your Lordships too long on this point, matters went on as they were, and several other Acts were passed which left matters very much in the same position until the year 1855, when the Metropolis Management Act was passed. There were then over 300 of these little Paving Trusts in London, and the time had then come to consolidate the paving of the whole Metropolis, and, as your Lordships are aware, it was then handed over to the different vestries. Then my noble and learned Friend says if that was the only reason, why were the gates not taken down at that time? My answer, like that of the noble and learned Lord, is that they most certainly ought to have been taken down, but there are, I think, two reasons why they were not; one was suggested by the learned Council, who appeared before the Committee, and it is to the effect that this Metropolis Management Act was rather in the nature of an experiment. It might not have succeeded, and it might have been found necessary to go back to the Paving Trusts, and in that case the loss of the gates might have been a serious matter to them. But I think in reality what weighed more with Parliament was that at that time the gates were not a serious nuisance, that 35 years ago there was by no means the same amount of traffic as there is now, and, as your Lordships are well aware, Parliament is very timid of touching anything of that kind, or of interfering with legal rights, unless a strong case

  1497
  is made out for doing so. On that point we arrived at this conclusion, that, in the first place, the gates were put up to save the roads, and not to keep them private, and that the roads were, therefore, to all intents and purposes, and ought to be treated for all intents and purposes as public roads; and we also arrived at the conclusion, which I may say was very hotly contested by the petitioners, and appeared to them to be a very strong point, although we did not give it as much weight as they desired, namely, that the Duke of Bedford was the sole proprietor of these gates, that he had power either to take them away, or to alter their present position or to remove them without asking his leaseholders. That was hotly contested, but as the noble and learned Lord has conceded the point I do not know that I need say anything more about it. Supposing my contention to be correct, that the gates ought to be taken away, then the real fact is that these people have had thirty-five years more of privacy than they were really entitled to. I was told of a case the other day of a man who had kindly allowed some friends to live for three years in his house, which they did with great apparent satisfaction, but at the end of that time they went to live elsewhere, and sent him in a claim for £2,000 compensation. It seems that is rather the manner in which the inhabitants of these squares are acting towards the public at this moment. Then we come to the point that these houses were taken on the faith of these gates being there. All I can say is there is nothing to show it. I could understand it if there had been covenants in the leases to the effect that if these gates were taken away the lessees would have had a claim, then the Duke of Bedford could have come to the Committee and said, "You see what you are doing; you are diminishing the value of my property." I think in that case the Duke could have made out a claim to compensation, but there are no such covenants in the leases, and how the Duke, except under those circumstances, could have asked for compensation I fail to understand. I do not want to lay too much stress on the fact that the Duke of Bedford did not appear before us. I think the reason given by the noble Marquess may very likely be the right
  1498
  one. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack drew attention to the fact that he did appear in the other House, it is only fair for me to say that he did so only to say what he could for his lessees, and I have no doubt that being on good terms with them he would have liked to say what he could for them. But what I want your Lordships to do is to regard very carefully the possibility of these houses having been taken on such a distinct understanding as mentioned. Take the case of Carlton House Terrace. Supposing one of your Lordships took a house there. I am not sure of my facts here; but I think there would be nothing to prevent the Crown turning Carlton House Terrace into a thoroughfare tomorrow if they chose, and if they considered Pall Mall so congested as to require that to be done. I do not imagine that in such a case the inhabitants of Carlton House Terrace would have a claim to compensation, and yet their expectation of continuing to enjoy their privacy is quite as reasonable as any which these people living in Upper Woburn Place could have had by the maintenance of these gates. Once you concede that they had not a right to maintain these gates themselves, and that the Duke of Bedford could not do so either, I cannot see where their claim for compensation comes in. I should like once more to impress upon your Lordships what has been often said, that claims for compensation for annoyance, as conceded by the petitioner's own witnesses in the case, cannot be maintained or defended. All they claimed was compensation for deterioration of property, and even if they were entitled to make out their case upon that they did not make it out on the ground of annoyance. Of course, if we could have given it them it would have been much more agreeable to us. It is very nice to sit on a Committee and please everybody, if that is not done at the public expense; but we did not desire to confiscate anybody's proparty. The reason why we did not assent to the claim for compensation was simply because we did not think anybody had made out a claim to compensation.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I should like to state in a very few words the reasons which bring me to the same

  1499
  conclusion as the noble Marquess opposite, a conclusion which I confess I have reached with very great difficulty, because now that we have heard from the Chairman of the Committee the reasons which induced the Committee to give no compensation, I am bound to say that so far as the freeholders are concerned those reasons seem to me to be quite insufficient and quite unsatisfactory. That is my only reason for voting in favour of the Bill. I think the leaseholders have not, strictly speaking, any legal locus standi in this matter. The rule about compensation in Acts of Parliament where the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act applies is that unless an action could have been brought in the absence of an authority given by the Act of Parliament there is no right. Having heard this debated fully it does seem to me perfectly clear that the occupiers of these houses would have no right to bring any action at all. They have no contract with the freeholder, and it seems to me that the freeholder could, without giving them any right of action, have consented to the removal of these gates, and that if he has consented to it they are entirely out of Court. The reasons urged in connection with the paving of the streets, and so on, seem to me, if I may say so with respect, to be irrelevant. I do not think they would have the least tendency to bar any right to compensation, which would otherwise exist. In this stage of the matter what effect ought to be given to the action of the freeholder in not appearing before the Committee to ask for compensation? Upon the whole I cannot but come to this conclusion, that it must be interpreted as a virtual consent by the freeholder to leave the matter in the hands of the Committee. The Committee have apparently acted upon that principal, and upon that I have been unable from any of the reasons suggested, except those which affect the freeholder, to say that compensation ought to have been given. I think, therefore, the best way of arriving at a just conclusion is to assume that the freeholder did not wish to press his claims.
  LORD HOUGHTON: I should desire, my Lords, to say one word in explanation. I carefully intended to guard myself against saying anything as to
  1500
  whether the freeholder waived his right to claim compensation or not. All I said was that he did not ask for it, and that seemed to us on the Committee to be absolutely conclusive.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If the freeholder had asked for compensation it seems to me his right to compensation would have been as clear as any that has ever been brought before Parliament.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not rise to add anything the discussion of a subject which, I think, has now been pretty well threshed out. I am perfectly satisfied from what has been said by my noble Friends, Lord Herschell, Lord Houghton, Lord Salisbury, and Lord Selborne, as to the vote which I shall give. My reason for rising is to give a short and, perhaps, not very unimportant explanation. I find that I was reported on the Second Beading to give my opinion in favour of compensation. Now, I gave no such opinion at all, and I was quoted afterwards as having done so. What I stated was this: that by general consent the present state of things is an inconvenience to the public: that the removal of the gates would be a convenience to the public—everybody was agreed upon that; that with regard to compensation there was a difference of opinion, and that if the Bill had been rejected on Second Reading your Lordships would have destroyed the chance of removing an inconvenience to the public, and would have left undecided the question of compensation, which appeared to me to be a very fitting one to go to a Committee. The Committee, as my noble Friend has very fairly described, came to the conclusion that compensation is undesirable, but if they had proposed a clause of a practical character I should certainly not have-been one to oppose their decision. However, as this Committee-has, after very carefully hearing evidence, and having discussed the whole matter, come to the contrary opinion, I should extremely regret that this House —I do not wish to dwell on the reasons why I think so—should pass over the judgments of the Select Committee of the House of Commons and' the Select Committee of your own body, that an end ought to be put to what is on all

  1501
  hands regarded as a great inconvenience to the public.
  LORD ZOUCHE: My Lords, as a Member of the Committee before which this matter was brought, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words. It has been stated with great candour by my noble Friend opposite, Lord Houghton, that, although we did not actually divide on the question, yet that we were by no means unanimous as to the questions involved, particularly that of compensation. We discussed this question at very great length, and I can assure your Lordships we gave every attention to it. I should be the very last to make light of the decision of a Committee, or to say that their verdict should be lightly set aside. They occupy a position of very great trust; they have important matters to deal with; they have a high reputation in your Lordships' House, and admittedly do their work well; but I do not mean to say that under no circumstances ought the verdict of a Select Committee, such as this, to be passed in review before your Lordships' House. In fact, in this case, there were somewhat unusual difficulties presented to us. Although, when looked at in one sense—perhaps what I may call the common sense view of the matter —it was extremely clear, yet there were technical points raised which, although we gave great attention to them, were far fitter to be dealt with by a tribunal composed of men possessing legal training, than by an entirely lay tribunal. Besides that, there was a further difficulty which, I think, has been admitted several times in your Lordships' House, and that was the non-appearance of the freeholder, the owner of those gates, either as a claimant for compensation, or as opposing the Bill in any way. Of course, my Lords, this was, so to speak, the trump card in the hands of the London County Council. All reference to the Duke of Bedford, who happened to be the freeholder in this case, was immediately stopped, and there was a point connected with that which I ventured to raise in the Committee which I considered relevant, and I will leave your Lordships to judge whether it was so or not. I ventured to inquire whether, because in this particular case an owner of property (because it was admitted there was an owner of property here) makes no par-
  1502
  ticular objection to having his property taken away in one particular instance, Parliament should on that account sanction a Bill giving to a Municipal Body like the London County Council, or to any Municipal Body, power to act in such a sweeping manner, and to take away a man's property without giving him a shilling of compensation for it. That is a point which I venture to think is extremely relevant to the issue which you have to determine tonight. It was admitted, after a few moments of the opening statement of counsel, that these gates were the property of the freeholder, and then there was this curious statement made: Supposing instead of there being gates here there had been a house built across the street, then, of course, proper steps would have had to be taken to purchase. But it was said you may take away a man's gates, and it is nonsense to say you do not injure the property by doing that; but that if it happens to be a house, you must give him something for it. It was contended, also, that there was no claim for the freeholder because his property was not injured; but it was proved over and over again—in fact, it was sufficiently obvious that if you take away the protection which these gates give to these houses, the property would suffer. Then came the other case put forward—how far the lessees and occupiers were entitled to compensation. There was a great deal of technical reasoning about it; but the main argument was that these people had not really any vested interest in the gates. That was one of the great arguments for compensation; not only were they protected and their property made of greater value by the existence of these gates, but these gates were put there by the freeholder under an Act of Parliament— wore kept up by him under a series of Acts of Parliament. But it was contended on the other side that as these gates were not to be removed without the consent of the owner, therefore the owner could at any time give that consent, and that in that case these unfortunate people would have no redress whatever. But it was somewhat necessary for that contention to ascertain whether the freeholder did in fact give his consent or not. It was never for one single instant contended, although the freeholder had

  1503
  not chosen to appear for reasons of his own against the Bill, that he had in any sort of way given his consent to these gates being taken away. I do not wish to detain your Lordships after so long a Debate as has taken place, but I think for these and many other reasons it would be unwise to establish such a precedent, and that by admitting this principle you would be establishing a very dangerous precedent. I think in this case especially it is somewhat advisable that your Lordships should review the decision of the Committee, and I would submit that your Lordships should now carefully consider whether you will allow this Bill to proceed or not.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I have risen more than once to address the House, and I apologise for speaking so late, but I have only a few words to say. It appears to me this is not a question which is at all involved in any legal technicalities, but that, on the contrary, it is one of the simplest questions ever submitted to your Lordships' House. To my mind it is simply this: will your Lordships sanction what the right rev. Prelate has called a high-handed and arbitrary proceeding, namely, the overthrowing of existing recognised rights without any compensation being made. That is the simple question. All other questions as to whether the proprietor, the Duke in this case, has done this or 'that sink into nothingness compared with that simple proposition. It turns, therefore, upon this: are there existing rights; are they recognised; have they been acknowledged? Having read the statements made by the promoters and by the opponents of this Bill respectively, and having read the evidence, it appears to me that these rights have been recognised over and over again. They have been recognised in Acts of Parliament; they were recognised by the Act of 1855, to which the noble and learned Lord the ex-Lord Chancellor referred, which constituted the Metropolitan Board; they were recognised by Lord Magheraniorne in the House of Commons when he was at the head of the Metropolitan Board. He was asked a question on this subject by Mr. Montagu Guest, whether they would bring in a Bill to do away with all gates and obstructions in the Metropolis. Lord Magheramorne's answer was that
  1504
  it was a question involving great rights and claims to compensation. Sir William Harcourt was asked in the House of Commons at the same time—this was in the year 1884—a question on the same subject by Mr. Montagu Guest, and what was his answer? I will give it as it was given in evidence before this very Committee, which reported in favour of this measure. Sir William Harcourt, in reply to the question of Mr. Montagu Guest, on behalf of the Government, said he
  "Did not think the matter was one which the Government ought to undertake; that owners of land and residences were interested in the maintenance of these gates, bars, and posts; and that it was impossible to destroy those interests without making compensation."
  I would then refer the noble and learned Lord the ex-Lord Chancellor to the language used by the late Home Secretary upon this question of compensation for the reply to his argument. Therefore, I submit that it is thus distinctly shown that the principle of the right to compensation has been fully recognised and accepted. But more than that. These statements which I have quoted were made, as I have said, in the year 1884. What happened in the year 1885? Why, the Metropolitan Board of Works, as it then was, which has now been succeeded, as we know, by this London County Council, brought in a general Bill, and in that general Bill they had a clause accepting the principle of compensation and making provision for it. That Bill was for taking away all such bars, gates, and obstructions and it provided that the owner of any such bar, gate, or other obstruction was entitled to receive from the Board compensation in respect of the taking down and removal of such bar, gate, rails, or other obstruction. And that was a Bill brought in by the London County Council of the day only five years ago. Further than that, I maintain that the promoters of this Bill have shown that they know the principle of compensation is at stake, because they have declined to put in this Bill the Lands Clauses Act Compensation Clauses, because they knew, of course, that if they had incorporated and adopted that clause they would have had to give compensation. I will go further on this question of compensation, and say that this very

  1505
  Committee, although apparently unanimous in its Report, certainly appears from the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down not to have been at all unanimous in the view which it took of this question, because there were statements made as to what an important question this was in dealing with property and the danger there was of this London County Council in other cases dealing with property without making compensation. That is what the noble Lord tells us. I say that the Committee has itself shown that this case admits of the application of the principle of compensation by the suggestion they have made with regard to repaving these streets. That shows clearly that they admit this principle of compensation, and that they recognise that this measure will be an injury to these inhabitants. The surveyors who gave evidence say that it will lower the value of their property 25 per cent., and the Committee accordingly propose this new idea for the first time: they propose that the compensation, instead of being paid as it should be in current coin of the realm, is to be paid in wooden blocks, with, I suppose, the image and superscription of Lord Rosebery on one side—whom we may look upon as the "Hadji-baba" of modern Metropolitan munici-palism—and with the figure of Lord Houghton as "Britannia" on the other. And what is the reason given for all this? Public convenience! Nobody doubts that it may be a convenience to have these gates and bars removed, but that is no reason why property should be confiscated; and if these streets are to be thrown open, the noble Marquess, when he is in a hurry to catch a train to get to Hatfield, may find himself more obstructed and impeded by the carts and waggons passing along them than ever he has been by these gates. But I quite admit that the existence of bars of this kind in the centre of a great Metropolis is in these days an anomaly, and that they constitute an obstruction which ought to be swept away; but not without compensation. And what is the reason given for it? We have heard nothing from the promoters of the Bill of the rights which, as I have pointed out, have been recognised so frequently; but we have had, instead, false analogies drawn between this district and
  1506
  parts of the town which have nothing whatever to do with the question, such as Hamilton Place and other districts which had not the guarantee of Acts of Parliament. Your Lordships have had an argument used to-night by the noble and learned Lord the ex-Lord Chancellor, which he used on a former occasion and which has also been used by Lord Rosebery, which goes very far, namely, that those persons who claim to be compensated may be very thankful that they have had the use and enjoyment of this privacy for so many years. Why, my Lords, what is that but Henry George's argument with regard to land? It may be applied in the same way to every estate possessed by any one of your Lordships, as proposed by Mr. Hyndman and the Socialists. But Mr. Hyndman and the Socialists go further; they would strike against pensions and property of all kinds; and how will my noble and learned Friend like it when they come and propose to take away his pension on the ground that he has enjoyed it for so many years? There is no half way. The true principle is, that if the public wants something for which they require to get an Act of Parliament, in order to take it from the owner, or lessee or whoever it is, compensation ought to be given; and it is with something more than astonishment—I may say it was with consternation—that I heard the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, from whom we might have looked for protection in these matters, declare that he would vote for this Bill. I heard with far greater pleasure the speech of the Lord Chancellor, and I hope that the majority of this House will on this occasion follow the Lord Chancellor rather than the Prime Minister into the Lobby.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I will not detain the House more than a few moments, but I should wish to add my own humble contribution to the remarks of those who have urged your Lordships to pause before you reverse the decisions which have been come to by the Committees of your Lord ships' House and of the other House of Parliament, and adopt the Resolution moved by the noble and learned Lord behind me. I do not for a moment mean to assert that it is never proper to review the decision

  1507
  of a Committee of your Lordships' House; but the occasions when we do so are generally when it is found either that fresh evidence has been obtained, or that evidence which has been offered has not been received. In this case no fresh evidence has been brought forward, and no occasion of that kind has arisen. It has been admitted, I believe on all hands, that the inquiry into the Bill was conducted with great care, patience, and ability; and I venture to say that the House would incur no little responsibility if it now reversed the decision of the Committee, arrived at after hearing evidence on the matter for no less than three days. I do not wish for a moment to traverse again all the ground which has been gone over by the noble Lords who have already spoken; but this I would say, that it appears to me at the present time an entirely false issue is placed before the House. It is admitted on all hands that the Bill which you are now asked to throw out will be for the public convenience. There is no doubt whatever about that. Then, why did not the noble and learned Lord bring forward a Motion which would agree with the argument he used, namely, that although good was to be obtained by the Bill, it should be paid for? If the noble and learned Lord had brought forward a clause proposing that compensation should be given in certain cases and in certain ways, I think it would have been perfectly open to the House to have discussed the matter; but now, to throw out this Bill at its Third Reading, after it has been fought through both Houses and threshed out with the greatest care in both Houses, is a course which your Lordships ought not hastily to adopt. With great humility I would venture to urge that the House ought not to take that step without great and careful consideration. The noble Lord who last addressed the House has spoken of the recognised rights which are taken away and not compensated for. I really think the noble Lord cannot have risen to the weighty argument which has been presented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Selborne, who said, and with perfect justice if I may be allowed to say so, that the leaseholders who petitioned against this Bill had really no legal rights whatever on which you could
  1508
  base compensation. I do not wish to argue the subject over again; but I thought it right to say those few words in the endeavour to induce your Lordships to pause, at any rate, before you assent to the proposition of my noble and learned Friend.
  On Question whether the word ("now") shall stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 29.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, with the amendment.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I beg to move the postponement of the last stage of this Bill until Tuesday next. The noble Marquess the Prime Minister has not, I think, disputed the reasonableness of compensation; but on the occasion of the Second Reading he said he thought the Second Reading ought to be passed, and I believe if the noble Marquess had not intervened on that occasion it would not have passed. He suggested that it ought to be sent to a Select Committee, and that in Select Committee it could be considered whether a Compensation Clause ought not to be put in. He said that if a Compensation Clause had been put in he would have considered it. I venture, therefore, to propose a postponement in order to give an opportunity for the adoption of a clause of that kind. There are precedents for it, and there is no hurry for the last stage. A postponement until Tuesday would give an opportunity for following the course proposed by the Prime Minister.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As my noble Friend has mentioned me specially I will say a word. I see no objection to the postponement. I believe that if there is to be a practical clause of compensation brought forward, which approves itself to the majority of the House, I am sure it would be very satisfactory that it should be proposed. After having been told that such a clause is contemplated, it would, I think, hardly be just—especially as there is no hurry in the matter—if we insist on now passing the Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLE: But surely this is a very unusual practice, suggesting in this way a clause at the last moment.

  1509
  Why did not my noble Friend prepare a clause ready for insertion in the Bill? I think we were entitled to have had the clause prepared at the last stage of the Bill. If my noble Friend thought that course desirable why did he not prepare a clause?
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: The proposed clause was not prepared by me, and it may not, perhaps, be exactly the clause that ought to be put in. Whether it is put in to-day or on Tuesday really cannot matter, as the noble Earl knows perfectly well; and I think, with the view of justice being done to all parties, it had better be postponed. Therefore, I still adhere to my Motion, that this last stage of the Bill be postponed.
  Bill to be further proceeded with on Tuesday next.

ALLOTMENTS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No 151.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Bill read 3a (according to order.)
  Clause 5.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (The Earl of JERSEY): I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 37, after ("meeting") insert—
  "Nothing in this section shall give any right to hold a public meeting in the schoolroom (a) unless not less than six days before the meeting a notice of the intention to hold the meeting on the day and at the time specified in the notice, signed by the persons calling the meeting, being not less than six in number, and being persons qualified to make a representation to the Local Authority under the principal Act, has been given, if the school is under a School Board, to the clerk of the Board, and in any other case to one of the managers of the school; nor (b) if the use of the schoolroom on the said day and at the same time has previously to the receipt of the notice of the meeting been granted for some other purpose; but in that case the clerk or manager, or someone on his behalf, shall forthwith after the receipt of the notice, inform in writing one of the persons signing it that the use of the school has been so granted for some other purpose, and name some other day on which the schoolroom can be used for the meeting.—(The Earl of Jersey.)
  Agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have to move, your Lordships, in line 32, after the words "the Act or," to insert the words
  1510
  "with the consent of the managers." This clause was introduced at the last stage of the Bill in the discussion in the House of Commons. It was introduced late at night and with the result of raising, as I am informed, a long and rather animated discussion. I do not think those who framed the clause or who agreed to it had taken the pains to work out to its ultimate conclusion the clause which they accepted, and I am confirmed in that opinion by the fact that the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill himself proposes an Amendment which materially alters the operation of this Clause 5; but it will be my object to show your Lordships that no Amendment would be satisfactory which gives the control of the school-rooms in others than those in whose charge they are at present vested by law, that is the managers. I leave out of consideration at present how far it is wise to import into the purposes for which school-rooms may be used their employment for the discussion of debateable questions, such as the adoption of the Allotments Act. I will assume that is all quite right and proper, though something might be said on the other side. But I pass that by, because I am anxious that your Lordships should not throw any difficulty in the way in the working of the Allotments Act, and that you should afford full facilities for giving effect to it. Your Lordships must know that as regards schools built entirely with public money, as in the case of schools erected under the School Boards Act, they are under the management of a Board, though I think there, again, Parliament has a right to control the arrangements of the School Boards, and to dictate the terms under which use shall be made of the schools. But as it stands, this clause is in a very crude and imperfect state, because whatever arrangements may have been made by those who have the charge of the schools at the present moment, whether they have let them for any parochial purposes, or for parochial meetings, as is often the case, those arrangements will be likely to be disturbed by the machinery provided in Clause 5. I think your Lordships will see that when there have been arrangements made for the regular and orderly use of a school, it should not be open to any body of unauthorised and

  1511
  irresponsible persons to come forward and claim the use of that room, and to upset and thwart and multiply the arrangements which have been made for its use. Therefore, it is that I propose the words "with the consent of the managers" should be introduced. Even in the case of Board Schools the inconvenience would be very great, but it must be intensified in the case of voluntary schools, under the control of voluntary managers. The noble Earl proposes, as an Amendment, a proviso at the end of the clause which is wholly inadequate to cure the evil which it recognises; he proposes that notice shall be given to the clerk of the School Board (that is all right, no doubt), and also to one of the managers. That may be a very convenient arrangement, but it may turn out to be a very inconvenient and unworkable arrangement, because you must assume, for the purpose of argument, that the use of the school is not one which is generally viewed with favour by the managers, because, of course, if everybody is agreed there is no need of any compulsory arrangement. This clause would only come into operation when there is a difference of opinion. Your Lordships will see how, by this clause, the power is put into operation: that notice should be given to one of the managers. Some managers do not even reside in the parish. I am myself manager of a school in Dorsetshire, 18 miles from where I reside, and it might so happen that notice might be sent to me. I might be away, and the necessary notice would have been given behind the back of the ordinary manager of the school, who would be ousted from all voice in the matter. That is not all: because as the clause stands in all its nakedness it would compel a manager whose school may be his own property to give up the use of the school-room for the purpose of carrying out the Allotments Act without giving him any control, or chance of appeal, or of making any arrangements at all. I am quite aware that the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill is going to propose that there shall be an appeal, and when that is proposed I think I can show your Lordships how badly it will work; but I would point out that if there is to be harmonious co-operation there must be some determining authority. When two
  1512
  people ride on a horse one must ride behind the other. The schools, in fact, are not to be retained in the control of the managers, they are to be handed over to the control of irresponsible persons. I put it to your Lordships whether it will not contribute much more to the harmony and peace of the parish if the control of the schools is left where it is now with the managers, subject to a reasonable appeal, which could be easily arranged, to the control of some body known to the law and not to one of the managers. I have mentioned the case of one manager being non-resident; I will now take the case of a notorious difference existing between managers, there being, for instance, one person who is not on good terms with the others, who may have made himself obnoxious, and who is, perhaps, anxious to pose as a popular demagogue, or who may be in known hostility to the other managers of the schools. It is to be supposed that the peace and harmony of the parish and the proper working of the schools will be promoted if the clause as it stands passes into' law, even with the modifications to be subsequently proposed by the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill. There is another point to which my attention has been called, and that is that there is no limitation with regard to the point of time. The persons who may claim to make use of schools may claim it on Sundays, or on any other day of the week; there is no limitation at all. As I have observed, the whole object of this clause of the Bill is to provide for cases where dissension exists. How much more will dissension be promoted when you leave it open to those who claim the use of schools to claim it for themselves if they like on Sundays; and it is quite possible, as far as I see, if they claim it that their claim might be enforced. In the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl it is said that six persons qualified to vote must apply; but those persons may not necessarily be substantial people, and I cannot help thinking that, in view of the fact that these buildings may have been built mainly by the munificence of those who are anxious in the cause of education,' and who have impressed those buildings primarily with a Trust for education, for in many cases they have been built gratuitous'y, and do not belong even to

  1513
  a public body, it is desirable, in the interests of the parish, and in the interests of peace, in the interests of harmony, in the interests of the harmonious working of the Allotments Act, that you should not provide such a means of strife, and such an opportunity for discord, as will be provided if the Bill as it stands passes into law, even with the safeguards proposed by the noble Lord. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will maintain the managers of the schools in the position in which they are placed by law, that there shall not be the consent of this or that manager required, but of the managers generally, a body well known to the law, subject, if the Government pleases, to an appeal which shall not aggravate the offence complained of. I quite agree that the County Council is a responsible body which is not likely to misuse the powers entrusted to it. As far as the County Councils are concerned there is, perhaps, no grave objection; but I do see a very grave objection indeed to delegating the power to any one member of the County Council. The Committee of the Council charged with the administration of the Act will take care to make the Act work smoothly. I do not distrust them, but I do distrust one of the managers alone being picked out, in the first instance, and then that the matter is to be decided by one member of the County Council, who may happen to be a fanatic on the subject, who would not bring to the decision of the question that calm and balanced mind which might be required. It may be said that it will take some time to get the decision of the County Council, but I do not know that that in itself is a serious objection. The matter is not one which presses seriously for decision. Arrangements as to allotments cannot be made in the twinkling of an eye, and if a week or a fortnight, or even a month, may elapse before the appeal goes to the County Council. I do not know that it would be a very serious misfortune. I think it might probably give time to those of opposing views to come to an arrangement, or some compromise which could enable all parties to work harmoniously together. As it is, I feel sure the Bill, as it stands in its present shape, is certain to be a fertile source of annoyance and disturbance in parishes,
  1514
  and, therefore, I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment which I propose. If the consent of the managers is required for the purpose of holding public meetings, the legitimate purpose of the clause will be fully preserved. The use of the schoolrooms can be obtained with the consent of the managers, and if a proviso is added at the end giving the right of an appeal to the Allotments Committee of the County Council, I do not know that there will be any objection to that but I do earnestly hope your Lordships will maintain in the first place the right of control which is now held by the managers over the buildings for which they are responsible, and that certainly you will not adopt the clause in its present shape. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to consent to the Amendment I propose.
  Amendment moved, in line 32, after ("or") to insert ("with the consent of the managers.")—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know that the dangers which my noble Friend has in view strike me as being dangers of any great magnitude; but in these matters I am all for peace, and I would suggest to my noble Friend to consider as an offer for a compromise, as he suggests the desirability of an opportunity for compromise, the adoption of the words "with the consent of any two of the managers." The difference between my noble Friend and the Government is reduced to a rather narrow point. He wants the consents of all the managers to be obtained, which might, under certain circumstances, be difficult and inconvenient, and, on the other hand, it is suggested that the consent of one manager would be enough. But as it is suggested that there may be managers of somewhat eccentric minds, I would suggest that if the consent of two managers were obtained it might be safer.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Where there are two.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There are always more than one, I think.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I may be wrong, but I think not.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: There must be three to sign the papers.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Well I do not think it is a matter of first-rate importance, but I think any two managers will be sufficient for my noble Friend. To require the consent of all the managers would be very inconvenient. A man may be ill, or away, or in a lunatic asylum, and it may be impossible to get at him.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am sorry to hear that the clause is to be introduced in any form, because I think the result will be exactly the contrary of that which the noble Earl desires, namely, that it will, in fact, introduce dissension. I do not think there would have been any differences occasioned if the schools had been left to be so used; but I am afraid if the managers are to be consulted and to refuse the only result will be that very great annoyance, controversy, ill-feeling, and disturbance will take place in the parish where it is refused, and the result will be what we should all dislike and deplore.
  THE PAYMASTER GENFRAL (The Earl of JERSEY): I propose to ask the House to insert words which would give the right of appeal to the County Council, or to one member chosen by the County Council for that purpose. The effect would be that supposing the one or two managers refused to give their consent to the use of a school, the people who were applying for the use of the school could then make an appeal to the Committee of the Council, or to some member of the Council who would be chosen for that purpose by the County Council. Probably if this Amendment were accepted by the House it would meet the objection of the noble Earl opposite, Lord Kimberley.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords I must express my regret at the delay in passing a measure desirable in itself, though far less desirable in its present shape, in my opinion, since it has been altered, I will not say amended, in the other House, than it was as originally introduced by the Government. I should be sorry to think that the passage of this, on the whole, desirable measure should be jeopardised by our sending it back to the Commons with some small alteration or amendment, whichever it is, to arouse further discussion in the other House, and which, seeing what indications there are of a readiness to delay the progress
  1516
  of measures, might to a certain degree endanger its passing. If it had not been from a dread of delaying and possibly endangering the passing of this Bill I should have introduced an Amendment which I think would have been of some more importance than this about the managers of the schools, because I tried to persuade the House to restore the Bill more nearly to what it was when it was introduced into the other House by the Government. If the Amendment is not really, in your Lordships' view, an important one, I venture to hope the House will not encumber the Bill with it. I cannot say it commends itself to my judgment. This supposed Amendment, I agree with my noble Friend who spoke last, is not likely to smooth matters in the parishes where there is a difficulty about allotments; but even if the Amendment was desirable it seems to me, in the present state of public business, it would be a misfortune to send down the Bill for fresh discussion in the other House. Before the measure finally quits your Lordships' hands I should desire to make a few remarks, which nothing but my imperfect sight and hearing prevented my making on the Third Reading, before we came to clauses.
  LORD NORTON: It seems to me this is not a very small point of principle which is raised: it is the question of enacting that private property may be used by the public or anybody else without the consent of the owners. In many cases these schools belong to the managers, and are as much private property as your Lordships' own houses. The noble Earl opposite gives, as a very good reason for throwing them open to the public, that the public will be very much disappointed if that is not done: but I do not think that will serve generally as a reason for throwing private property open to the public use. That involves a very wide principle indeed. Then, I must say with regard to the proposal of the noble Marquess the Prime Minister as a compromise that two managers should be able to give consent that is no compromise at all. Two managers are not competent to act for the managers who are a body corporate, and they cannot be represented by one or two of their number. Either the managers must give their

  1517
  consent or not; nobody else can give it. To say that two instead of one of the managers shall be able to act as the managers is the most inefficient compromise I ever heard of. To say that one, two, three, or any other number, of them can act as their majority is illusory. The question is, Can the private property of school managers be safely thrown open by this Bill for the use of the public without the consent of those to whom it belongs? and I think anybody who knows how Board Schools are used throughout the country for all sorts of purposes will see that there is no small principle at stake here in opening private schools alike.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Of course, the consent of two managers would be better than one. There seems to be a misconception in the mind of the noble Marquess that the consent of all the managers would be required if my Amendment were adopted. That is not at all the case. School managers act in the way in which all managers act every where. I suppose there may be differences of opinion between them, as in the case of the appointment of the teachers. It is not necessary that the managers should be unanimous in opinion in England to the appointment of teachers; they act jointly, as all Public Bodies do, and, therefore, I do not see why in this particular instance you are to introduce a new mode of consulting the managers rather than leave them to their ordinary jurisdiction of acting by a majority, especially if you guard it by an appeal to the Allotments Committee of the County Council. I hope, therefore, on consideration, the noble Marquess will see the object and purpose desired will really be more conveniently carried out by the way I propose of ensuring that the consent of the managers shall be given in the ordinary way, and not by any new-fangled limitation to one, two, three, or four. The other objection of the noble Marquess will come in later when we come to consider the terms of the appeal. I hope he will agree to my words, because it seems to me you are proposing new restrictions on the managers, which puts the whole thing in a new and strange light, and will hot conduce to the harmonious or efficient- working of the Act.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not understand that this introduces any new principle, inasmuch as, under Section 5, it is already provided that the schoolrooms may be used for the purposes of this Act by the County Councils.
  THE EARL OF KIMBEBLEY: And that is not proposed to be affected by this?
  EARL BEATJCHAMP: That is my share of the compromise.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I understood my noble Friend opposite in his previous remarks to suggest that this clause introduced a new and dangerous principle, namely, authorising the use of private property by other persons, and I was pointing out that that had already been done by a clause to which no objections had been taken.
  On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents 12; Not Contents 21.
  Resolved in the negative.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will now move my Amendment, but I do not know that I am bound to move it exactly as I offered it, to insert after the word "or" in line 32, the words "with the consent of any two managers." May I be allowed to say that the reason why I move this is, that I was told by a very distinguished authority that in a place in the south of England there was a meeting held for the purpose, as announced, of discussing allotments; but no sooner had they got the candles lit and the doors shut than they turned it into a meeting for organising a strike of bargees. I think we ought to have some kind of responsible authority, I do not care what, to prevent action of that kind.
  Moved, in line 32, Clause 5, to insert after the word ("or") the words ("with the assent of any two managers.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  Agreed to.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: Then, at the end of Clause 5, I move the Amendment which stands in my name, and to that I propose to add these additional words:
  "The persons calling a meeting and desiring for that purpose-to obtain the use of a schoolroom under this section may appeal to the Standing Committee to be appointed under this Act, or to any member of the Council

  1519
  who may be authorised by that Committee to determine appeals under this section, who may forthwith decide such appeal and make such order respecting the use of the room as to them seem just."
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I would point out that, in accordance with the Amendment we have just made, the notice ought to be given to the two managers, not to one, because there are, as some of your Lordships are aware, three managers—there must be three, and the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl must be taken to read on all fours with the Amendment we have just agreed to with regard to the two managers.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It seems to me that one manager may very well take a notice on behalf of the whole body. It cannot be necessary that the two should be there at once.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: May I again be allowed to point out that one manager may be non-resident, and very often is. The notice ought to be given to the two managers whose consent is asked; otherwise where are you?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would call the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the Amendment is now agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Quite so; and, therefore, I say that the notice ought to be given to the two managers, and not to one, who, in fact, might not even be one of the two whose consent has been asked. It is only to make the thing run in common-sense.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What can be the necessity of giving notice to two managers? One manager cannot act by himself. He would, of course, have to call in another manager to decide 'the question; obviously he cannot act alone under what has been put in by the noble Marquess. There must be two managers to act, and the notice being given to one, he will have to communicate with the others. I do not see the difficulty. Besides which, there may be several managers, and if you are not satisfied with one, you may go to another.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): Would the words "the aforesaid managers" do?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): That is not necessary, one is quite enough.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: May I make a suggestion? I think, on consideration, it will be found that the whole of this clause is unnecessary. It was necessary when the managers had no option, and when there was no provision that they should have notice of what was going to be done, but, inasmuch as no use can be made of the school by persons who wish to hold meetings about allotments, without the consent of the managers, the managers may require as much notice as they please. It will be in their own hands, because they will have full control over the whole arrangements. The part about the appeal stands separately. No doubt the observation is true as regards the County Council holding an inquiry, but in the other case no further notice is required.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is to prevent, for instance, the County Council coming down on a particular day with some literary representation.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What I meant is that they will have it in their own hands; but perhaps it can do no harm.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, it can do no harm.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I propose to move the exclusion of the words "or to any members of the Council." It is rather extraordinary that when any dispute arises with regard to the use of the schools it should go before the County Council. That does not seem a very desirable thing, but to say that it should be decided by any single member of the Council appears very unwise. I think it might not give satisfaction to those who have the managment of the schools if there was any dispute in the matter. Surely it would be sufficient to say that appeals should be decided by the whole Standing Committee. To say that any one member should decide would, I think, be very impolitic. I hope, therefore, that my noble Friend will agree that those words should be left out.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: I am afraid I cannot agree that those words should be omitted. The fact is, that the matter-would be left to the Committee of the County Council to decide if they chose, or, if not, they would appoint some one, and certainly they would not appoint anybody who would be likely to give an

  1521
  unfair decision. If there was nobody in whom they had full confidence, they would decide it themselves, and I, therefore, think it is as well to leave those words in.
  THE EARL OF POWIS: It appears to me if those words are inserted the County Council would have to appoint one man, who would be a sort of standing arbitrator with regard to the use of these schools. As the noble Earl suggests, if they could not decide themselves, they would depute one of their number to do it. That at once makes him the representative merely of the majority of the Council, and brings the spirit of Party conflict into the Council upon the question of the use of these schools.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I would point out that we have already struck out the words "or to any member of the Council."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, those words have been struck out.
  On question agreed to.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, before the Bill passes I would say a few words, which my unfortunate blindness and deafness prevented my saying to you before, when the Bill was read a third time. I do not wish to detain you many moments. I should have much wished to introduce an Amendment which would have restored the Bill more nearly to the much more desirable form in which it was presented to the other House. It had an effect of giving an appeal to the County Council from the decision of the Sanitary Authority, and, in the case of very large towns, or even of populous towns, there was an obvious unfairness and unreasonableness in giving an appeal from the Urban Authority, we will say of Manchester to the County Council of Lancashire. But the Bill, as it stands, excludes an appeal to the County Council from any municipality—that is as I read it. Now, I think a number of municipalities—I speak coming from a county which has a multitude of very small ones, are so constituted that their decisions should be unsusceptible of being appealed against,, and that being so, that an appeal should be given against the decision of the Rural Sanitary Authorities is, I think, most unreasonable, and I am afraid will work very unfairly. In Devonshire there are a number of small ancient municipalities; there
  1522
  are four of them, the smallest with a population of only 2,200. Now; I think the Rural Sanitary Authority for a great number of parishes round the Okehamp-ton Union is much more likely to come to a much better and much more influential decision than the petty parish of Okehampton. There are two more under 3,500, South Molton and Torrington; and Totnes is the only one of these small places which reached 4,000—according to the last Census its population was 4,089. Now, all those places are centres of Unions, and there is practically no appeal against them, as there was against the Urban Authorities upon the far better principle adopted as the Bill stood when introduced by the Government. Now, the authority representing a single small urban parish cannot be appealed against; the authority representing 12 or 20 parishes with, in some instances, ten times the population, can be appealed against. My only reason for not trying to reverse the mischievous alteration made since the introduction of the Bill into the other House—and I hold the Bill in my hand as it was originally introduced—was the fear of endangering or causing a delay in a measure which, even as it stands with all its imperfections, is, I think, a very useful and desirable one, and I only wish the Government had been able to carry it more nearly in the shape in which they introduced it.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: In answer to the noble Earl I desire merely to say that it was the original intention of the Government that the appeal should lie to the County Council from the Municipal Authorities other than the County Boroughs; but then, representations were made in the other House upon the matter, and the Government were reluctantly obliged to give way upon the point, and, therefore, the appeal does not lie at the present time. But, at the same time, I would point out to him that the authorities in these small boroughs have very close relations with the people who would ask for allotments, and to whom they would certainly be amenable supposing they did not act properly.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons; and to be printed, as amended.— (No. 243.)

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Second Report from the Select Committee considered (according to order), and agreed to.

PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND) (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 172.)
House in Committee (on Bo-commitment) (according to order).
THE EARL OF ERNE: It appears to be convenient that these Amendments which stand in my name which, though in appearance formidable, are really only drafting Amendments, should be inserted. The Bill underwent considerable changes in Committee, both in form and substance, and these Amendments are necessary in order to make the measure workable. I may say they have been agreed to in connection with the Amendments which were moved by my noble Friend the Marquess of Waterford in Standing Committee.
THE EARL OF KIMBEBLEY: As Chairman of the Standing Committee, I may say that I have looked through the Amendments, and that they are quite in accordance with what has been stated by the noble Lord, that is to say, to carry out what was agreed between my noble Friend the Marquess of Water-ford and those who supported the Bill. I think, therefore, the House should agree to them.
EARL CADOGAN: There are two Amendments of which I am sorry I was unable to give notice on behalf of the Government. One is in Clause 7, page 3, line 6. I wish simply to amend the form of the Amendment of my noble Friend. He has used the words "the Act to regulate the sale of poisons in Ireland." Now, there is no such Act, and I propose to put in"33 & 34 Vict. cap. 26."It is really only a drafting Amendment. There is one more. It is to amend the words of Schedule C in which the form of statement appears, "I hereby declare that I have completed the full term of apprenticeship" to a registered druggist "who has been duly registered," and so on. I move after the word "been" to insert the words "or would have been entitled to be."
Amendment agreed to.
Report of Amendment to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 244.)

TENANTS' COMPENSATION BILL. (No. 240.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
  A noble LORD: I have not given any explanation of this Bill, to which I did not think there was the smallest objection. It is a Bill with a very desirable object, and I think it would be as well that it should go to Standing Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is a very desirable measure; but it should be compared with the Agricultural Holdings Act, and carefully brought into line with it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBEBLEY: Quite so. The object will, I think, be regarded as desirable.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have looked into the Bill, and I quite agree with the object of it. With regard to the suggestion of the noble Marquess, my attention was called to the necessity of that being done, and I think, therefore, it is very desirable that the Bill should be sent to a Committee.
  LORD HARLECH: Then I will move that it be sent to the General Committee.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES; BILL. (No. 226.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, I need only point out that this Bill is the same as that which was passed ten years ago, with the exception of three new points. A Committee was appointed to draw up the Bill, and they recommended that the following additions should be made in it: that in addition to the information hitherto obtained a column should be added to the Householders' Schedule which enables persons to be returned either as employers or employed, or as being neither employers nor employed; secondly, that persons living on their means should be enabled to state the

  1525
  fact in the Return; thirdly, that the number of rooms occupied by a family, where less than five rooms, should be stated. Those recommendations are carried out in the Bill. I should also say that no provision has been made assuggested in some quarters for a Quinquennial Census, or for a permanent Census Office, not because those might not be desirable objects, but because they would cause increased expenditure.
  THE EARL OF POWIS: I would call attention to Clause 14. It is intended that this census should be on the lines of the Act of 1880. Here it says, in line 24, that the constables or peace-officers in every parish shall be compelled to act as enumerators under this Act. The words used in the Act of 1880 are—"constables or other peace-officers for such parishes," which limits the employment, as is quite proper, to the parochial constables. Now, the words used here might mean county or other constables living in a particular parish. I do not believe it was intended to mix up the County Constabulary with the census; and, therefore, I would ask the noble Earl to consider whether he would not use the same language as is adopted in the Act of 1880, and say "for" every parish, instead of "in."
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: I will inquire into the matter.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  CENSUS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 227.)
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  MARRIAGES IN BRITISH EMBASSIES, &c, BILL.—(No. 167.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
  Clause 3.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish merely to move the adoption of this clause in a somewhat altered form. It is really the same in meaning, but it has, in consequence of difficulties, been somewhat altered, in wording. There will be one or two Consequential Amendments in form, which I shall have to move in consequence of the insertion of the words,
  1526
  "High Commissioner and Resident." There are parts of the world now coming under Her Majesty's dominion, especially in the Pacific, where High Commissioners are very important persons.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have no objection whatever, but I think it may require some consideration.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly.
  Clause 4.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move to insert after the words, "before a Governor," in two places in the clause, the words "High Commissioner or Resident," and the same words will require to be afterwards inserted in Clause 10.
  The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended.—(No. 245.)

FOREIGN PAUPER IMMIGRATION.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MEATH,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that an edict has been issued in Russia forbidding Jews to hold or farm land; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's-Government will take measures to prevent a wholesale invasion of Great Britain by Jewish Russian paupers, said: My Lords, in accordance with the notice which I gave yesterday, I hope Her Majesty's Government will be able to inform the House whether there is any truth in the somewhat sensational statements which have appeared in the public Press in reference to an Imperial edict which has been promulgated in Russia against the Jews. If true, 1,000,000 of people will be reduced to the condition of paupers and will be obliged to leave the country, and I should be glad to know whether in that case Her Majesty's Government will take such steps as will prevent a pauper invasion of this country, which would tend to the serious detriment of our working classes and lead to an increase of the rates. One can hardly believe that in Europe at the latter end of the 19th Century it is possible we should hear of wholesale religious persecutions. It is hardly possible to think that in these days we are going to hear of repetitions of the dreadful persecutions

  1527
  which took place in the Middle Ages or the dragonnades of Louis XIV. It is a cardinal axiom of British jurisprudence that every man should be considered innocent until he is proved guilty, and, therefore, we are bound to believe, until otherwise informed, that the Government of Russia has not issued any.; such barbarous edict as that to which I refer; but I am perfectly confident that if any such edict has been issued, Her Majesty's Government will use their best efforts to prevent the working classes of this country being overwhelmed by an influx of pauper labour, for I think, however much we must sympathise with these unfortunate victims of persecution, if this should turn out to be true, it is a bounden duty to think first of those at home. I feel confident that, in the first place, Her Majesty's Government would find means to convey to the Russian Government an intimation of the feeling of indignation which must spread through the length and breadth of the country if these statements are true.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYHer Majesty's Government have no in formation whatever in confirmation of the statements to which the noble Lord has referred, and we have no ground for thinking that the emigrants to whom the noble Lord refers would come to this country. I will not enter into the economic question which the noble Lord has raised until we have some ground for believing that it will be so.

SHREWSBURY AND HOLYHEAD ROAD (ANGLESEY AND CARNARVON) BILL.—(No. 210.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION(BLIND AND DEAF) BILL.—(No. 155.)
Read 3a (according to order); amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.